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

December 6, 2016

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-Dec-06 (PDF)

L040 - Tue 6 Dec 2016 / Mar 6 déc 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 6 December 2016 Mardi 6 décembre 2016

Modernizing Ontario’s Municipal Legislation Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la modernisation de la législation municipale ontarienne

Introduction of Visitors

Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women

Battle of Hong Kong

Oral Questions

Highway tolls

Skills training

Hospital funding

Hydro rates

Autism treatment

Autism treatment

Consumer protection

Energy policies

Beverage alcohol sales

Beverage alcohol sales

Health care funding

Domestic violence

Land use planning

Ministry grants

Deferred Votes

Time allocation

Correction of record

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Health care

Ron Dunn

ErinoakKids Centre for Treatment and Development

School closures

Dianne Colantonio

Automated vehicles

Steve Sanderson

Feihe International Inc.

Wind turbines

Special Report, Environmental Commissioner of Ontario

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Standing Committee on Social Policy

Standing Committee on General Government

Introduction of Bills

Ontario Service Dogs Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur les chiens d’assistance en Ontario

Long-Term Care Homes Amendment Act (Preference for Veterans), 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant la

Loi sur les foyers de soins de longue durée (préférence accordée aux anciens combattants)

Lawren Harris Day Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le Jour de Lawren Harris

Fairness in Labour Relations Act (Bargaining Units and Certification of Trade Unions), 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur l’équité dans les relations de travail (unités de négociation et accréditation des syndicats)

Legislative Security Service

Motions

Consideration of Bill 16

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women / Journée de commémoration et d’action contre la violence faite aux femmes

Petitions

School closures

Property taxation

Anti-smoking initiatives for youth

Ontario Municipal Board

Hydro rates

School closures

Hydro rates

Employment standards

Hydro rates

Privatization of public assets

Children’s immunization program

Health care funding

Orders of the Day

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

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Modernizing Ontario’s Municipal Legislation Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la modernisation de la législation municipale ontarienne

Resuming the debate adjourned on December 1, 2016, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 68,

An Act to amend various Acts in relation to municipalities / Projet de loi 68, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne les municipalités.

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

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Mr. Speaker, I have mixed feelings on whether I’m pleased to speak to this bill today. A week ago, the government provided us with a calendar of the final two weeks of debate in the Legislature. At that time, this bill did not appear even once, so it seemed that we had a lot of time to consult with stakeholders and research in preparation for this speech. Instead, the government called the bill three times last week, each time on very short notice.

Now they have called it again this morning, knowing that the critics for municipal affairs and housing were scheduled to be at clause-by-clause yesterday until 8 p.m. on the affordable housing bill and have third reading speeches for that bill this afternoon.

When MPPs don’t get sufficient notice, it lowers the quality of debate in this Legislature. It restricts our ability to contact stakeholders and local municipalities to hear their concerns—

Mr. Michael Mantha: A point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Point of order. I recognize the member from Algoma–Manitoulin.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Do we have a quorum present?

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Tonia Grannum): A quorum is present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): A quorum is present. Back to the member from Oxford.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a large, complex bill. It amends or repeals 16 different pieces of legislation and impacts every municipality in Ontario, which is a little concerning because as part of their submission to the municipal legislative review, AMO said that the Municipal Act was working reasonably well and just needed some minor changes. I hope this government hasn’t tried to fix what wasn’t broken.

It has been over a year since the government consulted in that review, but many of the changes in this bill have been anticipated for much longer than that: They’re from Justice Cunningham’s judicial inquiry on the conflict of interest in Mississauga, which took place in 2011—five years ago. The government has taken their time to review these changes; it’s unfair not to give MPPs and stakeholders the time they need to properly review the bill, and unfair to change the timing for debate on short notice. We deserve, and the municipalities and the people of Ontario deserve, to have a proper, well-researched debate.

In fact, when I reached out to stakeholders in preparation for this debate, they were surprised it was being debated already and said they were still in the process of reviewing the bill. Are the last-minute changes to the legislative

schedule a sign that the government is trying to put the opposition at a disadvantage? Is it the sign of a government that doesn’t want us to have sufficient time to bring forward the problems in this bill? Or is it simply incompetent planning? I will leave that to the members of the public who are watching to judge.

While I’m not pleased about the government’s action, I’m pleased to speak to this bill because of the amount of time and effort that our municipalities spent to get it right. The government likes to talk about the fact that they received 350 submissions to this bill. I just want to remind everyone what that means. It means that hard-working people in our municipalities took time away from their regular duties to research, prepare or approve these reports. It means individuals took the time, after they got home from work or on the weekend, to write and share their concerns.

It means that municipal organizations took the time to consult with their members, pull together the best ideas and send them to the government.

I think it is a credit to all those municipalities, individuals and organizations that we see their work reflected in this bill. I want to thank all of those who shared their work, not only with the government, but also with me in my office. I look forward to hearing from them again to see whether the government’s proposal has addressed their concerns and implemented their suggestions correctly or whether they missed the mark.

But one of the first concerns that I want to raise is about something that is not in this bill, and that is the direct election of regional chairs. It isn’t in this bill because the government instead included it in a finance omnibus bill that was introduced on the exact same day.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 68, the municipal omnibus bill and Bill 70, the finance omnibus bill actually amend the same sections of the Municipal Act: 218 and 221. If this bill passed first, Bill 70 would actually repeal the changes to

section 218 that Bill 68 just put in place. That would be in the ordering number, Mr. Speaker; of course, 68 would be first.

Let me explain that for the people at home. It’s like the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has sent out a construction crew to 218 and told them to build a garage behind the house. On the exact same day, the Minister of Finance sent out a construction crew to 218 and said, “Rip down all the buildings on the site and build a new house.” If the finance construction crew gets there first, everything will work out fine, but if the municipal crew gets there first, then the finance crew will rip down the brand new garage.

Unfortunately, most people already believe the government is that disorganized, that one ministry doesn’t know what the other one is doing. This seems to prove them right.

I think that the people of Ontario deserve better. The government should not be inserting major municipal changes in a finance bill just because they can force it through more quickly and with less scrutiny. If they are proposing that level of change, they should take the time to get it right and to properly consult with the people in all the areas that are affected.

The regional councils of Niagara and York have both recently voted on direct election of the chair, and both councils decided against it. Muskoka sent a submission to the government as part of the municipal legislative review, and there’s no mention of directly electing a regional chair.

I think they deserve an opportunity to speak to the committee and explain why they didn’t believe it was the best option for their community. Was it to protect the level of representation for smaller communities? Were they concerned about the size of the raise? Those are questions that could have been addressed in the committee on this bill. Or, if the government wanted to give municipalities more time to implement the change, it could have considered it as part of Bill 181, the Municipal Elections Modernization Act, which this Legislature just passed on June 7 of this year.

Niagara’s regional chair wrote a column pointing out that Niagara regional council recently held votes on both the direct election of the chair and whether to have an integrity commissioner. Now the province is overruling both of those decisions. He said, “These votes of council clearly represent the will of Niagara residents that elected each of these councillors to represent you in your communities.”

Going on with the quote: “This week, the Minister of Municipal Affairs has put forward new legislation which, if passed, would see the provincial government reverse the decisions of your local representatives and force a one-size-fits-all approach on Niagara region and our communities.

“Each Ontario municipality should have a right to determine how it is governed. That decision should not be dictated in a top-down way from Queen’s Park.”

Bill 181, the Municipal Elections Modernization Act, is a perfect example of what happens when you rush ahead with legislation without thinking it through and listening to the public. Not only did the minister and the government reverse themselves during the process of the bill on issues like union and corporate donations and whether paid labour counted as a donation, now less than six months later, in Bill 68, they have introduced significant changes to the contribution levels for candidates and third-party advertisers; they have increased from $750 to $1,200.

The amount that an individual can contribute to their own campaign has increased to $25,000, despite concerns raised by presenters last spring that this would give wealthy candidates who can afford to finance their own campaign an unfair advantage.

For Bill 181, the government told us that they had received 3,400 submissions. In fact, during the debate, the parliamentary assistant for municipal affairs and housing said, “I know that AMO, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, had an opportunity to give us input on this. The concept of where we wanted to go was presented. They were expecting it, because it’s something you do after every election. There were some 3,400 inputs from municipal leaders and members of the public on what this should look like at the end of the day.”

If they read those submissions and took the advice they received at the time, how does the government explain that they have changed their minds less than six months later? In fact, when we debated Bill 181, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines said, “What we are proposing, Mr. Speaker, is a framework to regulate third-party advertising to increase accountability for advertisers and ensure more fair and more transparent support, including setting contribution and spending limits.”

If the changes in Bill 181 were about being more fair and transparent, what are these changes that are being snuck in through a municipal omnibus bill less than six months later, Mr. Speaker? What are they trying to hide? The government may say that the changes in this bill are to reflect the new provincial contributions in the Election Finances Statute Law Amendment Act. That would be a good argument except that the government had introduced the Election Finances Statute Law Amendment Act before we did the clause-by-clause on Bill 181, the municipal elections bill, last spring.

So the government had the opportunity to amend that bill to make it consistent, and they chose not to. I specifically remember that the elections bill was introduced before clause-by-clause, because I did move an amendment to try to make the two bills more consistent. I moved an amendment that would have made paid labour a campaign contribution under the Municipal Elections Act, as it is under the new Election Finances Statute Law Amendment Act. Despite the fact that it had just been introduced in a government bill, the government members on the committee voted the amendment down. I notice that they didn’t introduce anything in this bill that would address that problem either.

Last spring, we had people who came to committee and spoke about self-funding campaigns. They raised concerns that it would lead to economic inequality and increased risk of illegal donations. At the end of the process with the bill, they loudly congratulated the government on steps they had taken to make municipal elections more fair and transparent because the government put a reduced level on it. Now, less than six months later, the government is undoing some of those changes.

I would like to know what the government had to say to these people who came out in the spring and spoke at the committee and then went out and talked about the positive changes. Are they just hoping that these people just won’t notice? Again, I will leave that to the people at home to judge whether the government did this on purpose or whether it’s just a government that is disorganized and has no plan.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give another example from this bill which raises a similar question. This bill contains a clause which allows councillors to participate in meetings electronically. We have some concerns about that, but what is really concerning is that the government said it is for rural and northern communities where weather might prevent councillors from attending the meeting, and then they included the amendments to the City of Toronto Act as well. Do the government members think that Scarborough and Etobicoke are rural?

Mr. Speaker, it’s interesting that the last time this government tried to put this change into the Municipal Act, I was in committee when their own members accidentally voted it out during the clause-by-clause.

I also find it interesting that during the municipal election legislation review, most of the discussion about electronics focused on ways to increase public participation, such as broadcasting meetings live, and yet none of those changes appear in this bill.

In fact, despite the fact that the government claims this bill is about transparency and accountability, they are putting forward a change that would make council meetings less transparent. Currently, members of the public can go to meetings and clearly see who is speaking and how they are voting. If the government had done their research on this issue, they would have found that there have already been issues with granting this ability in other jurisdictions.

Port Moody recently rescinded their municipal bylaw, which allowed electronic participation at council meetings, after two different councillors tried it on separate occasions and both had technical difficulties. The council considered spending $45,000 to upgrade their teleconferencing abilities, which resulted in outrage from their residents. One letter to the editor said:

“I was outraged to learn of Port Moody council’s experiment with councillors ‘attending’ council meetings by Skype. Why?

“First, our city councillors are paid well to participate in their civic duties and responsibilities. I think attendance at city council meetings is their top priority where citizens with issues may ’see the whites of their eyes.’ Face-to-face interaction is crucial.”

The letter went on to say, “Residents with disabilities are expected to drag themselves to council meetings to speak to issues. I would be more sympathetic if the remote conferencing was being provided for our disabled and shut-in residents to participate in council meetings.”

There are no requirements in this bill for videoconferencing or other steps to make sure that the public will still be able to hold their representatives to account. As the town of Richmond Hill said in their submission, “In order to allow the opportunity for the public to participate and understand the decision-making of council, it is important that these meetings take place in an open and transparent manner. Attendance at these meetings is part of this process as it allows the public to come face to face and interact with the decision-makers in their community.”

The submission from York region acknowledged that extensive use of technology to facilitate attendance may erode the principle of accountability and transparency.

It’s clear that the government hasn’t thought this change through. In a briefing, the staff couldn’t even answer whether someone calling in to the meeting would count as absent or not. If this provision was truly intended for exceptional circumstances, such as extreme weather, then it should count as an absence to ensure that it cannot be abused.

Other jurisdictions, such as British Columbia, have put in restrictions around electronic meetings to ensure transparency and accountability. These include ensuring there are facilities so the public can fully watch and hear all participants in the meeting. If the government wants to allow electronic participation in meetings, why aren’t these measures included in the bill? Do they not truly care about transparency? Or is it another instance where the government just hasn’t done the proper research?

Mr. Speaker, I want to raise another

section of the bill that will cause challenges. This bill gives a municipality the right to enter land adjoining property owned by or occupied by the municipality, for the purpose of maintaining or making repairs or alterations to the land owned or occupied by the municipality. There’s no permission required. In fact, there isn’t even a requirement for the owner of the property or the tenant to be notified. To be clear, this is not emergency work. This is maintenance, repairs and alterations. There’s no reason that the owner of the land could not be informed and have the opportunity to object.

In a briefing we were told that there was a requirement for notice, but in fact, if you read the bill, there is no notice requirement. If you read the current Municipal Act, there’s a

section which gives the municipalities the authority to give landowners access to a neighbouring property for maintenance and repairs. That

section has a notice requirement that applies to the neighbouring landowner, but it doesn’t apply to the new

section of this bill at all.

Once again, it’s not clear whether the government believes that the people don’t deserve to have notice that someone will be entering their property, or whether they simply didn’t take the time to realize that it wasn’t included in the bill. I know that there will be people who will question why this notice matters; they picture a city employee walking through their backyard and wonder why it matters. But let me give you an example of the challenges this creates.

On farms in my riding of Oxford and across Ontario, biosecurity is a big concern. Visitors to the farm can be required to have clean shoes, clean clothing and clean vehicles, including tires and undercarriage. In fact, this government has spent millions on biosecurity measures, such as truck-washing stations to help stop the spread of diseases like PED and avian influenza. Biosecurity has become a concern for grain farmers as well. Yet there is nothing in this bill that would stop a municipal employee going from farm to farm without taking any precautions.

The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs’ website says, “Visitors can unknowingly bring harmful agents onto a farm via contaminated clothing and footwear, equipment and vehicles. Equipment used to repair buildings and machinery, to treat or handle animals, and to carry out testing or procedures are all potential sources of contamination.

The risk is increased with visitors who regularly go from farm to farm as part of their employment or routine.” It goes on to say, “Visitors must be prepared to accept all reasonable directives from the farmer when visiting his or her operation” and that, “All visitors should make an appointment so that both parties can make best use of their time. The visitor should ask the farm operator about his or her biosecurity protocol and any special measures that must be taken.”

Mr. Speaker, if we have one government ministry investing millions in biosecurity and telling all visitors that they should make an appointment, and another ministry telling municipal employees they can access private property with no notice and no requirement to contact the owner, I think we would all question whether that was appropriate.

I’m also concerned by a change in this bill to subsection 255, which removes the requirement for a municipal auditor to approve the length of time that a municipality or local board must retain records. Based on the track record of this government, I think we have seen why it is important to have an independent person involved in decisions on how long records should be kept. The argument has been put forward that the municipal auditor has primarily financial expertise and therefore is not the appropriate person to approve the retention period. I understand that argument, and moving the approval to another authority would be a solution, but I think having an independent authority makes sense.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps even the government doesn’t have confidence that they have researched this bill properly, because one of their changes is to add additional regulation-making authority to deal with problems or issues arising as a result of the amendment or repeal of

an act, or a provision of

an act, under this bill. So anything that may be wrong that they haven’t researched, this bill gives them the right to correct after the fact.

One of my concerns is not with what is in this bill but with what is not in it. I want to take a few moments to point out some of the things that municipalities requested that we don’t see in this bill.

While I’m happy to see that the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act is finally being updated, it’s disappointing that the government waited five years after Justice Cunningham released a report from his judicial inquiry called Updating Ethical Infrastructure before they addressed these changes. I want to point out that while they have addressed some of Justice Cunningham’s recommendations, there are some that are not included in this bill, such as identifying a source of funding for inquiries by municipal integrity commissioners, and a term of office or tenure, that do not appear to have been addressed.

It’s difficult to have an independent officer whose job is to investigate if there are inappropriate actions by members of council, and yet that person serves at the will or pleasure of council.

Another thing that is missing is any action to address the problem of joint and several liability. This was a request from a number of municipalities and municipal organizations. As you know, currently, if a municipality is found 1% at fault for an accident, they can still be held accountable for the full cost. As a result, municipal insurance rates are increasing exponentially.

As we all know, at AMO in August 2011, Premier McGuinty promised municipalities a solution was coming. Two months later, there was a provincial election. Afterwards, the government seemed to forget about the commitment and failed to take action, so the PC member from Perth–Wellington brought forward a motion in the House which said that the Ontario Legislature “should protect taxpayers from higher property taxes by implementing a comprehensive, long-term solution to reform joint and several liability insurance for municipalities by no later than June 2014, addressing the alarming rise in insurance premiums due to rising litigation and claim costs.”

In February 2014, in response to that motion, the now Minister of the Environment and Climate Change said, “There’s not much to debate, Mr. Speaker, in this particular motion because we agree with it. It’s already well in progress. We’re working with” the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and Rural Ontario Municipal Association “to a solution.”

In the same debate, the now Minister of Transportation said, “I think this is the kind of matter that deserves greater discussion and greater analysis, and I hope that it will be supported by members on all sides.

“The other thing I would mention is that in those delegations, in those conversations that I had with folks from municipalities representing the north, the south, the east and the southwest of this wonderful province that we call home, there was broad recognition that under the leadership of the current Attorney General and current Premier, there have been some very fruitful ongoing conversations about exactly what needs to occur here to make sure that we get it right.”

Mr. Speaker, just to remind you, that was the year of the election which took place on June 12. About two months after the election, municipalities went to the AMO conference in London and were shocked to hear the then Attorney General announce that the government would not be proceeding with joint and several liability reform.

With this bill, the government has missed another opportunity to address the problem. In their submission for the municipal legislative review, the city of Mississauga put forward a number of options to address the problem, including the Saskatchewan model. Under this model adopted by the province of Saskatchewan in 2004, if there is a shortfall because one defendant is insolvent and the plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to the injury, the shortfall is divided among the remaining at-fault defendants and the plaintiff, in proportion to their fault.

The multiplier model: If there is a shortfall because one defendant is insolvent, the municipality is never liable for more than two times its proportionate share of the damages.

Or the combined model: Where a plaintiff is partially at fault for their own loss, the Saskatchewan model could be applied first and then, if needed, the multiplier model could be applied to ensure the municipality would not be liable for paying more than two times its proportionate share of the damages.

For years, municipalities have been promised action shortly before an election only to have the province back away from their promises afterwards.

The Ontario Good Roads Association put forward a reasonable request to have the Attorney General set up a working group comprised of representatives from municipal government, provincial government and the Law Society of Upper Canada. If the government isn’t ready to address the problem in this bill, they should at least move forward with that working group and start trying to find solutions.

Addressing joint and several liability isn’t the only thing the government has missed in this bill, Mr. Speaker. A number of municipalities, including Mississauga and Vaughan, asked for clear municipal authority to regulate the sharing economy, but it also appears to be missing from this bill.

AMO and a number of municipalities recommended that councillors be required to take accountability training within the first 90 days of taking office, similar to the training they are required to take under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Again, it appears to be missing from this bill.

This bill also fails to address the request from the Municipal Finance Officers’ Association and the association of municipal clerks and treasurers that municipalities be allowed to exempt conservation authority land from municipal taxation as long as it is managed and controlled by the municipality for park purposes. As they point out, this would allow municipalities to avoid current situations where the conservation authorities levy the municipality to get the money to pay municipal taxes. It would cut the red tape and the expense of having the municipality’s funds go from the municipality to the conservation authority and then right back to the municipality.

This power is not new. It already exists in

section 451 of the City of Toronto Act. The Municipal Finance Officers’ Association simply recommended that the power to avoid red tape be expanded to all municipalities, but that change does not appear in this bill.

I wonder about priorities when there are seven amendments in this bill to change references in legislation from “February 28” to “the last day of February” to deal with leap years, but nothing to deal with these legitimate requests from the municipalities and AMO.

One of the other municipal requests is a regulation, so it wouldn’t be expected in this bill, but given that the government has not given us any indication that they will address it, I want to highlight the concern: the heads-and-beds rate. As you know, Mr. Speaker, this is the amount that municipalities charge universities in lieu of taxes. The rate of $75 per student has not been updated since 1987, almost 30 years ago. As the mayor of Hamilton said in a recent article, “Our position continues to be that the current heads-and-beds rate does not reflect fair compensation....

By our calculations, if indexed to inflation, proper funding would see an increase from $75 to approximately $135 per head/bed.”

We all know that municipalities are already struggling to make ends meet, and outdated rates like this one make it even more difficult. We will be watching to see if the government takes their advice and updates it, because already we have seen that this bill will cost municipalities more.

The government is rushing through a huge volume of legislation which impacts municipalities. Each one is a burden on municipalities as they try to participate in the consultation process and stay atop of the proposals to point out any unintended consequences, and each one results in more lasting costs for municipalities.

For instance, this afternoon, we will be debating Bill 7, which dumps new responsibilities for enforcing residential property standards bylaws on municipalities, as well as the cost of implementing inclusionary zoning bylaws and enumerating homeless people. Under this bill, all municipalities will have a number of new costs, including being required to have an integrity commissioner. A recent survey by the AMCTO found that 67% of municipalities don’t currently have an integrity commissioner.

So while it is positive for councillors and members of the public, we need to acknowledge that it is also an additional cost for two thirds of the municipalities. They also have to create a registry of conflicts of interest—again, a new cost, and again, no new provincial funds to offset these requirements.

Two years ago, staff at the city of Thunder Bay prepared a draft code of conduct, but council didn’t vote on it. According to the city clerk, council didn’t reject the content of the proposed code so much as its financial implications. The clerk said, “The issue was more around the fact that having a code of conduct means you then have to engage an integrity commissioner, so there were concerns around the expenses that might arise from that. It wasn’t about the content of the code itself.” Now the Minister of Municipal Affairs, their own MPP, is forcing them to take on that cost.

In their submission, York region pointed out that they had not passed a code of conduct because 18 out of 20 of their councillors were already subject to a code of conduct in their lower-tier municipalities, and being subject to two might cause ambiguity.

We have also heard concerns that this bill prescribes codes of conduct for local boards as well as councils. This is a concern, because municipalities don’t have legislative levers to control local boards, so this change may leave municipal councillors responsible for the accountability of local boards without any powers to make them more transparent or accountable.

While there are concerns that it has been expanded too widely in that direction, we also heard that it should be expanded within the municipality to cover both council and staff. When this issue was first proposed, the warden of Wellington county said, “If we need one, we can always get an integrity commissioner, but to have one on staff, or one we have to pay a retainer, what do we need the expense for? ... I think it’s a bit of overkill myself.”

He made the point that municipal governments are already transparent because they are right in front of the people all the time in a small town. As a result, many of these well-intentioned rules will simply become an extra layer of government and bureaucracy.

In the committee presentations to the Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act, the CAO of Middlesex county talked about hiring an ombudsman and pointed out that the cost to the municipality is not just the time the person is actively investigating. There are additional costs, such as training, that begin right away.

The cost for the integrity commissioner is in addition to the new costs for the direct election of regional chair that Peel, Niagara and Muskoka are being forced to take on, against the objections of many of the councillors.

As Mississauga mayor Bonnie Crombie said in a recent article, “We need to know whether or not there will be increased costs to taxpayers to administer the election process for a directly elected regional chair and how much staffing and administrative costs will increase to support someone representing well over one million people at Peel council.” According to the article, she suggested the new law may affect Mississauga’s decision to remain in Peel.

This government continues to add more and more burdens onto municipalities. Each new requirement and report takes additional staff and additional money. Repeatedly in this Legislature I have challenged the Minister of Municipal Affairs to review the forms and paperwork for municipalities and remove at least one for each new burden they add. Now that we have a new minister, maybe he will take up the challenge and try to reduce that burden. We can only hope.

Last year, I filed an order paper question asking the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to provide a list of all the reporting requirements for municipalities. Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe the government knows the answer because what they sent me back didn’t contain a number or a single report.

When we are looking at how the provincial government has increased costs to municipalities, one that often gets overlooked, but is significant, is the cost of hydro. I heard from one small municipality that they are paying $1,000 a day for hydro just for their long-term-care home—$1,000 a day.

The city of Oshawa received a bill for more than $150,000 to keep the street lights on in June 2015. Of that, only about $3,600 was for electricity; over $60,000 was a global adjustment charge and the rest was delivery, regulatory, debt retirement charges and HST.

Owen Sound recently went public with a bill they had received for 13 street light accounts over a one-month period. For 13 street light accounts over a one-month period, the cost of electricity was just $442, but the total bill came to over $10,000 due to nearly $5,000 in delivery fees and a $4,360 global adjustment charge. That is a huge additional cost for municipalities that were already struggling to make ends meet and supply all the services that their residents want. They are costs that end up getting passed on to residents through increased property taxes and user fees.

Mr. Speaker, we have all heard the stories of people in our ridings who are struggling with the high hydro rates: People who are paying hydro bills that are higher than their mortgage; people who are choosing between buying food and paying their hydro bill.

Recently, I heard from a man who said that after he paid all his bills, the only groceries he could afford for a week was a single loaf of bread. I heard from a couple who had dealt with the increasing cost of living by selling their house in the GTA and moving to my riding so they could use the profits of the house to live on—incidentally, that was a good decision—but hydro and the cost of living in Ontario continue to increase, and now they’re wondering what to do. Should they sell their house in Oxford and move to a more remote community where housing prices are lower?

Mr. Speaker, it isn’t fair that these people are paying the high cost of hydro twice, once in their own home and again on their municipal property taxes. It’s an urgent problem for our residents and our municipalities, but this government and this bill do nothing to solve it.

The mayor of Oshawa suggested the province help people, businesses and municipalities by removing all the additional fees on hydro. Instead, he and all other municipal officials are getting additional costs under this bill, Bill 7 and Bill 70, and those are just the bills that we are dealing with currently. As this government is putting more and more burdens on municipalities, it is even more important that we ensure they are getting an opportunity for input.

I want to take a few minutes to talk about some of the changes that they have asked for which are addressed in this bill, the first being that prudent investor standards are being expanded to all municipalities. Originally, these investment options were only available to the city of Toronto, and municipalities had asked for them to be expanded. I understand that this government continues to dump more and more costs onto municipalities and that their budgets are stretched. We hope that these additional investment tools will allow them to generate better returns from their investments.

Another one of AMO’s requests was to shorten the so-called lame-duck period. This is the time between the election of a new municipal council and when they are sworn in. However, AMO requested that the municipalities have flexibility on the date that the first meeting takes place. They recommend that the first meeting be fixed to take place within a range of 18 to 39 days after the election, allowing individual municipalities to set their council dates within that time, with the current date of December 1 as the latest limit. I look forward to hearing their response to this bill and whether they think the government’s proposal is sufficient.

We’re happy to see that there will now be a range of penalties available under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act to make sure that the penalty is appropriate to the situation. We’re also happy to see that there is now a definition of “meeting,” as municipalities, AMO and the Ontario Ombudsman all requested.

I look forward to hearing feedback on the new definition, which includes that a quorum of members must be present and “members discuss or otherwise deal with any matter in a way that materially advances the business or decision-making of the council, local board or committee.” That would be considered a meeting. I have a concern that there is no definition of “materially” and that this may leave the new definition open to

interpretation and challenges, but I hope that is something that will be addressed during the public consultations.

This bill adds four additional reasons that a meeting may be closed to the public, including “information explicitly supplied in confidence to the municipality or local board by Canada, a province or territory or a crown agency of any of them....” It seems like an odd addition from a government that said the bill was about transparency. I know that the previous Ombudsman had concerns about the number of reasons this government allowed meetings to be closed, and I look forward to hearing the opinion of our current Ombudsman on these new reasons.

Mr. Speaker, as has been pointed out, 350 municipalities, municipal organizations and individuals sent in submissions on the municipal legislation review. I am looking forward to hearing from them about where this bill hits the mark and where changes are needed.

One thing that municipalities talk about often is their uniqueness and the need for legislation to be flexible enough to work for not just large cities like Mississauga and Hamilton, which have enough staff to be aware of what is happening at Queen’s Park, but for small communities like Conmee that are already struggling with everything that this government has downloaded on them. We need to make an extra effort to hear from those small communities. That means giving them enough notice about the committee hearings, and it means travelling outside of this building.

I met with the Lakehead Rural Municipal Coalition, which includes six small municipalities. They said, “If the province is truly interested in the effect of proposed legislation on small municipalities, it needs to consult with municipalities of 5,000, 1,000, 800 or even 200 people. While we understand that not every municipality’s concerns can be captured, the province should not be writing legislation without truly knowing its effect on everyone.”

As I said at the beginning, there are a lot of organizations that worked hard on the municipal legislation review to put forward good ideas and recommendations for this bill. I am pleased to see some of these ideas incorporated, but as always, the details matter. This government has a track record of rushing legislation through, which results in mistakes, and based on how they have brought this bill forward for debate so far, it looks like they’re doing it again.

I’m going to ask the minister and all the members on the government side to put the needs of municipalities ahead of themselves to make sure we are debating this legislation in a way that allows all members to bring forward constructive comments and suggestions. Have public hearings with enough notice that people who have concerns can come and raise them. Have enough time between public hearings and clause-by-clause that we can put forward amendments based on those hearings and actually consider the amendments put forward by the opposition and third party.

An organized government with a plan doesn’t have to rush everything through to get things done. Giving people and organizations sufficient notice of committee hearings doesn’t have to slow the process down. It simply requires a government that can look more than a week ahead. Plan out the agenda so that while the committee is considering one bill, they’re aware of what is coming next and notifying the public.

Having time between public hearings and clause-by-clause doesn’t have to slow the process down. It simply means having a plan so that the committee can do other work in between. It is what a competent, organized government would do, and it results in better consultation and better legislation.

As Oxford county said in their submission, “Considering that the Municipal Act and Municipal Conflict of Interest Act are both important pieces of municipal legislation that have a significant influence on the way the county of Oxford develops its local bylaws, policies and operating procedures, it is important to ensure that proposed changes be appropriately considered.”

I would like to hear from the regions on the sections that require them to review the number of members for each lower-tier municipality.

I also want to hear from the public on whether they think one public meeting is sufficient for that process. I have concerns that some of our regions cover a large area with diverse communities, and that results of a single meeting in Mississauga or Caledon, for instance, might not be representative of the views of the entire population.

This used to be a government that boasted they wanted to have conversations. Today, they seem to measure their success instead by how quickly they can force changes through. In a few days, we will begin a winter break. I’m looking forward to taking some of that time to meet with stakeholders to talk about the changes in this bill and see where it addresses their concerns and where it misses the mark. I’m looking forward to hearing from municipalities at ROMA, and, after the Legislature returns, hearing from them at Good Roads.

When we return, I expect that members will be able to report back on the concerns their municipalities have. I hope that the government will give them the opportunity to do that.

As I mentioned, later today we will be debating a housing bill, Bill 7. When that went through the committee process, the government was more focused on how quickly they could get it through rather than on getting the best results. People who were presenting at committee were notified on Friday afternoon that they would have an opportunity to present on Monday. It was the same approach the government took with the municipal elections bill last spring. Now, less than six months later, we are debating this bill to amend the Municipal Elections Act again.

We need to take the time to get it right. That doesn’t just mean enough hours of debate. It means fair and reasonable notice of committee hearings so the presenters aren’t just limited to organizations who can afford to have someone monitoring the Legislature. It means giving people enough time between being notified that they can present and the date of the committee so that they can do a proper presentation. It means having enough time between the public consultation and the clause-by-clause that members of all parties actually have time to consider the concerns raised and to draft amendments based on them.

It means having enough time between the clause-by-clause and third reading that MPPs can actually read the new version of the bill and comment on whether it works or doesn’t.

This afternoon, not only are we debating a bill less than 24 hours after clause-by-clause; we are debating it before the new version of the bill is even printed. It is unfair to ask MPPs, especially those who weren’t in committee, to comment and vote on a bill when they haven’t seen what amendments were accepted and which ones were voted down. In fact, this required unanimous consent, because the standing orders clearly state,

“Amended bill reprinted

“(

b) When a bill has been amended in any committee it shall be reprinted as the Clerk of the House directs, amendments being indicated, and shall not be further proceeded with until it has been reprinted and marked REPRINTED on the Orders and Notices paper.”

Mr. Speaker, for Bill 68—and, frankly, all bills—the government needs to do better. We need to manage the legislative calendar so that MPPs and members of the public can have real input. That’s how we avoid the type of mistakes that have appeared in recent legislation, such as the need for Bill 68 to amend legislation that was just passed last spring.

I understand that how the government manages the

schedule in the Legislature probably isn’t a big concern of the people at home, but it is part of a broader issue of government mismanagement. People have certainly felt the impact of the government’s mismanagement of the hydro system. I recently launched a petition calling on the government to address the cost of hydro, and it has now been signed by almost 6,000 people. I still receive emails almost every day from people struggling with their hydro bills. People are scared of winter because they don’t know how they are going to be able to afford to heat their homes. That’s the result of government mismanagement.

At AMO last year, one of the big issues that municipalities raised was hydro. They talked about the impact of high prices. They also talked about the reliability of supply, which they say has gotten worse as our rates have gone up, not better, as this government claims. They talked about businesses that have lost days of production or sales because of power outages. They talked about businesses that were ready to invest but can’t get the electricity they need.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the same concerns from individuals. Not only are they all paying much more, but the reliability is worse. One person in downtown Toronto said her power has gone off more often this year than any year she can remember. They have lost two modems due to power surges and now have batteries in all their clocks because they had to keep resetting the time. Just like the problems we have experienced here in the Legislature with Bill 68, these are all signs of government mismanagement and the lack of a plan.

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning, there are a lot of municipalities, municipal organizations and individuals who took time to contribute to the municipal legislative review. I want to thank them all for their efforts, and I look forward to hearing their comments on this legislation and working with them to try and make it better.

Thank you very much for this opportunity.

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

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I didn’t know we were going to be doing questions and comments this morning. I thought my good friend from Oxford was going to take his full hour and we wouldn’t have time this morning. However, that being said, I want to compliment the member. He did an excellent job on this bill and he did an excellent job speaking this morning, as he did yesterday when we were in committee hearing delegations on a bill that we’ll be speaking on later this week.

Basically, I see this as a housekeeping bill. It certainly ties up a lot of loose ends that have been out there for a while. I think I counted five or six pages in here that deal with nothing but forfeiture of property, if somebody passes away without an heir and that property ends up in the care of the crown. They have tightened up the rules and regulations on how to make that work better.

To me, I guess, as a former city councillor, the thing that really jumps out at me in this bill is that they’re changing the time for municipalities that want to put properties that are in tax arrears onto the tax registry so they can be sold off. It used to be three years. That time limit will now be two. They’re shortening that time period which would, I guess, be an incentive for more people to actually pay their municipal taxes.

Right now, people know, as they’re trying to pay their ever-increasing hydro bills, put food on the table and clothes on their children’s backs, that they can put off paying their property taxes for three years. Well, no more. Once this bill comes in, you will only be able to do that for two years before the municipality can register your property and sell it off from below your feet.

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

Hon. Bill Mauro: I’m pleased to respond to the comments of my critic, the member from Oxford. Before I do, though, the member from Windsor–Tecumseh just spoke briefly for two minutes and described this as a housekeeping bill. I would say it is much more significant than a housekeeping bill. I think there are several significant component pieces in this legislation that have landed very well with the municipal sector and, should it pass, will be well received by all people right across the province. It’s much more significant than a housekeeping bill.

On the consultation piece, my critic spoke a little bit about that and suggesting, of course, that there was a lack of consultation. Of course, I disagree strongly with that. There was significant consultation when it came to the preparation of this particular legislation, dating back to 2015, not just this year. It began under by predecessor, Minister McMeekin, when he had the file.

It’s also interesting to hear about consultation from my critic when it comes to the municipal sector, when we all remember very well that there were forced amalgamations of the municipal sector, many of them would tell you with little or no consultation at all. It’s a very, very serious issue, forcing municipalities to amalgamate without any consultation. I’m not sure how much more serious a policy position you could take than forcing municipalities to amalgamate without any consultation. Anyway, on this particular piece of legislation, I would suggest there was significant consultation.

Finally, there was a reference in his remarks to downloading. Costs associated with being at the municipal level are significantly reduced in terms of their burden since we came to government in 2003. We have been uploading costs out of the municipal, property, residential, commercial and industrial tax base since we came into government in 2003. Many of those costs were downloaded and put into people’s property tax bills as a result of policy positions that were taken by the previous Conservative government.

It’s remarkable to hear anybody suggest that we have been putting costs onto the backs of residential property taxpayers. In fact, it’s just the opposite: We’ve been taking costs out from their tax base.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s my pleasure, obviously, to join in the debate today for Bill 68, Modernizing Ontario’s Municipal Legislation Act. I’m very pleased to follow our critic and my friend and mentor, the member from Oxford. He has been doing this particular work as critic for municipal affairs for many years, in and out his critic portfolio, so he does have a profound understanding.

He also came to this Legislature—he arrived here, I think, 20 years ago—with a substantial background in municipal politics. So I think I’ll take what he says, as opposed to what the minister says, seriously when he talks about downloading, when he talks about consultation, when he talks about the frustration from stakeholders. I’ll take his word for it.

He did talk a little bit about energy and he did talk a little bit about people’s bills. There was one thing that I think we need to talk about. It affects everyone here, it affects our municipalities. It was when he said that after all the bills were paid, this one individual he knows could only afford a loaf of bread.

Speaker, you’re well aware of my work over the past decade—11 years, actually—with food cupboards in my constituency of Nepean–Carleton. I’ve raised tens of thousands of pounds of food. This year in particular, I’m very, very concerned, not only with the high price of hydro impacting people’s ability to put food on the table. Last week, our Christmas parade in Barrhaven was cancelled due to very bad weather, very high winds. It was actually a food drive for the Barrhaven Food Cupboard. I was just notified that they’re in a crisis situation: 220 families in Barrhaven rely on this food cupboard. In our municipality, in the great city of Ottawa, that is quite serious.

I’ll be doing a breakfast this Saturday to try and get some food in there, but you know something, Speaker? It’s getting tougher and tougher, and oftentimes it’s our municipalities who are on the front lines of those challenges.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I am pleased to be able to join in the conversation this morning and to appreciate clearly the investment, passion and commitment of our friend from Oxford, the critic on this file, who spoke at length this morning about Bill 68, the Modernizing Ontario’s Municipal Legislation Act.

I appreciate any opportunity to learn about new things. I don’t come out of municipal government, and many of us in this room have, either because they have served or they have followed it very closely.

With a bill like this, where we are fine-tuning, updating, where we are making some significant changes—some of which have been asked for for a long time, others that municipalities are going to have to make adjustments to—I’m glad to hear from the government, of course, that there was consultation, but always we know on the opposition benches that it was never enough consultation or it could have been more appropriate consultation, especially when it comes to the public piece, the public consultation.

We know that our friends and neighbours in our communities really do have a lot of thoughts and opinions on where they live and what needs to happen with their municipal government.

When we’re talking about integrity commissioners and codes of conduct, certainly our municipalities and our councils have important opinions on that, but so too do those who come and sit in our council meetings. I know that they will be glad to see some of these changes. I know that they also would have appreciated weighing in on them.

I’m never going to stand up and miss a chance to talk about hydro and the cost of hydro. That’s something that certainly for my municipality and our mayor and our council—they gave me a hydro bill when I was collecting them, to know the pressures on our municipalities. That is something that this government really needs to be listening to.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member from Oxford for final comments.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I want to thank the members from Windsor–Tecumseh, Oshawa, Nepean–Carleton and the minister for their comments.

I think the one issue I just wanted to delve into a little bit was the issue of consultation. I’m not suggesting that it didn’t—and I think, in my remarks, I pointed that out. All these items have been discussed ad nauseam for the last 10 years. The Cunningham report was five years ago, so, obviously, some of these things have been on the agenda for five years.

I just want to point out the issue of consultation. The final phase of a consultation, Mr. Speaker, is the committee hearings. Now, we had committee hearings on Monday. All the people came in to talk about—now that they’ve seen the bill, they come to talk about what they think the changes are that should be made, and what they like and what they don’t like.

Two days later, the amendments are due. That’s two or three days—I don’t know exactly how long, but it wasn’t very long. The opposition, having listened to that, we have to prepare amendments and get them in to the Clerk by the deadline just a few days hence. Then they go to committee, and then the committee time is cut off. We can only debate about half of them, and for the other half, the amendments are just read by the Chair of the committee and voted on, up or down, but with no further debate.

The reason I point that out is that this was the only time there was time for debate on the actual bill and what needed to be changed and what didn’t. But the government did not allow time in the committee to do that. Not only was that cut short, as I said in my notes, but the bill is not yet printed and we’re going to be debating it again this afternoon for third and final reading, also time-allocated, Mr. Speaker.

That’s not what you call full and wholesome debate and public consultation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate? The member from Windsor–Tecumseh.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Thank you very much, Speaker. It’s always a pleasure to be called upon by you in this House to stand up and bring forth the voices of my constituents in Windsor–Tecumseh. I look forward to that opportunity.

This is an interesting bill that the Minister of Municipal Affairs has tabled. I want to thank the minister. He arranged a meeting, a briefing, for me. It was actually last week on the last day of November.

I said it earlier, and I’ll say it again: A large part of this bill is housekeeping. There are five or six pages in there dealing with just one issue, and that’s on the forfeiture of private property if somebody passes away without an heir. There are a lot of loose ends that had to be tied up in that area, so if there are 33 or 35 pages in the bill, five or six of them deal with that one issue, for example. I agree with the minister: It’s a much more substantive bill in other areas, but a good portion of it was tying up some loose ends.

I guess, to me—and I’ve said this already—one of the biggest changes I see in here, as a former city councillor, is the length of time that taxpayers have before their property is listed as in arrears and subject to forfeiture and a tax sale. It used to be three years. Now, it will be two. I believe the municipalities asked for this, because it would be an incentive for more people to pay their taxes in a more timely fashion. I take it that my friends in the municipal sector told the government they would like to see this change because, I assume, they’re having a problem getting their tax money in on time.

I know that back when I was on city council in Windsor several years ago, we started working with taxpayers in arrears, on various alternative options. We encouraged them to seek alternative financing arrangements. We went out of our way to establish a payment plan that would work for them, and a registration was used only as a final resort.

This year in Windsor, about 100 properties have been registered. Okay, Speaker, the actual number is 98, but about 100 properties have been registered. In recent years, though, we were seeing 200 properties a year.

So I’m told by senior officials in the finance department at Windsor city hall that we will see 1,450 additional properties come up for registration next year. That number may appear staggering, but I’m told that many of those owners have already started making payments of some kind or another. They’re trying to make up for the unpaid taxes that they haven’t put in there in the past few years.

Unpaid taxes are a debt owing to a municipality. Speaker, as you know, unlike the provincial government, municipalities can’t run a deficit. If the bill for unpaid taxes is too high, the rest of the taxpayers have a problem. They will be expected to make up the difference, or money in municipal reserve accounts will be siphoned off and used to cover the unpaid taxes. Obviously, that money will be replaced, one would hope, at some point in the future when either the taxes are paid by the owner in arrears or by the new owner who picks up the property at a tax sale.

There is no harm in asking why. Why would so many people in Ontario have a problem paying their municipal taxes? Well, for one thing, I know, from speaking with people in my riding and people who come into my constituency office, that because of the escalating cost of hydro in recent years under this Liberal government, they’re having problems paying their taxes. People are telling me they’re paying more now for an annual hydro bill than they’re being charged on their municipal taxes. That should frighten us.

Juggling your bills, including those for putting food on your table, means you could put off your bill on your property tax for as long as three years. That was then. After this bill, it will be two years. Of course, hydro is a different matter. As you know, Speaker, you have to pay your hydro or your electricity will be shut off. You used to have three years to get caught up on your property tax bill. Now, you’ll only have two. This is a major change. My guess is that social activists will be letting their municipal councils know of their displeasure with this change.

Money is tight for most of us here in Ontario these days. Many of the jobs that are available don’t come at the same rate as all of the manufacturing jobs we’ve lost. They don’t come with the health and pension benefits that many people used to have. Many of the jobs that have been created are only with part-time hours. So it’s understandable, I guess, that our municipal partners are feeling the crunch. They must have told the government that they needed this change. Of course, my municipal buddies will probably tell me that all the blame is on the province. That’s just the way it is. Nobody wants to accept the blame.

This bill wasn’t shopped around very much. As I understand it—and I know my friend the minister will correct me if I’m wrong—since 1953, the Municipal Act has been updated every 10 years and always—always, always, always—has there been a public discussion about those changes. Public hearings were held. Delegations made presentations in public. I’m told that, for the first time ever, this was not the case with the amendments to this bill. For some reason, I’m told, only written submissions were accepted.

Of course, the usual suspects were brought in, the associations that are involved with municipal governments in one way, shape, form or another. They were brought in and asked for input. That is a good thing. But as for Joe and Josephine Public, they were nowhere to be seen. Their views were not asked for. They were not recruited to tell the government what opinions they may have on the way municipal governments do their business. That is too bad, because you can go to any Tim Hortons, any barber shop or hockey rink—municipal taxpayers have opinions, and they don’t mind sharing them.

The private consultation on the bill, by the way, was held over a few weeks during a small window in the summer when the Pan Am and Parapan Am Games were being held, so there was little or no media coverage about it.

Now, it can be argued, especially by a critic for municipal affairs, that the City of Toronto Act and Ontario’s Municipal Act are among the most significant pieces of legislation affecting the lives of all of us here in Ontario.

Municipalities are still struggling to deal with the downloading forced on them by the Mike Harris Conservative government. Some $3 billion in service costs was dumped on the municipal laps and forced onto the municipal tax base. This started the landslide that turned Ontario into a have-not province. Municipal revenue streams have been constrained. Provincial legislation still limits their ability to deliver downloaded services.

Speaker, that leads to what I see as a failure in this bill. The Wynne Liberals missed a golden opportunity here to establish a level playing field for all 444 municipalities in Ontario. They could have given them the option, as they did for the city of Toronto, for more taxing options. Nobody likes to pay taxes. Nobody likes to pay even more taxes. But as a senior, mature order of government, municipalities know best what to charge and how to levy that tax in the best interests of their municipal taxpayers. Speaker, if they screw it up, if they overcharge, if they lose the confidence of their taxpayers, they won’t be re-elected.

We only have to look across the aisle for evidence of that. Hydro rates will be the albatross of the Wynne Liberal legacy. That’s not me saying this; that’s what the pollsters are saying. I know the pollsters have been wrong before. But the polls show Premier Wynne is at the lowest level ever recorded for a Premier of Ontario. Some days, her approval rating is at 13%; some days, it’s at 14%. She’ll have a long way to go to ever be taken seriously as the first choice for most voters in Ontario.

Selling our electricity system was a major mistake. Not stopping the sale in the face of public opposition was another major miscalculation on her part. Polls show that way more than 80% of the public in Ontario are opposed to her selling off our publicly owned hydro system.

If the polls are right and don’t change much at all, her political coattails won’t be long enough for many members of the class of 2014, who came into office when people had a different view of the Premier.

She has been a major disappointment to many of us. Her credibility is in shambles. She has let most people down. She told her Liberal friends at a private conference that she made a few mistakes. She said she was sorry for that—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I just want to remind the member to address your comments specifically to the bill. I’m getting the feeling that we’re beginning to waver a bit. I would just ask that you bring your comments back specifically to the bill. Please continue.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Thank you, Speaker. I was getting to that. Thank you for the reminder.

If the polls are right—this bill deals a lot with municipalities. Municipal governments have already opposed the sell-off of hydro. Municipal politicians know what’s going on with the sell-off of hydro and how the rates are causing them problems in their own municipalities when their people can’t pay their bills. They can’t pay their tax bills because the hydro bills are too high. Now municipal governments have asked this government to allow them, for people in tax arrears, to put their homes up for forfeiture after two years instead of three, as an incentive for more people to pay their municipal taxes.

Because of the cost of hydro, people are saying, “I’ve got to pay my hydro bill or they’ll cut it off. I can put off paying municipal taxes for a couple of years.” All I’m saying is, the reason for that is staring us in the face.

We’ll see the knives sharpened, if the polls are right and she’s going down and they’re going down with her. When they realize their political livelihoods are at stake, we’ll see the knives sharpened over there.

You can fool some of the people some of the time, Speaker, and maybe fool a few people all of the time, but—

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

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Introduction of guests? The member from Elgin–Middlesex–London.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Thank you, Speaker. You sound good today.

I’d like to take the opportunity to welcome all the pharmacists who are here from the Ontario Pharmacists Association. Have a pleasant day. President Sean Simpson is here; the president of the Canadian Pharmacists Association, Carlo Berardi; and Dennis Darby, CEO of the Ontario Pharmacists Association. Welcome, everyone who’s here. Have a great day.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I in particular want to welcome Brandon Tenebaum from my own riding of Parkdale–High Park, here with the Ontario pharmacists. Welcome.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’m also pleased to welcome the Ontario Pharmacists Association to Queen’s Park today, including Dennis Darby, the CEO; Sean Simpson, the board chair; and Deb Saltmarche, who is from my riding of St. Paul’s. They’re hosting, of course, a reception in committee rooms 228 and 230 this evening, from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., and all members are welcome.

Mr. Patrick Brown: It’s my pleasure to introduce members in the gallery who are here for the tribute for the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Hong Kong. They include a veteran of the Battle of Hong Kong, Private Fred Cooper, and his family; Patricia Turcotte and Mike Babin, of the Hong Kong Veterans Commemorative Association; Larry Lau and retired members of the Hong Kong regiment; Brigadier-General K.R. Cotten, commandant of the Canadian Forces College; Lieutenant Commander Scott Harrold and Chief Petty Officer Lawrence Doucette of the Royal Canadian Navy; and representatives of the 48th Highlanders, the Canadian Army, the Royal Canadian Military Institute and the Wounded Warriors.

Mr. Speaker, I’d also like to take a moment to recognize some folks we have here today from the Yes I Can nursery in Don Valley West. These are several representatives from the families and parents: Marcela Cruz, Marcia Paulos, Amelia Bruno, Sam Stemer, Eddy Gelbart, Wilhem Hart and Rebecca Katzman.

Miss Monique Taylor: I’d also like to welcome the folks from Yes I Can nursery. We have Janet MacDougall here with us today, and I see Laura, Bruce and Clara McIntosh from the Ontario Autism Coalition in the gallery today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Please help me welcome the family of my legislative page, Adrian Rassaf. In the east members’ gallery, we have his father, Mehdi; his mom, Sabine; and his sister Elika. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Julia Munro: This morning, I have the honour to introduce a constituent, Fred Cooper, a veteran of the Battle of Hong Kong. He is accompanied by his son Ron and his daughter Dianne. Please join me in welcoming them to our assembly.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’m pleased to welcome Mr. Timothy Brady, from Brady’s pharmacy, in Belle River and in Essex, who is an OPA board member. He’s also my dad’s pharmacist, and I’m told he likes dealing with my dad, which is kind of weird because it’s my dad, and he’s weird. Thanks.

Hon. Michael Coteau: It is my honour today to welcome the mother of page captain Eric Pei, Mrs. Zhou, who is joining us here in the members’ gallery.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I’d like to welcome Mike Cavanagh, who is a board member of the Ontario Pharmacists Association and has a pharmacy in Lindsay in the riding of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock. Welcome, Mike, again.

Mr. Wayne Gates: It is my pleasure to introduce a board member of the Ontario Pharmacists Association from Niagara Falls, who is here with us today. Connie Beck, welcome to Queen’s Park. Also, my friend Sean Simpson, who is president of the Ontario Pharmacists Association and also my pharmacist. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Reza Moridi: Please join me in welcoming Chetan and Anu Tukrel from Richmond Hill and their son Anmol Tukrel, who is a student at Holy Trinity School in Richmond Hill. He has developed software, called iDentifi, which helps people with impaired vision to identify things and objects.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I would also like to recognize, from the Ontario Autism Coalition, Bruce McIntosh and Laura Kirby-McIntosh.

As well, some additional parents from the Yes I Can Nursery School are joining us today: Cheyenne and David; Andrea and Bobby; Bill Hayes; Jan Burton; Bryan Ceresne; Karen Stemer; and Viet Dang.

Welcome.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am delighted to welcome Michael Cairns today. He was my first volunteer in my first campaign, and he has been with me every campaign since. Welcome, Michael.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I want to welcome Willem Hart from my great riding of Thornhill. Welcome to Queen’s Park again, Willem.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: We’re joined today by Linda Pryutla, who is a member of the Ontario Pharmacists Association. She’s joining us in the lobby today.

Also, page captain Henry Klinck is serving today. He’s joined by his parents, Terra and Mike Klinck. His brother Jeffrey Klinck is with him. He has even brought his grandmother Rhea Jobin; his grandfather Jim Gilise; his aunt Yuri Strong; his uncle Scott Strong; and his cousin Lili Strong. All the Klincks and Strongs are here today.

Welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s rare that we have, on occasion, someone from Nepean–Carleton join us at Queen’s Park, but today my former boss, current constituent, all-time good person and head of the Ottawa Senators Foundation, Goldy Hyder, is here. Welcome, Goldy.

Hon. David Orazietti: I’d like to introduce Allan Braido from Sault Ste. Marie, who is here today for the Ontario Pharmacists Association lobby day.

Hon. Eleanor McMahon: I’m delighted to welcome, from Burlington, the grandparents of page Henry Klinck: Rhea Jobin and James Steadman. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Mike Colle: I’d like to welcome, from my riding, local pharmacist Chris Jordan. Chris is the director-at-large of the Ontario Pharmacists Association. Welcome to Queen’s Park, Chris.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I’d like to welcome Caitlin Yeo and Thomas Vaughan from Queen’s University, who are working with CAHO on the NaviKnife; Jim Flett, the CFO of KGH; Jenn Goodwin from Providence Care; Vincent DePaul, who’s a physiotherapist from Queen’s University; Catherine Zahn from CAMH; and Gwen Burrows and Michael Salter from SickKids hospital. All are here from CAHO. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Reza Moridi: I would like to welcome delegations from the Council of Academic Hospitals of Ontario, led by Dr. Catherine Zahn, who is a professor in neurology and the president of CAMH, as well as Karen Michell, who is the executive director for CAHO. Please join me in welcoming them to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Arthur Potts: I’d also like to welcome a pharmacist, Eric Morrison, from Beaches–East York; Tatum Wilson, a constituent, with the Council of Academic Hospitals of Ontario; Stewart Wong and Azadeh Kushki, who are scientists at Holland Bloorview working on autism supports; Lydia Hanson, Susan Cosgrove and Michelle Stegnar—who is a parent at Holland Bloorview, who’s working with that organization.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, Tatum Wilson is here.

Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I believe you’ll find we have unanimous consent that members be permitted to wear ribbons to commemorate the École Polytechnique massacre and the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The minister is seeking unanimous consent to wear the ribbons. Do we agree? Agreed.

I almost thought I heard a no.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: A second point of order, Speaker?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Yes.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Thank you. I also believe you’ll find we have unanimous consent to observe a moment of silence before question period in remembrance of those who lost their lives in the massacre at École Polytechnique in 1989.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. The minister is seeking unanimous consent for a moment of silence. Do we agree?

I will delay that until I am finished with all other points of order and introductions.

The member from York–Simcoe.

Mrs. Julia Munro: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe you will find we have unanimous consent to pay tribute to our veterans and the dedicated Canadians who fought and died in the Battle of Hong Kong, as we near the 75th anniversary, with a representative of each caucus speaking for up to five minutes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Ms. Munro is seeking unanimous consent to pay tribute. Do we agree? Agreed.

We’ll do so just before question period.

Any further introductions or UCs?

Seeing none, just before we do both of those issues, I want to thank the members for sending me the Halls and whatever it is you’ve been sending me. I appreciate that. My voice is not strong, but I just want to let you know that I still know how to do the job.

We will now do the moment of silence for those who were massacred. I would ask everyone to rise and pay homage to those individuals.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Pursuant to a long-standing motion, the flag is flying at half-mast.

At this time, I now call upon those representatives to bring comments. The member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex.

Battle of Hong Kong

Mr. Monte McNaughton: On behalf of the leader of the official opposition, Patrick Brown, and the entire PC caucus, I am humbled to pay tribute to the brave Canadians who fought and died 75 years ago in the Battle of Hong Kong.

Of the 1,975 citizens who answered the call to service in Hong Kong, more than 1,050 were either killed or wounded in battle. The staggering cost of defending against the illegal Japanese invasion meant that 554 Canadian defenders of freedom would not return home to their loved ones, 290 of them being killed in battle and another 264 who spent their final years in deplorable conditions as prisoners of war. For those who survived, the physical and mental scars of battle would serve as an eternal reminder of the scourge of war.

Just as in the Boer War of 1899, the Great War, battles of World War II, and in Korea, Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq, the brave Canadians who sacrificed so very much in Hong Kong did so in service to country and in defence of the values of freedom and democracy. Eighteen of those courageous men remain with us.

The Legislative Assembly is honoured and privileged to have one of those fine few here today as our special guest. Born in October 1919 in Toronto, Frederick Arthur Cooper enlisted with the Royal Regiment of Canada at the age of 21 and transferred to the Royal Rifles soon thereafter to perform guard duty. Then the orders came to deploy for the Pacific.

Mr. Cooper landed in Hong Kong on November 16, 1941, and on the day after Christmas, only a few months after enlisting, he was taken by the Japanese as a prisoner of war. He would remain a prisoner of war for almost four years, labouring in the most difficult and trying conditions, forced to construct the runway in Kowloon, building cargo boats at Yokohama and toiling in the coal mines in northern Japan.

Mr. Cooper, thank you for your bravery and sacrifice during those many years.

You have honoured the service and memory of your brothers in arms by sharing their story with the next generation of Canadians in the many Remembrance Day addresses you have given over the years.

For all that you have done, a grateful nation is forever in your debt.

Today, we contemplate the heavy price that the Battle of Hong Kong demanded from our country in the Second World War. As we have seen in every battle in which Canadians have fought and died, the Battle of Hong Kong serves as yet another example of the courage and spirit of the Canadian Armed Forces.

That fight in the Pacific offers us many stories of courage. Brigadier J.K. Lawson, the man in command of the West Brigade, exemplified the fighting spirit that characterizes our soldiers. When the Japanese had Brigadier Lawson’s headquarters surrounded on December 19 and were firing on the position at point-blank range, he radioed command to let them know that he was going to “fight it out.” He emerged from the shelter armed with a pistol in each hand and died with Canadian courage and bravery on full display.

In that same spirit of self-sacrifice, Company Sergeant-Major J.R. Osborn put the needs of his country and fellow soldiers ahead of himself. When the Japanese began lobbing grenades at the Canadian position, he chased them down one by one and hurled them back. When he spotted an incoming grenade that was too far away to throw back, he shouted a warning and hurled himself on top of it, killing himself but saving his fellow men.

For every tale of heroism, there are countless untold stories of the bravery and spirit of our soldiers in the Battle of Hong Kong. Despite our contingent being split in two, and in the face of insurmountable odds, they fought on. Isolated and outnumbered, our Royal Rifles and Winnipeg Grenadiers fought with everything within them in the defence of Hong Kong, but in the end, it was simply too much. On Christmas Day, 1941, after holding off the Japanese for 17 long and arduous days, the fight was over and Hong Kong finally fell.

Those who survived the war returned to help make Canada stronger: men like George MacDonell, who would later become a deputy minister in the Ontario government and who, at age 94, due to ill health, is not able to join us here today.

On behalf of the leader of the official opposition, the entire PC caucus and grateful Ontarians across the province, I would like to say thank you. Thank you to the families of the fallen, who shoulder more of war’s burden than the rest of us. Thank you to all those who proudly wear the Canadian Armed Forces uniform today. And thank you to all those who sacrificed so much in Hong Kong in December 1941.

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

Mr. Paul Miller: On behalf of my leader, Andrea Horwath, and the NDP caucus, I’m honoured to stand today and speak to the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Hong Kong.

Not a month ago, we marked Remembrance Day. Every town in this great province was marked in the last century by war. Few communities were spared the loss of a son or daughter. Most lost several; some lost many more.

Hong Kong was the first of Canada’s battles in the Pacific theatre. It would not be the last. The Canadians who defended Hong Kong came mostly from small towns in Manitoba and Quebec, but some were from Ontario.

One of the veterans of Hong Kong is here today. As my colleague just before me mentioned, I would like to recognize and honour Frederick Arthur Cooper. Frederick served with the Royal Rifles of Canada, which stood alongside the Winnipeg Grenadiers in the defence of Hong Kong. Thank you for being with us today, Frederick.

Today, we honour and commemorate the living and the dead from that battle. For many, today is not just a day of honour. It is a day of profoundly mixed feelings: a day of honour, yes, but also of mourning, of deep humility and of grief for lost loved ones and fallen comrades.

In the fall of 1941, Canada sent two infantry battalions to reinforce Hong Kong against a possible war with Japan. Hong Kong was isolated from other British outposts and almost impossible to defend from a Japanese offensive.

The assault on Hong Kong began on the same day Pearl Harbour was attacked. Truly, it was a date that will live in infamy. A small garrison of 14,000 soldiers, mostly British, Canadian, Indian and Chinese, faced on onslaught from 52,000 Japanese troops. They were outnumbered four to one. There were no Allied reinforcements; there was no relief. There was no prospect of escape, yet they refused Japanese requests to surrender. Only when their position was overrun did they lay down their arms—if they did at all—before the formal surrender on December 25.

The victors of the battle were brutal in the aftermath. Imperial Japan treated its prisoners of war atrociously. It paid no heed to human rights or to the Geneva Conventions. Those who were there know, and I don’t have to say any more.

The defence of Hong Kong was desperate. It was bloody. But it was also courageous. Against impossible odds, the Canadians and Allied troops held out for almost three weeks—incredible.

The Canadian soldiers who so valiantly defended Hong Kong were all volunteers: 290 were killed in the battle; almost 500 were wounded; 267 later died in captivity as prisoners of war. Many of those brave volunteers are buried today in Hong Kong at the Sai Wan Bay War Cemetery or the Stanley Military Cemetery. Still others who survived the battle, but not the war, lie in Japan in the Yokohama British Commonwealth War Cemetery.

Those volunteers—our veterans—made great sacrifices for Canada and for our freedom, but it’s hard for any of us today to appreciate just how high the price of liberty was. More than 47,000 Canadian men and women never returned home from the Second World War.

My friend Peter Kormos once said that it’s old women and men who declare war; it’s young women and men who fight them. And they were so young, the men and women in Hong Kong. Today, we remember each and every one of them. We remember those who never returned from this expedition to Hong Kong; we remember those who did return also.

Time takes a toll on all of us, including our veterans, but those who still stand with us stand proud. As the memory of those terrible wars fades into the mist, it is more important than ever that we remind our young people and future generations of the immense sacrifices of those times. Never forget, so that never again.

John F. Kennedy, a veteran himself, said, “No man who witnessed the tragedies of the last war, no man who can imagine the unimaginable possibilities of the next war, can advocate war out of irritability or frustration or impatience.” We honour the men and women of Hong Kong in our prudence, in our commitment to peace, in our hand of friendship to every one of our brothers and sisters. At the same time, we honour them in our resolve to defend what was won at such great cost: the promise of freedom, opportunity, equality and dignity for every Canadian.

Those of us in this place have a special responsibility to honour all our veterans of all ages, to treat them with the dignity and respect they have earned. Our veterans should never live their senior years in hunger or want. We owe our veterans a sacred trust—a trust we may never break, on pain of our own eternal dishonour. Their bravery and their sacrifices offered each of us the opportunity to speak here today. Speaker, lest we forget.

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

Hon. Jeff Leal: On behalf of Premier Wynne, our cabinet and our colleagues, I want to take a few moments this morning to remind the House of a monumental, historic moment in our country’s history.

This Thursday, December 8, marks the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Hong Kong, also known as the Defence of Hong Kong. Just hours following the attack on Pearl Harbour in Hawaii, the Japanese 38th division set their sights on the British crown colony of Hong Kong. It was left to two Canadian battalions, the Winnipeg Grenadiers and the Royal Rifles of Canada from Quebec City, to defend against an onslaught of experienced, battle-hardened Japanese soldiers in what was the first land battle Canadians fought during World War II.

Neither battalion was at full strength during this time in 1941, nor were they adequately trained for the demanding level of warfare which they faced. In fact, the ship carrying their heavy equipment from Vancouver was diverted to the Philippines.

The Japanese forces outnumbered the Allies, comprised of Britain, Canadian and Indian forces, nearly four to one. Despite the limited resources and training that the Canadian battalions received, they fought with valour against overwhelming odds, in a manner that makes us as Canadians extremely proud each and every day. From December 8 to December 25, 1941, almost 2,000 Canadian troops fought bravely. By the time Britain had surrendered on Christmas Day, 290 Canadians had been killed. An additional 264 Canadians perished over the next four years as a result of the conditions found in Japanese prisoner-of-war camps.

I’d like to ask that you now please turn your attention to the Speaker’s gallery, as we are honoured to have an esteemed guest with us this morning in this Legislature, veteran Frederick Arthur Cooper. Mr. Cooper enlisted in the Royal Regiment of Canada in July 1941 at age 21. He then transferred to the Royal Rifles of Canada for guard duty. He took

part in the Battle of Hong Kong and was then taken prisoner on December 26, 1941. Mr. Cooper spent three years and eight months in a Japanese prison camp.

After a courageous journey following the war, Mr. Cooper returned to home to work for Beamish Construction and married the love of his life, Delilah Stephens. After 71 years together, Delilah passed away this past February at the age of 97. Together, they had six children, and were blessed with ten grandchildren and ten great-grandchildren.

Over the years, Mr. Cooper has taken the time to visit schools and share his life-changing experience as a Hong Kong veteran at Remembrance Day events. He was honoured to have spoken during his tour to Hong Kong in 2010, where he laid a wreath for the Sutton Legion’s remembrance ceremony on behalf of Hong Kong veterans.

Mr. Cooper was among more than one million Canadian men and women who served in Canada’s armed forces during the Second World War. More than 42,000 Canadians gave their lives in that war.

I had the opportunity in April 2015, along with my colleague the Honourable Michael Chan, to lay a wreath at the Sai Wan Commonwealth cemetery. And, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that there is nothing more moving. I have had the opportunity twice in my life to lay a wreath, once at Agira at the Canadian cemetery in Sicily, and then the second time in Hong Kong.

That morning, along with Minister Chan—and I know Premier Wynne has also laid a wreath at that cemetery—as I prayed at each of the stones, I came across two stones that will forever be etched in my memory. Mr. Speaker, I don’t mind telling you that I started to cry. I stopped at the gravestone of one Elroy George Dupont, son of Oscar and Ida May Dupont of Pembroke, Ontario. He passed away at age 19 on December 24, 1941. When he signed up in September 1939, he was 16 years old—never again to experience a Canadian sunrise and a Canadian sunset.

The second one I stopped at was Joseph Michael Whalen, son of Frank and Agnes Whelan of Kirkfield, Ontario. He passed away as a prisoner of war on November 20, 1942. The reason I make note of this one is that Joseph was the uncle of a current deputy mayor and city councillor in the city of Peterborough, Dan McWilliams.

I’d also like to note Brigadier Lawson, who was the commander there, of course. There is a room in our consul general’s office in Hong Kong named after Brigadier Lawson. With the odds running against him and with no ammunition, he led one last bayonet charge to defend his headquarters. He was killed in that action.

Mr. Speaker, as we approach the holiday season with the rising of this Legislature this Thursday, it’s tremendously important that we reflect on the battles fought by our fellow Canadians. That way, we reflect on those monumental times to ensure that the values which we hold dear can be held and appreciated for generations to come.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank all members for their very heartfelt comments.

Sir, for yourself and for your comrades who were left behind and those who are here: You exemplify the word “hero.” Thank you.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Again, I thank all of the members for their very kind and heartfelt comments on this anniversary.

Oral Questions

Highway tolls

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. Life is already too expensive in Ontario. Families can’t afford another tax, and that’s exactly what the tolls on the Gardiner and the DVP will be.

The Premier has the ability to stop these tolls. In 2011, the Premier, as Minister of Transportation, did just that. She said she would not support the tolls. The Premier should follow that in 2016. Will the Premier stop the tolls on the DVP and the Gardiner?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The Leader of the Opposition is the leader of a party that has a long history of not respecting municipalities, of not working with them in partnership, and of taking unilateral action against the will of municipalities. In fact, many of us, myself included, are in this House today because of that kind of action on the part of that party.

It is disappointing that the Leader of the Opposition hasn’t learned from those actions, but it’s not surprising that the Leader of the Opposition, who has no plan for building transit or for building transportation infrastructure in this province and no plan for where the funding would come from, and who doesn’t really seem to care about those investments, would be calling on to us take unilateral action against the city of Toronto. We’re not going to do that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: In 2011, the Premier was happy, as Minister of Transportation, to say no to the city of Toronto on tolls. Now, all of a sudden, the Premier is saying yes to tolls, yes to taxing our roads. Why? Well, for 13 years, the Liberal government has allowed our infrastructure to crumble. Why? Because the Liberals have wasted millions on shady contracts—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Okay. I’m actually not quite sure how I’m going to handle this, because my voice is normally loud enough to get your attention. What I am going to ask you is, let’s just keep it down at least one notch so that I can still participate if I need to.

Mr. Patrick Brown: The Liberals have wasted millions on shady contracts and bonuses to Liberal friends. They’ve wasted billions on scandals and mismanagement. Frankly, the Auditor General’s report said it was complete incompetence when it came to managing infrastructure dollars.

Now, the Liberals have quietly said to the city of Toronto, “Because we’ve shortchanged you on infrastructure, we’ll let you put this toll on.” But the solution to their mistakes is not a tax, a tax, a tax. That doesn’t work for commuters in the 416 and the 905.

My question to the Premier is, rather than making drivers in the 416 and 905 the target for your mismanagement, to pay for your mistakes, do the right thing and say no—

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I think the most important question to be asked of the Leader of the Opposition—you know, in the last couple days, I have rhymed off the list of all the projects that our government is investing in currently in every corner of the province. I think it’s only fair—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): My request goes both ways, and it’s not helpful when members are answering the question and somebody from the same side is still heckling. I’d like to ask all of you to keep it down.

Carry on, please.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Speaker, as I was saying, I think it’s only fair for the Leader of the Opposition to be straight with the people of Ontario and to let us know here in this Legislature: What project would he kill first? I think the most important question for that leader is what project—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All right, all right. Stop the clock.

I’m going to be straight with you. The member from Leeds–Grenville will come to order. And if I continue to hear this, we’ll go to warnings.

Finish, please.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Speaker, would it be the extension of GO trains to Niagara or Bowmanville? Would it be 15-minute, two-way all-day GO service? Would it be LRTs in Toronto, Peel, Hamilton? Would it be BRTs in York region or Durham? Would it be new streetcars in Toronto?

The list is endless. I think the people of Ontario deserve an answer from that leader. What project would he kill first?

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is to the Premier, and I know the Premier is uncomfortable in answering this.

The reality is, these tolls in Toronto are not going to be popular with 416 commuters or 905 drivers. It’s the wrong thing for the GTA.

And I know the Liberals heckle and say, “Where are you going to get the $200 million that these tolls would bring in?” You know what, Mr. Speaker? If you weren’t building upside-down bridges and paving roads every two years instead of every 15 years, then you’d have the money for infrastructure. But because of this government’s incompetence on managing infrastructure dollars, there is no money for infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, it’s pretty clear: You stop Liberal waste and mismanagement, and you don’t need Liberal tolls. Will the Premier do the right thing and stop these tolls on GTA commuters?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: It’s evident from that question that the leader of that party has no plan to invest in transportation infrastructure. Speaker, I have to tell you, as anybody who watched that person’s career in Ottawa for a decade would know, it’s not a surprise to learn that there is no plan coming from that leader. It’s not a surprise, but it is disappointing. It’s clear that that leader doesn’t want to own up to the fact that he would kill transportation projects in every corner of the province.

But I have a quote from another Ontario politician, a quote given in 1996 from then Premier Mike Harris. That quote said, “There will be ... tolls for Highway 407 when it is open.... It is like a tax for those who are using the road.”

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I am going to go to warnings.

Mr. John Yakabuski: The DVP has been built.

Sorry.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): In mid-sentence.

We’re moving to warnings.

Finish, please.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Speaker, not only did a Conservative Premier talk about tolling Highway 407; that same Conservative Premier—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: That same Conservative Premier, that same leader representing that party, then sold that highway and killed the Eglinton subway. And to this day, those transportation decisions continue to haunt the people of this province.

We won’t make that mistake. We won’t let that happen again.

Interjections.

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

This is the time in which some of you are going to gamble with getting a warning: when I’m standing. And it doesn’t matter where you sit in the House.

New question.

Skills training

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. Since I can’t get an answer from the Premier on upside-down bridges or new tolls in Toronto, I’m going to try something different, directly to the Premier, on the growing skills gap in Ontario.

I have heard stories from across the province, from workers who don’t have the necessary training and from employers. They need skilled workers desperately, and they just aren’t there.

The Auditor General, in the report, said, “The ministry does not collect or analyze”—

Interjections.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: There’s a skills gap in the Conservative caucus.

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

The Minister of Transportation is warned. The Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation is warned. Anyone else?

Finish, please.

Mr. Patrick Brown: The AG said, “The ministry does not collect or analyze” the necessary information on the labour force and skills demand to determine which jobs face a shortage of skilled workers. Instead, this government is preparing to set young people up for failure and no jobs.

Mr. Speaker, why is the government failing our young people? Why are they not addressing the skills gap in Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Development is going to want to comment on this, but let me just say a couple things. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I agree that there is more to be done in terms of linking the labour market with the labour force to make sure that young people, as they go through school, have a knowledge of what the available jobs are, and that the jobs that are available and the employers that are looking for people have access to the institutions. That has always been the case with colleges.

We are working right now to give young people more opportunities to have work experiences, to make sure that they know what is available and to have those skills infused into the education system.

But Mr. Speaker, having said all of that, the number one reason that businesses come to this province and expand in this province, and I have heard it over and over again, is our highly skilled workforce.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, again to the Premier—and it’s interesting that the Premier would not respond or answer the concerns raised by the Auditor General. I will rephrase it again.

The Auditor General says Ontario spends more than $1 billion a year on employment and training programs without proper information about where the skilled workers are needed and where they will actually be needed in the future. The government used to claim they support evidence-based policy, but this just seems to be photo ops in terms of when it comes to using young people but not actually delivering the skills training they need.

The Auditor General has made this very clear. And it’s one thing to thank the Auditor General; it’s another thing to actually listen and ask. We have a serious skills shortage in Ontario. I travel the province and I hear about employers who can’t get the young people for the jobs that are available today and tomorrow.

So once again to the Premier: Will you actually listen to the Auditor General? Will you address the skills gap, rather than more of the same?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the Leader of the Opposition, but we understand that there is more to be done. To the Auditor General’s report, I’m not just thanking the Auditor General for the report, although I do that, but I recognize that there is more that needs to be done, which is why we are already taking action.

If you look at the highly skilled workforce report that we have received, we are already taking action with companies like Siemens, where there are pilot projects, students, young people having a work opportunity, making that link between the workforce and our educational institutions. That is the kind of work that is ongoing. We recognize that there is more to be done. We continue to make investments to make that linkage and to provide the data, to make sure that the data is available. Unlike the party that the Leader of the Opposition was part of, we believe in data. We believe that there should be continuous data—

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, rather than an answer, I got an attack on the other party. What I’d actually appreciate is an answer, for a change.

The Auditor General pointed out we have a serious problem with youth unemployment. Actually, where has the Liberals’ record of 13 years got us? The youth unemployment rate is now hovering at 15% and training programs only get one third of the users to full-time employment. This is a serious question that deserves a serious answer.

In 2009, the government said youth unemployment was a post-recession hangover. Here in 2016, and thanks to this government, we’re leading Canada in youth unemployment. I’m not willing to accept that. I want action from this government to deal with the skills mismatch. Our young people deserve better from the government. Will the Premier actually listen to the Auditor General? Will she address the skills mismatch?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Development.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I want to say thank you to the Leader of the Opposition for finally turning his attention to this issue, because I can tell you we have been working very hard, starting with the Premier’s expert panel on the highly skilled workforce. If he was doing his job, Speaker, he would know what we are doing. He would know that we are moving toward replacing the Stats Canada that he cut. He cut Stats Canada labour market information—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Just to provide you with an example, the Minister of Children and Youth Services is warned and the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock is warned. The next step is naming.

Finish, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I invite the Leader of the Opposition and any member of his caucus to come in for a briefing and we will describe exactly what we are doing. Part of what we are doing is fixing the gap left when the federal government cut Stats Canada, taking away precious labour market information. We need that information. We’re going to get that information. We are acting on it. I’m very serious when I invite the Leader of the Opposition to actually get informed about what is happening, because it is fantastic.

Hospital funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Since last spring, we’ve been asking the Premier to end hospital overcrowding. The auditor reported that any hospital that is filled to 85% is overcrowded. When a hospital is overcrowded, it leads to more infections. That means instead of getting better, going to an overcrowded hospital could actually leave you sicker. More than half of Ontario’s hospitals are overcrowded.

New Democrats uncovered documents showing that in the Ministry of Health’s own words, “The ministry does not have standards, guidelines, policies or best practices with respect to hospital bed occupancy.”

Will the Premier end overcrowding in our hospitals and create a policy for occupancy?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Again, I thank the Auditor General for her focus on hospitals and providing us with a pathway and very solid advice in terms of how we can continue to make improvements. But, Mr. Speaker, she also acknowledges the substantial progress that has been made in the service delivery that is provided, a fact which is acknowledged by third-party entities across this country as being among the best, if not the best, in the entire country.

The Auditor General points to the fact that approximately 90% of individuals who go to our emergency departments are seen and discharged within the provincial and national target times. Of those who do require admission to hospital, we are making critically important investments to address the capacity issues: $140 million in additional operating funds announced just in the last couple of weeks. I’m happy to talk more in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Kingston General Hospital has been overcrowded since 2012, and Kingston isn’t alone. Ontario’s Auditor General has confirmed that 60% of Ontario’s hospitals are overcrowded. How many people in Kingston have been treated in a hallway or ended up with an infection due to hospital overcrowding because of Liberal government cuts and underfunding?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’m proud of the investments that we’re making in Kingston. In fact, we just announced a planning grant to expand the capacity and the ability of those hospitals, on a go-forward basis, to provide the services that are required by those in that community. In Providence as well—a substantial new investment, a major capital investment. I know the member from Kingston, I think it might have been yesterday, made the announcement on the substantial completion for that hospital.

We are making incredible investments: $12 billion over the next 10 years so that we can continue to upgrade hospital facilities, so that we can address capacity issues on an ongoing basis where they occur. But we make those substantial investments, an additional almost half a billion dollars in operating costs this year alone for hospitals.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: London Health Sciences has been over 100% capacity for the last two and a half years. The Liberal government doesn’t even admit that overcrowding exists, but anyone who has been to London Health Sciences has seen it first-hand, and Liberal underfunding of hospitals is only going to make things worse.

Does this Premier know how many people in London were treated in a hallway and how many got an infection because they were in an overcrowded hospital in London?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: That’s why London Health Sciences is among the hospitals which is receiving a substantial investment, almost $3 million of additional operating funds that I announced just in the last couple of weeks for London for them to address those capacity issues. And that’s in addition to $345 million that was announced in the budget, the budget that they voted against, the budget from the spring, which provided an additional allocation for operating funding. But, Mr. Speaker—

Interjections.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I know that they hate it when I refer to their actions, but it bears repeating that in the brief period of time in the 1990s when they were in power, they had sufficient time to close 24% of all the acute hospital beds in the entire province, and they closed 13% of all the mental health beds in the province.

I’m not going to take my advice from that party.

Hydro rates

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. Yesterday, I asked about Glow Juicery in Hamilton. The cost of hydro means that Jesse, the company’s owner, might have to shut her doors.

It’s not just new businesses that are facing this kind of crisis. Southern Smoke is a restaurant in my riding. They’re fighting hard to keep their hydro costs down. They said that “we did our homework on utility costs, only to have our budget blown out of the water.” They’ve had to reduce staff to keep things running.

Unless hydro bills get under control, life is going to get a lot tougher for small-business owners and their employees. Will this Premier take an important step and stop the sell-off of Hydro One?

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: Our Minister of Energy has taken a number of measures to help the very businesses that the leader of the third party is speaking about.

One of the things that the Leader of the Opposition has done is expand our industrial conservation initiative. That’s not only going to help thousands of new businesses save on their energy bills, but it will actually provide up to a third of cost savings to those businesses.

In addition, there’s a rebate for the provincial portion of the HST that’s not only going to every resident homeowner and electricity stakeholder across the province, but it’s also going to small businesses, the very small businesses that the leader of the third party is talking about.

So we’ve taken measures, but our Premier said that there’s still more work to do. We’re going to continue to work to bring down the costs of our energy for the people of this province and the small businesses of this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: After reading about Glow Juicery, a local Hamilton butcher from C.E. Elliott and Sons reached out to the CBC in Hamilton to say this: “We had an almost $4,000 hydro bill for one month this season for our small business. It’s devastating.” Now, that’s not a word you just throw around, Speaker.

Will the Premier stop devastating small businesses and stop the sell-off of Hydro One?

Hon. Brad Duguid: We recognize that small businesses have challenges from time to time, and energy bills are one of those challenges. That’s why we’ve taken the measures that I talked about earlier, that are going to save 8% off energy bills for every small business in this province. That’s a substantial savings.

We’re going to continue to work to ensure that we do everything we can to lower the cost of power. The Premier is committed to doing this, and to do even more.

Mr. Speaker, I guess what I want to ask the leader of the third party is, did she inform those small businesses of that whole suite of programs that are available to help those small businesses reduce their energy costs? Or does she just want to play politics with this issue and ask questions?

I ask her—come clean—did you inform those businesses of that entire suite of programs, and did you also notify them that as of January 1, they’ll be saving 8% off their energy bills?

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I can tell the minister that everybody in Ontario knows that the NDP finally got the Liberals to take 8% off the bills. They should never have put the HST on those bills in the first place, and everybody knows it.

Nonetheless, these are stories you hear everywhere you go in Ontario—everywhere you go. Small businesses are doing everything they can to bring down their bills and stay afloat, but they’re watching the cost of hydro grow faster and faster and faster. Hydro bills are killing jobs and hurting small businesses across Ontario. That’s going to continue unless there’s some serious action by this government.

Will this Premier take that kind of action today and commit that no more of Hydro One will be sold off to private interests?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Let’s talk about jobs in the province of Ontario. Let’s talk about Hamilton: Hamilton is up 5,700 jobs year over year since this month last year.

Let’s talk about Windsor: Windsor is up 11,100 jobs, many of them through small businesses that are doing really well. Oshawa: 20,200 jobs year over year from last year. Ontario as a whole, since the global recession, is up 660,000 net new jobs. Our unemployment rate is 6.3%, the lowest level it has been in eight and a half years.

Please, I ask the leader of the third party: Don’t talk to us about jobs; that’s what we’re doing. We’re creating jobs across this province. We’re building a stronger economy in spite of the negative rhetoric of the party opposite.

Autism treatment

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Parents of children with autism cannot trust this government to do the right thing. Take the example of Lisa. Her daughter was cut off from IBI therapy even though the psychologist recommended she continue. The minister’s administrator said no to the psychologist’s recommendation. Is the minister trying to save money by once again taking away IBI therapy from children who need it?

Hon. Michael Coteau: I want to first start by saying that I recognize that we have parents here who are advocates for young people with autism in the province of Ontario.

Going across the province and meeting with different parents and people and having conversations, I get the sense that we are heading in the right direction with, first, half a billion new dollars going into autism here in the province of Ontario. That’s creating 16,000 new spaces and increasing the amount of spaces for ABA during the transition period.

We want to build a wait time of six months or less and increase access to early diagnosis through the creation of five more regional diagnostic hubs here in the province of Ontario.

I think we’re doing the best job when it comes to building an Ontario that works with young people and families with autism here in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: It sounds like you need to meet Lisa. Lisa’s daughter has been removed from the therapy she needs even though a psychologist said she should continue. Parents like Lisa want to be sure that their child gets therapy when they need it, and receive it.

When the government removes children from life-changing IBI therapy, it is clear why there is a trust deficit between parents and this government. Will the minister ensure Lisa’s daughter gets the therapy that you promised?

Hon. Michael Coteau: Mr. Speaker, we’re building a new autism program here in the province of Ontario that really aims to build the best program no