Ontario Hansard — 4 June 2015 (41st Parliament, 1st Session)

2015-06-04

Ontario — Debates (Hansard)

role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

June 4, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Jun-04 (PDF)

L093 - Thu 4 Jun 2015 / Jeu 4 jun 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 4 June 2015 Jeudi 4 juin 2015

Annual report, French Language Services Commissioner

Members’ expenditures

Orders of the Day

Order of business

Ottawa School Day Nursery Inc. Act, 2015

DSPT International (Canada) Inc. Act, 2015

990046 Ontario Inc. Act, 2015

731149 Ontario Limited Act, 2015

Centre for International Governance Innovation Act (Tax Relief), 2015

Supply Chain Management Association Ontario Act, 2015

Niagara Central Dorothy Rungeling Airport Act, 2015

Weiche Estates Inc Act, 2015

1476263 Ontario Inc. Act, 2015

Great Lakes Protection Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection des Grands Lacs

Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 pour une croissance intelligente de nos collectivités

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Ontario budget

Smart meters

Privatization of public assets

Teachers’ labour disputes

Ontario Energy Board

Agri-food industry

Health care funding

Class size

Post-secondary education

Aboriginal land dispute

Pan Am Games

Senior citizens

Heritage conservation

Waste disposal

Anne Stokes

Legislative pages

Visitors

Deferred Votes

Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’infrastructure au service de l’emploi et de la prospérité

Great Lakes Protection Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection des Grands Lacs

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Crimean Tatars

Pan Am Games

Cambridge Sports Hall of Fame

Member for Oxford

Horse racing industry

Italian Heritage Month

Dorothy Rungeling

Portugal Day

Seniors’ Month

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Justice Policy / Comité permanent de la justice

Introduction of Bills

Electoral Boundaries Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur les limites des circonscriptions électorales

Correctional Services Staff Recognition Week Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la Semaine de la reconnaissance du personnel des services correctionnels

Motions

Consideration of Bill 77

Affirming Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’affirmation de l’orientation sexuelle et de l’identité sexuelle

Petitions

Renewable energy

Mining industry

Credit unions

Health care

Way-finding signs

Water fluoridation

Alzheimer’s disease

Hospital funding

French-language education

Off-road vehicles

Privatization of public assets

Private Members’ Public Business

Ending Predatory Electricity Retailing Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’élimination des prix abusifs dans la vente au détail d’électricité

Listening to Ontarians Act (Hydro One and Other Electricity Assets), 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la nécessité d’être à l’écoute des Ontariens (Hydro One et autres éléments d’actif liés à l’électricité)

Electoral reform

Ending Predatory Electricity Retailing Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’élimination des prix abusifs dans la vente au détail d’électricité

Electoral reform

Ending Predatory Electricity Retailing Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’élimination des prix abusifs dans la vente au détail d’électricité

Consideration of Bill 81

Intergenerational Day Canada Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la Journée intergénérationnelle au Canada

Royal assent / Sanction royale

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Good morning. Please join me in prayer.

Prayers.

Annual report, French Language Services Commissioner

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I beg to inform the House that today I have laid upon the table the 2014-15 annual report from the French Language Services Commissioner of Ontario.

Members’ expenditures

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I also beg to inform the House that I have laid upon the table individual members’ expenditures for the fiscal year 2014-15. Members will find copies of these in their desks.

Orders of the Day

Order of business

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Agriculture.

Hon. Jeff Leal: Good morning, Speaker. I believe we have unanimous consent to move forward on a motion without notice regarding private bills.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Agriculture is seeking unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice. Do we agree? Agreed.

Minister?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I move that the orders for second and third reading of the following private bills shall be considered consecutively and the questions on the motions for second and third reading of the bills be put immediately without debate: Bills Pr14, Pr15, Pr16, Pr17, Pr18, Pr19, Pr20, Pr21, Pr22; and

That Mr. Delaney may move the motions for second and third reading of Bill Pr15 on behalf of Mr. Colle; and

That Mr. Vanthof may move the motions for second and third reading of Bill Pr16 on behalf of Mr. Natyshak; and

That Mr. Vanthof may move the motions for second and third reading of Bill Pr18 on behalf of Ms. Fife; and

That my good friend from Leeds–Grenville, Mr. Clark, may move the motions for second and third reading of Bill Pr20 on behalf of Mr. Hudak; and

That Mr. Clark—he’s going to be busy again—may move the motions for second and third reading on Bill Pr22 on behalf of Mr. Hudak.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mr. Leal moves that the orders for second and third reading of the following private bills shall be—

Interjection: Dispense.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Dispense? Dispense.

Carried.

Motion agreed to.

Ottawa School Day Nursery Inc. Act, 2015

Mr. Fraser moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr14,

An Act to revive Ottawa School Day Nursery Inc.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

Ottawa School Day Nursery Inc. Act, 2015

Mr. Fraser moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr14,

An Act to revive Ottawa School Day Nursery Inc.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

DSPT International (Canada) Inc. Act, 2015

Mr. Delaney, on behalf of Mr. Colle, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr15,

An Act to revive DSPT International (Canada) Inc.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

DSPT International (Canada) Inc. Act, 2015

Mr. Delaney, on behalf of Mr. Colle, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr15,

An Act to revive DSPT International (Canada) Inc.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

990046 Ontario Inc. Act, 2015

Mr. Vanthof, of behalf of Mr. Natyshak, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr16,

An Act to revive 990046 Ontario Inc.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

990046 Ontario Inc. Act, 2015

Mr. Vanthof, on behalf of Mr. Natyshak, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr16,

An Act to revive 990046 Ontario Inc.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

731149 Ontario Limited Act, 2015

Mr. Bailey moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr17,

An Act to revive 731149 Ontario Limited.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

731149 Ontario Limited Act, 2015

Mr. Bailey moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr17,

An Act to revive 731149 Ontario Limited.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

Centre for International Governance Innovation Act (Tax Relief), 2015

Mr. Vanthof, on behalf of Ms. Fife, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr18,

An Act respecting The Centre for International Governance Innovation.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

Centre for International Governance Innovation Act (Tax Relief), 2015

Mr. Vanthof, on behalf of Ms. Fife, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr18,

An Act respecting The Centre for International Governance Innovation.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Carried.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac):

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac):

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

Supply Chain Management Association Ontario Act, 2015

Mr. Rinaldi moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr19,

An Act respecting the Supply Chain Management Association Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

Supply Chain Management Association Ontario Act, 2015

Mr. Rinaldi moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr19,

An Act respecting the Supply Chain Management Association Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Carried.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac):

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

Niagara Central Dorothy Rungeling Airport Act, 2015

Mr. Clark, on behalf of Mr. Hudak, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr20,

An Act to amend The Welland-Port Colborne Airport Act, 1976.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

Niagara Central Dorothy Rungeling Airport Act, 2015

Mr. Clark, on behalf of Mr. Hudak, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr20,

An Act to amend The Welland-Port Colborne Airport Act, 1976.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Carried.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac):

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

Weiche Estates Inc Act, 2015

Mrs. McGarry moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr21,

An Act to revive Weiche Estates Inc.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

Weiche Estates Inc Act, 2015

Mrs. McGarry moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr21,

An Act to revive Weiche Estates Inc.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Carried.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac):

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

1476263 Ontario Inc. Act, 2015

Mr. Clark, on behalf of Mr. Hudak, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr22,

An Act to revive 1476263 Ontario Inc.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

1476263 Ontario Inc. Act, 2015

Mr. Clark, on behalf of Mr. Hudak, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr22,

An Act to revive 1476263 Ontario Inc.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Carried.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac):

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

Great Lakes Protection Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection des Grands Lacs

Resuming the debate adjourned on June 3, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 66,

An Act to protect and restore the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin / Projet de loi 66, Loi visant la protection et le rétablissement du bassin des Grands Lacs et du fleuve Saint-Laurent.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further debate?

With the title of the act, the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence basin, people immediately think of the shoreline of the Great Lakes. As was mentioned yesterday by the member from Essex, we have the longest shoreline on the Great Lakes of all the jurisdictions around it. So we have a big responsibility. There’s no question about that: We have a big responsibility.

The Great Lakes also hold 20% of the world’s fresh water. So, again, we have a great responsibility. I don’t think anyone is denying that we have a great responsibility, along with the other jurisdictions that surround the Great Lakes. There are millions of people who live around the Great Lakes who depend on the Great Lakes.

It’s been a very interesting debate. I’ve heard other speakers say that we are doing better or we are doing worse than other jurisdictions, and while it’s valuable to look at what other jurisdictions are doing—it’s very valuable—we have to look at what we can do, not what others are doing.

But where we have to be cognizant of what others are doing is when we look at the industries that surround the Great Lakes. One of those industries is agriculture. And one fact that’s come up over and over and over—and it’s a very interesting fact, and I think a lot of farmers in the province might not know this, but 95% of the agricultural land in Ontario is within the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence basin—95%, virtually all. So this act impacts virtually all the farmland in Ontario. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it’s a fact.

I’d like to be very clear with this bill: We support the principle of this bill. This bill might be a very good piece of legislation, it might just be a press release, or it might be a very detrimental piece of legislation for the agriculture sector and it might not protect the environment. It all depends on how it’s interpreted by this government, when passed, and by future governments. Speaker, the devil is always in the details, and as with many bills, this bill is kind of lacking in the details.

There seems to be a perceived conflict between the agricultural community and the environmental community, and I’d like to set the record straight. Farmers are environmentalists. Farmers are true environmentalists because we have to deal with the environment every day. We live with the environment because we make our living within the environment. The environment to us isn’t a talking point or a way to raise money or an abstract thing that we talk about. We deal with it every day. I think that perhaps gives farmers a different outlook than others. That’s why we look at this bill a bit more critically than others.

We appreciate that we need to work together to protect the Great Lakes. And the agricultural community is a bit—I’m trying to find the right word—concerned that it’s to “restore the Great Lakes,” because farmers across this province have already made huge strides, as have other industries across the province.

I’m very familiar, Speaker, with what has happened across this province over the years regarding agriculture. I remember when I started farming. It was very common to see manure runoff running off into gullies. That was common; it happened on my farm, Speaker, when I bought my farm. Over the years, we’ve changed that. We’ve changed that with the help of various levels of government and various governments. We’ve changed that.

On our former farm—sold it two years ago—no runoff leaves that farm. They have 300-day storage, and that’s very important. It might not be a big deal for lay people, but you have to have enough storage, when you have livestock, so you can store the effluent—the manure from the livestock—so that you can spread it on your fields when it makes the most sense for the environment and when it makes the most sense for the farmer. Manure is a fertilizer, and it doesn’t make any sense for a farmer to waste it. That’s why we’ve made huge strides in controlling that.

As with any substance, it’s a good thing, but if there’s too much of it, it’s a pollutant; that’s the way life works. We’ve made huge strides with that.

Another area that I know from my dairy farming past: A lot of dairy farms in the past used a lot of soap. If there’s one thing about dairy farming, you have to clean your equipment if you milk two times a day—some milk three times a day, and now, with robot milkers, you milk all day. You have to wash all the time. That equipment has to be as clean as any equipment in any commercial kitchen, because we’re producing food. But a by-product of that is that you use a lot of soap. Soap has a lot of phosphorus. In years gone by, some of that phosphorus used to go right into the ditch. That doesn’t happen anymore. That’s been stopped.

We’ve had lots of experiments on how to make that work. I know that on our own farm, we had a septic system. Standard septic systems do not work for milk house runoff. They don’t work. We tried that; it failed. Every farm has a different system. On our farm, it went into the same storage where the manure went, because phosphorus, if it’s not over-applied, is actually a benefit to us all. It’s when it’s over-applied or used incorrectly that it becomes a pollutant—a very serious pollutant.

We’ve done a lot of those things over the years.

Another one I did on my farm was grassed waterways, through the Environmental Farm Plan—a great program, actually, that’s been cut back severely. One way to stop pollutants from getting into surface water, and eventually into the Great Lakes basin, is to make sure, when you’re doing things on the field, that you stay far enough away not only from rivers and streams but creeks and ditches. One way we’ve done that is grassed waterways. Instead of plowing or chisel plowing right up to the ditch, you leave X number of feet or metres, and that, in normal conditions, stops soil that contains phosphorus and nitrogen from going into the river.

We have made great strides. Farmers are environmentalists. But the difference is that farmers also have to make a living. We have to identify problems, but we also have to provide answers. It’s not enough to just say, “Well, we have to stop doing this and this and this, and if you don’t, we’re going to fine you.” That’s basically all we read in this bill. We don’t see solutions. Hopefully, those solutions are going to come later on when the guardians’ council and all these things get fired up.

The more discussion we have, the better. I’m not sure that I would agree with some of the members of the Conservative Party who are worried about regulation on top of regulation. But, again, good regulation is a good thing. It’s a benefit to society. Regulation for the sake of regulation is a detriment to us all. Farmers are no strangers to regulation. As farms get bigger, we are subject to more and more regulation, which in itself isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

Again, under the Nutrient Management Act, farmers are subject to a lot of regulation. Depending on how many animals you have, you have to have enough land to make sure you can use manure as a benefit to your crops but not a detriment to the environment. You have to have enough land. You have to have enough storage. Those are all regulations you have to comply with. I’ve had people in my riding who have built barns in the last little while and were shocked at the amount of regulation they had to go through to get planning for that barn, to get approval. That’s very frustrating for the individual farmer.

We could maybe make it a bit less cumbersome; but the regulation itself isn’t a bad thing, because it protects society.

What we’re worried about with Bill 66 is that all the regulations that currently exist—the Nutrient Management Act, the Conservation Authorities Act; I believe there are 20 other ones. When you read this bill, it looks like this bill would supersede all those regulations. That’s a problem. Because this act covers such a large area, geographically, the central planning idea, where it supersedes local planning, is a problem.

An example of that is the Green Energy Act. How could you screw up green energy? How you screw up green energy is by having the Green Energy Act supersede everything else. It’s easier to build a solar farm on agricultural land in my riding than it is to build a farm building. That’s wrong. That’s where the Green Energy Act went wrong. This act has the danger—and I’m not saying it’s going to, but the danger is there.

Interjection.

Mr. John Vanthof: That’s not true, sir. In northern Ontario, they’re building solar farms on the best land in Timiskaming; they’re building solar farms all over, on our best land. This government says that northern Ontario is the future of agriculture. My riding has the best agricultural land in northern Ontario and there are solar farms going all over on the best land in northern Ontario. So to stay that this government is interested in agriculture in northern Ontario—based on that, it’s a farce. That’s the truth. And that’s an example.

We are trying to make this act the best we can. We’re not trying to make political speak or anything on this. We’re trying to make this the best it can be, and there are problems. Again, we agree with the principle, but the fact that it could supersede everything is a problem. We see in this act there’s a whole

schedule for the amount of fines that could be levied, but we don’t see anything in the act where, “Here is where society is going to help the various industries impacted and here’s how they’re going to help.” We don’t see anything in the act like that, and that’s a problem.

Because all the advances we’ve made—we’ve made a lot of advances for ourselves, as all industry does. Farmers are out to make a living, but farmers are also out to protect the environment because every farmer wants—unfortunately, I didn’t have that chance—to turn their farm over to their kids. The only way the kids are going to be successful is if the farmer has protected the growing capacity of his or her farm. And the only way you can do that is to be a good environmental steward. But when society wants to provide a better level of protection—which is society’s choice; we agree—society, as a whole, also has to help provide the solutions.

When we were looking at putting grass waterways, when we were looking at going to conservation tillage, through the Environmental Farm Plan, the government, society—was a partner. Now, would we have done the same things without? Yes, but it would have taken long. So society decided that we want to fix any problems that exist as quickly as possible. Great.

Then society also has a responsibility not just to say, “You have to do this and you have to do this,” but also has a responsibility to say, “You know, as a whole, we want to protect the environment.” Quite frankly, farmland—we’re the last ones, because once you’ve built houses and cities, to talk about protecting the environment—I’m sorry; it’s just a moot point. That’s a moot point.

To expect the 3% of the population who are still farming the land to do all the things to protect what society hasn’t paved over yet, to expect them to bear the full cost—that’s ridiculous.

But we don’t see that in this act and we’re a bit worried, because our last experience—and this a very touchy subject—the neonic experience—society decided, through the government, that we were going to cut a certain usage of a pesticide. We’re not opposed to that, but when the Ministry of the Environment asked for their input, they posted on the EBR during planting season, the busiest time of the year; the Minister of the Environment knew that.

That’s an example of why, based on our past experience, the agricultural community questions whether the MOE really understands that to solve an environmental issue, you have to work together with the stakeholders and not just tell them and hope it all fares well, because in the end, that probably won’t help the ministry, and it won’t help the environment either.

Based on that experience, we’re worried. The farm community is worried about Bill 66 based on the fact that there are no hearings that are going to be held outside of the hallowed skyscrapers of Toronto—because you know what? This bill isn’t going to have much impact on the people who live in the condos that surround this place. It’s not. The people who live in the condos have as much right as anyone to have an opinion on the environment—no question. But, honestly, they’re not going to be impacted.

It’s the people who live in the country who are going to be impacted by this bill, and it’s them who are going to have to take the steps to hopefully make this bill work. So they should be fully included in how to make this bill work. Will they always agree? No. But that’s how our democracy is supposed to work.

It has already been decided we’re not going to have any hearings on this bill, on the passage of this bill, outside of Toronto, but I would deeply suggest to the government that they take the time to actually listen to the agriculture community and to other sectors, because you know what? Foresters and miners are also environmentalists because they all work with the environment every day, and they’ve all made huge strides.

You have to look outside these halls. You have to look outside of interest groups. Interest groups have their place. They have changed our world for the better, but you have to go beyond them to the people who actually make the daily decisions on the land, in the forest and by the streams. Regulations, rules and laws have to be understood and have to make sense to those people, and if they don’t, ultimately, we have all failed.

We support this legislation. We support the intent of this legislation, but we urge the government to actually take this legislation seriously. Take it to the people. Make sure that you consult and make sure that you actually come up with solutions, not just regs and then look the other way when they go wrong. Come up with solutions, because solutions can be found, as has been found in agriculture in the past. I’ve focused on agriculture, but there are all kinds of other industries impacted here. I’m ag critic, I’m a farmer; I like to talk about farming.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I want to comment on the comments on agriculture that the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane made.

I totally agree that agriculture is a very important player in Great Lakes protection and in protection of our water. If I think of some of the things that I’ve seen happening in my own area—Guelph is in the Grand River watershed. Guelph is located on the Speed and Eramosa Rivers, which then feed into the Grand River. But one of the other rivers that feed into the Grand River is the Conestogo.

The Conestogo River is one of those rivers that seems to meander, very flat, through a plain that’s very prone to erosion, and if you look at the agricultural practices, historically you would find that the cattle were watering in the river, and of course that broke down the banks and you got the runoff and the cattle in the river and the erosion. It was becoming quite a problem.

But with the help of the Grand River Conservation Authority working with farmers all along the Conestogo River, they changed their livestock management practices, got the cattle out of the river, and got the banks built up again with natural vegetation along the banks to stop the erosion.

It’s now a totally different river. It’s now restored to what it would have been more like historically, before people messed it up. It’s a totally different river, and that’s because the farmers all along the river, just as the member said, have changed their practices and have behaved like true environmentalists and restored that river to health.

Thank you.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Jim McDonell: It’s always great to hear the member opposite’s spin on farming, because I come from a farm too.

Farmers are very careful about their land. Over the last 40 years, you see a lot of changes in the way that they work the land. There are a lot of different technologies that have come in that weren’t known, but as soon as a better way comes to do it, you see farmers using it. The no-till methods they use—it’s all about water management and it’s all about tiling and making sure that the land is useful.

Each summer you go through my riding of Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry—and our major industry is farming. The vast majority of territory is under crops. It’s either under crops or under bush. It’s something that farmers have always had a lot of care for.

I think we can look at the farms today and they’re really something to marvel at, because they are a picture of production. They feed a lot more people per acre than they used to. If there hadn’t been the changes that they’ve instituted over the years, a lot of people would be worse off in this world.

Canada is a major player in feeding a good percentage of the world, and that comes from the farms in Ontario. They’re looking at ways of making even more land available in the North, and the beef farmers are hoping this government will work with them and actually turn over more crown land. As land becomes more and more important and more and more valuable, land is too expensive to graze cattle. So we have to move north, where the climate would work for them. Now it’s land that’s unproductive. It would be a great alternative for those properties.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments? The member from—I’ve got a mental block.

M me France Gélinas: Nickel Belt.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Nickel Belt.

M me France Gélinas: It’s all good, Speaker. It’s all good.

Well, although we’re talking about the Great Lakes Protection Act, it also covers all of the watershed. You’ll be happy to know that the people of Nickel Belt do live in the watershed and will be covered by that bill.

I wanted to give a very clear example. You will remember that in my riding, in Gogama, there was a horrific train derailment, where 33 of the cars caught on fire and crude oil spilled all over the river. It actually derailed on a bridge over top of a river, so you can imagine what the water looks like. You can imagine what all of the surrounding environment looks like.

In all of that, this environmental disaster—although we have a bill that says you will “have to” protect, here we have a disaster where the environment certainly is in need of help, and we have a government that doesn’t take CN to court. If it was a farmer who had done that kind of spill that went into a river, that went into the watershed, this farmer would pay the price—would lose the farm, literally.

But when a company like CN—and that wasn’t the first time. Three weeks prior to that, on February 14, they had derailed again but that time, away from people and away from the public eye. This time, it was in the village of Gogama, right on the edge. If you drive on Highway 144, you can’t miss it. It looks like a moon landscape. Everything has been taken off. There isn’t a blade of grass, a stem. Nothing is left but the water and the disaster.

We have a government that doesn’t do anything to hold CN to account. It doesn’t hit them where it hurts, which is in the pocketbook. It doesn’t help the people of Gogama bring those people to court for what they’ve done to them. They do nothing but pass laws that will hinder our farmers.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I’m very pleased to rise today and speak on Bill 66. I wanted to just focus a little bit on the Great Lakes. They are indeed one of Ontario’s greatest assets. The region has an annual GDP of $5.2 trillion, which is the fourth-largest economy in the world.

I also wanted to reassure the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane that the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change does have every intention of collaborating soundly with many participants, and just to list a few: the Great Lakes ministers, whose ministries contribute to Ontario’s Great Lakes Strategy; and the Great Lakes municipalities. The First Nations and Métis communities have a historic relationship with the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin, which is important for my community. The agricultural sector will be consulted.

The recreational and tourism sector, the scientific community, environmental organizations and conservation authorities will all be consulted. We will be asking these organizations or these sectors who they would like to have represented. I think that’s extremely important to highlight.

We also highly value the input by the First Nations and Métis communities on the protection of the Great Lakes, so they will be consulted as well. They were engaged on the previous versions of this bill, and their submissions were invaluable in informing the strengthened proposed Great Lakes Protection Act.

I’m very pleased to offer my support to this bill.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I now return to the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane.

Mr. John Vanthof: I’d like to thank the Minister of Education, the member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, my colleague from Nickel Belt and the member from Kingston and the Islands.

I think the member from Nickel Belt gave a very good example. The Gogama incident is what we should really be looking at, looking at how we make sure that the regulations we have now are actually working and that we enforce them. That’s a much tougher job than creating new laws, and I think Gogama is a really good example of that.

The member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry talked about the future of agricultural land in northern Ontario. There is a lot of agricultural land yet to be developed in northern Ontario and, actually, most of it is north of that point. The discussion has to be had on whether we should have different rules for land north or south, and I would argue no. If you’re going to protect the environment, then the rules for farmers should be the same across the province.

That’s not addressed in this act, and that’s a problem, because you’ll have a mishmash of regulations, and you’ll have regulations where no one really understands what’s going on. That’s a huge problem.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Pursuant to the order of the House dated June 2, 2015, I am now required to put the question.

Mr. Murray has moved second reading of Bill 66,

An Act to protect and restore the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Pursuant to standing order 28(h), this vote will be deferred until after question period.

Second reading vote deferred.

Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 pour une croissance intelligente de nos collectivités

Resuming the debate adjourned on June 3, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 73,

An Act to amend the Development Charges Act, 1997 and the Planning Act / Projet de loi 73, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur les redevances d’aménagement et la

Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate?

Mr. Michael Harris: It’s a nice opportunity to speak. It was fortunately brought to my attention this morning that I have the great opportunity to make remarks on this bill. I’d like to thank Jessica, obviously, for allowing me to speak to the Smart Growth for Our Communities Act for 20 minutes this morning.

We’ve heard that the proposed legislation considers changes to the Planning Act and the Development Charges Act, to update those acts and reflect the need for improvements to keep up with the evolving needs and issues being faced by municipalities across the province.

While we on this side of the House are supportive and understand the need for improvement, in many ways Bill 73 is a bit like putting the cart before the horse—if there are any horses left in Ontario, that is. By bringing forth a bill on needed improvements before hearing from all of those directly impacted, that, in effect, puts legislation before consultation. It’s like putting a cake in the oven before you have all the ingredients. In the end, you run the risk of ending up with a result that is only half-baked. Who likes a cake without the ingredients, Speaker?

Last fall we saw the Premier, in an attempt to instill confidence in her election, boast of transparency and accountability—that she would soon leave at the curb—and publicly release a series of ministers’ mandate letters to direct their actions over the course of this government. The problem is, in many cases, as we’ve seen in the months since, these letters turned out to be little more than a public relations exercise not really worth the paper they’re written on.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs received one of those mandate letters, Speaker. Do you know what it said? It called on the minister to conduct a full review of the Ontario Municipal Board, yet today we have a bill before us that tables a number of changes to the board before the review is even conducted—cart before the horse, Speaker; perhaps a few ingredients left out of the bowl.

It begs the question: If you know that you are mandated to conduct a full review of the OMB and you know that the government had only just launched the land use planning review of the greenbelt, the Niagara Escarpment, the Oak Ridges moraine and the growth plan—a review that impacts the Planning Act—then why do you go forward, back in March, to bring this legislation forward before the results of those reviews are in?

The answer, Speaker, is that in typical Wynne Liberal government fashion, they don’t feel they have to hear the public’s opinions that these reviews elicit because they feel they already know what’s in our best interests. So they speak first, listen later, and then pat us on the head and tell us everything is going to be okay. Well, it’s not all right. There is a need for improvements, and it would have done this government good to listen to what those impacted had to say before moving forward on their own.

In the case of the planning review of the greenbelt, the Niagara Escarpment and the Oak Ridges moraine, the Wynne Liberals could have benefited from listening to the some 3,000 people who took time to attend those review meetings and air their concerns. Many organizations took the time and effort to put together comprehensive proposals for change to bring consistency to the three plans while protecting our natural heritage, and to ensure the long-term viability of agriculture in the protected areas.

Now, I do recall the minister coming up to Kitchener–Waterloo and Guelph as well. I know that both were fairly well attended, especially the one in Kitchener–Waterloo. I think that they boasted of the fact that they had more than the folks over in Guelph, and that’s good. It seems, though, that all the time and effort goes for naught when this Wynne Liberal government introduces legislation to make changes to the Planning Act before the work and input is even reviewed.

As our critic, who just arrived here moments ago, noted Tuesday, we’re disappointed that the government is making partial changes without taking the time to get it right and without waiting for the results of the review to develop a comprehensive plan.

All that said, Speaker, the reality is that we do have these proposed partial changes in front of us that require our review today, changes that run the gamut from providing more stability for municipal planning documents and increased municipal accountability, and strengthening the protection of provincial interests, to encouraging more upfront planning and providing enhanced tools at the local level. The bill also proposes to:

—enhance the Ontario Municipal Board’s obligation to consider citizen input when making decisions:

—extend municipal official plan update cycles from five years to 10 years, after a new, comprehensive official plan;

—provide the province with documents earlier to review municipal official plans and official plan amendments, when those documents are not exempt from provincial approval;

—modify the maximum alternative parkland dedication rate when giving cash in lieu;

—require municipalities to develop parks plans if they wish to establish the alternative parkland dedication rate and to work with school boards in developing such plans.

Certainly it’s a whole list of changes, and a list that may have been more comprehensive and effective if only government had waited to listen first before they actually moved.

But of course we know that the changes to the Planning Act are only half the picture here, as Bill 73 also proposes to bring significant change to the Development Charges Act, 1997. As part of the proposed Bill 73, the government is proposing reforms that would:

—enhance funding for municipal transit systems;

—enhance transparency and accountability regarding payment of development charges and additional fees;

—identify any services which are ineligible for collection of development charges through regulation;

—require municipalities to examine the application of varying development charges within different areas of a municipality; and

—enhance municipal development charges reporting requirements.

As we all know, development charges have always been a delicate balance between encouraging economic activity and ensuring that municipalities have the funds needed to provide services for the added growth. The fact is that while we support funding transit, we have a number of concerns that this act may allow development charges to be increased so much that it slows economic growth.

We’ve got a very vibrant home-building industry in the region of Waterloo and a strong organization that represents those home builders, the Waterloo Region Home Builders’ Association. I’ve had the pleasure of attending many of their events. Many of the home-building stakeholder groups are very generous in our community, employing thousands of people and building high-quality, affordable homes for families to raise their family in the region of Waterloo.

I remember hearing some stories on how, years ago, development charges were relatively affordable. Now they’re getting to the point that, as these costs continue to grow, it is a significant percentage of the overall cost of a home. That cost, of course, is passed along to the homeowner. Families are already stretched thin as it is, as prices continue to go up, to have an affordable option to raise their family in an area that they want. Not all families can live in condominiums in the downtown core. They want to raise their children, perhaps, in the suburbs where there’s a bit more space to have their kids play, go to some schools that they so choose.

We have to realize that these DC charges are a significant concern that goes along with raising development charges—concerns surrounding the fact that a proportion of a home’s cost that goes towards government fees has risen from about 3% in the mid-1980s to almost 25%, or about $100,000 for a $400,000 home. Speaker, that is an awful, large increase.

One would have to ask if those services that families are funding through DC charges are in fact being put back into the community. Of course, we need our roads, our water infrastructure, our waste water infrastructure. In the south end of Kitchener, where I’m from, we are a small city in essence. I know families are constantly asking for some sort of facility that would have a swimming pool, skating rinks, and they have to drive what they see is a bit far to have to access stuff, and it’s DC charges that assist the municipality in paying for these things.

We talk about our fair share of those being reinvested back into the community. Speaker, almost all development charges get passed on to homebuyers in the end, jacking up the cost of homes and making it even more difficult for the young family looking for their first home to ever be able to make that purchase.

This government often perpetuates the illusion that when governments increase fees, charges, taxes and levies, somehow the developer is going to absorb them. As we’ve seen in reality, that is just simply not the case, Speaker. Development charges become part of the cost of a home and are passed on to people purchasing new homes, condos or renting an apartment, and that cost is significant. In fact, in 2009, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. found that government-imposed charges, including development charges, represented up to 19% of the median price of a single-family new home.

The Greater Toronto Home Builders’ Association reported that, for a $440,000 home, over $25,000 goes to development charges.

The Residential and Civil Construction Alliance of Ontario commissioned a report called Alternatives to Development Charges for Growth-Related Capital Costs. They found that development charges are now $30,000 to $50,000 per single-family home in high-growth municipalities surrounding Toronto. By comparison, it found that development fees in Calgary and Edmonton are less than $8,000 per unit. That is a significant difference: $30,000 to $50,000 per single-family home versus $8,000 in Calgary and Edmonton, Alberta.

This bill, Bill 73, would increase development charges and, therefore, the cost of housing in a number of ways. First, it would remove the 10% discount on transit costs. It would allow development charges to be charged on planned future services instead of historical services. It would remove the list of items that are exempted from development charges from the act and allow the government to choose which to exempt. That means that new homeowners and businesses could now be paying development charges to pay for cultural or entertainment facilities, including museums, theatres and art galleries, or to fund a new city hall or a tourism facility such as a convention centre.

One of the items that was previously exempt was the provision of waste management services. The government already indicated that under the new regulations, municipalities will now be allowed to have development charges cover the cost of that. In fact, there have already been municipal requests to expand it further and allow development charges on all of the previously exempt items, including cultural, tourism and entertainment facilities.

Now, Speaker, I want to just go back slightly. We mentioned the fact that one of those items that was previously exempt was the provision of waste management services and that under the new regulations, municipalities will now be allowed to have those development charges cover the cost of that. In the region of Waterloo, there is a significant debate happening right now. In fact, our local councils are making a significant decision that would delay the pickup of garbage from every week to every other week, with a bag limit.

Some will argue that’s a long time coming. Somebody who has a young family that generates a significant amount of waste from, say, babies’ diapers I think is going to find it difficult for it to happen biweekly. That’s not just me; I have heard from families in my area and seniors who are going to have a difficult time with this.

Of course, there is a significant cost savings to that, which we all have to be conscious of. I had an email just recently this week that regional government has grown substantially, and one thing that homeowners expect out of services like waste management or picking up the garbage is that they should be looking elsewhere first instead of always reducing the front-line services while continuing to perhaps not always look within first to do so. So now, under this new piece of legislation, DC charges are going to be allowed to include the provision of waste management services.

Interjection.

Mr. Michael Harris: Same thing: waste management, waste diversion.

Interjections.

Mr. Michael Harris: Look, that’s something that I think is an appropriate question that we have to ask.

In fact, there have already been municipal requests to expand it further to allow development charges on all of the previously exempt items, including cultural, tourism and entertainment facilities.

I know we’ll be seeing the guys across the way here talk about waste diversion and waste reduction. They brought a bill here last session, the Waste Reduction Act. They couldn’t get it right. It was just a colossal failure. Industry groups, stakeholders, even municipalities felt it was extremely flawed. We’ll see what the new minister brings back shortly. It’s an extremely important situation here in the province. Our waste diversion rate is a dismal failure in terms of its percentages. I know I asked the former minister, if he was a teacher, if 40% would be a fail or a pass. Of course, we all know it’s a fail. We’ll see where they go with that.

I understand why municipalities would want those additional development charges. Many of them are struggling to make ends meet and provide the infrastructure and services that residents want. Part of the problem is a provincial government that is more focused on blaming others than actually taking responsibility for the challenges that municipalities face. This year, spending in the provincial budget actually increased by $2.4 billion, but the Ontario municipal partnership grants that municipalities depend on were being cut again.

Again, we do understand the needs of our municipalities to fund necessary transit improvements across their areas. Certainly, I can speak to the need in my area of Waterloo region.

The region of Waterloo submitted their amendments to this bill on March 24, 2015, which I would like to read into the record. But before I do, the request stems from the fact that the province of Ontario gave the region the shaft when it came to light rail transit funding. You see, Speaker, cities like Hamilton, Mississauga and Brampton got 100% funding for their LRT projects, and Waterloo region’s ION got only one third, from the original commitment of two thirds.

Just last Friday, the member from Kitchener–Waterloo and I, as well as our local colleagues the members from Kitchener Centre and Cambridge, called on the government to ask for transit fairness. The Liberal government continues their carrot-and-stick approach, promising yet never quite delivering on transit commitments to Waterloo region.

From two-thirds funding for LRT to all-day, two-way GO, the truth has become more obvious with each subsequent transit announcement elsewhere in the province that when it comes to funding Kitchener-Waterloo’s transit pledge, the cupboard is bare. Again, while other municipalities get the gold mine, we get the shaft. With only one-third provincial support while other municipalities get full funding, the region’s submissions to amend Bill 73 stem from the province’s unfair treatment.

On January 7, 2014, Waterloo region council recommended that the province make changes to the DCA to support the region’s transition to a higher-order light rail transit system, specifically by allowing the use of a 10-year, forward-looking level of service as the baseline for calculating development charges for transit and by eliminating the 10% mandatory discount on development charges to pay for transit infrastructure. Council did pass additional recommendations regarding changes to the DCA consistent with the principle that growth pays for growth. I’ll get into those to finish up my questions and comments.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Seeing the time on the clock, this House stands recessed until 10:30 a.m.

The House recessed from 1007 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Hon. Mario Sergio: I’m delighted to let you know that a new Ferrari has arrived. Alessandro Sebastiano Ferrari can’t be here. He would have loved to be here, but he doesn’t have a driver’s licence yet. Therefore, we’d like to congratulate papa Gianluca, my senior policy adviser, and mama Daiana on the new Ferrari arrival. We want to wish them happiness, joy, congratulations and best wishes.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Speaker, I’d like to welcome someone from your neck of the woods. Alex Felsky is in the gallery—she is a trustee with the Grand Erie District School Board—and Laura Duguid.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park two political science majors from Wilfrid Laurier University, and Oakville residents, Jonathan Ricci and Matt McLean.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I would like to introduce a good friend of mine from North Bay, Terri MacDougall. She’s the mother of today’s page captain Sheila MacDougall.

Mr. Paul Miller: I’d like to introduce Dorothy McKane, the mother of Martin McKane, my LA. Dorothy is visiting us from Ireland.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Welcome.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Please help me welcome, in the west members’ gallery, my intern, Farnaz Yaqubian. Farnaz and her family live in the great riding of Oak Ridges–Markham and she will be entering her third year at Wilfrid Laurier in the fall.

M. Gilles Bisson: J’aimerais introduire Alexandre Fortier, qui est ici avec nous cette semaine de Timmins. Il est un étudiant coop de l’école Renaissance qui est ici pour regarder notre Parlement en action.

Mr. Chris Ballard: I would like to introduce the executive of the Ontario Provincial Council of the Catholic Women’s League of Canada, here in the east members’ gallery: Betty Colaneri, Pauline Krupa, Marlene Pavletic, Linda Squarzolo and Rosanne Sogan. Welcome.

Miss Monique Taylor: I have some wonderful guests with me today. I have one of my constituency assistants, Christine DiGiantomasso; I have her niece Lyndsay Freeman; and a very, very special welcome to my father, Mike Taylor.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Government and Consumer Services.

Hon. David Orazietti: You got it, Speaker. Thank you very much.

I want to recognize our page from Sault Ste. Marie, Katie Woods, who is page captain today. With us in the east gallery are her mother, Jennifer Woods; her sister Rachel Woods; and her aunt Christine Grasys, as well as my wife, Jane, and my daughter, Olivia, who are here today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Welcome.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I would like my colleagues to join me in welcoming an intern who is working in my office this summer, Domenic Bitondo. Welcome, Domenic.

Mr. Granville Anderson: I have the pleasure of welcoming a young man who helped me immensely in my campaign, Adam Jeronimo. I would also like to welcome my executive assistant, Mr. Justin MacLean, and also from my office, Ian McMillan. Welcome.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’m really pleased to welcome some of my family members here today. My father, Alan French, is in the members’ gallery, and it’s his birthday today. Happy birthday.

Sitting beside him is my grandmother Katharine Ross, who just celebrated a birthday. She is 94 years young.

It’s their first time to the Legislature.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: I would like to introduce, in the members’ gallery, Stephen Heckbert, father of our page captain Robert, who is also one of my constituents in the great riding of Ottawa–Orléans. Welcome, Stephen.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’d like to introduce a former member of the Legislative Assembly, Jean-Marc Lalonde, who is here with us today in the members’ gallery. Welcome, Jean-Marc.

Mr. Norm Miller: I am pleased to welcome here today members of the Otter Lake Christian School from Seguin township in Parry Sound district. I assured them that everyone would be on their best behaviour today. Welcome.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I want to also welcome my good friends from the Ontario Provincial Council of the Catholic Women’s League of Canada, doing wonderful, dedicated work.

I also have, in the gallery, a member of my constituency office staff who is here today from Thunder Bay, Stephen Margarit. Welcome, Stephen.

Mr. Arthur Potts: It’s a great pleasure to introduce a fantastic consultant who is not Howard Brown: Craig Brockwell is in the members’ west gallery. I didn’t recognize him with his sunglasses on. Welcome.

Mr. Chris Ballard: Also attending today are executives from the Newmarket Seniors’ Meeting Place here to meet with us: Maureen Huismans, Anne McGhee and Patricia Berry.

Hon. Bill Mauro: Once again, welcome our page captain from Thunder Bay–Atikokan, Emma Schubert, and her mother, Andrea. They’re joined here today, for the first time, by her aunt Karen Ferris. Welcome to the Legislature.

M. Grant Crack: Il me fait un grand plaisir de souhaiter la bienvenue au maire de Clarence-Rockland, M. Guy Desjardins, et aussi à la directrice générale, Helen Collier.

And I know that I’m not allowed to, but I’m going to introduce the councillor for Clarence-Rockland, Monsieur Jean-Marc Lalonde.

Bienvenue à Queen’s Park.

M. Bob Delaney: C’est avec plaisir que je dis « welcome back » à mon ami et l’ancien instructeur en chef pour l’équipe de hockey Legiskaters, notre ami M. Jean-Marc Lalonde.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I think we’ve created the Howard Brown effect.

As is the tradition of the Speaker—at least, from my understanding, done many, many times—in the members’ gallery, we have with us the former member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell in the 37th, 38th and 39th Parliaments, Monsieur Jean-Marc Lalonde.

I also understand that there is a very large number of family members in the gallery today—just saying.

It is now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Ontario budget

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Premier. After the budget bill was rammed through committee and after it passed yesterday, it gave me a chance to reflect. It gave me a chance to reflect on its effect on the average Ontarian. Over and over again, I thought about what it will cost them.

Premier, with the payroll pension tax, the aviation tax, the beer tax, the new income tax rate and the skyrocketing hydro rates all included in the budget, will you tell Ontarians how much the budget will cost?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What the member opposite could have been reflecting on is the investments that will be made because of the budget bill that has been passed: $31 billion for Moving Ontario Forward projects, transportation infrastructure across this province and a plan for a $130-billion investment over 10 years. That’s roads and bridges and transit in all parts of this province that will allow communities to thrive.

He might have reflected on the $20 million for three years for the Experience Ontario program that’s going to help graduating high school students to better identify their future goals by having a work experience opportunity. He might have thought about the $250 million over the next two years for a renewed Ontario’s Youth Jobs Strategy that has already seen tens of thousands of young people in placements that have led to jobs. He might have thought about those things.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Again to the Premier: It’s more than the costs that we know now, it’s the hidden costs too. Ten thousand Ontarians reached out to the Ombudsman seeking help for hydro billing errors. The Auditor General made it public that the government wasted some $2 billion on smart meters. The government’s response? Independent oversight at Hydro One has ended. Hydro One raided the bank accounts of Ontarians and these mistakes cost Ontarians $83 million, all of which was made public because of independent oversight.

Premier, can you explain the cost of secrecy and losing oversight at Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To just follow up on the theme of the budget, the member opposite might have thought about the rate increases of 1% for social assistance recipients. He might have thought about the modernized student assistance program that’s going to index the maximum aid to inflation; Ontario will be the first province to do that and that will help our post-secondary students. He might have thought about the $40 million that we’re putting into technology in classrooms for students in kindergarten through grade 12. Those are all aspects of the budget.

The member opposite knows that the oversight of Hydro One will be analogous to the oversight of other publicly held companies. He knows that’s the case. He knows there are mechanisms in place already. He knows there will be a special ombudsman for Hydro One. He knows that those oversights already exist.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Again to the Premier: Furthermore, the cost doesn’t stop with the Hydro One fiasco. Despite some of Ontario’s largest employers outlining the costs it will have to Ontario businesses and jobs, the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan was rammed through with the budget bill. Large or small, the majority of businesses will be negatively impacted by the ORPP. We asked the government to walk away, hit pause and rethink this job-killing plan, but to no avail.

Premier, how many jobs will the ORPP cost Ontario when businesses fire employees rather than pay this new payroll tax?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me ask the member opposite what the cost would be to allow a generation or two generations of people—young people now—to age and retire and not have adequate retirement security.

It is the responsibility of government to think beyond the next three years or the next four years. We know, he knows, people across the country know, the federal government even knows that people in their 20s and 30s and 40s cannot put enough aside in order to assure a secure retirement. They know that. So if we all know that, is it not our responsibility to do something about that? Because the cost of not doing anything means that we have seniors retiring into insecurity.

Smart meters

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is to the Minister of Energy. This morning we learned that a so-called smart meter caught fire and exploded in Collingwood. For months you’ve been assuring the public that the smart meters in Ontario were not like the ones in Saskatchewan, that ours wouldn’t catch fire and that only a few thousand would have to be replaced as a preventive measure in Sarnia–Lambton. Like so many things you’ve said on the energy file, your talking points, like your smart meters, have flamed out.

Minister, if a smart meter in Collingwood could catch fire and explode despite your assurances, how do we know there are not tens of thousands more just like it in the province of Ontario, waiting to go off?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Yes, there was a fire in one of our 4.8 million smart meters in the last several days. The ESA, the Electrical Safety Authority, is investigating that. There is no indication yet whether it was the meter, the installation or any other cause. We are awaiting the results of that investigation. When we have the results of that investigation, we’ll be able to respond.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Well, meter or installation, whatever the problem is, I don’t think that’s much of an assurance, Minister.

We know you refuse to admit that your smart meter tax machine program has been a disaster from the start, partly due to your abysmal administration of the rollout. Since the Auditor General’s report last December, the public understands that your smart meter fiasco will cost energy consumers double what you claimed it would. Smart meters haven’t cut consumption at peak times, and often they don’t even relay their information back to the central data centre. Now we learn that these devices may catch fire without warning and burn a ratepayer’s house down.

Minister, there are over a million of these so-called meters in Ontario because of you. What is your plan of action today? How much more will this add to your $2-billion smart meter boondoggle?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, the member should know that there are 4.8 million, not a million smart meters in the province of Ontario.

The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario says of smart meters, “They are necessary—absolutely necessary for the proper functioning and future functioning of the distribution system for electricity. Smart grid technologies have the potential to improve reliability, reduce system costs, empower customers and lower the environmental impact of the electricity we use.”

There are many other endorsations, but Mr. Speaker, if you talk to the LDCs, the electricity utilities, including the one that serves his community, they will say smart meters are a smart thing to do.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Well, it’s great that the minister is smart enough to count them. Maybe he could figure out how to make them work.

Minister, this is precisely the sort of scandal that the Auditor General needs to investigate, but because of your shameful budget passing, she no longer has the ability to do so. Every person who owns a smart meter is now worried that theirs could catch on fire. Families do not trust your government to provide them with the peace of mind that they need on this. This incident proves that your government simply can’t be trusted on the issue.

Minister, will you commit to allowing the Auditor General and the Ombudsman to continue to have oversight on Hydro One, even though you took it away with the passing of the budget?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please.

Minister.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, the member knows that we have retained former Auditor General of Canada Denis Desautels to oversee the implementation of an ombudsman at Hydro One. His mandate is to ensure that the ombudsman will be transparent and accountable. That is moving forward.

Hydro One, as a TSX company, a stock-trading company, will have tremendous oversight. The Securities Act provides oversight, accountability and audited statements for every nature of the operations of a public company. They will be accountable.

Mr. Speaker, we are in the process of restructuring the board of Hydro One. The chair of Hydro One is also in the process of selecting a CEO for Hydro One, moving forward. It’s the right thing to do.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: To the Premier, Speaker: The Premier is pushing ahead with her scheme to sell Hydro One. My question is, what’s next?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, what’s next are those investments in infrastructure that are being driven by the fact that we’ve found the revenue to make those investments. That’s the whole point of this.

I have said it over and over again in this House: I understand that this is a difficult decision. I understood, when we said that we were going to review our assets, that that was a difficult thing to do. But it is motivated by our understanding, our knowledge, that if we do not invest in the roads and bridges and transit that are needed in this province, Mr. Speaker, then we will rob future generations of economic prosperity that is necessary. It’s as simple as that. We know we can thrive. We know that we can compete, but we can’t do that without making these investments, and that’s why we’re making them.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Yesterday, the Minister of Finance was asked what the next thing on the auction block was going to be. He said, “Right now there is no determination.” Now, I know the Premier says that she has been clear about her plan to sell off assets. Will the Premier make clear, then, exactly what the Minister of Finance was referring to yesterday? What is the next asset that is up for sale?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’ll let the Minister of Finance speak to the details in the supplementary, but what we are doing right now is we are working on making the investments in the roads, bridges and transit infrastructure that we know is necessary.

The leader of the third party, when she talks about assets, has no solution for the investments in infrastructure. She wants to talk in isolation about a particular ideological position that is underpinned by a total lack of confidence in anything that the private sector does, which I think is an interesting position for a responsible politician to take.

The fact is, government has to work with the private sector. It is absolutely essential that we work with all sectors in the community—with labour, with the private sector—to make sure that we get public policy right. This is public policy that is going to build assets for the people of Ontario for this generation—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Be seated, please. Thank you.

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier says she was clear in her budget and in her platform about her plan for asset sales. Then she denied she was selling assets. Now she’s denying that she ever even made that denial and she won’t say whether there are more sell-offs in the works.

It’s getting pretty ridiculous. Why doesn’t this Premier stand in her place, take this opportunity to be upfront with the people of Ontario and tell them exactly what is next on the auction block?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: It was very clear on page 73 in terms of what it is that we are doing. I did respond and I did actually follow up in determining what some of those properties would be. I listed them in the budget. We talked about the Seaton and Lakeview lands. We talked about OPG’s head office. We talked about a number of—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Finish, please.

Hon. Charles Sousa: We talked about a number of properties that were unproductive that we wanted to ensure that we maximize by reinvesting them into infrastructure, into public transit, into things that will generate greater returns to the people of Ontario. It’s clearly laid out. Read it if you wish.

We’re taking care of business, and we’ll continue to help the people of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): New question. The leader of the third party.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, I’d advise you to lock up the mace; that might be next.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Premier. The Premier kept Ontarians in the dark about her scheme to sell off Hydro One—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock.

Please ask.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: She kept Ontarians in the dark about her scheme to sell off Hydro One, she kept her ministers in the dark about her scheme to sell off Hydro One and she kept her backbenchers in the dark about her scheme to sell off Hydro One. This afternoon, this House is going to vote on whether or not to actually listen to Ontarians.

Will this Premier allow her MPP backbenchers a free vote on whether or not they should be listening to the people in their ridings and hold a referendum on the sell-off of Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me say to the leader of the third party once again—and I will go through the statements we made. April 11, 2014: “The Ontario government has appointed a council to recommend ways to improve the efficiency and optimize the full value of Hydro One.” In our budget 2014: “The government will look at maximizing and unlocking value from assets it”—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The two-way conversation that’s going on is not helpful, and finger pointing doesn’t change my mind at all.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —including real estate holdings, as well as crown corporations such as” OPG, Hydro One and the LCBO.

Page 257 of our budget 2014: “Exploring options to unlock the full value of a wide range of valuable provincial assets ... specifically the LCBO, Hydro One and” OPG.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton Mountain, come to order.

Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Why is this Premier more interested in hearing from a very small group of her friends, her very powerful friends, than she is from the people of Ontario, from Ontario families—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Deputy House leader.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: —in a referendum on the sell-off of Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I went through the quotes of what we said we were going to do. They were very clear.

There was an election on June 12, 2014. That election was based on the statements that had been made by the various parties. Our statements were very clear about the fact that we were looking at unlocking the value of our assets. We hadn’t been explicit about what exactly that was going to mean, but we were clear enough that the leader of the third party said—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We were clear enough that even the leader of the third party could understand. She said, “The budget says in black and white that the government is looking at the sale of assets, ‘including ... crown corporations, such as Ontario Power Generation’”—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I have all kinds of rights, and asking the House to come to order is one of them.

Premier, finish please. You have one wrap-up sentence.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Just to say that that was the budget we campaigned on. We had the election, and we are moving ahead to implement that plan.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, I can tell you that the leader of the third party knows exactly what the Liberals are up to, which is why we didn’t support their budget in the first place—because we knew that this Premier was not being honest and upfront with the people of Ontario. That’s what we saw in that budget.

Ontario families actually own Hydro One. They deserve a say on the Premier’s plan to sell off Hydro One. In fact, the backbenchers actually deserve an ability to cast a free vote—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Trinity–Spadina.

I’m going to ask the leader to withdraw.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’ll withdraw, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I will now ask you to finish putting your question.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The bottom line is, the Liberals pulled a real sneaky fast one on the people of Ontario, and what we want to see—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s not acceptable. Please withdraw.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I withdraw, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Please finish.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The people of this province, whether the Liberals like it or not, own Hydro One. It is their right to decide whether or not it gets sold off. Will she hold a referendum and give them their voice?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, we’re on the cusp of royal assent of budget 2015, Building Ontario Up. It is one of the most progressive budgets to date, investing critical investments for future generations of our province while enhancing and preserving the quality of life of people all across Ontario. We’re also making a very prudent fiscal plan to balance while so doing. But it’s possible because of the vision and the integrity of the Premier of this province. We stand behind Premier Kathleen Wynne for all that she has done. Thank you for your support.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order, please.

New question.

Teachers’ labour disputes

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I’ll try to tone it down a bit here, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is to the Minister of Education.

Minister, no doubt you are happy to see this session come to an end. It ends with our education system in complete turmoil. We know that almost non-stop bargaining and negotiations will have to occur to avoid turmoil on September 8. I’ve heard you say that a lot of bargaining can take place in three months. We have 96 days left until the new school year.

Can you outline to the House your plans, as minister, to avoid turmoil on September 8?

Hon. Liz Sandals: That’s very simple. We will be at the bargaining table, we will be negotiating, we will be working with the unions, we will be working with the school boards: That’s the plan. We are quite willing to spend the summer negotiating. Only through negotiations will we actually be able to arrive at a collective agreement.

When we introduced and passed Bill 122, we understood that we need everybody involved in this discussion at the table. We understood that we need the government as the funder. We understood that we need to restore collective bargaining to the unions. We understood that the school boards have a role because they’re the employers, and that all three of those parties—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Supplementary?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Minister, I must say I have enjoyed being your critic this past session or two. Since July of last year, I’ve actually gained a lot of new friends as education stakeholders. Like you, I have a passionate interest in the education and training of the two million students here in Ontario.

Minister, we have no agreements in place—with none of the educators of the 72 boards in Ontario as of now, and it started last fall. My question, as your critic, your friend and your colleague here in the Legislature, is this: Will your office send me a daily update on the process, the bargaining that’s taking place throughout the summer months so that I can pass it on to my leader, Patrick Brown, and the rest of our PC caucus?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I don’t recall writing into the legislation a clause that said, “Update your critic daily on what’s happening at the bargaining table.” In fact, I think I’ve said repeatedly that the only way—

Interjections.

Hon. Liz Sandals: And this is serious—the only way we’re actually going to get agreements is if we bargain at the bargaining table. Bargaining through the critics, bargaining through the Legislature, bargaining through the media doesn’t work. The only place that bargaining works is at the bargaining table, and that is where we intend to be.

Ontario Energy Board

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Ever since the Premier blindsided Ontarians with her plan to sell off Hydro One—and the question is to you, Premier—the Premier has claimed that the Ontario Energy Board would protect Ontarians from a privatized Hydro One and its desire for much higher rates. Then we learned she’s stacking the OEB with energy industry insiders. Then we learned she’s trying to get rid of consumer intervenors at the OEB hearings. And the other day her government tabled a bill that would allow the government to bypass the OEB altogether whenever it wants to push through costly and risky megaprojects that consumers will pay for.

Why is the Premier weakening consumer protections at the Ontario Energy Board?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, that accusation is so sweeping, so incorrect, it’s very, very difficult to answer. I’ll answer that by saying that he already knows that the Ontario Energy Board has been reducing and cutting back requests for increases in rates. He already knows that we’ve introduced legislation that—

Mr. Paul Miller: Not anymore.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Yes—gives us the authority to initiate transmission projects, which he calls a project that we should not have the authority to do. We’ve had people say that we’re going to lose authority over the system because of Hydro One. Now he’s telling us that we ought not to have the power to initiate transmission projects.

Mr. Speaker, he’s all over the map, he’s inconsistent and he’s repeated again for the third time the conflict-of-interest issue at the Ontario Energy Board, and he’s dead wrong.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I can’t see why having an evidence-based process for making a decision is a problem; nonetheless, that’s the way the government sees it.

Under the current law, the Ontario Energy Board must weigh the costs and benefits of a transmission project to see if it’s in the public interest, but the government’s new bill would bypass this open review process, allowing the government to ram through megaprojects based on politics, not on evidence.

Why does the Premier need yet another way to put her own political interests ahead of the interests of consumers and Ontario families?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Thank you.

Minister.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The proposed enhancements would provide—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton Mountain—second time.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: These improvements would provide cabinet with the clear authority to identify priority transmission projects and eliminate the requirement—eliminate the requirement—for the OEB to spend further time on basic principle of need. All other elements of the OEB’s existing approval processes, including reviewing costs, prudency and allocation, would remain in place, except as we have further expanded their authority in the legislation that we’ve introduced.

Agri-food industry

Ms. Daiene Vernile: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Minister, the week of June 1 to 7, Ontario is celebrating Local Food Week, giving us the opportunity to thank our farmers for the safe, high-quality and tasty food that they’ve produced.

By buying local food, Ontarians not only have access to food that’s nutritious, delicious and environmentally friendly, they’re also supporting local farmers and the local economy.

Minister, I want to tell you that I’m personally looking forward to the first crops being produced by Fertile Ground in Waterloo region—that is a farm-share program to which my family belongs.

Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs please update the House on Local Food Week?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank the hard-working member from Kitchener Centre for that wonderful question this morning. We do know the Kitchener area is the home of the famous market in Elmira.

We’re supporting our local food as part of our government’s plan to grow the economy, create jobs and foster a strong and vibrant agri-food sector.

Some time ago, we introduced the Local Food Act, which was a product of all parties in this Legislature. I always recognize the work that was done by the honourable gentleman from Sarnia.

As part of Local Food Week, we were proud to announce that VG Meats will receive up to $948,025 through the Local Food Fund, to help bring Ontario beef to more than 25 Longo’s grocery stores right across Ontario, one being in the wonderful riding of Vaughan. Today we’re holding our eighth annual Queen’s Park farmers’ market on the front lawn after question period, and we’ll be releasing our first-ever Local Food Report, detailing the progress we’ve made and our goals and targets established by the Local Food Fund—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Supplementary?

Ms. Daiene Vernile: Thank you to the minister for his answer. Minister, I invite you to come to Kitchener Centre to visit our famous farmers’ market soon.

Minister, it is great to hear that the Ontario government is continuing to make these key investments in local food projects across Ontario. We all know that farmers do feed cities, and our government must continue to support farmers, to build Ontario up. Farmers work hard all year round to bring food to our tables, and we know that Ontario consumers appreciate fresh, local foods—I know I do.

In 2013, the Premier challenged the agri-food sector to double its annual growth rate to create 120,000 new jobs by the year 2020. Could the minister please inform this House, during Local Food Week, on the local food strategy to contribute to the Premier’s agri-food challenge?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank the member for Kitchener Centre for her supplementary.

I do take the opportunity to visit farmers’ markets right across the province of Ontario, whether I’m in Elmira, Ontario, or Cobourg, Ontario, or Collingwood, Ontario, or communities right across the province. There’s no better experience than to visit a farmers’ market.

Since the Premier issued the growth challenge to our sector last year, we have created 17,000 new jobs in the agri-food sector in Ontario, which has led to $1.1 billion in new exports. This is all about making our investments in the agri-food sector.

Just last week I had the opportunity to be with my good friend the member from Wellington–Halton Hills to announce our great investment in the new Elora dairy research station, something that will put Ontario on the market internationally when it comes to the dairy sector. This new state-of-the-art facility will help develop—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

New question.

Health care funding

Mr. Jack MacLaren: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, your management of our health care system is a failure. You are cutting physiotherapy for seniors. You are cutting home care for people who want to be at home. You are cutting funding to hospitals, and nurses are being laid off. And now you are cutting fees for services paid to doctors.

Our doctors are the foundation of our health care system. They are not your employees; they are your partners—your partners in health care delivery.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Mr. Jack MacLaren: You are not treating them with the respect that they are due. You are not dealing with them responsibly. You are not negotiating in good faith.

Minister, will you talk to our doctors in the mutually respectful manner they deserve? The integrity of our health care system is at stake.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: It’s partly because we are increasing our investments into community and home care—it’s partly because we are increasing our investments and hiring more nurses and making sure that we’re investing in those aspects of health care that truly do support our seniors and other vulnerables in society—that we’ve asked our doctors to work with us in this difficult and challenging fiscal time, to actually pause in terms of their remuneration. That’s all we’re talking about here. We’re talking about the compensation the government provides to our doctors.

After a year of negotiations with the OMA, we brought in an umpire. We brought in retired Justice Warren Winkler to bring the two parties together to try and reach an agreement. At the end of the day, we were unable to do that. Judge Winkler implored the OMA to accept our offer; they didn’t. But we are going ahead and implementing precisely what Winkler had recommended.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jack MacLaren: Minister, there are 28,000 doctors in Ontario, who treat 320,000 patients every day of the year. Our population grows by 140,000 people every year, and our aging, high-needs population is also growing rapidly every year. The demand for medicare in Ontario grows by 2.7% every year, and yet government has committed to fund only 1.25%, or less than half, of that growth.

Dr. Stephen Grodinsky, a pediatrician in my riding, tells me that two pediatricians are retiring in Ottawa and there are no new doctors to replace them. We need more doctors, and your response is to cut fees for services paid to doctors. That is not going to work. This is a major disincentive for doctors to practise in Ontario.

Minister, think of the 320,000 patients per day. They need our doctors. Will you get back to the bargaining table and do what is right?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that we actually have more than 5,000 more physicians than existed in Ontario when we came into office in 2003.

Our doctors are precious to the health care system in this province. I’m a family physician and a public health expert myself, and a member of the OMA.

I had the privilege, just two days ago, of sitting down with Dr. Michael Toth, who is a family doctor from southwestern Ontario, the new president of the OMA. We had a very positive and engaging discussion. I know my ministry is actually sitting today, again, with the OMA, as part of the Physician Services Committee to look at ways that we can move forward and come back to negotiations and discussions.

There are many, many important issues that we depend on our doctors in Ontario to help us work through. They are important partners. They are a big part of the foundation of health care in this province. I look forward to continuing to strengthen that relationship and working with them.

Class size

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: My question is to the Premier. Speaker, the Minister of Education has finally admitted that class size caps are on the table. The minister has also acknowledged that the government is a party at the table. But it’s alarming that the minister stubbornly refuses, day after day, to commit to keeping current class size caps under any deal she signs.

There’s frankly no excuse for not stepping up and protecting the small class sizes and one-on-one time that families expect. Those small class sizes are at the heart of what quality education means—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Deputy House leader, a second time.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: —and our kids deserve nothing less. If the Liberal government refuses to step up and do their job for the families of this province, they’ll be forcing all of our students into even larger classes this September and forcing our kids to pay the price in overcrowded classrooms.

Will the Premier finally do the right thing? Will she do what her minister refuses to do? Will the Premier guarantee to families and kids today, right here, right now, that current class size caps will be protected because that’s the right thing to do for schools in Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Minister of Education is going to want to comment on the supplementary, but I just really need to remark that this is a party that apparently is trying to find its way back to its voice and believes in collective bargaining, Mr. Speaker. I would just remind this party that part of that voice they’re trying to recapture is a belief in the relationship with labour. That means collective bargaining. As the minister has said over and over and over again, the only place we’re going to find a deal—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —the only place we’re going to get a deal is at the table. So I would expect that of all the parties in this House, the leader of the third party would support a collective bargaining process. That’s what we’re engaged in and that’s what we’re going to let run its course.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: I’d like to remind the Premier that some of these staff have been without a contract for nine months. You should try coming to the table rather than legislating them back to work.

Back to the Premier: The Liberal record on education is abysmal at best. Not only have the Premier and government thrown our schools into chaos because of more than a decade of chronic underfunding, they have also shown zero respect for education workers, their professsionalism or their work environment.

They brag about frozen funding. They brag about cutting $250 million from education. They refuse to admit that special education funding has been cut in many schools, including $6 million in Toronto alone. With one hand they commit to community hubs, and with the other they have closed, or want to close, more than 125 neighbourhood schools. Now, after all that, they want to go even further to jeopardize small class sizes and one-on-one time our children deserve.

Will the Premier stop the chaos her government has caused to our children’s education by committing to protecting small class sizes today and getting—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To the Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: You know, I’m really not going to take a lecture here from the party whose only education platform in the 2014 election was, “Let’s take $600 million out of the spending on education and health care,” and whose position just last week was, “Let the teachers go back again,” 10 days after we ended one strike because it was deemed to be unlawful. They voted for the teachers to go back out on strike again instead of getting kids back in the classroom. That’s their record in education.

What I would say is the same thing I said to my critic for the official opposition—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Windsor West, second time.

Answer.

Hon. Liz Sandals: The critic for the third party is not part of the negotiating process. I’m not negotiating with her.

Post-secondary education

Mr. Chris Ballard: My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. It’s imperative that students across Ontario have access to high-quality post-secondary education. That’s why last year, our government issued an open call for proposals for post-secondary institutions to expand capacity in underserved areas as part of Ontario’s Major Capacity Expansion Policy Framework.

Minister, I understand that a panel evaluated 13 proposals based on a number of clearly outlined criteria, including their ability to increase spaces in underserved areas and offer a broad range of innovative, high-demand programs. Many of my constituents in Newmarket–Aurora were delighted to hear that the province is supporting a new York University Markham Centre campus in partnership with Seneca College to the south of my riding.

Can you please inform the members of the House of how our government is making post-secondary education more accessible in York region through Ontario’s Major Capacity Expansion Policy Framework?

Hon. Reza Moridi: I want to thank the member from Newmarket–Aurora for that very timely question.

A couple of weeks ago, I was pleased to be joined by several of my colleagues to announce our support for the first-ever university campus in York region. After an open and transparent selection process, York University’s proposal was most clearly aligned with the criteria set forward by the evaluation panel set up by my ministry.

The new campus will offer programs that incorporate experiential learning with an academic focus on business, the arts and social sciences. The campus received great support from the city of Markham, from York region and also from employers. The campus will be close to local transit options and other facilities, such as sports fields, the YMCA and the Atos Markham Pan Am/Parapan Am Centre.

I want to congratulate York University, and also I want to thank all the institutions—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Supplementary?

Mr. Chris Ballard: Thank you to the minister for that answer. It’s reassuring to know that our government is committed to helping more students pursue post-secondary education by putting the right spaces in the right places.

For many municipalities, having a post-secondary institution is important for economic and regional development. At the same time, it’s absolutely necessary that our government ensures Ontario taxpayer dollars are being invested in areas where post-secondary education and training are most needed.

York region is just one Ontario area that is experiencing significant growth of college- and university-age students. I understand that our government will be issuing a second call for proposals in spring 2016 for another expansion project to serve local demand in Peel and Halton regions.

Minister, can you please inform the members of the House more about this second call for proposals in Peel and Halton regions?

Hon. Reza Moridi: I want to thank the member again for that question.

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right: It’s imperative that Ontario’s tax dollars are invested in areas where the demand for an undergraduate degree education will be strong and gaps in access are expected. That’s why I was also pleased to announce that our government will be issuing a second call for proposals in spring 2016 for another campus to serve the local needs in Peel and Halton regions. Currently, the combined 18- to 24-year-old population in Halton and Peel region is about 200,000. Despite such a large university-age population, these regions only have one university campus, with 10,000 undergraduate full-time students.

Our government will continue to make post-secondary education more accessible to our young people to make sure that our people will get the best education they can ever receive.

Aboriginal land dispute

Mr. Toby Barrett: To the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Since November of last year, native militants have shut down construction of the provincial Highway 3 bridge at Cayuga, a $20-million project just down the Grand River from Caledonia. The Haudenosaunee Development Institute and the Six Nations Men’s Fire activists have forced construction workers off the bridge. Now, we’ve been waiting over six months to replace a deteriorating, 1924 steel truss bridge.

Minister, patience is wearing thin. When will your government restore peace, order and construction workers on the Cayuga bridge?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Once again I remind the member that when it comes to matters of policing operations, that is within the jurisdiction of the Ontario Provincial Police, a very highly regarded professional organization that does excellent work across the province. I think it would be highly inappropriate for any member of this House, especially a member of government, to be speaking about police operations and decisions that they make.

We support the work that our Ontario Provincial Police do, especially the work they do in conjunction with our First Nations to ensure that we are working in a respectful and healthy relationship. I urge the members to do the same.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Toby Barrett: This Cayuga bridge shutdown requires urgent action. After years of delay, constant repair, load limits and lengthy detours, the bridge is not safe for heavy trucks or oversized farm machinery.

Haldimand county has no authority to force militants off the bridge when they’ve threatened construction workers. The Ministry of Transportation has had no success, in spite of seven years of negotiation and in spite of conducting lengthy environmental and archaeological reviews demanded by the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, the same group that you have permitted to occupy Douglas Creek Estates in Caledonia for more than nine years now.

This militant action continues on a provincial bridge, on a provincial highway, under a provincial contract. When will your provincial government step in and allow the safe opening of the Cayuga bridge?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Again, when it comes to issues around maintaining peace and order, we rely on our provincial police—the Ontario Provincial Police, as everyone knows. They make those determinations.

I think what we should be promoting is a more peaceful resolution of any dispute, as opposed to sowing seeds of discontent.

We very much appreciate and recognize the work that the OPP does with local communities in finding those resolutions. I wholeheartedly support them and will continue to work with the OPP and let them do the work they do so well in our communities across the province.

Pan Am Games

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. The Pan Am Games kick off in a month. The CEO of the games committee has said that “this will be a summer you will never forget.” Unfortunately for us, this quote came from an

article about traffic congestion.

In less than four weeks, Pan Am lanes will be blocked off on highways into, out of and through Toronto. At the Minister of Transportation’s—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock.

Minister of Energy.

Please ask.

Mr. Paul Miller: At the Minister of Transportation’s technical briefings, a rosy picture was definitely painted: No real impacts on traffic, he said. But all this was contingent on his faith-based transportation plan that 20% of drivers will stay off the road.

Minister, what evidence do you have that this will work, number one? What metrics are you using? How will you measure your achievement against the 20% target: during or after the games?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I know that on this side of the House and right across the greater Toronto and Hamilton area—right across Ontario—there is a ton of excitement about the fact that the Pan Am/Parapan Am Games will be starting shortly.

That member should know, of course, that when we announced and provided the technical briefing with respect to the Pan Am/Parapan Am transportation plan, we did discuss a number of initiatives that are being brought forward and have already been brought forward.

For example, we’re allowing spectators to use their games tickets to get onto public transit. We’re expanding the high-occupancy-vehicle lane network temporarily for vehicles with three or more people, public transit, games fleet vehicles, emergency vehicles and taxis. We’re providing accessible transportation options, including pre-booked accessible parking, public transit—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: —specialized transit services. We’re also providing information and planning tools to help people plan ahead and avoid any challenges they might have.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: It is clear that the government has been expecting massive congestion all along and has decided that it just can’t be helped. They’ve decided that it is the price the public has to pay, although they’ve never asked. I call it their Ontario traffic premium plan.

The minister talks a lot about the evidence from London and Vancouver. Let me give you some numbers, Speaker, on what happened in London and Vancouver. London achieved only a 9% reduction in peak-hour p.m. traffic during the Olympics and during the Paralympics an abysmal 2%—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ll move to a warning.

Please finish.

Mr. Paul Miller: London achieved only a 9% reduction in peak-hour p.m. traffic during the Olympics, and during the Paralympics an abysmal 2%. They invested—this number is mind-boggling—billions in transit and still couldn’t achieve 20%. We know the consequence of failing to reach a target: the Don Valley Parkway at a quarter of its normal speed, an hour and 15 minutes from the Gardiner to the 401, and similar numbers throughout the whole network.

Can the minister tell us what his plan B is to avoid traffic chaos—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Minister?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I thank the member for the follow-up question.

What I didn’t get a chance to talk about in my original answer was that this coming Saturday, the Union Pearson Express will launch and go into service in time for the Pan Am/Parapan Am Games, as this Premier and our government promised.

What I also didn’t mention in my original answer was that the West Harbour GO station, formerly called the James Street North station, in that member’s community, will be ready in time for the Pan Am/Parapan Am Games.

Interjection.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: That’s right.

I will wrap up by reminding all members in this House that perhaps the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek would know all of this if he had—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock.

New question.

Senior citizens

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: My question is for the minister responsible for seniors affairs. I got to know many seniors while working as a nurse, and I know the importance of sustaining healthy, active and engaged older adults. I am proud of the dedication of the minister and this government to take action to help seniors live their best life.

This June, we celebrate the 31st annual Seniors’ Month in Ontario. In my community of Cambridge and Waterloo region, Seniors’ Month is an important occasion filled with many local events and activities that engage and celebrate the active and vibrant seniors in my community. For 31 years, we’ve honoured the many contributions that seniors have made to this province, and we recognize their spirit that continues to shine regardless of age.

Can the minister please share with us more details about Seniors’ Month and how Ontario recognizes and celebrates seniors?

Hon. Mario Sergio: Thanks to the member for Cambridge for the question.

Indeed, we are happy to celebrate Ontario’s 31st anniversary of Seniors’ Month. Our theme this year is “Vibrant Seniors, Vibrant Communities,” acknowledging the remarkable spirit of our seniors.

I was delighted to kick off Seniors’ Month on June 1 at Ryerson University, where there is clearly a strong commitment and a strong community dedicated to continuous learning for seniors.

This Seniors’ Month and beyond, I encourage everyone to reach out to the seniors in your lives and let them know we appreciate the work they have done for our home, Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: Thank you, Minister. I know how important it is to have activities that interest, engage and inspire the seniors in our communities, especially during Seniors’ Month. I’ve had the pleasure to regularly host events to connect with them in order to learn and discuss the issues facing seniors. Next week, in fact, I’ll be visiting Heritage Meadows retirement home and listening to the seniors living in my riding of Cambridge.

It’s essential to remember that the number of seniors in Ontario will double over the next two decades—including many in this House—and the work we do for them is becoming increasingly important. Speaker, could the minister please elaborate on the progress we’re making as we mark the 31st annual Seniors’ Month in Ontario?

Hon. Mario Sergio: Speaker, our action is strengthened by the work of hard-working local leaders like the member from Cambridge, who is so dedicated to seniors in her community.

Ontario’s Action Plan for Seniors covers many issues that affect seniors and has had a very overwhelming positive response. For example, we launched the very successful—first year, first time—Seniors Community Grant Program, reaching out to some 46,000 seniors in the first year, and this year, Speaker, doubling the grant. Thanks to the Premier and Minister Sousa, we are reaching some 72,000-plus seniors in every corner of our province.

I’m proud to witness the strides we are making to help Ontario become the best place to age.

Heritage conservation

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Minister, I know from our personal conversations that you have a deep and abiding sense of the importance of heritage in the province of Ontario, and I commend you for that. You’ve also shown an interest in a particular piece of heritage in my riding, the Vineland schoolhouse.

As you know, the original schoolhouse was built in 1895. It’s an extraordinary example of 19th-century architecture. It has been important in the community not just as a school, but a living, so to speak, example of Beamsville brickwork. There’s an awful lot of history packed into that tiny schoolhouse.

Here’s the problem: 120 years of history is going to come to an end on June 19. That’s when the wrecking ball comes to town and knocks it down.

Minister, will you use your authority under the Ontario Heritage Act to intervene and save that schoolhouse?

Hon. Michael Coteau: I want to thank the member opposite for the question, but also for his advocacy on this issue. I know that over the last several weeks we’ve had many opportunities to talk about this specific schoolhouse. You know, 120 years: That’s lot of heritage, a lot of local heritage, and a beautiful example of the type of architecture that was developed 120 years ago.

In fact, I did receive many letters from Friends of Vineland Public School, and they have officially requested, as well, for provincial designation.

Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Heritage Act gives municipalities the tools they need to manage and protect the heritage assets in their communities. We’ve connected with the local municipality, the township of Lincoln, and presented some options for them. I hope they make best use of those options to save this particular piece of infrastructure and history.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: I do want to say to the minister, I do appreciate the fact that you contacted the town of Lincoln and you gave them options. Unfortunately, the town of Lincoln decided not to pursue those options. Their concern is that they would be sued by the local school board because the previous council had issued the demolition permit.

The notion, and I think you would share this with me, of one publicly funded institution suing another publicly funded institution to get more money from the taxpayers to go to lawyers is preposterous. The schoolhouse gets knocked down all the same.

So let me put this on the table because, as you know, come June 19, this piece of history is gone forever, and, as the expression goes, they don’t make them like that anymore. Minister, will you use your authority as minister—I have been in that position. I know the minister and I know how much they care about heritage and I know your phone calls get returned. Would you contact both the school board and municipality and try to pull them together with heritage groups before June 19 to keep that living history alive?

Hon. Michael Coteau: As I was saying, we did contact the municipality of Lincoln and we have presented some options for them to assist in preventing any type of litigation against any of those publicly funded organizations. We believe that we’ve presented an option for them that would allow them to take local control and really develop a solution that would work for everyone.

At the ministry, this government, we are committed to preserving heritage here in the province of Ontario. In fact, the Premier has asked me to revisit culture and build a new framework for Ontario. I know heritage will be a big part of that discussion in the fall. I’m going to work with the Minister of Education. I will work with other ministries and the people of Ontario to look for better ways to preserve our history in the province of Ontario.

Again, I want to thank the member for his advocacy on this issue. We’ll continue to work with both the school board and the municipality, if required.

Waste disposal

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Major infrastructure projects like the Pan Am Games are generating massive volumes of contaminated soil. The Minister of the Environment and Climate Change does not track this soil and has no idea where it winds up. We do know that much of this contaminated soil has been dumped on prime farmland and protected lands in the greenbelt and the Oak Ridges moraine, with the property owners believing they were accepting clean soil.

Last October, the minister called this a top environmental and economic concern for Ontario, and promised action by the spring. Well, the spring session wraps up today, and nothing has been done. Why has the minister failed to take any action?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: In

preamble, I just want to say one thing. I was the mayor who hosted the last Pan Am Games in Canada, in 1999. It’s amazing to me how that party has found every opportunity to absolutely dis and degrade what is one of the most exciting events. It’s the first time the Toronto area has had a major event. You don’t know what you’re in for, but we’re about to have the most historic moments in our province’s history, Mr. Speaker.

The waste guidelines that were put out last spring are being reviewed very actively, as is the development of the Waste Diversion Act. I look forward to reporting back to the House and working with my critic on that.

But it’s a sad day, on the eve of what will be a historic summer in Ontario and Toronto and Hamilton’s history, that that is the kind of lemon-sucking we get from the party opposite.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’d like to do this and then I’ll come back to the member.

I have three quick comments before we move on.

Anne Stokes

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Just before we do move on to bills, I would like to draw the members’ attention to the fact that our table Clerk Anne Stokes has announced that she’s going to be retiring later this month. Therefore, this is her last day serving the table, and I hope that all members would join me in thanking Anne for a very long and successful career in public service and wish her the best in her years of retirement.

Applause.

Legislative pages

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And to make sure that you understand I didn’t miss it this time—and we’re on a happy note—I have a sad note: This is the last day for our pages. But we do want to thank them for the wonderful work that they’ve done for us these last two weeks.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On a point of order, the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek.

Mr. Paul Miller: Thank you, Speaker. Just to correct the record, I’d like to inform the minister that my entire staff were at all technical briefings on the Pan Am Games. He’s incorrect.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew has an extra chip in his pocket.

Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The minister, on a point of order.

Hon. Michael Coteau: It is my pleasure to welcome Monica Xu, Loreta Chan and Michelle Lu, who are part of the TO2015 Youth Summit joining us here in the Legislature today. Welcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Just before we do our last, I do want to wish all of you a safe and healthy family time break, but also to reinforce what I’ve said time and time again: Thank you for the hard work that you do, even when the House is not sitting. I know you go back to your constituencies and work hard. Please be safe this summer. Enjoy yourselves and enjoy your families. Thank you.

I would also like to say to the staff here, to the clerks at the table and to all the staff here at the Legislature, thank you for a hard job done well. Thank you.

Deferred Votes

Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’infrastructure au service de l’emploi et de la prospérité

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 6,

An Act to enact the Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act, 2015 / Projet de loi 6, Loi édictant la Loi de 2015 sur l’infrastructure au service de l’emploi et de la prospérité.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1146 to 1151.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On June 3, 2015, Mr. Naqvi moved third reading of Bill 6.

All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Albanese, Laura

Anderson, Granville

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Arnott, Ted

Bailey, Robert

Baker, Yvan

Balkissoon, Bas

Ballard, Chris

Barrett, Toby

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bisson, Gilles

Bradley, James J.

Chan, Michael

Chiarelli, Bob

Clark, Steve

Colle, Mike

Coteau, Michael

Crack, Grant

Damerla, Dipika

Del Duca, Steven

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Dickson, Joe

DiNovo, Cheri

Dong, Han

Duguid, Brad

Dunlop, Garfield

Fedeli, Victor

Fife, Catherine

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Forster, Cindy

French, Jennifer K.

Gates, Wayne

Gélinas, France

Gravelle, Michael

Gretzky, Lisa

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael

Hatfield, Percy

Hoggarth, Ann

Horwath, Andrea

Hoskins, Eric

Hudak, Tim

Hunter, Mitzie

Jaczek, Helena

Kiwala, Sophie

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Marie-France

Leal, Jeff

MacLaren, Jack

Malhi, Harinder

Mangat, Amrit

Mantha, Michael

Martins, Cristina

Martow, Gila

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McDonell, Jim

McGarry, Kathryn

McMahon, Eleanor

McMeekin, Ted

McNaughton, Monte

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milczyn, Peter Z.

Miller, Norm

Miller, Paul

Moridi, Reza

Munro, Julia

Murray, Glen R.

Naidoo-Harris, Indira

Naqvi, Yasir

Nicholls, Rick

Orazietti, David

Pettapiece, Randy

Potts, Arthur

Qaadri, Shafiq

Rinaldi, Lou

Sandals, Liz

Sattler, Peggy

Sergio, Mario

Singh, Jagmeet

Smith, Todd

Sousa, Charles

Tabuns, Peter

Taylor, Monique

Thibeault, Glenn

Thompson, Lisa M.

Vanthof, John

Vernile, Daiene

Walker, Bill

Wilson, Jim

Wong, Soo

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Yakabuski, John

Zimmer, David

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 95; the nays are 0.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

Great Lakes Protection Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection des Grands Lacs

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 66,

An Act to protect and restore the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin / Projet de loi 66, Loi visant la protection et le rétablissement du bassin des Grands Lacs et du fleuve Saint-Laurent.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1155 to 1156.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On March 26, 2015, Mr. Murray moved second reading of Bill 66.

All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Albanese, Laura

Anderson, Granville

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Baker, Yvan

Balkissoon, Bas

Ballard, Chris

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bisson, Gilles

Bradley, James J.

Chan, Michael

Chiarelli, Bob

Colle, Mike

Coteau, Michael

Crack, Grant

Damerla, Dipika

Del Duca, Steven

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Dickson, Joe

DiNovo, Cheri

Dong, Han

Duguid, Brad

Fife, Catherine

Flynn, Kevin

Document details

Collection	Ontario — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	2015-06-04
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	p41 s1 2015-06-04 hansard html
Language	en
Format	html
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	575a6caf0b802b2852541df1646b9db3fcee20ce

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (html).