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

October 17, 2017

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2017-Oct-17 (PDF)

L105 - Tue 17 Oct 2017 / Mar 17 oct 2017

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 17 October 2017 Mardi 17 octobre 2017

Strengthening Protection for Ontario Consumers Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur le renforcement de la protection des consommateurs ontariens

Special report, Auditor General

Introduction of Visitors

Legislative pages

Oral Questions

Environmental protection

Labour dispute

Hospital funding

Hospital funding

Hydro rates

Hydro rates

Transformative technologies

Manufacturing jobs

Pension plans

Waste reduction

Mental health services

Environmental protection

International trade

Driver examination centres

Deferred Votes

Protecting a Woman’s Right to Access Abortion Services Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 protégeant le droit des femmes à recourir aux services d’interruption volontaire de grossesse

Visitors

Report, Integrity Commissioner

Visitors

Members’ Statements

Northern Ontario

Senior citizens’ housing

Brampton Kidney Walk

Beaver River Wetland Conservation Area and Trail

Pension plans

Pregnancy and infant loss

Fire safety

Insurance

Wind turbines

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Standing Committee on General Government

Introduction of Bills

Fairness in Consumer Reporting Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur l’équité dans l’application de la

Loi sur les renseignements concernant le consommateur

Putting Your Best Foot Forward Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 pour partir du bon pied

Petitions

Hospital funding

Long-term care

Nanjing Massacre

Guide and service animals

Energy policies

Elevator maintenance

Cancer treatment

Highway improvement

Dental care

Cancer treatment

Provincial truth and reconciliation day

Orders of the Day

Strengthening Quality and Accountability for Patients Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 renforçant la qualité et la responsabilité pour les patients

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Strengthening Protection for Ontario Consumers Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur le renforcement de la protection des consommateurs ontariens

Ms. MacCharles moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 166,

An Act to amend or repeal various Acts and to enact three new Acts with respect to the construction of new homes and ticket sales for events / Projet de loi 166, Loi modifiant ou abrogeant diverses lois et édictant trois nouvelles lois en ce qui concerne la construction de logements neufs et la vente de billets d’événements.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Ms. MacCharles.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Thank you, Speaker. Good morning. I want to just note off the top that I’ll be sharing my time with our Attorney General, Yasir Naqvi.

I’m very honoured to rise for second reading of Bill 166, the Strengthening Protection for Ontario Consumers Act. I’ll be speaking to this comprehensive piece of proposed legislation that, if passed, would strengthen protection for Ontario consumers.

Our government is committed to protecting Ontario consumers. We want to ensure consumers have confidence when they engage in the marketplace. We want to ensure consumers are protected whenever they’re spending their hard-earned money.

Our government is focused on building a fair, safe and informed marketplace for Ontario consumers. We want Ontarians to be well protected and well informed in the marketplace whether they’re making a small or a major purchase. This means having confidence when they book a long-awaited trip online; it means having a fair chance at buying tickets to see their favourite band; and it means having confidence when they are buying or selling a home. This includes the purchase of newly built homes along with the warranty coverage paid for to protect what is likely to be the largest investment of their lives.

This is why our government wants to see the passage of the Strengthening Protection for Ontario Consumers Act.

Specifically, Bill 166, if passed, would introduce new rules to better protect consumers buying travel services, event tickets, and purchasing, selling or leasing real estate, including buying newly built homes.

This is comprehensive legislation that is being proposed and, if passed, would amend a number of acts, replace two existing acts and propose three new acts.

I’d like to start by highlighting the proposed bill’s focus on the real estate sector. As we know, real estate is an important driver of Ontario’s economy and, as mentioned, it’s typically one of the largest purchases most people will make in their lifetime. But of course, it’s much more than that. Buying a home often represents fulfillment of a dream, the culmination of years of saving and sacrifice. Our government is proposing stronger protection for consumers, whether buying, selling or leasing real estate in Ontario, by amending the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act.

The legislation, if passed, would enable stronger rules and professional standards in the real estate sector. The changes would support the setting of new rules in the regulations for brokerages and individual registrants. In particular, it would enable regulatory changes to address concerns about instances where the same real estate brokerage or real estate professional represents more than one party in buying, selling or leasing real estate. This practice is commonly known as multiple representation or double-ending.

There have been concerns raised about the conflict of interest associated with multiple representation. Addressing the practice of double-ending was among the measures that our government announced in April of this year when we introduced the Fair Housing Plan. Reviewing the rules that real estate salespersons, brokers and brokerages are required to follow is one of 16 measures on which the government is taking action. We’re taking action to help more people find affordable housing, increase supply and protect buyers and renters. We are committed to bringing stability to Ontario’s real estate market and protecting the investment of homeowners.

If Bill 166 is passed, we will consult on regulatory changes, including measures to improve clarity and transparency for consumers involved in the buying, selling or leasing of real estate. The legislation, if passed, would enable regulations that would provide stronger rules and professional standards in the real estate sector. In addition, we are proposing to increase the maximum fines for code of ethics violations by real estate professionals. The current fines for code of ethics violations are outdated and no longer strong enough to serve as an effective deterrent.

We are concerned that there is a perception that in today’s housing market some real estate professionals may view the existing fine amounts as merely a cost of doing business. We want to ensure the fines serve as an effective deterrent to unethical behaviour by professionals. If the proposed legislation is passed, the maximum fines for code of ethics violations would increase from $25,000 to $50,000 for individual salespersons and brokers and to $100,000 for brokerages. If the bill is passed, increased fines for a breach of the code of ethics would come into force immediately upon royal assent.

If the legislation is passed, our government also plans to consult during the regulation development phase on new requirements. These would include measures to improve clarity and transparency for consumers by requiring the use of standardized plain language and disclosure clauses in industry forms. We want to make it easier for consumers to understand their rights and responsibilities.

The proposed legislative amendments are the first part of a broader two-phase review of real estate rules to improve consumer protection and professionalism in the industry. Phase 2 of the REBBA review is expected to begin in 2018 and will involve a comprehensive review of the act. If Bill 166 is passed, the Real Estate Council of Ontario, or RECO, is expected to take an active role in informing both consumers and real estate professionals about the changes and their impact on consumers and the industry. RECO is the administrative authority responsible for enforcing the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act and its regulations, including new rules, if they are approved.

Speaker, I’d now like to focus on the new home sector. The proposed legislation, if passed, would strengthen confidence in Ontario’s new home warranties and protections, promote properly built residential construction and enhance consumer protection. This would be achieved by:

—providing for two administrative authorities, one to administer the new home warranty program and one to regulate new home builders and vendors;

—strengthening the regulation of new home builders and vendors;

—making the dispute resolution process easier for homeowners if they discover a problem in the construction of the new home;

—giving government the power to make rules and set standards; and

—introducing modern oversight measures to improve accountability and transparency.

I’d now like to expand on how the changes we’re proposing would both strengthen protection for consumers buying newly built homes as well as enhancing the new home building sector itself.

As I’ve said, our government is committed to taking action through the proposed legislation that, if passed, would provide for two separate administrative authorities. One administrative authority would regulate new home builders and vendors, and the other would administer the new home warranty program. We believe that situating the regulatory and warranty-provider functions in two separate administrative authorities would allow each to better focus on delivering its respective mandates.

Our government believes that separating the administrator of the new home warranty program from the regulator of new home builders and vendors is essential. Both authorities would operate under stronger oversight, transparency, governance and accountability measures that are similar to Ontario’s modern administrative authorities.

If passed, the proposed legislation would also give the government a much greater role in making rules and setting standards. This would allow the government to take a proactive role to ensure that the warranty program and new home builders and vendors have strong rules and regulations in place. If the legislation is passed, this would improve the way new home warranty protections are delivered as well as improve how new home builders and vendors are regulated.

The proposed changes would also address the conflict-of-interest concerns related to the multiple roles of Tarion Warranty Corp. This is an issue that was raised by the Honourable J. Douglas Cunningham during his review.

The proposed legislation, if passed, would help ensure that consumers across the province can be confident when making one of the most important choices of their lifetime: the purchase of a newly built home. If the bill is passed, it would strengthen the way new home builders and vendors are regulated, which would promote properly built residential construction.

This proposed plan of action for the new homes sector has been informed by the recommendations of Mr. Cunningham in addition to associated public and stakeholder feedback. In the fall of 2015, our government appointed Mr. Cunningham to conduct an independent public review and make recommendations regarding the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act. This review included examining the operations of the Tarion Warranty Corp., which administers Ontario’s warranty program and regulates builders and vendors of new homes. As part of his review, Mr.

Cunningham engaged consumers, the new home building industry, Tarion, the municipal sector and others. He submitted his final report to our government on December 15, 2016.

On March 28, 2017, our government announced its intention to move forward with a plan to strengthen consumer protection for owners of newly built homes. We announced we were planning to propose legislation to do the following:

—separate the administrator of the statutory new home warranty program from the regulator of new home builders and vendors to increase consumer confidence;

—give government responsibility for making rules and setting standards, and introduce modern oversight measures to improve accountability and transparency;

—make the dispute resolution process easier for homeowners; and

—support Tarion-led new deposit protection measures to better reflect today’s home prices and deposit requirements.

The Ministry of Government and Consumer Services set up a working group of key stakeholders to provide feedback on specific legislative provisions that would be required to implement the government’s plan. The working group met from early June to late July 2017. The working group involved a broad spectrum of expertise from all those involved in the new home warranty sector. This included those who represented consumers, builders, the Tarion Warranty Corp., engineers, building officials, the insurance industry, and the condominium sector, among others.

In addition, ministry staff held one-on-one meetings with interested individuals and stakeholders to gather feedback and discuss suggestions to improve Ontario’s new home warranty program and the regulation of new home builders and vendors.

Our government carefully considered all of our options over the past few months to devise a plan that further protects buyers and owners of newly built homes by delivering simple, easy and transparent solutions.

If the proposed legislation is passed, it would allow us to move forward with many of Mr. Cunningham’s recommendations to improve consumer protection for the buyers and owners of newly built homes.

With the proposed changes, the government’s intent is to address the conflict-of-interest concerns related to multiple roles in Tarion. This was a key issue that was raised by Mr. Cunningham during his review. Tarion is currently the regulator of new home builders and vendors and the administrator of Ontario’s new home warranty program as well as the rule-maker and decision-maker. Separating the administrator of the new home warranty program from the new home builder and vendor regulator would help to increase consumer confidence in the warranty program that protects their home.

Should the proposed legislation pass during the transition period to the two-entity regime, Tarion would continue to perform its current role under a strengthened oversight framework. This strengthened oversight framework would include, first, a greater government role, which would see myself, the minister, needing to approve certain Tarion bylaws that are deemed to be regulations, and, second, authorizing the minister to appoint an administrator should serious concerns arise regarding Tarion’s performance during the transition period. If the legislation is passed, the new oversight mechanisms would take effect upon royal assent.

In addition, it is expected that Tarion would continue to implement operational improvements that are currently under way. This includes introducing new deposit protection measures to better reflect today’s home prices and deposit requirements, and regular review of its construction performance guidelines.

Tarion already has made a number of improvements, including enhancements to warranty coverage, providing greater disclosure on the Ontario Builder Directory and improving enforcements against illegal building.

In addition, Tarion will continue to implement operational improvements to the dispute resolution process for owners of new homes.

As mentioned, if the proposed legislation is passed, it would further address concerns about the warranty dispute resolution process by setting out, at a high level, a general process for dealing with claims and resolving disputes. This has been a very persistent issue that consumers, stakeholders and the media have been very vocal about. If passed, the proposed legislation would clarify the dispute resolution process to make it easier and fairer for new homeowners if they discover a problem in the construction of their new home. It would clarify the evidence that one must present when making a claim, making the process more user-friendly for consumers.

I would now like to turn my attention to new home builders, Speaker.

Let me say that we know that some of the highest-quality new homes are built right here in Ontario, and this sector is of vital importance to the province and our economy. Still, I believe that if the proposed legislation is passed, it would promote properly built residential construction and enhance consumer protection for owners and buyers of newly built homes.

If Bill 166 is passed, the regulation of new home builders and vendors would be strengthened and would include enhanced requirements and a modern compliance and enforcement regime. If the proposed legislation is passed, it would improve compliance with the rules by providing additional enforcement tools such as administrative penalties.

The changes our government is proposing, if passed, would contribute to enhancing the competency and the qualifications of new home builders and vendors across the sector. Stronger regulations should, over time, build better homes.

I believe that the changes we’re proposing would be a win-win scenario, Speaker, both for new home buyers and owners, and the builders and vendors of new homes. If the proposed legislation passes, consumers will benefit, and will begin to benefit much sooner, from the enhanced oversight of Tarion and the updated rules for operation.

As these changes proceed, our government will continue to determine the feasibility of implementing the remainder of Mr. Cunningham’s recommendations.

What we’re proposing represents the most significant change to Ontario’s new home warranty program since the current act was passed in 1976.

Mr. Mike Colle: Wow. A long time.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Yes.

Next I want to highlight how the proposed legislation would impact the travel industry. The travel industry in Ontario has evolved significantly since the Travel Industry Act was last updated in 2002. As you know, much has changed in the past 15 years. For instance, there has been a dramatic increase in the use of the Internet to book and pay for travel services. The Internet has also made it easier for travel agents outside the province to advertise to Ontarians. This potentially puts Ontario consumers buying travel services online at some risk.

The proposed changes to the Travel Industry Act are based on a multi-phase consultation process that included input from the public and a range of travel industry stakeholders. We conducted research into the regulation of travel agents and wholesalers in other jurisdictions and researched the regulation of other sectors in Ontario. The proposed changes to the TIA, the Travel Industry Act, which are included in the bill are intended to balance three important goals: first, strengthening consumer protection; second, reducing the regulatory burden on registrants; and third, improving regulatory efficiency.

I’d now like to further elaborate on how the proposed legislation, if passed, would strengthen consumer protection in this industry. Our government wants to require that Ontarians buying travel services receive clear information about pricing regardless of the channel they’re using and to purchase these services in the geographic location of the particular travel seller. If Bill 166 is passed, it would strengthen consumer protection by enabling the creation of new rules such as those related to advertising by out-of-province travel sellers who target Ontarians.

Mr. Speaker, if the proposed legislation is passed, it would enable changes to the regulations to provide Ontario travel consumers with clear information on the price of travel in purchasing travel services from travel sellers outside the province. Our government would also consult with stakeholders on proposed regulation changes that would strengthen consumer protection, including potential new requirements for registered travel sellers to disclose additional information. We believe this is an important step so that consumers can make informed choices when purchasing travel services.

If Bill 166 is passed, it would create new registration requirements for individual travel salespersons, and these proposed changes would provide consumers with increased confidence that the travel salespersons are knowledgeable, professional and are operating in accordance with a code of conduct. If passed, we would also consult on proposed regulations requiring continuing education for travel salespersons. Should the bill pass, the ministry plans to consult with stakeholders on proposed regulation changes such as measures that promote greater awareness among Ontario consumers about what to look for when purchasing travel services and to help consumers make informed choice.

Our government has an ongoing commitment to cutting red tape and lessening the burden of businesses. The majority of travel enterprises are small businesses, and, should the bill pass, it would lessen the burden on travel businesses by creating a new class for travel sellers so that businesses would no longer need to register as both a travel agent and a wholesaler. If the bill is passed, we would consult on updating requirements such as financial reporting and trust accounting in order to reduce red tape for travel businesses.

This consultation would take place during the next phase to develop regulatory amendments. If the bill is passed, it would also improve compliance with the rules by providing additional enforcement tools such as administrative penalties.

We believe Ontario consumers deserve to have their financial investment protected when they travel. They require certain types of information presented in a way that’s clear and easy to understand so they can make informed travel purchases.

The Travel Industry Act is in need of updating to better reflect the needs of consumers and the industry today. While the act performs an important consumer protection role, it does not reflect the significant changes to Ontario’s travel marketplace that have occurred over the past 15 years. The act needs to be updated to address new risks facing consumers when they’re purchasing travel services. As mentioned, there have not been those kinds of significant changes to the Travel Industry Act since 2002. There have been substantial changes to the sector in that time, including a significant increase in online bookings.

Speaker, you’ll be interested to note that, as of 2016, it’s estimated that up to 79% of travel services purchased in Ontario begin through an online booking.

Mr. Mike Colle: Wow, 79%?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Online, yes. It’s a new way of doing business.

This may include booking travel services online with out-of-province travel sellers as well.

We want to require that consumers have clear information on pricing even when they are purchasing services from businesses that are not located in Ontario. If the legislation is passed, it would strengthen protection by enabling the creation of new rules for representation, such as advertising by out-of-province travel sellers who target Ontarians. Both Quebec and California require travel sellers that are based outside of their respective jurisdictions to be registered if they are conducting business with consumers located within their borders.

Since January 1, 2017, travel agents and wholesalers in the province are required to display all-in pricing in advertising. However, Ontarians can still access online advertising from unregistered travel agents located outside the province that may or may not present an all-in price. There’s a need to ensure that Ontarians can have clarity in pricing regardless of where the advertising is coming from. We want to ensure that Ontario consumers buying travel services receive the required disclosures regardless of whether they’re buying travel services online or going to a bricks-and-mortar type location.

With changes to the business models of travel agencies and the increase in travel services being purchased online, fraudulent activity by travel salespersons and those claiming to be registered travel sellers has become a significant issue. In 2015-16, fraud by a travel salesperson was the number one complaint received by the Travel Industry Council of Ontario, also known as TICO. TICO is responsible for administering and enforcing the Travel Industry Act, it oversees the regulation and monitoring of registrants, and it investigates consumer complaints as well, of course.

With the evolution of the travel industry, our government believes there’s a greater need for regulation of individual travel salespersons. This includes requiring them to register and ensuring they receive ongoing education. The exact education requirements will be set out in regulation, should the legislation pass. Our government also wants to ensure that travel salespersons can be held accountable through an enhanced discipline process. If the legislation is passed, our government will carefully consult with a broad range of stakeholders in developing new regulations to avoid potential unforeseen adverse consequences to consumers and the travel industry.

I am going to just only briefly speak about the Ticket Sales Act, as I know my colleague the Attorney General will be sharing my time on this piece of the bill. I’ll just say at this point that the bill, if passed, would also strengthen consumer protection for people trying to buy tickets to entertainment or sporting events. If passed, it would support fans in getting a fair shot at seeing their favourite music, sport or theatrical events. This includes providing enforcement tools to help make sure that ticket selling and reselling businesses are following the rules.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the proposed legislation addresses consumer protection in a range of areas in the marketplace. I’d like to wrap up my comments by emphasizing that this is a very comprehensive piece of legislation being proposed by our government to help make a real difference to consumers engaging in a range of areas. I believe the proposed bill would foster a fair and transparent marketplace where consumers are better protected.

The Strengthening Protection for Ontario Consumers Act represents an important component in realizing the government’s larger vision to become a leader in consumer protection in Canada. If passed, our government believes that Bill 166 would go a long way toward achieving this vision for the benefit of Ontarians.

As I get ready to turn the remarks over to Minister Naqvi, I want to say thank you, Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to speak about this and stand up for Ontario consumers. I want to thank my colleague Minister Naqvi for taking leadership on the Ticket Sales Act, which he’ll speak about now.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I now turn it over to the Attorney General to continue the debate.

Applause.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I don’t know if he’s clapping for me or he’s clapping for Minister MacCharles, but either way, I think it’s a great compliment from the member from Eglinton–Lawrence on Bill 166.

I’m really honoured to speak about this very important bill around consumer protection. I want to thank the Minister of Government and Consumer Services for the work that she has done on this very important bill. It was a real team effort between her office and her ministry and my team at the Ministry of the Attorney General.

Speaker, as you know and as the minister spoke about, there are many important aspects in this bill that protect Ontarians, from door-to-door sales to home warranties, the travel sector and the sale of tickets. I will spend most of my time talking about the Ticket Sales Act, which was the work that we undertook under my ministry.

I do want to say that overall, this is a very important piece of legislation. I think Ontarians will see themselves reflected through this entire legislation, because it really addresses issues that I think all of us have collectively raised in this House around how we ensure that there’s a level playing field for consumers. How do we make sure that the seniors in our communities who—in many instances, somebody comes and knocks at their door and tries to sell them a water heater or a water softener or whatever it may be—naively engage in these contracts, how do we protect them?

Similarly, people buy new homes—probably the largest purchase they will ever make, in many instances the very first purchase they’re making. How do we ensure that the warranties in place are warranties that are going to protect them and their families in the long run as opposed to not? These are real issues; these are very important issues.

Similarly, the area that I want to spend most of my time talking about is around ticket sales. How do we protect consumers from when they go and buy tickets to a concert or a hockey game, for instance?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Go, Sens, go!

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Go, Sens, go, indeed.

Interjection.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: They’re doing quite well.

Actually, it’s a great segue, member from Nepean–Carleton, because I did want to talk about the Senators and bring a little bit of personal experience. I think we can all probably tell stories, personally, as to what we have found ourselves in when we’re trying to buy a ticket. It was not that long ago, for example, that my son Rafi and I were going to a hockey game at Canadian Tire Centre to watch our Ottawa Senators. Rafi is great—he’s got a new Karlsson jersey—

Mr. Steve Clark: How old is he now?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: He’s five years old now, yes. He loves his hockey, and it’s a great time to go watch hockey with him.

It was a weekend, and at the last minute I find out that my two nephews, Zain and Ameer, are visiting from Toronto. I’m going to assume that they’re big Senators fans. I made sure that we all go to a hockey game together, the three boys and myself. So at the very last minute I’m looking for two tickets for them to buy, and I didn’t care whether they were sitting together or not, and it was an interesting process to go through to buy the tickets. This is not new; I think we’ve all experienced that, where you go there and you can’t find a ticket but there was a resale site where tickets were available.

I can tell you that they were far more expensive than the original price for the ticket, which I guess I understand if you’re trying to do this at the last minute. My least favourite thing when you’re trying to buy a ticket, be it for a concert or a hockey ticket or whatever, is the little clicker at the bottom—you notice that?—when the time starts running and you’re forced to make a very quick decision; otherwise it’s going to lapse. In this pressure, you go click, click, click. This is one of many experiences I think we have heard about from people when they are trying to buy tickets to games.

The question is often asked of me: Why address this issue? Why do we have to deal with this? There’s a two-part answer that I always give people: One, it’s an issue around consumer protection—just like we protect consumers in all other areas, we need to do the same thing when it comes to buying tickets; and second, I totally understand and admit that going to a concert or a hockey game is a luxury. It’s something that we do to enhance our quality of life.

People work hard trying to save money, and once in a while they want to partake in these very important activities, be it a sports activity or a cultural activity. They spend a lot of money in making an evening out of going to a concert or a sporting event. We need to make sure that that experience is a good experience for them. There’s nothing worse than going through all this and buying a ticket, spending a lot of money and showing up at the venue, at the concert hall, and being told your ticket is not worth the paper it’s written on, that it’s a fake ticket, or that you don’t have an assigned seat. You thought you had a seat, but because there’s no seat number on it, you don’t.

Here you are. You’ve spent a few hundred dollars—sometimes even more than that—and you’ve run into a situation. That, from a consumer protection point of view, from a quality-of-life point of view, is challenging and disturbing. We need to make sure that we protect consumers in that regard. That’s why we worked very hard in developing this piece of legislation, which is part of Bill 166.

If passed, this legislation would fight the unfairness in the ticket marketplace and put fans in Ontario first. That has been our goal in developing this legislation: bringing fairness to the system and to the marketplace.

As I was working on this legislation, I learned very quickly how complex the marketplace is. There’s a lot of money involved, as the case may be, in many of these instances. We need to make sure that we put ourselves—and that’s what our collective responsibility is—on the side of the consumers, the people that you and I serve, and to make sure the system, the marketplace, is a fair one, and to put the fans first. They’re the ones, at the end of the day, spending the money, and they’re the ones at the end of the day who should enjoy that hard-earned money they spend to go to a sporting event or to an entertainment event.

I had the chance to speak to a lot of artists while we were working on this, and they share our point of view. For an artist, there’s nothing worse than unhappy fans, and you hear about it; right? I think what happened in the summer before last with the Tragically Hip concert, which prompted us to really deal with this issue in a serious way, was quite telling. There was a huge hue and cry about this: This iconic Canadian band was going on their last tour, and the story around Gord Downie and his illness and that this may be the last time he will be performing publicly for the people.

People wanted to pay respect and we wanted to enjoy that experience, and overnight they saw tickets disappear and then reappear for thousands of dollars. We all heard about that. Why is that happening? How do we prevent it? Therefore, we said that we’ve got to put fans first, and we dove down into this issue.

This legislation, if passed, addresses a few very important issues: (1) it puts a cap on resell markups for event tickets; and (2) it bans technologies that put fans at a disadvantage in the marketplace, such as bots, and I will speak a little bit more about it in a moment. It also adds requirements to ensure transparency and accountability within the industry—and I’ll unbundle that for you in a moment as well—and establishes new enforcement measures to help make sure that ticket selling and reselling businesses are following the rules.

All these measures combined together really bring accountability and transparency to the way ticket sales are done in the province of Ontario. If one sees the whole package together, one really sees how we are taking a very important step forward in protecting consumers and putting our fans first.

Speaker, I just wanted to spend a little bit of time on the background because I think it’s important we understand where we’re coming from. Since 1914, the only piece of legislation that has specifically regulated the sale of tickets in Ontario is the Ticket Speculation Act that is in place right now. At first, it was simple. The act made it illegal to buy or sell tickets above their face value; that’s basically, in simplicity, what it was required for. This made sense at the time. Ticket resale was mostly limited to people standing outside venues. There was no such thing as electronic tickets or buying tickets online, which obviously has changed the marketplace significantly.

In the past 25 years, as it did in so many other industries, the Internet really changed everything when it comes to tickets. As ticket sales began to move online, so did the ticket resale market. As it became easier to access, more and more people in Ontario were turning to websites to buy and sell tickets to events. The days are gone when we used to see people lining up overnight in front of a box office. You remember that—you’ve probably done that, Speaker, I’m sure; you’re nodding—where you would spend all night to buy tickets to your favourite band. It didn’t matter if it was rain, shine or snow.

We don’t do that anymore. Now you know when the tickets are going to go online, you sit in front of your computer or your iPad, and you try to go on that website to buy tickets online.

Fundamentally, the marketplace has changed. You’ve got websites available where you can buy tickets. Hardly anybody goes to a box office. In fact, the only reason to go to a box office is because you want to pick up your tickets at the venue. Eventually, ticket resales also started to be seen differently as there was a growing consumer demand for a safe and legitimate online resale market.

Once it became clear that the resale market was here to stay, the government took a few steps to regulate it, because it was important to regulate that resale market, which was totally unregulated up to a couple of years ago. Changes were made to the Ticket Speculation Act and its regulations in 2010 and again in 2015 to prevent companies from engaging in both primary ticket sales and ticket resales. This was done to give fans some very basic protections.

At that point, the immediate concern was ticket fraud. We wanted to make sure that the tickets being resold online were valid and as advertised. We added requirements to help give consumers peace of mind: All resale tickets had to include either a money-back guarantee or be verified by the original seller.

Now, I’ve heard some criticism that somehow the problem that we are trying to deal with today was invented or created by the changes that the government made in 2010 and 2015. I have a very simple answer to that—because somehow that criticism takes the assumption that all of us with some power can shut down the Internet. Somehow, we’re trying to live in a world that imagines we can go back to days where the Internet played no role in the sale of tickets.

Speaker, you and I know the Internet is here to stay. People will go to the Internet to buy and sell things, and you cannot avoid that. You have to deal with and regulate—protect consumers from—buying and selling things on the Internet. That’s what the changes in 2010 and 2015 did, because people were actually going to the Internet to buy tickets. We need to make sure that we regulate that marketplace, because otherwise you’re really leaving consumers in the lurch. I just really wanted to say this, because I am sure we will hear that in the debate, that somehow the government is trying to fix their own problem.

But I would like to see addressed the issue as to how you deal with the Internet in that, because you cannot just leave the Internet on its own.

At the same time, though, new challenges are emerging. Although measures were in place to limit the number of tickets that could be bought online at once, people were finding a way to cheat the system. They were developing software programs, often referred to as ticket bots, to get around a website’s security measures and let the user buy hundreds of the best tickets the moment they went on sale. We hear about that often. I was talking about the Tragically Hip, and that’s exactly what happened.

These tickets would then be posted to resale sites, where fans would often have to pay three, four or even five times the original price. It’s a big industry; some people make a lot of money. I think that was exactly what we saw through the whole issue around the Tragically Hip. There was a lot of media coverage on it. Many people I know—I’m sure we all heard from constituents who said to us, “This is not fair,” and I agree. This was not fair. We need to make sure that we restore some fairness to this particular industry.

I want to also give a shout-out to my colleague from Kingston and the Islands, because she really took leadership on this as soon as the whole Tragically Hip issue came up. It’s understandable; the Tragically Hip come from Kingston. The MPP from Kingston and the Islands really took some action and brought forward a private member’s bill. She did some consultation and, based on the feedback that she had received from her community, she introduced Bill 22, the Ticket Speculation Amendment Act. That private member’s bill proposed changes that would ban the use of ticket bots and require ticket resellers to list the face value of the tickets that they are trying to resell.

The measures in the bill were very strong, but after speaking with my colleague from Kingston and the Islands, we agreed that we could do more using her bill as a starting point, or as a foundation. We decided to work together. It was a great honour and pleasure for me to work with the member; she is very thoughtful and very thorough. We took the time to do a full consultation, evaluate our options and put together a government bill that would address these issues as comprehensively and effectively as possible.

I hope that she will get a chance to speak on this bill during the course of the debate and will be able to speak a little bit about the process that she went through and the people that she spoke with. She also talked with some members of the Tragically Hip in putting forward her private member’s bill and the subsequent work we did together in developing the ticket sales act that is part of Bill 166.

Our consultation began early this year. From the beginning, we knew that it would be important to get input from people across the province about this very important issue. We wanted to hear from the same Ontarians who use their hard-earned money to cheer on their local team, see an up-and-coming artist and support the arts. To make sure that as many members of the public as possible could participate and have their say, we posted a public survey from February 28 to March 16 of this year, asking people about their ticket-buying habits and what sorts of measures they would support to fight unfairness in the marketplace.

I’m thrilled to report that the response to this survey was incredible. In just two weeks, over 34,000 people in Ontario participated in that online survey, making this the most popular online survey ever conducted by our government at the time—34,702 Ontarians, to be precise. And we checked: It wasn’t bots that got in there, because the advice we received was contrary to what bots would want to say. Thirty-four thousand, seven hundred and two people participated, and I think that’s quite telling.

The feedback we received affirmed our belief that action was needed. It was immediately clear that people are engaged in this important issue and they are ready to see some real changes when it comes to buying and selling tickets. For example, 89% of people said that ticket-buying software, or bots, should be illegal; 85% said that posting tickets for resale before selling to the public should be illegal; 89% of the people said that there should be a cap on resale markups; and 99% were in favour of at least some additional transparency requirements.

At the same time, we also engaged industry stakeholders in targeted consultations about the issue and possible results. We met with a range of ticket sale and resell companies, venues and artist representatives. I had the opportunity to meet with groups such as members of Billy Talent and the Arkells to get their understanding as to where the marketplace is and, from an artist’s perspective, what they would like to see. I know that the member from Kingston and the Islands spoke with Rob Baker from the Tragically Hip as well to get their input. In fact, after introducing this legislation, Ticketmaster stated that they are pleased with these measures that we are taking.

We also reached out to other jurisdictions to learn from their experiences in regulating the ticket industry. There is a lot of work that has been done, for example, in New York state and in the United Kingdom, that we also relied on in the deliberations and the work we did.

I would like to take a moment, Speaker, to show my appreciation to everybody who participated in our consultation and helped us get this right: the industry stakeholders, artists and, of course, thousands of members of the public. Thank you to all of them as we developed these measures to tackle these issues head-on. We have listened to your feedback, which has resulted in tough new rules that put fans first. I hope they see their input reflected. That’s the feedback I’ve been receiving.

When we set out to take on unfairness in the ticket market, we were under no illusions that solving this issue would be easy or that there would be one foolproof solution. The evolution of this issue, from the creation of the Ticket Speculation Act all those years ago to today, is a perfect example of technology outpacing regulation and creating a new, unanticipated problem, which is exactly what we wanted to avoid.

That is why we have drafted a bill that is technology-neutral. From the outset, our focus was not on trying to fight technology, because technology is going to outpace our legislative process any day of the week. Let’s make sure that the rules we put in place are technology-neutral so no matter how the technology evolves in the area, the rules are still applicable. I hope, as we go through the different measures, you will see how these rules are agnostic when it comes to what technology is at play.

Speaker, rather than trying to regulate the technology that allows people to exploit the system today, we’re targeting the bad behaviour itself. Our proposed changes would make it not only less appealing but also less profitable to break the rules and would increase the potential risk of doing so. To this end, our bill proposes changes in four main areas.

First, we want to put an end to unfair and excessive markups in the ticket resale marketplace. This is why we are proposing under this legislation to cap the resale markup of tickets at 50% above face value. It’s clear that there is a consumer demand for the ticket resale market; we have no interest in eliminating that entirely. People want to be able to resell tickets; a lot of times people can’t go to a concert—family events come into play, and they obviously want to get rid of their tickets.

There is a place and a use for the resale market, but we want to make sure that there’s a cap on the markup so that people cannot exploit that resale market by charging whatever. Rather, we want to ensure that markups remain reasonable. This would also reduce the incentive for people buying tickets just for the purpose of reselling them at an excessive, inflated price. This, in turn, may help keep more tickets available for fans to buy at face value on the primary market. That’s a very important issue.

By putting a cap on resale, we’re doing two really important things: One, we’re taking the incentive away from the resale market so that the bots, for example, that exploit the resale market by getting tickets from the primary market in bulk through technology and then selling them at excessive prices—by putting a cap on that resale at 50% of the face value, you’re really taking away that incentive. You’re basically saying that there’s not a lot of money to be made; not to mention, this way, what you are also doing is you are pushing the sales upstream to the primary market, which is an important point.

In the primary market, those ticket sales are where the money goes to the artists or the players, the teams—the people who actually put in the talent, the people who are actually investing in the product that you and I want to enjoy and watch. The people in the resale market have no skin in the game. They’re just trying to profit off of somebody else’s work. It’s important to have this move in the primary marketplace where it’s actually going to support the creative types as opposed to the resale market, which is just a business transaction.

Secondly, we’re proposing to put a complete ban on ticket bots: the software that gets around website security measures and lets resellers buy huge swaths of tickets before fans even get a chance. When we consulted the public, respondents were almost unanimously in agreement that ticket bots should be illegal, and we agree. If the proposed changes pass, it would be illegal to use ticket bots, sell ticket bots or sell tickets that were purchased using ticket bots.

In the interest of drafting legislation that is technology-neutral, Speaker, we have taken a broad, outcome-focused definition of what constitutes a ticket bot. That means that no matter how the technology evolves and transforms over time, if it is working to bypass security measures or ticket limits, it will still be illegal.

Speaker, like I said, you have to look at all these measures in combination. Not only are we taking the incentive away from resale markets; we are also putting a prohibition on selling tickets that were purchased through ticket bots, making those companies who are in the resale market be more vigilant and monitor and regulate whether or not they’re selling tickets that were bought through ticket bots.

Thirdly, we are proposing measures to make sure that fans have the information they need up front when they go to buy tickets. That is just pure transparency. In our consultations, Ontarians told us that their frustration with the way things are done right now is that tickets are being held back; there are hidden fees when you buy a ticket; and there is an overall lack of transparency from ticket sellers. People often are not given enough information about what they are buying, which contributes to the sense of unfairness in the industry. Quite simply, they feel like the system is rigged.

Again, I go to the example: When you’re trying to buy a ticket, the clock is ticking at the bottom. You figure out the best seats that you want to buy and the price you are comfortable with, and when you go to check out and to pay, all of a sudden the price inflates, because then there are all these system charges and administrative fees. You’ve got five seconds left on your clock, so you say, “Okay, okay, I’ll buy it.” Well, that’s not fair. This is where you feel like it’s rigged, that the system is not there for you. That speaks to a lack of transparency.

Speaker, with the changes we are proposing, we want to shine some much-needed light on the ticket-selling process. If passed, this bill would require primary ticket sellers to disclose the actual number of tickets that will be available through the general on-sale as well as the total capacity of the event, so that you as a consumer know how many tickets are in the marketplace and decide if the price that is being charged is what you want to pay or not, in terms of supply and demand.

At the same time, all ticket sellers, whether they are in the primary or resale market, would be required to disclose the all-in price of a ticket up front. That means no more hidden fees. For the price you see, the only thing you have to add on top of it is the sales tax, the HST, the 13%, but no additional surcharges and no hidden administrative fees. Everything has to be bundled in one price. So when you see the price, if it says a hundred bucks, it’s a hundred bucks plus 13%—it’s $113, period. No more $100 plus $15 plus $5 for delivery charges, and on and on it goes. All-in pricing is part of this legislation.

For all prices, it would have to be clearly indicated what currency they are listed in as well, so no more surprise currency exchanges either. If it’s US dollars or Canadian dollars, it has to say it, so that, again, you know what you’re paying and in what currency you’re paying.

Additionally, ticket resellers and online resale platforms would be required to disclose the original face value of the ticket and the precise seat location as well as the identity of a commercial reseller, so people buying tickets can make informed decisions. There has to be the face value, the all-in price, on the ticket, so you know exactly what you are paying, and the seat location, so you know you actually have a seat. That’s very important to transparency measures.

Finally, in addition to creating a number of new rules, our changes will help make sure that these measures are being followed. This will be a joint effort with my colleague the Minister of Government and Consumer Services, whose ministry already has a strong track record of protecting consumers in our province. If passed, our bill would give the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services new inspection and investigation powers to help protect consumers and to ensure greater transparency for consumers when they buy a ticket.

Through Consumer Protection Ontario, the ministry could receive immediate complaints from consumers and take proactive steps to help ensure that fans in Ontario know their rights. If it is found that the rules are still being violated, they would be able to enforce the law through administrative monetary penalties, compliance orders and new provincial offences.

While we believe that the government has a critical role to play in enforcement, we also want to allow for self-regulation within the industry. This is why our bill, if passed, would introduce new private rights of action. This means that consumers and ticket businesses would have the right to sue if they suffer a loss as a result of someone not playing by the new rules. This would give industry members the opportunity to play a role in reducing unfair ticket selling or reselling practices.

To help make sure that the rules can be enforced, we would require any business selling tickets in Ontario to be incorporated in either Ontario or Canada or to maintain an address in Ontario to again create that nexus so that we can enforce our rules for the businesses that operate in Ontario. That means that, whether or not they’re physically located in the province, businesses can more easily be held legally accountable for their actions if they do break the law.

Since we announced these changes back in the summer, I have heard a number of concerns that I would like to address. One of the arguments I hear time and again is that it isn’t the government’s role to regulate in this area at all and that the issues we are talking about here are just functions of the free market and should be left to the market to resolve.

I have a number of issues with this line of reasoning, and I could point to any number of examples of cases where the government intervenes because the free market creates situations that are unfair to regular people.

When people work to get around industry-set limits on ticket quantities—buying more tickets at once than are available to anybody else—that is like someone cutting in line. Even beyond that, I would argue that the predatory resale market we are currently experiencing does not represent a functioning free market. When bots are used to buy up large numbers of tickets, they drive up the cost to consumers by creating artificial scarcity in the marketplace. Unregulated ticket resale is also bad for the industry and the economy more broadly.

An unregulated market raises prices but does not generate any additional revenue for the people who do the work to put on these events—the athletes, artists, casts, crews, venues and promoters that make these events possible. That’s why we need to make some regulations in this marketplace and protect consumers: because of the unfairness that exists in this particular economy.

Speaker, you’ve heard that this bill has been over a year in the making. The response has been incredible. I would like to take the time now to read off a couple of quotes from people within the industry who have publicly declared their support of Bill 166.

I’ll share with you what Rob Baker of the Tragically Hip said: “Support from our fans is what makes being an artist so great. So, hearing that our tickets were being bought by scalper bots, leaving real fans shut out from our shows, was terrible. We’ve got an opportunity right now to do something about it. The government is listening—I encourage all fans of music, theatre, sports to make your voices heard.”

We have had very supportive quotes from David Mirvish of Mirvish Productions. The Arkells, a great Ontario band, also support our approach.

I really strongly feel that these changes will make Ontario a leader when it comes to making sure that we protect our consumers and we put fans first. Like I said, there’s no one foolproof system. All other jurisdictions, like New York and the United Kingdom, are looking at this issue. I think we have generated a lot of attention from them in terms of the steps we are taking.

I do want to thank a lot of people who have done the hard work. In particular, one person I want to thank is Dave Phillips, who was my chief of staff up to a few weeks ago—he has gone back to his previous role—who worked really tirelessly on this very issue and gave me a lot of good guidance and support in developing the very thoughtful, reasonable policy options that are part of Bill 166. So I want to give a special shout-out to Dave Phillips on the work he has done and thank him for his service to Ontarians. This was his second round at Queen’s Park of duty to public service—a solid guy with lots of intellect. I wish him the very best in his new career.

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

Mr. Jim McDonell: It’s always a privilege to rise in the House. It’s interesting—listening in the last little while on the ticket sales—how it took the government reacting to polls. It’s no way to run the province. If you go back, they made changes in 2015 that allowed a lot of this to happen. If you look back through the information, you see that private donors benefited greatly from these changes made at that time. So it’s the same old story that we see over and over again.

I know that the Tragically Hip concert brought this to light because of the extreme abuse that happened in that case, but it shouldn’t take that to force government legislation.

This has been coming along. I know the Internet has kind of caught them by surprise—I guess it’s not surprising, when we see the record on technology when it comes to computer-based programs that they have. But I think, when you look at this, this is long overdue. Changes that were made allowed this to happen.

I think everybody has seen some of this happen at one time or another. A colleague of mine purchased four tickets for a hockey game, and three of them were not active at the gate. Those are the things that have been happening for years.

If I go back, I purchased some tickets for a Montreal Canadiens game a couple of years ago. Tickets through Quebec on the Internet were bought basically at face value—a great system, something we could have mirrored. We don’t have to go back and reinvent the wheel all the time. Other provinces are way ahead of us because they’re active on these files. I think it’s time that we look around at the good systems that are in place, copy them and put them in place. These bots are not that new.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’m glad to be able to make a few quick comments in response to those made by the government on Bill 166, the Strengthening Protection for Ontario Consumers Act.

I had the opportunity to give this some thought last week when we heard that this bill was being tabled, and we were looking forward to finding out if it would indeed make the changes that are needed. As the Attorney General commented, some people are going to say that this is the government’s fault. I will. I’ll say it. I’m happy to say that the scalper bot loophole may have been inadvertently created because, as the Attorney General admits, the technology maybe moves faster than regulation. It’s a fair comment. We need our government to make sure that when they do catch up with some of these inadvertent technological loopholes, they fix them.

I’m glad we’re having this conversation because folks out in our communities cannot keep up with computers, cannot keep up with the scalper bots. We need a mortal portal, I would say, because regular folks can’t click that as fast as a bot can. But to that point, there are a lot of folks in Ontario, all things being equal—if you take scalper bots out of this equation and you say, “You know what?

May the quickest clicker win,” then nobody in the north and nobody in our rural communities will get to see a show or get to go to a venue, participate in their communities and enjoy that entertainment because they don’t even have broadband. Every time we talk to our northern or rural folks, they say, “We don’t have access to the kind of Internet that allows us to participate the way folks in Toronto do.” Just as a point for the Attorney General, maybe we can work on that, too. As technology evolves, let’s actually let it evolve and include the rest of Ontario in that.

I’m glad we’re having this conversation. I hope everyone can afford to participate in their community the way they want to because, Lord knows, we all need entertainment when we deal with this government on a regular basis.

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

Mr. Mike Colle: I would like to really thank the minister of consumer affairs, Tracy MacCharles, for the incredible amount of work on some very difficult problems that have been looked at. They’ve been reformed, but then they keep needing more work in areas that really affect ordinary people—that is, buying a home and home warranties. We’re finally making sure that Tarion is doing the job it’s supposed to be doing. The work with real estate—again, the double-ending that some agents do; they represent the buyer and the seller. That is going to be stopped. Also, critical work in the travel industry, like she said.

I know the NDP think things can be solved with a comment in the House, but the reality is, 79% of the purchases of airline tickets are now done online. It’s not the old NDP way of bricks and mortar anymore. It’s online reality that we’re dealing with in this bill.

I want to thank the Attorney General for stepping in and doing something that other jurisdictions are just starting to do, except for maybe New York, and that is dealing with the scalping that’s taking place when people buy entertainment and sports tickets. The computer bots are skewing the market. This is a complicated issue because you’re dealing with offshore entities that have no controls. This is a serious attempt to deal with that computer reality.

I want to congratulate the minister and all the people who consulted with him. I want to thank the member for Kingston and the Islands, who put forward the private member’s bill—I call it the Tragically Hip bill—and great work on Bill 22 coming here—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you very much.

Further questions and comments?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: It’s a pleasure to join the debate on Bill 166. It’s always interesting to hear the leadoff speeches, because in a positive situation, you actually get some of the theories and ideas about why the government has brought forward Bill 166.

But I want to leave people with two very important reminders. There was a lot of discussion this morning about bots and access, and how the computer technology is changing. I would just like to remind people that half my riding is in the greater Toronto area, and we still need broadband. This is not going to solve all of the challenges that we have in rural Ontario, when there are parts of all of our communities, quite frankly, throughout Ontario—the more things you put online, the more that you access electronically, it becomes more and more critical to figure out how we can assist communities in getting broadband access.

The second thing is that I’m not sure when the last time was that any of you actually tried to get a reservation at Ontario parks.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Oh, it’s a nightmare.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Anybody who does that—it is, to my colleague’s point, a nightmare. We talk about staying up till midnight, because at 12:01 you can get that magic spot at Algonquin or wherever you want to be. The stories and the challenges that people have accessing our beautiful provincial parks are quite disturbing, frankly. If the government could spend a few weeks on improving that system and figuring out how Ontario parks could be more available to all of us, that would be time well spent as well.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the Minister of—I’ll get it right; hold on—Government and Consumer Services for comments.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: You got it, Speaker. Thank you.

I want to thank all the members who have spoken and provided comments on this bill. I want to wrap this up by saying that this is a really comprehensive bill. It’s a really important bill to consumers. It’s about having a safe and informed marketplace for consumers so that people’s hard-earned dollars are protected, whether it’s a small purchase or a major purchase or whether they’re booking that long-awaited trip that we all save up for. It’s about getting that fair chance at buying the tickets to see a favourite band or a concert; I want to acknowledge the work of the Attorney General on that part of it.

And, of course, confidence when buying or selling a home— usually the largest, if not one of the largest, investments that we ever make in our lifetime: We want people to have confidence in that and the warranty coverage that goes with that, to protect that big investment.

That’s why we’re introducing this comprehensive legislation, the Strengthening Protection for Ontario Consumers Act. I think every MPP in this House should be supportive of this, because who doesn’t want to see greater protections for consumers? Who doesn’t want to see greater transparency and accountability? Who doesn’t want to see greater enforcement and oversight of the rules when it comes to protecting consumers?

The Ministry of Government and Consumer Services is a very large ministry. We get lots of feedback on what is working and what isn’t in the marketplace. This bill is responsive to that. This bill is based on consultations on all elements of the bill that we’ve been discussing here this morning. We’ve heard from industry people, we’ve heard from the experts, but most importantly, we’ve heard from consumers themselves: people who buy these kinds of services we’re talking about, whether it’s travel or whether it’s a home. We have talked about strengthening rules around the real estate profession.

These professionals are great people. We just want to tighten the rules and provide greater protections for consumers in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you very much.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

Special report, Auditor General

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table a report from the Auditor General of Ontario respecting the fair hydro plan. Copies of the report are available to all members in the members’ lobbies.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise and recognize the Co-operative Housing Federation, who are here today. In the members’ gallery are Simone Swail and Mary Ann Hannant, board member of CHF Canada, Ontario region. I welcome them to Queen’s Park, and I encourage members to attend their event this evening in rooms 228 and 230.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s a delight to introduce Erica Shiner and Sophia Shiner. Sophia Shiner happens to be engaged to my son.

Hon. Reza Moridi: It’s my great pleasure to welcome Islamic scholars from India who are visiting the House today: Maulana Shaikh Mohammad Masood Azizi, Mr. Mohammed Abdullah Khan, Mr. Moaz Abdul Rehman, joined by my very good friend, Imam Dr. Saeed Faizi Nadwi of Richmond Hill.

Also, it is my pleasure to welcome Ahmed Demirtas and Mahmout Demir, vice-consuls to the consul general of Turkey in Toronto.

Please join me in welcoming them.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Welcome.

The member from Leeds–Grenville.

Mr. Steve Clark: Thanks, Speaker. I want to introduce to you, and through you, to the members of the Legislative Assembly, constituents from my riding of Leeds–Grenville who are here with OPSEU today: Cindy Ladouceur, Kevin Hudson, Deborah Blair, Shana Carley and our regional vice-president for OPSEU, Gareth Jones.

I also have constituents here with the Canadian Federation of Pensioners. I want to welcome my constituent Bill Byker, and also John White, John Stinson, William Harford, Dale Allan and Norm Leblanc. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Welcome.

The member from Welland.

Ms. Cindy Forster: I would like to welcome all of the mental health workers who are here with us today—about 50 of them who are in the gallery—along with their president, Smokey Thomas, from OPSEU; Ed Arvelin, executive board member and chair of the mental health division of OPSEU; and Carol Mundley, the health and safety coordinator.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Yasmin Adina, who is my grade 11 co-op student from Bloor Collegiate Institute in Davenport. Welcome, Yasmin.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to introduce an old school chum of mine who I went to high school with, not too many years ago: Cody Cooper, who is here with the Canadian Federation of Pensioners.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: On behalf of MPP Wayne Gates from Niagara Falls, I’d like to welcome Pat Mete, who is here today. He’s the father of page captain Thomas Mete. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to welcome the family of Linnea Lofstrom-Abary. She’s a page from my riding of Don Valley West, and her family members are here: Sunny Lofstrom, August Lofstrom-Abary, Hudson Lofstrom-Abary, Marilyn Lofstrom and Terry Lofstrom. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park Dale Allan and Norman Leblanc from the Canadian Federation of Pensioners.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Windsor–Tecumseh.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Thank you, Speaker. As you heard, the people from the Co-operative Housing Federation are in the House today. I would like to welcome Denise McGahan, the program manager for co-operative services in southwestern Ontario; and also the Ontario region government relations coordinator for CHF Canada, Jacob Larocque-Graham, along with Simone Swail, of course. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Granville Anderson: I’d like to welcome Durham constituents Alanna Lyczba, Bill Harford, Brian Rutherford and Mike Black, who are here today with the Canadian Federation of Pensioners. Welcome.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I’d like to welcome a member of my riding who will be combining later on this afternoon: Bill Byker with the Canadian Federation of Pensioners.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Representing the Canadian Federation of Pensioners, I’d like to welcome Cody Cooper, Norm Leblanc, Jeff Oliver, Ed Cukierski, John Augerman, Alanna Lyczba, Wayne Hill, Denise Cay, Gary Marnoch, Pat Mousseau and Peter Kraus to the Legislature today.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I would also like to welcome some members from the Canadian Federation of Pensioners: Peter Kraus from my riding of Kingston and the Islands; Dennis Hamilton, who’s going to be watching from home; Tony Pompeo; John Stinson; Norm Leblanc; Seymour Trachimovsky; Bill Byker; and Jack Smith.

Also, I would like to give a very warm welcome and indoctrination to Akeel Lynch from the Ministry of Children and Youth Services. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Todd Smith: I’d like to welcome Kendra Moore, Amanda Christy and Sheila Sak. They all work at Providence Care in Kingston, and we’d like to welcome them to question period today.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, Mr. Speaker, not often do we have people from all the way up in Timmins show up, but I’d like to introduce two people from the mental health association from Timmins: Maggie and Jason, and their colleague Carol, who’s from New Liskeard, I believe—ah, I got it right. Thank you very much.

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: It gave me great pleasure this morning to attend the OPSEU mental health division workplace health and safety day breakfast. I had the great pleasure of meeting and engaging with Gareth and Debby.

It also gives me the opportunity to say thank you for the hard work our corrections officers, our staff in our institutions, and our parole and probation officers do every single day.

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: It’s my great pleasure to invite, as well, people from the co-op housing federation: David Waters, the president of the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, Ontario region; Harvey Cooper, the managing director; David Corson, board member of CHF Canada, Ontario region; and Dawn Richardson, the program manager of co-op services. Thank you. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I was able to attend the breakfast this morning that was held by OPSEU. I’d like to welcome them all to Queen’s Park; in particular, two people who work at Waypoint: Kathy Moreau and Pete Sheridan. Please welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Legislative pages

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Dear colleagues, a new batch of pages are going to be helping us. I would like to ask them to assemble to be introduced.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A new batch.

With us from around Ontario:

From Timmins–James Bay, Abigail Collings; from Essex, Airika Natyshak; from Mississauga East–Cooksville, Alexander Arruda; from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, Andy Walker; from Mississauga–Brampton South, Asma Siddiqi; from Beaches–East York, Colin Angell; from Ottawa West–Nepean, Dana O’Brien; from Cambridge, Eliana Wallace; from Perth–Wellington, Erin Elliott; from Richmond Hill, Hannah Chen; from Elgin–Middlesex–London, Jacob Will; from Hamilton Mountain, Jebreel Alayche; from Don Valley West, Linnea Lofstrom-Abary; from Kitchener–Waterloo, Matthew Wahl; from Thornhill, Max Haim; from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, Payton Marsh; from Nickel Belt, Rochelle Lariviere; from Brampton West, Ryan Shahmohamadi; from Nipissing, Sheldon Kilroy; from York West, Swetlana Kumar; and from Niagara Falls, Thomas Mete.

Our pages for this session.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It is therefore time for question period.

Oral Questions

Environmental protection

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Yesterday, the Minister of the Environment committed to funding a health study to understand the localized impact of air pollution on Sarnia residents. Thank you to the government for finally recognizing the request from the member for Sarnia–Lambton.

But I want to make sure this isn’t just another Liberal announcement. I would like to know if there’s a timeline for the study. We need to see a clearer commitment. When can the residents of Sarnia expect the study to start, and what is the timeline going to be for results?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change will want to speak to more of the specifics, but let me just say that we are absolutely committed to getting this study started. It makes perfect sense that we would undertake this with experts. Communities like Sarnia have been directly impacted by industry over the years, and we need to make sure that we do everything we can to understand exactly what the challenges are and to understand what the mitigations must be.

I will ask the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change to speak to the supplementary, Mr. Speaker, but we are committed to doing this and we are committed to starting immediately.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: The Premier said that she’s absolutely committed to funding this, and it’s good that that’s finally happened, but since 2008, people have called for a study on this environmental concern.

For nine years studies have been stalled by this government. In fact, the Lambton Community Health Study got as far as a third planned phase. Industry in Sarnia stepped up, offering $1.4 million, but the request made for similar funding to the province got rejected. This government refused for nine years.

I’d like to know specifically from the Premier; Why did it take this media exposure—why did it take Global TV—to finally get the government to accept the request from the member from Sarnia–Lambton?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

Hon. Chris Ballard: I’m delighted to be able to address this concern and the things that I heard and experienced when I was in Sarnia last to meet First Nations folks. In fact, I stopped in to meet with the local MPP for that riding to talk about the concerns of the community.

Speaker, I’ll start with the fundamentals. As I said yesterday, every Ontarian deserves fresh air to breathe, clean water to drink and good, clean land to walk upon. That is a fundamental building block of vibrant communities. But we know that at times, the balance between the different needs of business and the environment has tilted one way or the other.

Communities like Sarnia have been directly impacted by this, and I know that, building on previous regulations to lower air pollution, we’re committed, as the Premier said earlier—

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

Final supplementary? The member from Sarnia–Lambton.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Back to the Premier: For nine years, this government has ignored the health concerns of the people of Sarnia–Lambton. There was nothing but shocking indifference from the Liberals. Premier, I personally raised this issue with your government in 2008 and in 2010. They have now committed to the study only after being publicly embarrassed.

The fact that it took nine years to commit to this study still leaves me and the community with concerns. Saying they are doing the study is one thing; committing and introducing a timeline is another. Mr. Speaker, will the Premier release the study’s timeline today?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Chris Ballard: As the Premier has said, as I’ve said, we’re committed to funding a health study to understand the localized impact of air pollution on Sarnia residents. We’re going to be working with those communities in the coming weeks to determine how best to do that. We have to get a formal proposal put in front of us, one that’s updated, in order to respond to it.

But I’m going to say a couple of things. When the Leader of the Opposition was in Ottawa with the Harper government, they refused to fund the study 10 years ago—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton will come to order.

Finish, please.

Hon. Chris Ballard: I’ll also say that when I was in Sarnia visiting with First Nations, I stopped in to see the MPP for that area. We had a wonderful, casual conversation about what I’ve been hearing in the community and what he’s been hearing in the community, and I’ll say, Speaker, that not once was it raised with me that we need to study their health.

Labour dispute

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. For the second day, college students are not in class. It also happens to be midterm exams for many of them. Will the Premier allow students to miss their midterms, or will the Premier get both sides back to the bargaining table, so we can get students back in the classroom?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I am very concerned about students not being affected negatively by this situation. Of course I don’t want students to lose this semester; I want them in class.

But I do believe that the collective bargaining process is one that has to be respected. We need to have the parties back at the table. That is where the agreement is going to be finalized. Both the minister and I have encouraged both sides to get back to the table, to make sure that that conversation is fruitful and that they can come to an agreement. That’s where the agreement has to take place.

I am very concerned about it. We are paying very close attention to it. I hope that in the very short future, we will see that the parties are at the table and they can hammer out an agreement.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: When this government was campaigning, they promised no more labour disruptions. They promised labour peace, and that students would be in the classrooms.

There have been three strikes at colleges over the last 50 years. In 1984, it was for 18 days. In 1989, it was for 20 days. In 2006, it went for 20 days once again. They promised us labour peace. You promised that students would be in the classroom.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Through the Chair.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Students can’t afford, Mr. Speaker, not to be in class. They can’t afford to miss their midterms. I know this is uncomfortable for—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. Actually, both sides are disruptive.

Please finish.

Mr. Patrick Brown: I get that this is uncomfortable for the government. The labour peace they promised has not been realized. But I want to see students in the classrooms. I want to see students back at colleges. So my question is: Is the Premier going to do everything she can to get both sides back to the bargaining table?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Yes, I am, and so is the minister. We’re going to do everything we can to get both sides back to the bargaining table.

I appreciate the history lesson from the Leader of the Opposition, but he missed 1995 to 2003. What happened in those years, Mr. Speaker? I think that in those years, from 1995 to 2003, there were 26 million student days lost in this province. I think of high school kids and elementary school kids all over this province who were out of school week after week after week because there was a government of the day that didn’t support the labour movement, didn’t support collective bargaining and actually didn’t believe in publicly funded education.

Mr. Speaker, we’ll do everything we can to get both sides back to the table and make sure there’s an agreement.

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

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

A reminder to those over on this side: I’m standing.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: When the Premier presented herself for public service, she said that she was running to fight what she saw as school closures and labour disruptions. The reality is, there are more school closures, and now we have labour disruptions, whether it’s with physicians or educators. What this government has now become is what they said they were running against.

What this all comes down to is, how does this affect students? Let me share with you a quote from a student in Thunder Bay: “I was very concerned ... I have a scholarship and I’m just here for another month. If I lose classes, that might affect my scholarship.” You’ve got a student worried about their academic year, and right now, we have the government trying to blame others.

Yesterday we had the Deputy Premier saying that we can’t get involved. Now today, we have the Premier saying that they will get involved. I want to know what this government is going to do to get students back in the classroom. Don’t make us wait 20 days or 40 days; students need to be in the classroom.

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Look, my concern is for the students, and that has always been my concern. The Leader of the Opposition in fact misinterprets what I have said about why I got into politics. I got into politics because I believe so firmly in publicly funded education. Part of publicly funded education is the reality that we have labour unions, we have federations; we have ongoing discussions among the partners in education.

Will I do everything in my power to make sure that we encourage the parties to get back to the table? Yes, I will, Mr. Speaker. But will I undermine the collective bargaining process? Will I take action—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Windsor West, come to order.

Wrap up, Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It is always an uncomfortable position for everyone and a very, very distressing situation when people are not able to go to their classes. I know that the instructors and the teachers who are out don’t want to be out either. They want to be in the classroom with their students. We’ll do everything we can to get everyone back to the table.

Hospital funding

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre. Two weeks ago, we learned that Peterborough regional hospital is opening up 24 unfunded beds just to try to keep up with the number of people needing hospital care. Unfunded beds are beds that open without any help from this Liberal government.

According to the hospital, the money to operate those beds is being diverted from their reserve fund, a fund specifically earmarked for investment in capital and infrastructure. How does the Premier expect hospitals to plan for their future when she’s forcing them to use their savings just to meet their current operational needs?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the minister is going to want to speak to the specifics of this situation, but let me just say that we have injected billions of new dollars into the health care system, including 500 million new dollars for hospitals as a result of our last budget. I have a lot of faith in our local health integration networks and our hospital administrations as they look at the specific situations in their communities and make decisions based on their circumstances.

As I say, I don’t know the specifics of the decisions that have been made by the administration at the hospital in Peterborough. What I do know is that there are intelligent decisions being made around the province with the support of the government, with the support of new dollars to deal with the circumstances in each of those communities.

I think that it is our responsibility to continue to work with hospitals and other health care providers to make sure that they can make those decisions based on the interests of the people in their communities.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Opening up these 24 unfunded beds will cost the Peterborough hospital $1.8 million just this fiscal year. The hospital will need $4 million more year after year to keep those beds open. According to internal documents that we at the NDP released today, occupancy rates in both mental health and acute care units have been consistently higher than what is considered safe.

Will the Premier commit right now, today, to funding these additional beds so that the good people of Peterborough get the hospital care they need?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I congratulate the Peterborough hospital for the tremendous efforts that they’re making, not only in providing the highest quality of care to the residents in and around Peterborough, but for managing their health system effectively. In fact, this year alone, they were one of the hospitals in this province that received the biggest increase in their operating budget. On average, we increased the hospital operating budgets by 3.1% this year, but Peterborough received a new injection to their base of $9.4 million, which represents a 4.3% increase in their operating budget.

Mr. Speaker, it continues to amaze me that for every effort that we make, whether it’s through a budget that they’ve rejected or through the consideration of the Humber Finch site project proposal for ALC, for relief of capacity challenges, that member and that party continue to oppose those efforts.

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

M me France Gélinas: The occupancy rate for Peterborough acute care beds reached 99% in May of this year. Both the mental health and the acute care units are also operating unconventional beds, Speaker. Do you know what that is? That’s a fancy word to mean that you admit people into hallways, into broom closets, into waiting rooms—the list goes on—with no privacy or human dignity.

How can the Premier continue to turn a blind eye to the overcrowding, to the hallway medicine crisis in our province, when hospital after hospital are at overcapacity and Ontario families needing hospital care are paying the price?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: The member opposite knows that the vast majority of hospitals in this province operate well below capacity, well less than 100% capacity, and we are making those investments, that half a billion dollars that was referenced. In fact, in Peterborough just last Friday there was an important announcement by the member from Peterborough of $2 million in brand new capital for the creation of a new Peterborough hospice, which is great news for that community, and it reflects the hard work that they’re doing.

But, Mr. Speaker, I have to go back once more to the fact that in their tenure as government, they closed 24% of all acute care beds in this province. They closed 13% of the mental health beds. They closed a total which is only beaten by the Conservatives, which approached 10,000—

Interjections.

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

Hospital funding

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre. Peterborough is not the only hospital struggling right now, and it is not just acute care that is overcrowded either. We at the NDP have released very shocking and disturbing internal statistics that show mental health units are overcrowded in Sudbury, Kitchener, Oshawa, Etobicoke, Mississauga and Toronto, and the list goes on.

Mental health care has been ignored and underfunded by this Liberal government for years now. How does the Premier expect front-line health care workers, particularly those who work in mental health, to provide the quality care that patients need when they are constantly understaffed and running off their feet?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: We are making unprecedented investments in mental health and addictions across this province. As recently as the spring budget, we made and announced an $80-million investment that that member and that party voted against, which represents cumulatively $140 million over three years—unprecedented, first of its kind in the entire country. It’s a significant investment in cognitive behavioural therapy, a form of interventional therapy which is highly proven and highly effective, particularly for individuals with anxiety disorders or with depression, for example. We were the first, and are the first, in the country to actually fund that program.

We’re funding more supportive housing; we’re funding youth wellness hubs—all in the spring budget that that member voted against.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: The Premier and her minister seem completely unconcerned with the large number of Ontario hospitals operating way above safe capacity. She seems completely unconcerned that people struggling with their mental health have access to only a few scattered services in overcrowded hospitals. How can the Premier look at these numbers and how can she hear those horror stories that go to her office and not realize that the problems in our mental health system are real?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, I think one thing we can all agree on is that we need to make more and greater investments in mental health. I’ve said repeatedly that we need to look at mental health services the same way we do physical health services. They’re two sides of the same coin, and there’s no health without mental health.

But we are making those investments. In this year’s budget alone, again, $13 million in new funding for specialty mental health hospitals. We made investments for 1,000 more supportive housing spaces; $48 million for specialized mental health services at St. Joseph’s Care Group in Thunder Bay; $5 million to Youthdale Treatment Centre; a brand new inpatient mental health program and unit at the Royal Victoria in Barrie specifically for children and youth; an inpatient unit and an outpatient unit at Georgian Bay hospital; a new renovation for mental health that the member from Burlington announced just last week, a new hospital—

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

M me France Gélinas: The Ontario Hospital Association has called for immediate and ongoing funding just to make it through the flu season. OPSEU mental health care workers—some of them are with us today—are calling for more front-line staff. The Premier and her minister like to tout her last budget in response to this serious question, but even that budget shortchanged our hospitals by over $300 million. It seems to me, Speaker, that the Premier, her minister and her entire government are completely out of touch on this issue.

Why won’t this Liberal government stop playing politics with people’s health and with people’s access to care, admit that there is an overcrowding and hallway medicine crisis in our hospitals and do something right now to fix the mess they’ve created?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Once again, I don’t deny that there are challenges in our health care system, but we need to be careful that we represent the system effectively and transparently and authentically. We have the Fraser Institute, if you can believe it, that has consistently ranked Ontario’s health care system as having some of the shortest wait times in Canada. The Wait Time Alliance has given us straight As as well, Mr. Speaker.

We’ve invested in the spring budget $11.5 billion over the next three years into our health care system. I don’t know how the member opposite can possibly characterize that as anything other than an unprecedented investment, which is even separate from the $20 billion in capital investment over the next 10 years in our system. But perhaps it’s because she’s reflecting upon their time in government, when they made drastic cuts to the health care system, when they cut $20 million from our psychiatric hospitals and they closed 13% of all mental health beds in the province.

Hydro rates

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. Tabled just minutes ago is another damning report by the Auditor General. The “unfair” hydro plan will cost Ontario up to $4 billion more than necessary. That means Ontario families will have to pay an additional $4 billion just for the Liberals’ re-election campaign. This scheme, the “unfair” hydro plan, is about one thing and only one thing, and that’s the Liberals’ re-election. It’s not about paying hydro bills. It’s not about helping Ontario families. This is just about the partisan interests of the Liberal Party of Ontario. The Auditor General makes that abundantly clear.

What I want to know, Mr. Speaker, from the Premier, is: How can she justify blowing $4 billion to help the Liberal Party?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I appreciate the work that the Auditor General has done. The reality is that families across this province, individuals across this province were saying that the cost of their electricity prices were going up too high—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —and they were going up too quickly.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Right after I asked him, he shouts another one. The member from Leeds–Grenville, second time, and the member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I have acknowledged many times in this Legislature and outside this Legislature that the investments had to be made because we had a degraded electricity system in this province that we needed to rebuild. There was a cost associated with that. I’ve been quite open about that.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville is warned.

The member from Prince Edward–Hastings: Oh, I knew.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I hear heckling from the other side that this is partisan. This is not partisan. This is about people needing to have the reliability of turning on a light switch and the lights coming on. In 2003, we had blackouts and brownouts. The lights weren’t coming on. We’ve rebuilt the system, and people needed a break.

Interjections.

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

Mr. Paul Miller: Get the mustard out for the baloney.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: The way this government chose to do their “unfair” hydro plan cost Ontario families $4 billion. This is your decision. This is the path you picked. The Auditor General makes that unequivocally clear. It also confirms another thing: that the Liberal Party, in the way they’re doing this, cooks the books.

You read the direct quote—Mr. Speaker, this is a direct quote—“They’re making up their own accounting rules.” Can you imagine that? A direct quote: “making up their own accounting rules.” She also unearthed the fact that ratepayers will be charged more than the actual cost of electricity being produced in order to pay back borrowing. This is cynical politics at its worst: making up your own rules and charging Ontario families more to serve the partisan interests of the Liberal Party.

My question for the Premier: Why won’t she just come clean and admit to Ontario families that she’s blowing—

Interjections.

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

I am not prepared to accept the terminology that was used, so I’ll ask the member to withdraw.

Mr. Patrick Brown: What terminology? Withdraw the direct quote?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You know it doesn’t matter, because you can’t say indirectly what you can’t say directly.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, come to order. This is the kind of thing that I’m not impressed with when we start doing personal comments, and it will stop now.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Our government thanks the Auditor General for her review of our plan to reduce electricity bills for all residential consumers by an average of 25%. Families in this province have asked for real and immediate relief on their electricity bills, and that’s why we have delivered the largest rate reduction in Ontario’s history. Since 2003, nearly $70 billion have been invested in the electricity system, including more than $37 billion in electricity generation, to ensure that our system is clean and reliable.

Mr. Speaker, as we all are aware, the Auditor General’s report is technical in nature, and I understand she will be discussing it with the media and members of the Legislature at 12 p.m. today. We’ve also been addressing some of these points at the Standing Committee on Estimates. In respecting the independence of the province’s officers of the Legislature, including the Auditor General, our government will respond to the report following her news conference.

Hydro rates

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier. Last May, the Financial Accountability Officer revealed that the Premier’s so-called fair hydro plan will not reduce hydro costs but merely postpone payment of those costs until after the next election. In the long run, Ontario families will pay billions more under the government’s scheme than they would have paid without that scheme. And today, the Auditor General revealed that the government is wasting $4 billion on an Enron-style accounting scheme whose sole purpose is to hide this truth from the public.

Why is the Premier forcing Ontario consumers to pay $4 billion just so she can mislead the public about her hydro borrowing scheme?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, no. Be seated, please. The member will withdraw.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Withdraw.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the President of the Treasury Board is going to want to comment, but let me just say again that we appreciate the work the Auditor General has done. I have said that it was absolutely necessary to make the investments that were made, to rebuild a degraded electricity system; that there was a cost associated with those, and that therefore the costs of electricity were going up quickly and they were going up to a very high rate, particularly in some parts of the province, in some of the rural and northern communities.

We responded by putting in place a plan that, again, I have said publicly we knew that over the long term was going to have a cost associated with it. But we also know that the asset that has been built and rebuilt will last for a number of generations, and we spread that cost over a longer period of time.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: That was not a satisfactory answer. The Premier is spending $5.5 million in public money to tell Ontarians that hydro costs are going down when we know they’re actually going up. And now the Auditor General has revealed that the Premier is forcing ratepayers to pay $4 billion in an Enron-style accounting scheme designed to conceal this truth from Ontarians.

Instead of adding billions in needless costs onto the hydro bills of Ontario families, will the Premier finally admit that her misguided hydro borrowing scheme will make everyone worse off in the long run?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: President of the Treasury Board.

Hon. Liz Sandals: When I think back to 2003 and I think of my own riding of Guelph, I think about a part of Ontario that never used to have smog days. The reason we had smog days was because of coal generation. We have invested a lot of money into the Ontario hydro system to make sure we get rid of coal-fired generation. And do you know what? We don’t have smog days—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Liz Sandals: But we also know that consumers have been struggling with the cost of electricity bills. That is why we brought in the fair hydro plan to reduce the cost of hydro for people throughout Ontario, for average families.

What we also know is that the auditor has tabled her fair hydro report today. We appreciate her work. We’ll respect the auditor going forward with her conference at noon. We will—

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

Transformative technologies

Mr. Arthur Potts: My question today is for the Minister of Research, Innovation and Science.

I understand the minister was recently in Quebec with a number of his colleagues to strengthen Ontario and Quebec relations. It’s my further understanding that the visit went very, very well; it was quite successful. Now more than ever, it is important for all provinces to come together, collaborate and share initiatives and innovative ideas that will improve the lives of Ontarians and Canadians.

I understand that during the visit, the minister signed a memorandum of understanding for Ontario-Quebec collaboration on artificial intelligence. Could the minister tell the members of this Legislature a little bit more about the memorandum of understanding that was signed and how we are promoting the development of artificial intelligence in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Reza Moridi: I want to thank the member for that question. I’m sure my colleagues have heard me say this time and time again: The key to innovation is collaboration. That’s exactly why I was in Quebec City signing a memorandum of understanding with Minister Anglade of the Quebec government.

This MOU with Quebec will allow each province to build on its existing strengths in the field of artificial intelligence through multi-sector collaboration. Ontario and Quebec are being presented with an incredible opportunity to work together in creating expertise in the field of artificial intelligence, expertise that will keep both jurisdictions competitive around the globe for the years to come.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Arthur Potts: Thank you, of course, to the minister for his answer and for the great leadership he’s showing on building capacity in artificial intelligence. Ontario is well regarded as a leading jurisdiction in AI research.

Last week, I read that the minister signed another memorandum of understanding between Ontario and the British High Commission in Ottawa. I’m pleased to see that the minister is doing everything in his power to build these important relationships with other jurisdictions around the world. As I said earlier, it’s a time when the world is increasingly becoming closed off and isolationist, and it’s wonderful to see that this government and our representatives are pushing for collaboration on issues of importance to all Canadians.

Could the minister please elaborate on the memorandum of understanding that was signed with the British High Commissioner?

Hon. Reza Moridi: Again, I want to thank my colleague for that question. As well, I want to thank him for sharing my opinion on collaboration as key for innovation.

Last week, I signed a memorandum of understanding with the British High Commissioner to enhance and strengthen our efforts to pursue common goals in the field of transformative technologies. Past investments by the government of Ontario in transformative technologies include:

—$130 million for next-generation networks;

—$80 million for autonomous vehicles;

—$50 million for the Vector Institute for Artificial Intelligence;

—$50 million for the Perimeter Institute for fundamental physics; and

—$20 million for the Quantum Valley Ideas Lab.

Collaboration between Ontario and the UK will yield sustained economic relations, encourage industrial relations, foster research and development, and help us both harness best scientific practices.

Manufacturing jobs

Mr. Todd Smith: Thanks to the Auditor General for her report today. We know that the Premier and the Liberal government blew $1 billion in the gas plant scandal to get re-elected. Now we know that they’re going to double down as a result of the report. They’re not even going to double down, Mr. Speaker; they’re quadrupling down to—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. First of all, I need to know who, and I’ll ask you in a moment.

The Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services will come to order, and the President of Treasury Board will come to order.

Mr. Todd Smith: To the Premier, Speaker.

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

Mr. Todd Smith: We know that the Premier was responsible for the billion-dollar scandal with the gas plants. We now know that this scandal that has been uncovered today by the Auditor General is a $4-billion scandal. This government is doubling down—it’s quadrupling down using taxpayers’ dollars for its re-election ploy.

If the Auditor General’s report isn’t scathing enough, we have a report from the Financial Post this morning that released stats on the loss of manufacturing jobs as a result of the Green Energy Act, which got us into this mess in the first place. The report states that we have lost 75,000 jobs in Ontario in the manufacturing sector—a direct result. Why is the Premier continuing to defend this policy?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Economic Development and Growth.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I just came from the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters annual general meeting. I can tell you one thing: Our exporters and our manufacturers are tired of opposition members talking down the incredible progress they have made: working through the global recession, emerging stronger here in this province, and creating 12,000 net jobs in the manufacturing sector alone in the last year alone. It’s not fair to talk down that hard-working sector, leading the country in growth, helping us create 800,000 net new jobs across this province. It’s time for that party to start supporting our manufacturers rather than denigrating them.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Simcoe–Grey will come to order.

Supplementary?

Mr. Todd Smith: Back to the Premier: We’re getting a very, very different story on this side of the House when it comes to job losses in Ontario and companies that are hanging on by a thread in Ontario because of the policies of this government.

In this study done by the Financial Post, it shows that 75,000 manufacturing jobs left Ontario as a result—a direct result—of the Green Energy Act. It’s a mess. It’s a mess for our employers over there. It’s a mess for our manufacturers.

The Auditor General has pointed out today that this government is willing to blow another $4 billion—that’s $800 per household in Ontario—for their re-election platform. It’s unheard of, it’s disrespectful and it has to stop. But there’s no sign of them stopping. They got away with it once with the gas plants. They’re going to do four times the damage with this unfair Liberal hydro plan. Will they stop it now?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Where was the opposition when we invested $1.9 billion in our manufacturing sector to leverage $18 billion in private sector investment and support 90,000 jobs? They were nowhere. They were opposing those investments. Where was the opposition when we were reducing regulatory burden on the manufacturing sector, when we brought in the industrial exemption? They were absolutely silent. Where was the opposition when the finance minister provided some pension solvency relief to this sector, saving them hundreds of millions of dollars?

Where were they when we brought in the Smart Green Program, run by the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters? Nowhere. Where were they when we brought in three different initiatives in the ICI, the industrial conservation initiative, to save our manufacturers billions of dollars? Nowhere.

They’re all talk, no action. We stand up for our manufacturing sector, and that’s why this province is up—

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

New question.

Pension plans

Ms. Jennifer K. French: My question is to the Premier. On Friday, an Ontario Superior Court approved a motion permitting Sears Canada to shut down operations, leaving 12,000 people with no job and no severance, and thousands of pensioners with a total pension shortfall of more than $260 million. This will have a devastating impact on families in my community of Oshawa and across the province who have worked their whole lives counting on their pension being there when they retire.

Last year, I introduced a motion to ensure that pensioners are given top priority ahead of large corporations during bankruptcy proceedings. This government supported my motion unanimously, but I guess they’ve changed their mind or gone back on their word.

Will the Premier do the right thing, honour the commitment she made and stand up for Ontario’s pensioners?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The Minister of Finance is going to speak to the specifics of the financial situation, but let me first say that it is obviously very, very hard on families when a business of this magnitude shuts down. My heart goes out to all of the people who are affected. We are working with the situation. We are working with all of the players, and we will do everything we can.

But in the first instance, the economy is shifting. There’s no doubt about that—and there was just a lively exchange with the Minister of Economic Development and Growth and the opposition. The reality is that the nature of our economy is changing. Jobs are changing. There are jobs coming to Ontario. There are new jobs that are opening. We talked about an investment in artificial intelligence. But there are jobs that are no longer because of the nature of the economy, the nature of retail, the nature of work. But my heart goes out to the families who are affected.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Again to the Premier: It’s lovely that her heart goes out to them, but we hope that help will go out to them as well.

For pensioners, this isn’t just an outstanding debt on a balance sheet, it’s about keeping food on the table and a roof over their families. New Democrats have called for any revenue from liquidation sales to be used to fund Sears employees’ pensions first, not more executive bonuses. And we’ll continue to fight for laws that make this the case for all workers.

Does the Premier think that big corporations and executive bonuses should be the priority over pensioners?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I appreciate the question and the concern. I know that members of the Canadian Federation of Pensioners are here today. One of them is a pensioner from Sears who’s being affected by it as we speak. Only in Ontario will he have the benefit of a pension guarantee fund. Nowhere else in Canada is that available.

Furthermore, we are looking at making reforms that provide even greater support for pensioners going forward. Those are some of the reforms we’ve put forward. I know the member opposite is talking about the changes that should be enacted by the laws of Canada, and we recognize that and support that. But right now, we need to help pensioners today as it affects them today, and we are doing just that by the reforms we’re making, working alongside the members and the pensioners, knowing that we must do our utmost to protect those pensions.

I can assure the members of Sears that 80% to 90% of them will get their full pension because of Ontario’s guarantee. Furthermore, their pension assets are not affected by the bankruptcy. We’ll fight for them all the way.

Waste reduction

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: My question is for the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Speaker, as you may know, today marks the second day of Waste Reduction Week in Canada. Over the course of this week, Canadians will be holding events to challenge themselves and encourage others to reduce waste. And just to be clear, we’re talking about solid waste, not time.

In 2014 alone, 11.5 million tonnes of waste was generated in the province of Ontario. That means, on average, every person in Ontario generated approximately one tonne of waste per year. The events this week serve as opportunities for Ontarians to learn how they can reduce waste in their homes, communities and businesses, and through the Waste-Free Ontario Act, we’re making it easier for Ontarians to do just that.

In recognition of Waste Reduction Week, can the minister please explain to this House what the government is doing to help Ontarians reduce waste?

Hon. Chris Ballard: Thank you to the member for that very important question. We’re happy here to recognize Waste Reduction Week today. It really is an opportunity for all Ontarians to take the challenge to reduce waste in their daily lives.

As the member mentioned, Ontario generates millions of tonnes of waste each year. Currently, only 28% of that waste is being diverted from landfills. This results in $1 billion in valuable resources lost each year to landfill. However, it’s estimated that for every 1,000 tonnes of waste diverted from landfill, we could create seven jobs, $360,000 in wages and $700,000 in additional GDP. Our government recognizes the value of reinvesting these resources in the economy. That’s why we took action by introducing the Waste-Free Ontario Act, so that Ontarians could be proud of the work being done to reduce waste across the province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: I would like to thank the minister for his response. Speaker, as you will know, climate change is of course becoming an increasingly apparent global threat. We also know that managing waste and reusing our resources is a critical part of achieving our goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and moving towards a prosperous low-carbon economy.

Our climate change action plan commits to reducing emissions from waste and moving Ontario towards a circular economy. We recognize that diverting waste from landfill is not just about protecting our land and environment; it is also central to fighting climate change and creating a better future for Ontarians and our planet. That’s why we’re transitioning towards this circular economy.

Reusing and reinvesting resources allows us to keep resources within the economy, benefiting both the environment and the economic productivity of Ontarians. Speaker, can the minister please tell the House how the circular economy will improve Ontario’s economy and the lives of Ontarians?

Hon. Chris Ballard: Thank you to the member for Etobicoke North for that follow-up question. Speaker, our government is committed to moving beyond the linear “make, use, dispose of” model to a new model that we refer to as the circular economy, where we make productive use of materials for as long as possible. We’re also lowering the cost of recycling for Ontarians and providing them with more convenient recycling options.

By significantly increasing diversion efforts, Ontario will be supporting 13,000 jobs and adding $1.5 billion to the province’s GDP. We’ve also committed to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases from landfills, which account for about 5% of our total greenhouse gas emissions here in Ontario.

However, not everyone has joined the movement to reduce waste here in Ontario. In fact, the members of both parties opposite voted against the Waste-Free Ontario Act in 2016.

During Waste Reduction Week, I urge all members to consider waste reduction.

Mental health services

Ms. Sylvia Jones: