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

November 1, 2016

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-Nov-01 (PDF)

L024 - Tue 1 Nov 2016 / Mar 1er nov 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 1 November 2016 Mardi 1 er novembre 2016

Promoting Affordable Housing Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la promotion du logement abordable

Aggregate Resources and Mining Modernization Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la modernisation des secteurs des ressources en agrégats et des mines

Wearing of uniform

Wearing of ribbons

Introduction of Visitors

John Ferris

Oral Questions

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Ontario Place

Climate change

By-election in Sudbury

Correctional services

Co-operative corporations / Sociétés coopératives

By-election in Sudbury

Long-term care

Child care

By-election in Sudbury

Correctional services

Aggregate extraction

By-election in Sudbury

Deferred Votes

Promoting Affordable Housing Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la promotion du logement abordable

Clerk of the Assembly

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Lionel Murphy

Shine the Light on Woman Abuse campaign

Post-secondary education

Carbon Monoxide Awareness Week

Hockey Helps the Homeless

Creative Village Studio

Goderich cenotaph poppy installation

Labour dispute

Aldo Boccia

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Introduction of Bills

Simple Stopwatch Inc. Act, 2016

Hindu Heritage Month Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le Mois du patrimoine hindou

Petitions

School closures

Alzheimer’s disease

Consumer protection

Hydro rates

Privatization of public assets

Consumer protection

Hydro rates

Diabetes glucose monitoring

Property taxation

Hydro rates

Veterans

Consumer protection

Orders of the Day

Election Statute Law Amendment Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne les élections

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Good morning. We welcome our new Clerk, Mr. Todd Decker, for his first day—his first prayers. Please join me in praying for him—I mean, please join me in prayers.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Promoting Affordable Housing Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la promotion du logement abordable

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 26, 2016, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 7,

An Act to amend or repeal various Acts with respect to housing and planning / Projet de loi 7, Loi modifiant ou abrogeant diverses lois en ce qui concerne le logement et l’aménagement du territoire.

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

Mr. Arthur Potts: I’m delighted to have an opportunity today to speak on Bill 7, the Promoting Affordable Housing Act.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I hope I get an opportunity.

Mr. Arthur Potts: It’s good to have the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke here fully rapt with attention, as he always is to our debates.

I would like to thank everyone who has participated in this debate. We all know that when people have a home, they are healthier for it. They’re able to pursue employment opportunities, and they’re equipped to participate and to contribute better to the communities in which they live.

The Promoting Affordable Housing Act, if passed, would support improved access to suitable and affordable housing, and modernize our social housing system. The first provision of Bill 7 that I would like to highlight today is in the Planning Act, amendments that will allow municipalities to introduce inclusionary zoning. Inclusionary zoning would allow municipalities to require that affordable housing units be included in new residential developments. It has been used in over 500 municipalities in the United States to increase the supply of affordable housing, particularly for low- to moderate-income households.

Our neighbourhoods are stronger and more vital when they include a mix of people who are able to choose where they live from a range of housing. When people have stable and affordable places they can call home, it opens up possibilities for better education, health and work.

I would like to talk a little bit on Trillium Housing. Trillium Housing is an organization in Toronto that assists low- to middle-income people to afford their own homes by assuming essentially a second mortgage on the property where they take equity in the property. If a property comes up for, let’s say, $300,000, they would assume a 25% piece in that; they would own that 25%. They would pay the carrying costs and they would hold that piece until the family moved in, enjoyed it and used it as 100% their own home, but were only financing it on the basis of 75%.

As a result, when they sold it, they would accrue the benefits of the increased value on their 75%. Trillium Housing will get the other 25% with its accrued equity, which will go back into the pool in order to create more opportunities for affordable housing. It’s a tremendous opportunity to assist low- and middle-income people buying ownership and highlights how important that ownership is.

Local real estate markets ultimately set the price for market-rate units. As such, developers of buildings with affordable housing units secured through inclusionary zoning must competitively price their units within the overall market. For an organization like Trillium and other social housing providers, we will hope that they will be able to find opportunities where development charges are commensurate with the kinds of objectives of municipalities to ensure that these housing units get built and aren’t a barrier to the building of them.

I’d like to comment on Dr. Lisa Sturtevant, who is a housing policy expert. She states that “the most highly regarded empirical evidence suggests that inclusionary housing programs can produce affordable housing and do not lead to significant declines in overall housing production or to increases,” significant or otherwise, “in market-rate prices.”

The second concern I would like to raise is that inclusionary zoning would discourage new builds and lead to a lower supply of units. We’ve heard that from certain members in the House over the course, and I would like to address that issue directly. Over time, land prices will absorb some or all of the costs of inclusionary zoning, as Rick Jacobus notes in his policy focus report.

The member from Oxford also noted concerns that Bill 7 does not allow affordable units to be built off-site. Speaker, this is an issue to consider, and we look forward to examining the issue in more detail during committee.

I would also like to recognize some of the comments that the third party has made regarding inclusionary zoning. One of the comments that came up during this debate was around the use of

section 37. Speaker, as you know,

section 37 is the provision in the Ontario Planning Act that allows municipalities to extract benefits from developers in return for allowing developments that exceed height and/or density restrictions.

We’ve had examples of that tremendous opportunity in Beaches–East York, like the development of a YMCA on Kingston Road. The municipality was able to grant an extra level on the main street to the YMCA for housing purposes, so as to accommodate, on the ground floor and the basement, two levels of the YMCA for the community. It’s a community hub. When it’s finished, it will be a community hub which will have gymnasiums, swimming pools and a whole bunch of community-based programs. It’s an extremely important section, and they were able to use it in this regard.

Bill 7 will restrict municipalities applying inclusionary zoning from using

section 37 except for as provided in regulation. The third party has raised concerns regarding this restriction. We look forward to examining this point much more closely during committee.

Inclusionary zoning is just one of the many tools that the province is moving ahead with, to increase the supply of affordable housing.

The second provision I would like to highlight is the amendment that we are proposing to the Development Charges Act that will exempt secondary suites in new homes from development charges. The proposed amendment would reduce the cost of developing second units in new homes. Now—

Applause.

Mr. Arthur Potts: Thank you.

During debate, we heard much about the importance of secondary units, including:

—additional supply of affordable housing rental units;

—income-integrated neighbourhoods that better support public transit, local businesses and the local labour market;

—job creation in the construction and the renovation industry;

—increased neighbourhood densities and more effective infrastructure use; and

—intensified use of existing housing stock.

For many of us—certainly as I first bought homes in the city of Toronto—it was absolutely imperative, with the value—at the time, housing was relatively cheap. The first house I bought was for $100,000. But the interest rates at the time were 15%, 16%, and in order for me to afford my first house, we had to produce a secondary unit in the basement and got rental income from it. It assisted my partner and I moving forward with our first house.

The third aspect of the bill I would like to highlight is the amendment to the Housing Services Act. Currently under the Housing Services Act, ministerial consent is required for the transfer or selling of social housing projects. The proposed change would enhance the ability of service managers to make decisions for generating revenues to reinvest in new social and affordable housing assets that meet local housing needs.

Should Bill 7 be passed, a ministerial directive would be issued to ensure that tenants are protected and consulted, and all the revenue derived from sales will be reinvested for housing purposes

As part of the debate today on the Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy, this bill will propose changes under the Promoting Affordable Housing Act which will, if passed, create a meaningful increase in the supply of affordable housing. It will ensure more stability and security for municipal service managers, and it will serve social housing tenants more effectively and allow social housing tenants to retain more of their income without having to face higher rents or evictions.

Improving access to affordable housing is part of our government’s economic plan to build Ontario up, because when people have a home, they are healthier, they’re more ready for employment, and they’re better able to participate and continue in their communities.

We wanted the debate to continue—and it went past the six-and-a-half-hour mark—so that more members would have an opportunity to present their views on the bill. But now, the bill has seen nine and a half hours of debate, over eight sitting days over the last month and, according to my count, we’ve had over 30 members of the Legislature already speak to the bill.

Speaker, there has been considerable debate on the bill and we have heard from a wide range of viewpoints. We’ve taken many of the concerns of the members opposite into consideration, and we’ll be addressing it more fully during committee. It’s time now that we put this bill to a vote for second reading, and hopefully we will be referred to committee, where important work can take place. In committee, the members of all parties will hear from stakeholders who have an interest in this bill. Members of the public will also be able to provide their important input on the bill.

After that, members of the committee will have an opportunity to move amendments, significant amendments, amendments that will strengthen the bill and allow this House to move on and debate other matters.

There are other very important matters that we want to bring forward. We have Bill 27, the Burden Reduction Act. Who isn’t in favour of reducing red tape?

Interjections.

Mr. Arthur Potts: Even though there’s chirping on the other side, Speaker, I know that they’re very supportive of the Burden Reduction Act. There’s Bill 39, the Aggregate Resources and Mining Modernization Act. We need to have considerably more debate on that. We look forward to hearing the views of the members. And, of course, there’s Bill 45, the Election Statute Law Amendment Act.

We’d like to spend time debating some of these other bills. They’re important pieces of legislation. They’re also before the House, but until we get this one out of the way—we have to refer it to committee. Speaker, as a result, I would like to move that this question now be put.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Mr. Potts has moved that the question be now put. I am satisfied that there has been sufficient debate to allow this question to be put to the House. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I believe I heard a no.

All those in favour of the motion that the question be now put, please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion that the question be now put, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote being required, this vote will be deferred until after question period today.

Vote deferred.

Aggregate Resources and Mining Modernization Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la modernisation des secteurs des ressources en agrégats et des mines

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 27, 2016, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 39,

An Act to amend the Aggregate Resources Act and the Mining Act / Projet de loi 39, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les ressources en agrégats et la

Loi sur les mines.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I recognize the member from Prince Edward–Hastings.

Mr. Todd Smith: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s unfortunate. I really wanted to speak to Bill 7, but it looks like I’m going to have to continue my lead-off on Bill 39. I was one of the many members who didn’t get the opportunity to speak to Bill 7, and I wanted to bring up some of the issues with members of the government announcing that they had this new-found money for the Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative that they’ve come up with. It’s money that’s been rolled over year after year after year, but they claim it’s new money.

Actually, if you talk to anybody who’s working in the housing industry in our counties or in our municipalities, they’ll tell you that with the increases in electricity costs and the number of people that are being added to those homeless waiting lists, the money they’re getting year after year is actually less than what the government members are saying. They’re saying it’s increases.

But I know I’m not here to talk about Bill 7, Mr. Speaker; I’m here to talk about Bill 39, which is the Aggregate Resources and Mining Modernization Act. It was last Thursday afternoon that I was continuing with my one-hour leadoff, and I was talking about the need for this bill to have very plain and simple rules in the legislation. We need to have simple legislation so that everybody knows what the playing field is and what the rules of the game are, and that goes for the proponents who want to open an aggregate pit or quarry and for those in the community who are concerned about an aggregate pit or quarry opening in their community.

You know I’m a hockey guy, Mr. Speaker, and you know I love sports. I think it’s very clear, if I could draw a sports analogy here, that two of the most hated penalties in hockey are the delay-of-game penalty and the too-many-men-on-the-ice penalty. The delay-of-game penalty is when a player shoots it over the glass in their own end. The too-many-men-on-the-ice penalty is too many men on the ice. It’s pretty simple. The referees have to call it.

The reason I’m convinced that these are the two penalties the fans probably hate the most is because the officials have no discretion about whether or not those penalties are called. If you’re the sixth player on the ice for your team and you play the puck, it’s a penalty. If you fire the puck over the glass in the defensive zone, it’s a penalty. The rules are pretty clear and simple. It’s not like charging or interference, where we’re arguing about whether a player took the required number of steps or whether a player still had possession of the puck.

While those two rules are hated, they’re also rules that the players, the fans and even the announcers know are going to be called when they happen. They’re the two penalties where no one blames the ref, because they’re really simple: You shoot the puck over the glass in the defensive zone, and it’s a penalty.

I think the same rules should apply to the legislation, the Aggregate Resources and Mining Modernization Act, that’s before us here today. There’s too much left to

interpretation and the discretion of the minister in this legislation, and I think we need to correct that, and we can correct that when we get to committee. So there is the opportunity, if this bill makes it to committee, which I suspect it will because it’s a government bill, that there will be amendments that the opposition parties—at least, the official opposition—will be proposing to this bill to make it clearer just what the legislation does say.

Instilling faith that a process is fair, unbiased and unsusceptible to sustained lobbying efforts is hard, but it’s done by making sure that the opportunities for the process to be manipulated are as few and far between as we can make them.

There are two last issues that I wanted to talk to in my remaining 20 minutes here this morning. The first issue is that I want to address the new

section 3 as it pertains to indigenous consultation. We have a great and ongoing conversation in this country about the role that our indigenous people play as stewards of the land and the place that our natural resources play in their culture as well as their practices. This conversation has been making news across the country, usually with regard to the consultation process that has to be done to gain approval for energy projects. There’s a good reason for this. Certain provinces have a really bad history of consultation with our indigenous communities when it comes to large-scale projects.

One of the most famous examples, of course, is the Kenney Dam, which caused the flooding of an entire community. Ontario is by no means a saint when it comes to incidents like this.

However, there’s an opportunity here that is presented by the fact that the Trans Mountain and Site C dam projects have drawn attention to this particular area of public policy. It’s a chance for Ontario to set down a model for how to consult indigenous communities in an open and transparent way that ensures respect for indigenous claims, encouraging good business practices and a common standard of consultation that would be a positive step going forward. So we have an opportunity to start here.

I’m not pretending that opening or expanding a pit or a quarry is the same as running a couple of hundred kilometres of pipeline, but it can set a precedent for how we do things here, because this isn’t the last time that we’re going to have this conversation.

I’m going to both compliment the government and criticize it here.

I like one thing that the minister did where the bill states that “before exercising any power under this act relating to licences or permits that has the potential to adversely affect established or credibly asserted aboriginal or treaty rights.” Here, I suspect the government learned a lesson from past attempts to ensure indigenous consultation efforts were a part of an application process, and we ended up with an indigenous community a couple of thousand miles away from a proposed energy project that didn’t impact on its traditional territory signing on to the energy project to help the developer’s path through the application process.

There have been a couple of examples here in Ontario where this has occurred, where a proposed energy project for a certain area received aboriginal or indigenous approval from a territory that had no interest or no connection at all to the community where the power project was being proposed. To avoid that, the bill very effectively states that the permit has to have the potential to adversely affect established or credible indigenous or treaty rights. It’s good it doesn’t establish an open-ended and unlimited duty to consult. It sets very definitive parameters for consultation that both indigenous communities and proprietors are made aware of going in.

That’s a positive, and it eased one of the concerns that I had when I read the blueprint that the government had submitted to the EBR last year, in part because of the experience of that energy project near St. Thomas. The language in this part of the bill made me wonder if the government’s tendency to cut corners in favour of good optics would rear its ugly head here. That has been largely mitigated by the

section that I quoted above.

Again, just to elaborate on that, we had a wind turbine project that was proposed for one of the townships in the St. Thomas and London area—it was being proposed by a developer—and it had received aboriginal approval. You know how the points system now works that the government has brought in: You receive so many points if the local municipality is in favour of the renewable energy project, and you receive so many points if there’s aboriginal or indigenous support to that project as well. Well, the project in question in one of the townships outside St.

Thomas came from a band that was 1,000 kilometres away from St. Thomas and had no connection—so there was that loophole that existed, and some proponents were using that loophole to get support for projects that were nowhere near the affected indigenous territory.

However, there’s a pretty glaring omission to that—going back to the

section that I quoted above. Previous to the

section that I quoted, the new

section 3 states, “For greater certainty, the minister will consider whether adequate consultation with aboriginal communities has been carried out....” The problem with that passage, although it sounds good, is that nowhere in the bill is there a definition of what constitutes “adequate consultation.” “Adequate consultation” is pretty open to

interpretation. No definition of “adequate consultation” that’s used in other legislation is used, and there’s no subsequent clause in the legislation that states that “adequate consultation” will be prescribed in legislation.

Here, we run into a problem, as we did with Bill 135 in the last session of Parliament. The government has drafted a piece of legislation that largely depends on this government being in power forever, and we certainly hope on this side of the House that that’s not the case—and given the news that’s come out over the last 12 hours or so, we suspect that there are many people who agree with us. This government isn’t going to be in power forever, I think we all know that; even the government knows that.

What

section 3, as currently drafted, does is give the minister unchecked and undefined power to determine what does and doesn’t constitute adequate consultation. And if you’ve been paying attention, I think you’ll know that since I arrived here five years ago as the MPP for Prince Edward–Hastings, there have been at least three different Ministers of Natural Resources, and I think there have been four different ministers over the last five years on this file.

We need the legislation to be defined and clear so that everyone knows the rules of the game, so that when it comes to adequate consultation in the eyes of the current minister—that could very well change when a new minister comes into that seat, into that position.

I speak from personal experience. It’s almost impossible to get two Tories to agree on a common definition of anything that isn’t written down, much less, say, one Tory minister and one Liberal minister—which we know is going to be the case, because we’re going to be going from a Liberal minister to a Tory minister next time.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Comedy hour.

Mr. Todd Smith: You’re not laughing.

Australia has a clearly written and defined framework for what constitutes adequate consultation for indigenous communities. It begins, as this bill does, by stating that consultation is only necessary when a recognized claim is present. The Australian framework refers to it as “title.” An assessment of whether there is an active claim of title is a part of the process to determine whether further consultation is necessary.

Where title is present, it can be addressed in a number of ways, but the two most frequent are a right to negotiate process, or the independent negotiation of a registered indigenous land use agreement. What this framework has led to, since it was introduced, has been a considerable number of aggregate proprietors going the route of direct negotiations through an indigenous land use agreement rather than the government’s negotiation process.

That’s ultimately what we want as well. Agreements which are mutually beneficial to all of the concerned parties are what we want. We don’t want an acrimonious process. That acrimonious process is what gets us into the delays that we’ve seen in approvals for pits and quarries that, instead of going three years, as prescribed by the ministry, go to eight, nine and 10 years, like we’re seeing right now. What we want are agreements which are mutually beneficial to all of the concerned parties. We don’t want this acrimonious process.

There was a great piece that Graeme Hamilton wrote for the Post a few months back, where the reporter interviewed Matthew Coon Come, the former national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, with regard to why the Quebec Cree nations experience different living conditions than Cree nations on the Ontario side of the provincial border. One of the reasons given was that the agreement between the Quebec government and the Cree regarding the James Bay hydroelectric projects allowed the Cree communities of northern Quebec to see an economic benefit from the projects there.

While that was a long process that had its share of contentious issues, it led to an end which has been beneficial to the interested parties.

“We had the water. The governments and the crown corporations wanted it, so they needed to talk to us,” Coon Come said. “I often wonder, if they didn’t need that resource, would they have talked to us? I don’t think so,” was the end of his quote. That’s a fair point, but it’s also an opportunity. He would later say that the economic benefits seen from the project created an opportunity to strengthen indigenous cultures and institutions.

While I think the

section on indigenous consultation is a good start, I think it needs to be further strengthened, and that’s work that we can do at committee.

Finally, we arrive at an issue that I kind of addressed off the top of my one-hour leadoff, and that was the issue of recycled aggregate. Before I launch into my last subject matter, I want to return to the hard work that had previously been done by the member from Dufferin–Caledon on this issue. Not only has she done considerable work on this through her own private member’s bill, but she also managed to convince the government to include amendments regarding recycled aggregate in government legislation during the last session of Parliament.

So to the member for Dufferin–Caledon and the deputy leader of our party, I thank you for all your hard work on this file. Let’s hope I don’t mess it up too much in the time that I have left here this morning.

Speaker, off the top of this speech, which seems like it was a couple of decades ago but it was really just last Thursday afternoon, I mentioned that depending on the year and the number of projects, the aggregate usage in this province is usually between 160 and 180 million tonnes. That’s per year, the aggregate used.

Since 1990, we’ve gone from using six million tonnes of recycled aggregate per year to 13 million tonnes of recycled aggregate per year, which means that we’re at about 7% of what we use. We’ve been at that percentage for most of the last decade.

The Ministry of Transportation is a little better. As of 2012, it was using about 2.3 million tonnes per year, which was about 18% of its annual usage, so the Ministry of Transportation is doing a little bit better.

When the committee on general government looked into the use of recycled aggregates back in 2012, it found that growing the use of recycled aggregates would reduce the overall environmental impacts of the industry and would reduce demand for primary aggregate products. The Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy actually agreed with them and urged the ministry to establish incentives for the greater use of recycled aggregates. The institute found that in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, between 15% and 20% of aggregates used were recycled materials.

The UK produced 56 million tonnes of aggregate, or four times what Ontario uses in a single year, in 2006, so we’re behind the curve.

Ten percent of the aggregates used in Sydney, Australia, come from recycled aggregates. The number of different materials being used in Germany, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand is astounding. New Zealand has more than a dozen companies competing just to produce the kind of recycled aggregate we’re used to, which is crushed concrete.

Recycled aggregate, whether crushed concrete or slag or pellet, is used in road base, concrete blocks and insulation in countries around the world. If we want to minimize the conflicts that we run into with new aggregate product pits and quarries, then this is a way to do it: Increase the use of recycled aggregate.

Presently, only 7%—that’s 7%—of land in the province is even available for aggregate extraction, and that land is being pushed further and further from where the aggregate is being used, mostly here in the GTA. As the primary aggregate sources become less and less available, or more and more carbon-intensive to extract, we still need to build roads, bridges, sidewalks and subways in Ontario.

So the government needs a strategy to effectively incentivize the expansion of the use of recycled aggregate, even just to levels where we would be globally competitive with other jurisdictions that are already doing it. But in the legislation, the government is still including the tonnage of recycled material in the total extraction tonnage limits for a site. That means that operators have no incentive to operate recycling operations on their site.

Two reasons were provided by the government as to why they had included recycled aggregate in the existing tonnage limits. The first was that the government wanted to be able to track what kind of recycled material was being put into the product stream. That’s not an unreasonable concern, but when you look at the materials that other countries have in their recycled aggregate products, you know the technology is available already to make anything that could end up as recycled material safe.

The second concern—and I believe it’s probably the more prevalent one—is that if you separate the recycled tonnage from the overall tonnage limit, you’ll increase the truck traffic in and out of the site: not unreasonable, but that’s a pretty easy obstacle to overcome as well. A lot of other countries have already done it.

This is where the industry is headed. We’re not making more rocks. That’s a bit of a millions-of-years process. We’re not making rocks. As I’ve stated, certain kinds of aggregate, because of government regulation, must be used in certain circumstances. If we now have to dedicate certain kinds of aggregate which are only available in certain parts of the province to things like surface grade on roads, then we need recycling to be used in places where primary aggregate may not be necessary. As I mentioned last week, not all rock is created equal.

Therefore, one amendment that we’ll be recommending is separating recycled aggregate tonnage from the total tonnage limit at an aggregate site.

To wrap up in the 90 seconds that I have left, from the 30,000-foot level, flying high above the pits and quarries in Ontario, we’re broadly supportive of the initiatives that are included in this bill—broadly supportive of the initiatives in the bill; however, there are five issues where the government’s plan on the details needs to be better fleshed out.

While the government’s preference to do things through regulations has been well documented in almost every piece of government legislation that appears before the House, it’s too heavily leaned on in sections of this bill. It’s my hope that the minister can take note of some of the suggestions that I’ve included in my remarks as a basis for compromise as the bill moves forward.

As I’ve said, there needs to be a little more clarity and a little more definition, both for the proponents of the pits and quarries and for the concerned neighbourhoods that are near these pits and quarries. I think that we can make some significant environmental and economic progress if we tweak the bill just enough to affect broader realities that are already at work in the industry around the world.

Speaker, this was my first opportunity to do a full 60 minutes as a lead since being here. Thank you for the opportunity to split it up over two days to give my vocal cords a little bit of a break. We look forward to further discussion on Bill 39, the Aggregate Resources and Mining Modernization Act.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Questions and comments?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I did enjoy the debate brought by the member from Prince Edward–Hastings on Bill 39. I think we all need to be educated on aggregates in the province because I don’t think a lot of people realize the broad category of what aggregates are. They are coarse materials like sand, gravel, crushed stone and slag. These things go into our roads and our buildings, and they build our communities.

My understanding is that there was quite a bit of work done on this bill with the A Blueprint for Change document, but unfortunately, this government didn’t use a lot of the wonderful suggestions in the legislation. They’ve left the legislation lacking in the recommendations that came from the blueprint, which means we’re going to be wondering which items they’re going to adopt, perhaps, if at all—leave it to hope if they’re going to put them in regulation and actually make this bill very strong, effective and useful. We wonder about that.

One of the other interesting pieces that I spoke to, from the member from Algoma–Manitoulin—he talked about that there is something good in there, and I’m sure he’s going to give us a great presentation in a moment. He talked about the modernization of staking claims. The way we do it now, you go out in person and you stake a claim for mining or aggregate material. Now what they’re doing is, they’re computerizing it so you can actually stake your claim on technology. The member from Algoma–Manitoulin said that’s actually a good change, a good thing that’s happening.

I know he’s going to talk about some of the things that aren’t in the bill with regard to A Blueprint for Change that should really be in this bill so we know what the expectation is of this legislation and how we can move forward.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: I want to thank the other members who have spoken to this. I listened very carefully to the 60 minutes from the member from Prince Edward–Hastings, who’s my critic, and I thank him for a lot of the comments that he thoughtfully delivered in the House. Thank you to the member for London–Fanshawe for also adding her comments to this important debate.

I’m very proud of Bill 39 and where we’re at right now. I really just wanted to address a few things that the member opposite had brought up. One is increased participation for the community.

If passed, Bill 39 would:

—support improved information on aggregate operations and enhanced participation;

—create clearer processes to change existing approvals;

—allow for customized consultation plans on applications; and

—enhance record-keeping and reporting provisions by making them digital.

But this is the first of a two-phase process. One is that we’re talking about the legislative framework that we’re looking at bringing forward for aggregate extraction in the province of Ontario, and then, if passed, we would move forward with consultation on regulatory and policy changes. This is very important because as the regulations are being brought forward, there’s much more opportunity for further participation in those regulatory changes—from the public, the indigenous communities and the aboriginal communities.

As you know, with the history, Mr. Speaker, this is a process that we started years ago in 2012, and we have been adding a lot of those recommendations to this particular proposed bill that has come forward. We will be ensuring that we address a lot of public participation as we go forward. I’m very much looking forward to hearing some of the comments coming forward once this bill, if passed, goes to committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s great to have the opportunity to join in the debate even if it’s only for two minutes at this point. I want to thank my colleague from Prince Edward–Hastings for his contribution to the debate so far—as he said, his first one-hour leadoff.

I want to talk a little bit about the importance of aggregate. I think it’s important that we have new, updated legislation. I know that my colleague from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock along with my colleague from Caledon were part of a committee that looked into the resources act years ago and brought in a lot of recommendations. I don’t know how much is incorporated in this bill, but I know it was quite an extensive consultation.

We can’t do anything without aggregate. Everything that happens, just in this gigantic city we call Toronto—all of the buildings that are being erected, homes for people, condominiums—we can’t do any of that without aggregate. We can’t build a road without aggregate to get anywhere across this province. Aggregate is one of the most important resources that we actually extract from the earth. The challenge is making sure that we have ready access, reliable access and reasonable access—that we’re not trucking halfway around the world in order to complete projects that require aggregate.

Every construction project requires aggregate, whether it’s to form concrete or to build roads. It is absolutely required. There’s going to have to be an updated act.

We also have to remember that as persons, as people, as property owners and as residents of other parts of the province, we can’t automatically just be opposed to any kind of an application to extract aggregate, because our lives and the quality of life that we enjoy in this magnificent country depends on having access to aggregate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: It is a pleasure to rise, on behalf of the people I represent in London West, in response to the comments that were made by the member for Prince Edward–Hastings. Today, we are looking at Bill 39,

An Act to amend the Aggregate Resources Act and the Mining Act. As the previous speaker just mentioned, aggregate resources are vital to all of our communities. We know that we need aggregates to build roads, to build homes, to create the infrastructure that makes our communities not only livable but also beautiful. Aggregates also play an important role in landscaping and the beautification of the places we live.

At the same time, however, aggregate extraction has been historically one of the most contentious land use issues that communities have had to deal with. Often there is opposition from neighbours and local communities where aggregates are extracted. So managing that balance is critically important. However, what’s also important is to ensure proper rehabilitation of the aggregate sites once the aggregates have been fully extracted. In my community, we have the Byron gravel pit, which has completed its usefulness.

It is now on the market for $9.9 million, but it offers huge potential for infill development, for the creation of new green spaces right in the centre of the city and for the creation of new and affordable housing. So we need to ensure that there are rehabilitation practices in place to enable this kind of development once the aggregates have been fully extracted from our natural environment.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member from Prince Edward–Hastings for final comments.

Mr. Todd Smith: Thanks to the members from London–Fanshawe and London West for their comments; to my colleague from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke; and also to the Minister of Natural Resources, who joins us here this morning as well for debate on this bill, her first bill since becoming the Minister of Natural Resources.

It’s a huge issue. It’s not the sexiest issue that we deal with in this Legislature, but it is a very, very important issue for building everything, basically, in Ontario. We know that our municipal governments are facing huge infrastructure deficits and infrastructure projects that they’re looking after. We know that the federal and provincial governments have promised billions of dollars in infrastructure. We need aggregate if those promises are going to become a reality.

If we don’t have a system for extracting aggregates in the province that works efficiently, we’re going to be in a whole lot of trouble when it comes to delivering on these promises that have been made, when it comes to infrastructure.

Just the fact that approvals for opening a quarry or pit are taking eight, nine and 10 years is a serious concern, especially when that aggregate, according to legislation, is supposed to come from as close to market as possible. If we’re taking far too long, if we’re buried in red tape and the process is taking six and seven years longer than it’s supposed to, to open these pits and quarries, then that’s a concern.

The bill addresses that to a certain extent, but there’s far too much that’s left to

interpretation and the discretion of the minister. There needs to be clearer language in the bill. If and when it gets to committee, I know we can correct some of the language in the bill to ensure that we’re getting our aggregate as safely and quickly as we possibly can.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate?

Mr. Michael Mantha: It’s always a wonderful privilege and honour to stand here in my seat on behalf of the good people of Algoma–Manitoulin and as temporary critic, during the absence of my colleague the member from Timmins–James Bay, for the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry and also as the critic for the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines.

I’m happy to see that the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry is here joining us this morning. I’ve always spoken highly of her when dealing with issues. I first got to meet and work with the minister while she was the assistant to the Minister of Finance and also to the Minister of Transportation. The one thing I will always say and give credit where credit is due is that she does her homework. I found that to be one of the things that I enjoyed about working with her. So I know she will be doing her homework on this by participating and listening to some of the debates that we’re having here this morning.

I do want to stress one point: What we experienced a little bit here this morning was we were having an earlier discussion about another potential piece of legislation. It’s something that we see too often in this place, where closure of the debate is happening. It’s frustrating because we don’t get a full and wholesome opportunity to discuss the various issues that affect us in our ridings. I know there are many bills that have come forward in this House where I wasn’t given the opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituents. I’m begging a little bit of your indulgence here, Mr.

Speaker, but I think we want to stress the point that this is one of those issues that is really important to all Ontarians across this province. We’re dealing with an issue in the aggregates act that we have been dealing with for many, many years now—too many years, quite frankly.

We have this wonderful document, A Blueprint for Change, which has many, many good highlighted points, some of them asking for stronger oversight, environmental accountability, improved information and participation, increased equalized fees and royalty—which I’m going to touch on during some of my comments. In this, there were 38 recommendations that were made to strengthen the act. There was a vast amount of recommendations adopted and a collaborative approach to developing the engaging of key stakeholders, municipal organizations and aboriginal communities in the fall of 2014.

I recall those because I participated in some of those meetings. I actually hosted the entire committee, the working group, when they came to Manitoulin Island. They came to the Lafarge quarry. I asked them to stay a little bit longer so they could entertain themselves in getting some of the other wonderful resources that we have on beautiful Manitoulin Island but, unfortunately, they were on a tight

schedule and they had to take off. I actually wanted them to come down to Little Current and enjoy some of the wonderful rainbow fish that were there.

I remember that some of the members that were there were very engaged talking to quarry owners about what was limiting them, what their challenges were. Particularly when it comes to Manitoulin Island, one of their challenges is capacity—not over on the island, but capacity over here in Toronto where their product is coming. They’re limited. There was opportunity for them to extend. There was opportunity for them to add additional hours of work, additional employees, but unfortunately, they were tied down.

Back to the point that I was making earlier: When you’re having a wholesome discussion, each and every one of us in this House has an opportunity to speak on behalf of their constituents and bring the views, as they see them, as to how they’re important to the people that they represent in the various areas of our province. When you shut down the debate and when you close off those discussions, you really don’t get to hear a wholesome view of what people are experiencing.

From my perspective, I’ve always come from a perspective from northern Ontario, and I bring the challenges that we have with the distances that we have between our communities. I don’t have the same challenges that they have in, let’s say, the Ottawa area, the London area, the Windsor area, or, quite frankly, the Belleville area. Those are important for me to hear. As a parliamentarian, I have to make sure I’m making the best decision not only for the people of Algoma–Manitoulin—which I always have at the top of my list, each and every day—but for the betterment of the province as a whole.

I wanted now to go into our discussion about Bill 39,

An Act to amend the Aggregate Resources Act and the Mining Act. A lot of my comments are going to be particularly targeted on the Aggregate Resources Act, then I will follow into the Mining Act. The Mining Act modernization, as far as what they’re saying this is, is getting to a level or getting clarity on terms within the mining industry, and it’s also making sure that everything that is available is put out on computers—easier access; it’s getting modernized. Particularly within the context of this bill, it’s the same proposal that was proposed just last year, I believe, and unfortunately fell to the wayside because of the House being prorogued.

I want to go into

schedule 1 and just highlight some of what’s in this bill. Some of the more significant amendments are set out under

section 3.1, which “requires the minister to consider whether adequate consultation with aboriginal communities has been carried out before exercising certain powers relating to licences or permits.” Of course, that’s something that should have been done a long time ago. Unfortunately it’s not within the act right now, and this is the process that has to be put in there.

It begs to actually highlight one of the other concerns from the industry perspective: What is that responsibility? How will the government address this? It is not within the content of the act. There is no clear framework as to what that engagement is going to look like. Who is going to be responsible for that engagement? Is it going to be passed on to industry? Is it going to be on First Nations? Will it be a government role? Again, this is something that I highlight under the aggregates act, because it’s something that I’m very experienced with, which is lacking within the Mining Act as well.

A lot of our issues and a lot of the challenges that we have are that there’s no clear framework established as far as what engagement is.

Hence, look at the Ring of Fire. The Ring of Fire has been a gem just waiting to be opened up. When I use the reference, I look at it as the potential new Sudbury of northern Ontario. That’s the impact that it could potentially have.

However, we’ve been stumbling as to how we can proceed. We haven’t even built a road yet to this area, and within the blueprint that the government has apparently utilized to develop this act, there’s still no road that has been built. A lot of what’s in here are good ideas that are going to be left to the government to determine how they’re going to implement them, and how they’re going to bring them into the act. It’s going to be a wait-and-see that these things are actually going to come up in the legislation.

Another

part is, “The

schedule deals with what may happen to a pit or quarry operating in a part of Ontario when that

part is designated by regulation....” and “give the minister the power to issue an aggregate licence to a person who holds an aggregate permit to operate such a pit or quarry and to cancel the permit. The

schedule also amends

section 71 in respect of applications for an aggregate licence that may”—I should use my glasses—“be made by the operator of an established pit or quarry situated in the newly designated part of Ontario.

“The

schedule makes several amendments relating to aggregate licences, wayside permits and aggregate permits, including” the “exemptions to sections 7 and 34 allow a person to operate a pit or quarry without an aggregate licence or an aggregate permit....”

In number 2, it says “relating to applications for licences and permits are removed from the act and regulation-making powers are added respecting the preparation of applications and the documentation to be included in applications, including whether to provide a site plan” and “consultation procedures that normally apply to a person applying for an aggregate licence or permit....

“

(3) The minister is given enhanced powers to amend licences and permits and is given the power to require a licensee or permittee” and “given the right to apply to the minister for an amendment to a licence or permit....”

Again, you see new powers or, as they say here, “enhanced powers” for the minister. I know the minister will be using those powers wisely.

You’ll have to pardon me, Mr. Speaker. I’m battling a cold. If I go into a coughing frenzy, I will try my best to get under control as quickly as I can.

Interjection.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Pardon me?

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: Your voice is sounding gravelly.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Oh, I’m hurting right now.

“Amendments require fees payable under the act to be prescribed by regulation and not set by the minister. The minister is given the ability to waive application fees for licences and permits and other licence and permit fees.”

Under the schedule, again, it “amends provisions relating to the Aggregate Resources Trust”—this one I’m going to touch on a little bit later, Mr. Speaker—“to require the trustee to comply with performance reporting requirements that may be prescribed by regulation and to give the minister the power to remove the trustee after giving at least 90 days’ notice. Regulation-making authority is added to require fees or other payments under the act that are payable to the trustee to be paid to another prescribed person or entity.

Regulations may also provide for the disbursement of those fees and payments by the trustee, person or entity to such other persons or entities as may be prescribed by regulation.”

I’ll be coming back to that one a little bit later, because I think there’s an important point that we need to make to this.

“The

schedule includes some amendments relating to enforcement of the act and regulations.”

It also “includes amendments to give the ministry powers to obtain more information from licensees and permittees.”

Then we fall into

schedule number 2.

Schedule number 2 is the amendments to the Mining Act. Basically, according to the act, it says “a new electronic mining lands administration system in Ontario, which will include an online registration system for mining claims, and to make certain housekeeping changes to the act.”

I alluded to that in my earlier comments. What it means is that the traditional way of going out on your claims as a prospector is that you go out, you have your tags, you stake out your area, mark it and then get it registered. That will be done from your office on a computer. Those claims that potentially might come up as available or those that have not been worked on may also come up and be available, and individuals who are paying attention may pick up those claims and actually claim them on their own.

A lot of the things that are also changing is some of the terminology, and that includes adding the following terms: “boundary cells” versus “boundary claims,” “cell claims,” “legacy claims,” “mining claims registry” and “mining lands administration system.” The act goes on to describe how those are going to change, are going to be amended, are going to be affected.

The references to the prospector’s awareness program in sections 19 and 21 and elsewhere throughout the act are updated to reflect the change in the name of the program to the Mining Act Awareness Program—straightforward.

Under

section 38, the portion that is not open for registration is excluded from the claim. If the portion of the cell that is not open for registration later becomes open for registration, that portion then becomes part of the registered cell.

These are some of the

definitions that are being changed under this bill. From my understanding from talking to a lot of the stakeholders who are involved in the mining sector, this is something they’ve been pretty well seeing in other jurisdictions across this country, and it’s time that we came into facilitating how mining is done here in Ontario so that we can attract greater investment. So I will come back to the mining perspective of it later on in my comments.

I wanted to highlight just some of the changes that are coming. When you say “modernization of the Mining Act”—we’re changing certain

definitions. It’s big splash, a nice headline, but we’re really accomplishing very small steps where we could be doing a heck of a lot more within the mining sector. I wanted to touch on a few of those from the mining sector because the mining sector in this province hires, indirectly or directly, over 300,000 jobs. If we’re going to be doing something, we really need to be looking at what we’re doing for the mining sector. I touched on these comments.

I’m not sure, Speaker, if you were at the Meet the Miners event that was held here last week, but I know that when I met up with them, along with our leader, Andrea Horwath, at the morning session, we met with their board of directors. The message that I got from them was quite clear: “If you’re going to do any enhancement to the Mining Act, the first one that you have to do is you have to deal with the energy crisis,” because a lot of these mining companies are struggling with one of their biggest costs, which is energy consumption and the cost of it.

Interjection.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Yes. You know what? The government did take the right step by making the NIER Program permanent, but not before they had cut it. Something that I know the minister understands, both the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry and the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, is that the NIER Program, although it is a good program, gives an indirect competitive advantage to those that have qualified for this program and are directly competing with their competitors who are at a disadvantage because they don’t qualify for this program.

We need to look at expanding this program to make sure that there’s a level playing field within the mining ministry so that all of the mines can benefit from the energy credits that are available to them. That’s just one of the issues from the mining industry that they talked about.

The other thing that we need to talk about when it comes to mining is the promotion of our industry. For a long, long time, we always looked at mining as being that dark hole underground. I need to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the technology has significantly improved and has significantly changed the environment, the health and safety factor, the opportunity for jobs in geology—below ground and above ground—and the trades that are there. The opportunities are endless. We’re talking about really good-paying jobs that are there. So we need, as a whole and particularly as a government, to boast about our industry that we have here in Ontario.

Just last year, according to the Ontario Chamber of Commerce with the studies that they’ve done, they had Ontario as ninth, as to where we stood as an attractive jurisdiction in this country. We shouldn’t be ninth; we should be number one. That’s where we should be. We have wonderful resources that we have available here.

One of the biggest things—and I’m going to harp on this each and every time that I’m in this House: We need an engagement process. We need to see that if the reports are filed—and don’t get me wrong, Mr. Speaker; industry does want to comply with all of the environmental guidelines. They do. They go out of their way; they go over and above what is required of them to make sure that their reports are in.

But after those reports are submitted, after the consultation is done, after all of this information is put together, there needs to be a framework put into place as to when we can move on now, because we stay stuck in a certain area. We can’t progress. Whose responsibility is it to have the discussion with the various stakeholders, whether it be municipal, whether it be regional or whether it be with a First Nation? Is it industry? Is it government?

We need to bring that into a wholesome discussion so that we have a set of guidelines that we can follow so that we can weigh in on how we’re going to proceed with the future of opening up a mine. I’ll come back to mining after.

My very short comments that I have left this morning are going to be on aggregates, and I do want to touch on the aggregates aspect of this. Aggregates are a major component of our everyday life. In fact, we consume on average 14 tonnes of aggregate per person per year. That’s a lot of dirt, Mr. Speaker, and a lot of gravel and rocks. We build buildings, roads, airports, subway tunnels, dams and sewers. As well, landscaping, countertops and septic beds are all composed from aggregates. This is in part why it’s so important to make amendments to this bill. It’s a necessary component of our lives, so why are we dragging our feet with this legislation?

I’m happy to speak to this bill. The Aggregate Resources Act remains unchanged over five years, even after an ARA review was promised back in September 2011 by this Liberal government during the election campaign, with the Melancthon mega-quarry issue on many people’s minds. It has also been three years since the review committee released its report in October 2013 and over two years since the government released its response to the report in February 2014, in which the government promised new legislation by “the fall of 2014.” It’s no surprise: This government is two years behind.

In October 2013, the committee released its consensus report with 38 recommendations. The comprehensive government response committed to stakeholders and indigenous communities to find solutions. Many of these solutions were found outlined in the blueprint which I alluded to earlier, but that blueprint has more details within it than this legislation does, unfortunately. We’re left with the hope that the government will act appropriately and make these changes accordingly.

Four hundred comments were submitted and strong support was received to move forward, as this blueprint was seen as a positive step. Sadly, there are more details about this government’s proposal on aggregate policy in the blueprint than, again, in the actual legislation itself.

The blueprint is a great tool and guideline to developing legislation. It’s broken down into four sections.

Section 1, “Establishing new sites: Proposals to establish a new aggregate operation or to expand the boundaries of an existing approval require a new application. Requirements for new applications are set out in the Aggregate Resources of Ontario Provincial Standards ... and a regulation under the act requires that all applications follow these standards.”

Section 2, “Proposed changes to the management and operation of existing and future sites: This

section provides an overview of the changes that are proposed to the Aggregate Resources Act, regulations or provincial standards that will impact the management and operation of existing and future aggregate extraction sites.”

Section 4, “Other proposed changes ...

“—new powers to modify the Aggregate Resources Trust agreement and establish performance reporting requirements in the future;

“—move specific requirements for application, amendments and reporting from the act to the regulations or standards;

“—consolidate all exemptions to the definition of ‘rock’ into one location;

“—new ability to establish performance reporting requirements in the future; and

“—new ability to establish certification and training programs in the future.”

The blueprint outlined the general consensus among all stakeholders on how the legislation should be amended. Again, a little bit of disappointment; there’s quite a bit of disappointment that there’s more within the blueprint than there is in the actual legislation. Although we do see some of its content being used, the majority of the issues and proposed changes mentioned in the blueprint remain to be seen in this bill.

I do commend the bill for the increased fees, equalized fees and royalties between crown and private land. The blueprint did not address this primary concern amongst all stakeholders, which was the adequacy of the current licence fee structure. The blueprint did not include proposals for revised fee structures, an issue that is of fundamental importance to the Aggregate Resources Act.

We know that without an adequate funding model, paying for the added program component and responsibilities would be next to impossible for an already busy ministry. It is unclear how the ministry would be able to effect and enforce the changes being proposed.

At this point in time, Mr. Speaker, I see your finger telling me that I now have half a second to finish the start to my one-hour lead. I will take your lead and start further debate when I have the privilege of rising once again and finishing off on this riveting and wonderful subject of the Aggregate Resources and Mining Modernization Act.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I thank the member from Algoma–Manitoulin. You will have more time left.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Since it is now 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

Wearing of uniform

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Nipissing on a point of order.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Thank you, Speaker. I’m looking for unanimous consent to once again allow me to wear my military uniform at 3 o’clock today to read a Remembrance Day tribute.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nipissing is seeking unanimous consent to wear his uniform as honorary colonel. Do we agree? Agreed.

Wearing of ribbons

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from London West on a point of order.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Thank you, Speaker. I seek unanimous consent for all MPPs to wear the purple ribbons that are on our desks today in honour of the London Abused Women’s Centre’s Shine the Light on Woman Abuse campaign, which is being launched this November 1.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from London West is seeking unanimous consent to wear the purple ribbons. Do we agree? Agreed.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I would like at this time to introduce Janice Johnson, who’s the chair of the Ontario Co-operative Association, and Luc Morin, the executive director of Ontario’s francophone co-operative association. We had a co-operative breakfast this morning with many other people in the gallery, but I’ll start with those two. Welcome back to Queen’s Park. Thank you for being here.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Good morning. It’s my pleasure to welcome the father of page captain Randy Ai, who will be joining us shortly. His name is Alex Ai, from the great riding of Pickering–Scarborough East. Congratulations to Randy on being page captain today.

Miss Monique Taylor: It gives me great pleasure to welcome a co-op from Hamilton named the Mustard Seed. From there we have Sean Crockett and Frank Quaranta. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Michael Chan: Good morning, Speaker. I want to introduce a school visiting from my riding of Markham–Unionville. I want to welcome, from Father Michael McGivney Catholic Academy, the grade 10 students and their teacher, Loretta, who are visiting Queen’s Park today. Welcome.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I’d like to also welcome today back again the guests of page Elisabeth Lawton, her grandparents Nancy and Allan Lawton. Welcome back to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Soo Wong: On behalf of our colleague the member from Scarborough Southwest, I’d like to welcome the guests of page captain Cooper Custance: his grandparents Pauline and Ted Custance and Fran and Don Brownrigg. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Well, it’s going to be a repeat introduction, but it’s a pleasure to welcome Ted Custance and Pauline Johnston, proud grandparents of page captain Cooper. I can tell you that Cooper has been doing a marvelous job from where I sit here in the Legislature.

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn: I’d like to introduce two constituents from the great riding of Etobicoke–Lakeshore: Miss Linda Leon and Miss Dijana Gavric. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: Good morning, colleagues. I’m very happy to introduce a resident from Scarborough–Rouge River. His name is Dominic Carver. Welcome to Parliament.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: Today it’s my great pleasure to welcome a guest of page Bianca Morelli from my riding of Davenport. Bianca has her mother here. Dahlia Ferrari is visiting in the public gallery. Welcome, Mrs. Ferrari.

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: On behalf of the co-chairs of the co-op caucus, the member from Oxford and the member from Windsor–Tecumseh, I would like to introduce all those individuals who attended another successful co-op breakfast. These individuals included the people from our caisses populaires, the CCO, On Co-Op, the Co-operators and Gay Lea Foods. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Un grand salut tout spécial à Luc Morin, Julien Geremie et Lucie Moncion.

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

Would the members please join me in welcoming in the Speaker’s gallery today the family of the late John Ferris, MPP for London South during the 30th Parliament, who are seated here: his daughter, Barbara Frijia; his sons, Rick and Chris; daughter-in-law Caroline; and grandchildren Mark, Daniel, Lauren, Kathryn, Joseph and Mackenzie. We welcome them to hear the tribute to Mr. Ferris.

Also here is former parliamentarian and Speaker during the 35th Parliament, Mr. David Warner. Welcome.

John Ferris

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The government House leader on a point of order.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent to recognize the former member of provincial Parliament from London South, Mr. John Ferris, with a representative from each caucus speaking for up to five minutes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The government House leader is seeking unanimous consent to do a tribute. Do we agree? Agreed.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Speaker, I’m proud to pay tribute today on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party to John Ferris, who served as the member for London South from September 1975 to April 1977. Although I never met John, I have developed a healthy respect for this lifelong public servant.

We are joined by John’s children, Barbara, Rick and Chris; daughter-in-law Caroline; and some of his grandkids: Mark, Daniel, Lauren, Kathryn, Joseph and Mackenzie. Welcome.

John was not just a member of his community; John was a leader and a participant in his community. A London native, John attended Catholic Central High School and worked at London Life.

John was a man of faith. He was a Fourth Degree Knight of Columbus, a member of Alhambra, on the Monsignor Feeney Foundation, and an active parishioner in the St. George parish community.

He was also well connected in the community. If anything was going on, he would be the one to know about it. I spoke to Paul Whitehead, who served with John as a trustee for a number of years. To paraphrase what Paul told me, John would be the equivalent of today’s LinkedIn. He knew everybody.

John’s calling in politics began in 1971 when he sought to obtain a seat on the London Board of Education. His reason for running was fear for the future of Catholic education. His main concern was what would happen to his kids if separate schools were to be discontinued.

He made a difference, and in 1975 became the first Catholic to chair the London public school board, at a time when Ontario did not fund Catholic high schools. Later that year, John made the jump to provincial politics. At a time when the PCs held a majority for a number of decades, Bill Davis was the Premier, and it was “BJB”—before Jim Bradley.

John made it clear in his nomination that the issues locally were just as important as they were provincially. He campaigned on local autonomy, education policy and the financial mismanagement of the government of the day. The administration costs in the provincial education budget were increasing four times as fast as the expenses of local boards.

He won the nomination for the Liberal Party in August that year and was elected in the fall. The PC Party was reduced to a minority government.

John served—no surprise—as the education critic under Liberal leader Bob Nixon. John believed that the three Rs were the backbone of learning and that basic subject courses should be compulsory.

He believed in public participation and ensured at the time, as school board chairman and as MPP, that the people were involved.

After his term as MPP, John returned to the London Board of Education. In 1985, he was elected to the London and Middlesex Roman Catholic Separate School Board. In 1986, he made history by becoming the first London-area person to be elected chair of the public and separate education systems. He served five times as chair and retired as trustee in 2010.

The legacy that John has left in politics is what many of us here today aspire to attain. Anybody I spoke to could not say a bad word about him. The current chair of the London District Catholic School Board, Bill Hall, stated that, “John Ferris was one of the hardest-working trustees in Catholic education. For more than 30 years he was an advocate, a spokesperson and a champion. The Ferris family has been an important part of the Catholic community. He was a role model for me personally and I sought his advice on many occasions.”

And back to Dr. Paul Whitehead, who said, “I knew John for over 40 years. John was always the person who could talk with you even when he vehemently disagreed with you. He never held grudges or thought about what happened in the past but focused on the now and future. He was an authentic consensus-builder.” John retired in 2010, but through his 40 years in public service, he never wavered on his commitment to Catholic education.

Barbara, Rick and Chris are here today. They were 15, 12 and 10 when their father came to Queen’s Park, and it could not have been easy on the family with the amount of time John would have to focus here in Toronto. But on behalf of the PC Party, we thank you for sharing your father with Queen’s Park. We want to thank John for the influential role he played as an MPP and in shaping our educational system.

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I rise today on behalf of the NDP caucus to recognize the deep commitment to public service that marked the life of former London South MPP John Ferris. I last saw John in September 2013, two years before his passing and only a month after my election as MPP. It was at the official opening of St. André Bessette Catholic Secondary School, a celebration that epitomized everything that mattered to John in his work as both MPP and school board trustee: his passion for education, his love of community and his strong Catholic faith.

He arrived that day with his walker and joined the many who had gathered to dedicate the school and to welcome the first cohort of students. John and I had met a couple of times before as trustees on our coterminous boards, but we did not know each other well. I will always remember, however, with fondness how John made a point of seeking me out while offering warm words of congratulations and encouragement on my new role.

This was the kind of man John was: generous, welcoming and always positive in his approach. He was that rare politician who garnered the respect of everyone, even those who did not agree with him. He was a man of principle who knew what his values were and acted on them, who did not shy away from discussion of difficult issues even when they led to heated debates. A lifelong Londoner and graduate of Catholic Central High School, John began his 39-year political career as an advocate for Catholic education, deciding that the best way he could ensure the educational system he wanted for his own three children was to get involved himself.

Prior to full funding for Catholic schools, Catholic trustees served on public school boards. In 1971, John became one of two Catholic trustees elected to the London Board of Education. Just four years later, John made history by becoming the first Catholic trustee to chair the London board, a remarkable testament to the trust that those around him placed in his leadership and the respect he had earned. Trustees who served with him described him as a mediator and a problem-solver who always put the needs of students first. He was open and collegial with his colleagues and went out of his way to support new trustees while they were learning the ropes.

In addition to his keen interest in education policy, John was an avid follower of public affairs, and in 1975 he decided to throw his hat into the ring as the Liberal candidate for London South. Although the riding had been a Conservative stronghold for decades, John’s knowledge of provincial issues and his hard work in that campaign led to his winning an upset victory over the Tory incumbent. He joined the Liberal caucus at Queen’s Park and fittingly became the party’s education critic, bringing his experience on the school board to provincial debates and his dedication to his constituents to the riding he represented.

Two years later, another election saw the riding of London South return to Tory blue. John followed his passion and returned to the public school board, where he was elected a second time as board chair. Later, when the London and Middlesex Roman Catholic Separate School Board was formed, John made history yet again by becoming the first London-area person to be elected chair of both the public and the separate school systems. John continued to serve as trustee until his retirement in 2010.

Throughout his time as a committed public servant, John found numerous other ways to contribute to the community. He was an active volunteer, involved with Western Fair, the Knights of Columbus, the Monsignor Feeney Foundation and his own St. George parish.

Sadly, John passed away on September 27, 2015, and was mourned by his many family members and friends. His long-time colleague London District Catholic School Board Chair Bill Hall remembers John as one of the hardest-working trustees in Catholic education, an advocate, a spokesperson and a champion for more than 30 years.

John was survived by his wife, Joan, to whom he was married for 56 years. He is also survived by his daughter, his two sons and his eight grandchildren, many of whom are attending here today. We welcome his daughter, Barbara, his sons Rick and Chris, his daughter-in-law Caroline and some of his grandchildren, Mark, Daniel, Lauren, Kathryn, Joseph and Mackenzie.

In his life, John held seats on two school boards and another seat in the Ontario Legislature. He dedicated 39 years of his life to serving the public and he did it with passion and conviction. All MPPs, but especially those of us who served as trustees, understand what we have lost. It is an honour for me to recognize his contribution to public education, to the province of Ontario and to his community.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further tribute? The Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Development, digital government and the member from London Centre North.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: London North Centre, Speaker, but that’s pretty good.

I am very honoured to be representing the Liberal Party in this tribute to John Ferris. He was an extraordinary man, and while he was here only a short period of time, the impact that he had in London and beyond was enormous.

His passion, of course, was education, and we’ve heard a lot about that from both previous speakers. He showed incredible dedication to the things in life that he loved. He spent 39 straight years involved in politics and community leadership, a man of true, true dedication.

He was married to Joan for 56 years. Sadly, Joan passed away just a few months after John did last year.

When people talk about John, they talk about education. John Ferris and education are synonymous. It was his passion. In 1971, as we heard, he was elected as a Catholic trustee to the public school board. I think it’s interesting for people who maybe don’t remember those days before full funding. Every public school board had two elected Catholic trustees. In an even more remarkable tribute to him, he, a Catholic—in those days it mattered—was elected as the chair of the public school board, a first in history. Interestingly, he was elected after three tie votes. They drew straws and he was selected by a straw draw.

The fact that he was elected spoke volumes about his character. He was a consensus-builder, a consensus-maker. People trusted him to do what was right.

Shortly after he was elected chair, he ran in 1975 in London South. That was an interesting election. No one in this House was actually in the House then and served with John Ferris. It was an election that occurred before Jim Bradley started as an MPP. I know a lot of people around here actually think that Jim Bradley came with the building, but in fact there was a pre-Bradley era, two years “BB,” before Bradley. That election brought a big shakeup to this Legislature—46 new members. In doing a little homework for this, I found an

article written by Sylvia Stead in the Globe and Mail. The headline is, “Jubilant Liberals Sweep to Three Victories in Conservatives’ Old London Stronghold.” It talks about the three new members from London: John Ferris, of course; Marvin Shore, who has had fame because of his son— David Shore was the producer of the TV show House. He was a member here part of the time as a Liberal. It also talked about the election of David Peterson, age 31, dressed in a white suit and red carnation.

The

article goes on to talk about the election of John Ferris, in the most surprising upset. John Ferris, 42, narrowly defeated Conservative John Eberhard in London South. Mr. Eberhard, age 30—remember how young these members were—a former crown attorney, had oozed confidence in the election and always expected to keep John White’s former riding in the hands of the Tories, but that in fact did not turn out to be.

The election of 1975—I’m just going to read a few of the names. As I say, 46 names: Marion Bryden, Sean Conway, Eric Cunningham, John Eakins, Evelyn Gigantes, Larry Grossman, Vince Kerrio, George McCague, Bob McKessock, Roy McMurtry, Keith Norton, Hugh O’Neil, Julian Reed, Stuart Smith, Betty Stephenson, Mel Swart, John Sweeney, David Warner, Bud Wildman and more. This was the class of 1975. You can see that there was a new wave of energy that came into this House.

John Ferris was part of that new wave of energy. He was appointed education critic, and if you look at his remarks during that time, you’ll see that he was a champion not only for access, including special ed, but also for robust education quality.

One of the things he said that resonates today was, “The skills of the future may be different, but barring a breakthrough in mental telepathy, verbal and written communications will still be important.” It’s 40 years later. We may have invented Siri—telepathy, though, still eludes us. A government’s dedication to fostering these skills is as relevant as ever.

John Ferris worked hard and served his constituents, but he was a passionate family member. His granddaughter Lauren describes him this way: “His own beliefs were clear, and he wasn’t afraid to make it known when he thought something was wrong.” Speaker, I think when we do these kinds of tributes, we remember that it’s really what our grandkids think of us that is important in all of this.

We’ve heard about his involvement as a long-time employee of London Life; he was very involved in the Knights of Columbus—I always looked forward on Remembrance Day to see John Ferris marching with the Knights of Columbus in full regalia, proudly a member of that community—the Monsignor Feeney Foundation; the Western Fair Board; and very active in his St. George parish.

When people talk about John Ferris, they say he didn’t hold grudges. People said he was a rare specimen who knew how to “disagree without being disagreeable.” They say he didn’t just occupy a seat, he did things, took action and showed leadership. John’s granddaughter Lauren said he was someone who could talk to anyone.

His family connections, though, were most important to him. Lauren said he always made sure he was “up to speed” on how everyone in the family was doing. He would check in on them and wanted to know about their lives. She said, “He was the heart of the family, the connection that kept everyone together.” He made sure that his family carried on strong values of community involvement and standing up for the ideas they had. “He taught us,” said Lauren. “He taught us to fight for what we believe in and to go after what we want in life.”

Speaker, he was a fine man.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank all members for their very thoughtful and heartfelt comments about John. We thank the family for the gift of John Ferris. As a token of our esteem and the way in which we hold our former members, the family will be provided with a DVD and a copy of the Hansard comments. We thank you once again for the gift of John.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Therefore, the tribute being completed, it is now time for question period.

Oral Questions

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, this is about trust, and my question is for the Premier. The people of Ontario put their trust in this government and in this Premier. The Premier put her trust in Pat Sorbara, her former deputy chief of staff. This staffer breaks the trust by allegedly bribing Andrew Olivier, promising him a government job in exchange for a political favour that benefitted the Ontario Liberal Party. Instead of distancing herself from the accused, the Premier rewards her in trusting Pat Sorbara with leading her next campaign.

Mr. Speaker, why does the Premier continue to place her trust in Pat Sorbara? Is it because Pat Sorbara does exactly what the Premier asks?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: There has been an investigation, and I know the Leader of the Opposition knows that. At every stage of the investigation, we’ve co-operated fully, and we will continue to do so. I said in 2015, if any charges were laid as a result of the investigation, then Patricia Sorbara would step aside, and this will happen if charges are laid.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. Media are reporting that Pat Sorbara, the CEO of the Ontario Liberal Party, will be charged with bribery from her time as the Premier’s deputy chief of staff. She is accused of bribing Andrew Olivier to step aside as a contestant in the Sudbury by-election.

Mr. Speaker, did the Premier order the current CEO of the Ontario Liberal Party to allegedly bribe Andrew Olivier during the Sudbury by-election—yes or no?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I am going to be listening very intently to the questions and the answers. I’m going to say two things.

First of all, it’s very difficult for me to ask a side to keep quiet if I’m getting responses while the question is being put. I am asking that we treat this with sensitivity. I am going to listen carefully. If I get a sense that the member is making an accusation of abetting, that is not appropriate, and I will say so. It’s dangerously close to that now. I will allow the question to be put, but I’m listening carefully to ensure that that does not happen.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I will say again that in 2015 I said that if any charges were laid as a result of the investigation, then Patricia Sorbara would step aside. If charges are laid, that will happen. I believe it to be true that if charges are laid, we all have a collective responsibility to let the matter be handled by a court of law under the presumption of innocence. That’s the reality that we’re confronting.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: I’m not getting an answer to this question. Pat Sorbara, now the CEO of the Ontario Liberal Party, told Andrew Olivier, “You’ve been directly asked by the leader and the Premier to make a decision to step aside....”

Pat Sorbara told him, “You’re ... the third person I’ve ever heard” the Premier “even ask this of.” Pat Sorbara has now been charged, according to the media, with bribery.

Mr. Speaker, who ordered the CEO of the Ontario Liberal Party, Pat Sorbara, to allegedly offer Andrew Olivier a bribe? I would appreciate an answer to a very straightforward question.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: There has been an investigation that has occurred outside of this House, as it should. If there are charges laid, this matter will be handled in a court of law. It’s our responsibility, under the presumption of innocence, to allow that matter to be dealt with in a court of law.

I said in 2015 that if charges were laid, then Patricia Sorbara would step aside. If charges are laid, that will happen.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. The Premier has said she “had a conversation with Andrew Olivier,” and that the Premier’s closest political confidant, Pat Sorbara, had a conversation the next day.

This isn’t about Pat Sorbara stepping aside, if charged; that should be a given. My question—and I will be very clear, crystal clear, again. Mr. Speaker, who ordered Pat Sorbara to allegedly offer Andrew Olivier a bribe? The House deserves an answer.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: The Premier has been open with the Legislature, the media and the public about the allegations related to the Sudbury by-election. As the Premier said, and she’s absolutely right, as the charges are laid, it will become our shared responsibility to allow those charges to be dealt with in a court of law, not in this House.

Speaker, we will continue to co-operate with the independent investigation. I also want to confirm that if any charges are laid, the matter will be handled by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier, and let me say it speaks volumes that the Premier refuses to answer these very direct questions. Pat Sorbara said to Andrew Olivier that “it’s not a question of whether we know that you want it,” the Premier is “asking you to agree to put that aside for now.”

Media are reporting that Pat Sorbara will be charged with bribery, as she tried to get Andrew Olivier to give up his democratic right to run for office. Again to the Premier, who—

Interjections.

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

Please finish.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, directly to the Premier: Who ordered Pat Sorbara to allegedly offer Andrew Olivier a bribe? And if the Premier refuses to answer, that says everything.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I think it’s very clear, and Ontarians totally understand, that if there are any matters that are dealing with the court, it has to be dealt—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m trying to get a message to you that I want quiet.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: All legal matters must be dealt with in the court of law. This Legislature is not such a place. If any charges are laid, they will be dealt with in the courts by appropriate independent authorities. As I mentioned before, and I’ll restate, if charges are laid, the prosecution will be conducted by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, which is independent of the Ministry of the Attorney General.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier. Media are reporting that Gerry Lougheed may also be charged with bribery alongside Pat Sorbara, the CEO of the Ontario Liberal Party. During the investigation, it was revealed that Mr. Lougheed—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Chief government whip.

Mr. Patrick Brown: —told Mr. Olivier, “I come to you on behalf of the Premier.” Who ordered Gerry Lougheed and Pat Sorbara to allegedly offer Andrew Olivier a bribe? If the Premier did not, simply say so. Not to answer is hiding information from the House. I want an answer, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: If charges are laid, the matter will be dealt with in a court of law, not in this Legislature. That is the appropriate place. I do remind the members that there is a rule in our standing orders dealing with sub judice, where we are instructed not to engage or intervene in matters that may be before the courts. If charges are laid, the matters will be dealt with in court. That’s where it should be, and we should respect that.

By-election in Sudbury

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. News broke this morning that the Premier’s top aide, Patricia Sorbara, and Sudbury power broker for the Liberal Party Gerry Lougheed will be charged later today under the Election Act by the OPP. Charges stem from the alleged bribery of former Liberal candidate Andrew Olivier during last year’s by-election for the riding of Sudbury.

Can the Premier confirm, in light of these pending charges, that she will ask Ms. Sorbara to step down as her campaign chair until all charges have been dealt with in their entirety?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I have, I believe, done that a number of times already in the House today. I said in 2015 that if any charges were laid as a result of the investigation that has been ongoing, then Patricia Sorbara of course would step aside. This will happen if charges are laid.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The people of Ontario should be able to trust their government. Today, Ms. Sorbara will be facing charges that allege she used her position in the Premier’s office to offer a bribe to a candidate to induce him not to run for office.

Will the Premier confirm that Ms. Sorbara will play no role in either the Premier’s government or her election campaign until all charges have been completely dealt with?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I will say again that at every stage, we have co-operated fully with the investigation that was ongoing. We will continue to do so. If any charges are laid, then Patricia Sorbara will step aside, as I said in 2015 would happen.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, I really haven’t got quite the specific response I’m looking for in terms of whether or not Ms. Sorbara will be asked to step aside completely from her role—any role whatsoever—in the government or the election campaign. That was the question. The Premier is not answering it.

It has been clear for some time that something happened in the Sudbury by-election that may very well have broken the law. The Premier chose to deal with that not by asking the people at the time that were involved to step aside until the issue was resolved, but instead, by promoting the people involved to run not just a by-election but, most recently, an entire provincial election campaign.

Will the Premier admit today that it’s not just protecting but promoting Pat Sorbara that was the wrong thing to do—not just protecting her, but promoting her—and that the people of Ontario deserve better leadership and better accountability than what this Premier has offered?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As the Attorney General has said, if there are charges laid, there will be a court process. This matter will be dealt with in court.

Mr. Speaker, I have answered many, many questions on this issue, on the substance of this issue, both in the Legislature and in the public realm. There has been an investigation. We have co-operated with that investigation.

I said in 2015 that if there were charges laid, then Pat Sorbara would step aside from her roles. If there are charges laid, that’s what will happen.

By-election in Sudbury

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. Did the Premier ask Ms. Sorbara or Mr. Lougheed to offer Andrew Olivier an alleged bribe to step aside, to allow the Premier’s preferred candidate in the Sudbury by-election an uncontested nomination?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I know the Attorney General will want to comment. I want to just say, to both the questions from the Leader of the Opposition and the questions from the leader of the third party, that I have answered many, many questions. I am on the record. You can look at the responses I have given both in this Legislature and in the public realm, outside of the House. I’ve been very clear about those answers.

At this point, I said in 2015 that if there were charges laid, then Patricia Sorbara would step aside from her roles. That will happen if there are charges laid. If there are charges laid, then there will be a court process that we all have a responsibility to let unfold, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to offer the leader of the third party the same advice I offered the Leader of the Opposition: Be very delicate and be very careful of not going over the line of making an assumption, please. The last one was close. I will ask you not to do that, please.

Carry on.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, I don’t think that anybody believes that Mr. Lougheed and Ms. Sorbara offered the alleged bribe to Andrew Olivier on their own, so can the Premier tell us, if it was not her directly, who in her office—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m sorry. I’m going to ask the member to listen carefully. Even if you say that it wasn’t her, that implies that it was, so I’m going to ask the member to be very delicate about how she puts the question.

Finish, please.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, this is a matter of public interest, and I have the right to ask the Liberal Premier what the heck happened in Sudbury. That’s my job, Speaker. That is my job.

Interjections.

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

I would ask the member to simply—my request was to be cautious in how she put the question, to ensure that it was parliamentary. That’s all I’m asking. If the member chooses to continue to challenge that, I’ll have to deal with it. I’m asking the member to be cautious of what she puts as a question in this House.

There are rules that you need to follow. You were close. I mentioned it. Now I’m asking the member to put the question in a way that is parliamentary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Thank you, Speaker. There are laws that should be followed in this province as well, I have to say.

I guess my question simply is: Who is the person who pulled the trigger when it came to asking for this alleged bribe to take place?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Attorney General.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, the Premier has been very open and transparent to this Legislature, to the media and to the public about the allegations that are related to the Sudbury by-election. Whether or not a law is broken—that is exactly what our courts are for. A judge is the person who makes that determination, based on the evidence that’s presented to them, not this Legislature.

That’s why I think we should respect the shared responsibility that we all have in terms of respecting the presumption of innocence and ensuring that a court should be able to do their job. It would be highly inappropriate for these types of questions to be asked in this House.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Now that charges are going to be laid today, the Premier has a chance to do the right thing and make clear the Premier’s role, if there was one, and the role that anyone else in her office may have played in Sudbury in December 2014. Will she do that?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I think the Premier has been very clear on the steps that she plans to take if charges are laid. I think that stands on the record. She has been clear, going back to 2015.

As I stated earlier, I think it’s highly inappropriate that we pursue this line of questioning because this matter may be, if charges are laid, before a court of law. I will restate again that if charges are laid, the matter will be dealt with independently from the Ministry of the Attorney General: through the Public Prosecution Service of Canada.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is to the Premier. I warned the Premier that if she stood with Pat Sorbara, she’d fall with her. Not only did this Premier stand with her; she doubled down by arrogantly putting her in charge of the Liberal re-election campaign while under OPP investigation. That’s an appalling lack of judgment, even for this arrogant and out-of-touch government.

Now we have to face having the Premier dragged further into this mess while the legal proceedings against her former deputy chief of staff and hand-picked re-election chair drag on. Speaker, will the Premier look beyond her own self-interest and preserve the integrity of the office she was sworn to uphold by stepping aside until these legal matters are dealt with?

Interjections.

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

Mr. James J. Bradley: What nerve.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Chief government whip, second time.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not do that. I have been very clear in all of my answers earlier on the substance of this matter. I have been very clear in the co-operation that we have undertaken with the investigation. I was very clear in 2015 that if there were charges laid, Patricia Sorbara would step aside. If charges are laid, that is what will happen. At that point, this matter will be before the courts and, under the presumption of innocence, I think it is all of our responsibility to let that court process unfold.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Steve Clark: Back to the Premier. That’s not acceptable, Speaker. The Premier may have escaped charges herself, but her hands aren’t clean, far from it. These pending legal proceedings cast a dark shadow over her office and this entire government. This isn’t a dispute—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Again, first of all, let me make this clear. This line of questioning is appropriate in this House. How it’s done is what we’re talking about, so I don’t want anyone to say this is not appropriate to ask. I want to make sure that the opposition has their opportunity to say so. I’m asking that you consider clearly the type and how you ask the question.

The member was dangerously close to doing the same thing I admonished people for before. It stops. I don’t want that done. You can do the question in the manner that is parliamentary. Please continue.

Mr. Steve Clark: Speaker, this isn’t a dispute over policies or political philosophy. These unprecedented charges under the Election Act reach right into the heart of the Premier’s office and our democratic system. The Premier must know she was wrong then not to cut Pat Sorbara loose, and now Ontarians rightfully demand and deserve accountability from her. If she stands with them, Speaker, she will fall with them, Speaker.

Will the Premier finally accept responsibility, admit she was wrong and step aside until the legal system deals with Pat Sorbara?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Attorney General.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Again, if charges are laid, the matter will be dealt with by the court of law. The Premier remains focused on the job that the people of Ontario gave her. The Premier is focused on building Ontario up. The Premier is focused on building schools in our communities across this province. The Premier is focused on building hospitals across this province. The Premier is focused on creating jobs for Ontarians across this province.

We are investing in infrastructure, we’re building public transit—that is what the Premier’s mandate is and she is working day and night, every single day. We support her, and we’ll continue to work with her, in that endeavour.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Ontario Place

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Yesterday the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport angrily denied that there were any plans to sell off Ontario Place. But the fact is that, buried in the Premier’s new 158-page omnibus bill, there’s a clause that clearly allows for the sell-off of Ontario Place. The minister even admitted to the media: “It’s there, I don’t know why it’s there, it’s there.”

Yes, Speaker, it’s there. Why is it there?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Hon. Eleanor McMahon: I appreciate this opportunity to clarify, and I thank the member opposite for his question.

We recognize on this side of the House that Toronto’s waterfront should be for everyone to enjoy. That’s why I can state clearly that Ontario Place will remain in public hands. It is not for sale.

We are moving forward with a plan to revitalize Ontario Place into a vibrant waterfront destination that engages Ontarians young and old and, indeed, all Canadians. We made it clear during the 2014 election, and I’ll make it clear again: Developments like condos and casinos are not part of that plan.

I look forward to more in the supplementary, but I’ll just say this: These amendments to the legislation are going to make that revitalization process easier and more effective. On this side of the House, we understand the opportunity to give businesses the tools that they need to have this conversation, unlike the member opposite.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My, my. My, my.

Speaker, the existing law already allows Ontario Place to offer all the services, all the public benefits that the minister has talked about, but one thing the existing law doesn’t allow is the sell-off of Ontario Place. The Premier insisted over and over that she wouldn’t sell off Hydro One, and then she did. Now she insists she won’t sell off Ontario Place, even though she’s tabled legislation to allow exactly that.

Why should anyone trust the Premier when she says she’s not going to sell off Ontario Place?

Hon. Eleanor McMahon: Speaker, I always appreciate—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, come to order. The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, come to order.

Finish, Minister.

Hon. Eleanor McMahon: Thank you, Speaker. I always appreciate the opportunity to rise in this House and clarify statements by those members on the other side of the House, and this is a crystal-clear opportunity. Let me make it perfectly clear in case the member opposite missed it the first time: Ontario Place is not for sale.

But I will tell you this: We are enormously excited about the opportunities inherent in revitalizing Ontario Place. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because we understand that it is a jewel to the people of this province. That is why, in 2014, our Premier made it abundantly clear that it’s going to remain that way. I’m proud of that because it’s going to see Ontario Place vital and open and accessible to all Ontarians. That is the work that we are doing on this side of the House.

Climate change

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: My question is to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

Our government is moving forward with an ambitious plan to combat climate change and help make Ontario an economic leader in transitioning to a low-carbon economy. Through the climate change action plan, we will be transparently investing proceeds back into programs and initiatives that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and assist households and businesses.

The CCAP creates a foundation on which Ontario will develop the policies needed to provide more choices to families and businesses on ways to become more energy-efficient and help fight climate change. We’re taking action now to kick-start climate change action by supporting initiatives such as energy retrofits and improving energy efficiency in social housing developments.

Can the minister please inform the House of the details of that announcement?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I also want to give a shout-out to the member from Barrie, because Barrie and London, Ontario, are the two cities in our province pioneering net-zero homes, where you can actually buy a net-zero home.

For the rest of Ontario, the Premier and I and the Minister of Energy were out in the MPP for Davenport’s riding, visiting a home that’s already benefiting from the $100-million investment we made with our energy partners that has reduced the cost of their home by 42%: a 42% reduction in their home heating and energy costs. That is unprecedented.

Over the next decade—over the next five years, actually—we will invest $8 billion in reducing energy and transportation costs and fighting emissions. As a matter of fact, this single action reduces GHGs in Ontario by 1.6 million tonnes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Thank you to the minister for the answer. It’s clear from announcements like the home energy audits that Ontario will be well positioned to meet the challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

In early October, the federal government announced their carbon pricing framework. We were pleased that the framework allows provinces to choose cap-and-trade.

Recently, the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the federal government on his party’s approach to carbon pricing. I know that the Leader of the Opposition was a big part of the Stephen Harper government that did everything it could to obstruct meaningful discussions and actions in combating climate change. Could the minister please inform the House why our government’s policy is better than the one being suggested by the Leader of the Opposition?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: First off, a cap-and-trade system drives out the lowest, most cost-effective reductions on its own. It’s extraordinarily effective.

We’re not alone in this position. By March of next year, 60% of the world’s economy will be covered by a cap-and-trade system—60%. And we’re locked into a system that actually reduces emissions and promotes trade.

The Leader of the Opposition’s system of a revenue-neutral carbon tax would mean that the price would have to be well over $50, four or five times what ours is, and it would raise energy costs dramatically. It also misses that.

The program that the Premier and I and the MPP for Davenport and the Minister of Energy announced the other day would be eviscerated, because he wouldn’t have the $8 billion. He would leave Ontario businesses, homeowners, our senior citizens and families bereft of resources to buy any electric vehicle—

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

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is to the Premier. Speaker, the Premier can try to stand here this morning and claim she didn’t know anything about what her deputy chief of staff and local operative in Sudbury were up to, but nobody’s buying it. On something this important, she had to know.

In fact, she boasted in a Toronto Star

article in September that nothing happens in her office without her knowledge. The Premier then told the Star, “When there’s a major change in our office—or when there’s a policy decision—I know about that decision. And I authorize it or not.”

“I know” and “I authorize”: her words. Speaker, when did the Premier know about and when did she authorize the offer made to Andrew Olivier?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Again, that was extremely close. Because it’s making an accusation to an individual member, under the circumstances I’ve described previously, I will tell the member that if that comes close to being done again, I will pass the question and provide the Premier with an option not to answer. I’m asking for your co-operation on how you put the question.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would ask the member from Lanark to pay attention while I’m speaking.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Attorney General.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, again, the Premier has been very open to the public, to this Legislature and to the media on the allegations as they relate to the Sudbury by-election. The Premier is not going to answer questions that should be dealt with in a court of law. This is not that place. That’s why there’s a rule that exists in this Legislature that deals with when there are matters that may be under investigation or before the courts, that they not be dealt with in the Legislature.

The member opposite can spend as much of his time asking as many questions as possible. The Premier will remain focused on her job, and that is to build Ontario up, and that is to make sure that the everyday lives of Ontarians are getting better and better every single day.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Steve Clark: Back to the Premier. There is no running from this for the Premier. This unprecedented scandal and the Election Act charges are directly connected to the Premier’s office.

Right now there are two by-elections under way in Ontario. With the scandalous actions in Sudbury the subject of new charges today, voters in Ottawa–Vanier and Niagara West–Glanbrook naturally have concerns. They see a Premier who defended someone under investigation for Election Act breaches out campaigning for votes.

In fact, the Premier attempted to interfere in the investigation by suggesting at a February 7 press conference that “We don’t expect that to happen,” regarding charges against Pat Sorbara. Reports now say that she will be charged.

Speaker, with these Election Act charges linked to her, does the Premier think it’s appropriate for her to be involved in all of these campaigns?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, now the true nature of these questions comes through: They are all totally partisan in nature, because they are all talking about the by-elections.

Speaker, the Premier is the Premier of the province. She’s the leader of the Ontario Liberal Party, and she will continue to do the job that has been given to her.

The good people of Niagara West–Glanbrook and Ottawa–Vanier are going to make a decision based on the quality of the candidates who are before them and based on the record of this government: that is, to invest in our schools, in our hospitals, and to make sure that we’re investing in public structures, be it the GO train to Niagara or the building of the LRT in Ottawa. These are the issues that the people in those ridings are talking about. That is why they are going to support the Liberal candidates in those ridings.

Correctional services

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Premier. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, I was disappointed to see that neither the Premier nor the minister appreciate the true severity and seriousness of the circumstances surrounding Mr. Adam Capay.

Mr. Capay is a 23-year-old man who has been detained in solitary confinement for four years in a jail in Thunder Bay, with 24-hours-a-day artificial light. A growing number of experts have referred to these conditions as meeting the definition of torture. This is extremely serious.

The minister made it clear that the circumstances around Mr. Capay were specific to Mr. Capay and unique to his cell and his circumstances. Was it also abundantly clear in the 25 reports that the minister received about Mr. Capay that those conditions were unique to him? If so, why didn’t the government act to change this?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the minister will want to comment. I just want to respond to the member to say that I have been very clear that this is a serious situation. I’ve been very clear that the status quo is not acceptable, and that what happened in the situation with Adam Capay is unacceptable.

But we have to understand what the circumstances are, which is why the minister has announced that we will be doing a review and that the whole issue of segregation needs to be looked at. We’ve already changed some of the rules in terms of the weekly review and the amount of time, but there needs to be a full review.

It’s a very serious issue. There is no one on this side of the House who would argue otherwise.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Mr. Speaker, what’s also troubling is that the previous minister must have also received reports about this circumstance, and he did nothing about it.

Mr. Capay, like far too many people in our jails—the increasing problem is that he was not tried or convicted of anything. It’s clear that there is a crisis in our court system, in our correctional service system, in our community release and our bail program. Everyone can see it. It’s obvious. It’s something that everyone knows about.

We don’t need another review. We need action now. We need the government to do something now. What is this government going to do to ensure that Mr. Capay receives justice and that there are no other Adam Capays in any of our jails in this province?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. David Orazietti: I appreciate the question from the member opposite. This is a serious issue, as the member pointed out, and we take this issue very seriously. After becoming aware of this particular issue, I immediately requested that ministry officials inform me of any circumstances across the province, in any of our institutions, where there were these types of similarities with respect to lighting or any other conditions under which an individual is being held in segregation.

Mr. Capay is in a different cell with very different conditions today. We’ve taken action on that. We are obviously seized with this issue and the reliance—the over-reliance, frankly—on segregation in our system. It is a systematic challenge, and we are working to resolve that.

We’ve also indicated that we are committed to a full, independent third-party review of our correctional system so that we can make the investments that we all want to see in our system.

Co-operative corporations / Sociétés coopératives

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: My question to the Minister of Government and Consumer Services. This morning I attended an all-party co-op caucus to learn more about the co-operative movement in Ontario.

As many of you know, co-ops operate across the province and engage in a variety of activities, from housing to credit unions to child care and a great deal more. From the Aron Theatre and Empire Cheese in Trent Hills to Sunshine Heights Daycare in Port Hope to Bayshore Credit Union in Quinte West, co-operatives play an important role in the everyday lives of people in Northumberland–Quinte West and, indeed, across the province.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister inform this House about the important and innovative role that co-ops play in the lives of the citizens of Ontario?

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: I want to say thank you to the member from Northumberland–Quinte West and also several other members of this Legislature who attended the all-party co-op caucus this morning. I would also like to thank the other co-chairs, the member from Oxford and the member from Windsor–Tecumseh, for their involvement.

Co-ops play a vital role across the province, especially in many small and remote communities. One example of a community that has benefited from a co-op is Moonbeam in northern Ontario.

The owner of the local grocery store was getting older and thinking about retiring. He could not run the store anymore. However, he could not find a buyer for his grocery store. Instead of closing, the community stepped up and created a co-op. This co-op now runs the grocery store and provides a vital service to Moonbeam.

Co-ops are integral to communities like Moonbeam and to our province as a whole.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I would like to thank the minister for her answer an