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

October 23, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-Oct-23 (PDF)

L075 - Wed 23 Oct 2013 / Mer 23 oct 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 23 October 2013 Mercredi 23 octobre 2013

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

APOLOGY

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

NUCLEAR ENERGY

NUCLEAR ENERGY

PUBLIC TRANSIT

POWER PLANTS

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

SENATE OF CANADA

MINING INDUSTRY

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

ENERGY POLICIES

WIND TURBINES

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

SCUGOG SPORTS HALL OF FAME

HIGHWAY SAFETY

MASUMEEN ISLAMIC CENTRE

WASTE REDUCTION

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AFFAIRES FRANCOPHONES /

FRANCOPHONE AFFAIRS

CARP FAIR

CAMERON’S BREWING CO.

CHARLIE BUTLER

TONY SILIPO

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

EMERGENCY SERVICES /

SERVICES D’URGENCE

PETITIONS

PROTECTION OF RESOURCES

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

BEAR HUNTING

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

WASTE REDUCTION

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

MARKDALE HOSPITAL

ONTARIO RANGER PROGRAM

WASTE REDUCTION

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

LYME DISEASE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

REGULATED HEALTH

PROFESSIONS AMENDMENT ACT

(SPOUSAL EXCEPTION), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES PROFESSIONS

DE LA SANTÉ RÉGLEMENTÉES

(EXCEPTION RELATIVE AU CONJOINT)

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 16, 2013, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 34,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act in respect of permit denials and out-of-province service and evidence in certain proceedings and to make a consequential amendment to the Provincial Offences Act / Projet de loi 34, Loi visant à modifier le Code de la route en ce qui concerne les refus relatifs aux certificats d’immatriculation et la signification et les preuves extraprovinciales dans certaines instances, et à apporter une modification corrélative à la

Loi sur les infractions provinciales.

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

Ms. Cindy Forster: I’d like to thank the minister for bringing this important bill forward, to start my comments. I think it’s a very important bill. I think it’s going to help municipalities to collect those much-needed fines and revenue.

But I want to start off by discussing an issue that comes up again and again every day in this House: the issue of downloading services to municipalities. That happened in the late 1990s and the early 2000s. It seems that so often in this House we are actually debating issues that boil down to one thing: the inability of municipalities to continue to address issues with their limited resources due to downloading that happened quite a few years ago.

Just yesterday, I rose in this House to discuss Bill 91, the Waste Reduction Act, which is a situation where municipalities are struggling to deal with the level of waste and waste management in their particular areas.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): A little order, please.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Thank you, Speaker.

Before this current government, the Ontario Conservative government made it their prerogative to download provincial responsibilities to municipalities. It might have reduced the province’s expenses in the short term, but, as we see, municipalities simply are not capable of handling many of these services that have been placed upon them because of the lack of financial resources. They certainly try, and they make every effort. But, as the years have passed, the issues keep building, until we are once again forced to deal with these issues at a provincial level.

So it speaks to the importance of long-term planning in politics when we make decisions here in this House. When we pass legislation, we need to be thinking about the long-term effects of those decisions.

An obvious situation is the gas plant scandal. When the Liberal government made the decision to scrap those gas plants, when they could have waited out the contract, they weren’t thinking of what the future would be for Ontario when they made that decision. Now we see that Ontario will be paying for increased hydro rates for the next 25 years or more.

So when it comes to Bill 34, it’s important to note that this bill is trying to solve issues at a municipal level. The bill does add a level of provincial support to incent fine evaders to pay, but it doesn’t go far enough in providing support by the province. The bill is the first step in streamlining the process and giving municipalities more clarity; however, it does not resolve all of the collection issues. While municipalities are responsible for fine collection, there is a gap between responsibility for collection, available information and the authority that municipalities have in reality.

The report stipulates that even in the case of Ontario drivers, ministries don’t share information, which makes fine collection very difficult. Ninety-one per cent of those infractions come from Ontario drivers, the rest from out of province, but our systems aren’t connected with each other, so how does the province intend to rectify this situation about information sharing? Clearly, there is a serious lack of coordination within the government, which acts as a barrier to progress on this issue.

The Ontario NDP supports the idea behind this bill. We need to be collecting those unpaid fines not only for the purpose of increasing government revenue but to provide an incentive for drivers to avoid continuing to violate traffic laws, to make our roads safer and, hopefully, to save lives.

The truth is, this is a billion-dollar problem and it’s only going to get bigger if we do not do something about it. Unpaid POA fines are growing and are a problem that needs to be addressed. Unpaid POA fines undermine public safety, the rule of law and accountability. They also have a huge impact on municipalities and their finances.

Municipalities, courts, law enforcement agencies and other stakeholders have been advocating for decisions on this for years. On November 9, the Ontario Association of Police Services Boards released a report, and I quote Alok Mukherjee, president of the police services board: “Every unpaid fine undermines the justice system, frustrates our law enforcement officers, and denies local governments much-needed revenue in challenging economic times. Working with stakeholders we have developed sensible recommendations to tackle this billion-dollar problem. Action is long overdue and we look forward to working collaboratively with the government to stop this pattern of unpaid fines.”

Before I speak to this bill—what it does, its limitations and some recommendations—I will provide a brief background on the situation.

POA offences are non-criminal offences that are normally punishable with an out-of-court fine. Charges are laid by the police, and typically a person has 15 days to either pay a fine or arrange a court date. If the person does nothing, the matter goes before a JP, and if the person is convicted in absentia they are mailed written notice that the fine must be paid within 30 days.

If the fine remains unpaid, governments have some tools at their disposal to compel payment, including referring the matter to a collection agency, adding the fine amount to a property tax bill or, in some limited instances, suspending plates or drivers’ licences. These POA offences include speeding, careless driving, not wearing a seat belt—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Folks, I can’t even hear the speaker. There have got to be at least seven sidebars going on. You know the rule: If you want to have a little discussion, take it outside. I’d like to hear what she has to say. Thank you.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Thank you, Speaker.

While these fines fall into many categories, this bill is dealing only with those that fall under the Highway Traffic Act. POA fines under the HTA accounted for 33% of all the POA fines and amounted to over $300 million in 2010.

The problem of unpaid fines is growing and has been growing for decades, and one third of the fines across the province are not collected. Of course, this is different for each municipality. Toronto collects half; Dundas-Glengarry only collects one third. Currently, whatever money is collected, after a portion is paid to the province, stays in that municipality. The estimated amount owed to municipalities is in excess of $1 billion. It’s a lot of money that’s been pending for years, and there are a lot of new infractions and tickets each year.

There are several reasons for this continued growth in unpaid fines. The legal and social landscape in Ontario and Canada is very different today than it was when the POA came into effect. The need to efficiently address infractions has led to an increased reliance on fines rather than going to court and facing other penalties.

When municipalities were downloaded and took over the fine-collection responsibilities, they were not appropriately resourced to assume these functions, and this resulted in very long delays in the courts and insufficient defaulter information, which means they didn’t really have the current addresses or phone numbers of the people who were in default.

Another reason for the continued growth in fines is a shortage of JPs to preside over the POA courts. This delayed cases moving through the system, which increased the amount of cases in the system and the low rate of collection. Some stakeholders suggest that it can take over six months to resolve a case in court, and as time passes, the possibility of the cases becoming uncollectable increases.

Because POA courts pay the same filing and issuing costs as the general public, their limited resources force them to abandon the pursuit of many cases, which means they do not get paid. The inability to afford enforcement and collection of fines adds to the amount of money in unpaid fines, and clearly there need to be more supports in place when it comes to fine collections.

Another reason for growth in unpaid fines is the amount of fines that are being given out. Between 1999 and 2007, municipalities and municipal police gave out 57% more fines while the OPP gave out 20% more POA fines. Since processing resources have not increased over time, the backlogs just continue to grow.

When it comes to unpaid fines, it isn’t just the number of unpaid fines that is increasing but the monetary amount. In 2010, the cost of many road fines had doubled or more.

With these higher fines, it has been noted that it can also impact unpaid fines, as individuals find it more difficult to afford the fines at all. While we can hope, by increasing fines and instituting higher penalties, that individuals will be incented to clear their name and pay the fines, it has the opposite effect in some cases. Repeat offenders will simply resist payment in order to avoid interaction with authorities. Municipalities have also complained about a lack of tools available to them that are available to others.

It is true that Highway 407 collection has the ability to take a picture and then access the Ministry of Transportation database to issue the fine directly to the driver’s house. Municipalities don’t have the same level of access. What is that about? Municipalities are our partners and they don’t have access, but a billion-dollar corporation has access to our MTO database. This speaks to a disconnect between municipalities and the province when it comes to addressing the issue.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I see you have two visitors over there.

Ms. Cindy Forster: While Bill 34 does take steps to increase the level of co-operation between municipalities and the province, it doesn’t go far enough. If private companies are able to use the province as a resource, the same level of access should be available to municipalities.

If passed, this legislation will deny licence plates to drivers who have unpaid fines for offences such as speeding, improper lane changes, illegal turns, driving without insurance, and careless driving. This can be seen as an effective way to incent offenders to pay their outstanding fines, but shouldn’t we consider things like ability to pay and transit opportunities available? Considering the current economic climate, it might be unwise to inflict more financial restrictions on Ontarians.

When discussing this issue, it’s important to mention AMO’s role in advocating for change. AMO, a non-profit organization representing 444 municipal governments across this province, made addressing POAs one of its top 12 asks in the 2011 provincial election.

AMO welcomes Bill 34. “‘Municipalities have long pressed for these powers, which will help recoup millions of dollars for municipalities and, more importantly, will ensure that individuals are held responsible for their actions and that justice is served,’ said Russ Powers, AMO president.”

They are worried at the present time that “the administrative changes necessary to support this legislation may take two years to complete. AMO urges the government to complete these changes as quickly as possible so that municipalities will be able to collect the fines owing.”

The 2012 provincial budget mentioned some key commitments to improve the collection of unpaid fines. This included two new tools: vehicle licence plate denial, and offsetting unpaid fines against federal income tax refunds. As a result of this commitment, the Ministry of Transportation established yet another committee to explore this issue in greater detail. This committee of multiple ministries and municipal reps developed a solid plan to deliver improvements, but Bill 34 is only one small step that needs to be addressed.

POA fines are severely impacting Ontario’s municipalities. Leeds and Grenville has lost somewhere in the range of $6 million to $7 million in revenue from uncollected POA fines accumulated over the past 10 to 15 years. Sault Ste. Marie has lost $12 million.

In 2001, the fines under the POA that the province hadn’t yet collected when they downloaded fine collection to municipalities were downloaded as arrears. So the province couldn’t even collect their fines, but they downloaded that responsibility under the—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Welland—

Ms. Cindy Forster: I’m sorry.

Mr. Mike Colle: I tried to help.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you, to the member from Eglinton–Lawrence.

Now we have—a certain individual walked in here and said, “It’s so quiet in here.” Well, it isn’t now. And the other two visitors: a little loud; you might want to go back to your fort, okay? Thank you.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Aren’t we trying to all be friends here, Speaker?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thanks very much.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Thank you, Speaker.

In 2001, the fines under the POA that the province hadn’t yet collected when they downloaded fine collection to municipalities—they also downloaded arrears at the same time. The province couldn’t collect the fines, so they downloaded those to the municipalities without the appropriate resources.

Toronto courts are owed almost $36 million in outstanding fines. To put this in perspective, this is the projected shortfall for the Toronto Transit Commission in 2012. Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry is owed the most in unpaid fines: over $7 million, with less than one third being collected.

Collection is often seen as being about money rather than justice. Therefore, it’s not considered essential to the justice system and not given the attention or resources that it actually needs to be really effective.

There has been some progress in addressing the problem of unpaid fines. Collection tools, including plate suspensions, licence suspensions, use of collection agencies, ability to add it to the property tax roll and repeal of statutory limitation periods, have varying success. Licence plate denial has been a very effective tool to compel the payment of certain fines and obligations, but it’s currently used in very limited circumstances.

When the Ontario government transferred the enforcement of provincial offences to municipalities, it allowed them to hire collection agencies to pursue fines and fees. Collection agencies compete for those contracts, incenting them to perform better and collect more. This apparently is a cost-effective collection tool for municipalities, although I don’t know how well the employees were actually paid.

In June 2010, amendments to the Ontario Municipal Act came into force, allowing municipalities to collect unpaid POA fines by adding them to the offender’s property tax bill as arrears. I think this is an incentive, because most municipalities charge about 15% a year interest on unpaid taxes.

The city of Brampton identified 38 unpaid fines, totalling $210,000. They sent letters to violators indicating that the amounts would be added to their tax bills. In less than a year, 25% of that has been collected.

The problem is that, to add it to the tax roll, whoever has actually created the violation of the law has to be the sole owner of the property. The fact is that there are many renters of the property, so it doesn’t capture a huge amount of people.

There’s a lack of coordination. There’s a need for the ministries to get together and acknowledge their role in unpaid POA fines. According to the police services boards of Ontario, this is the single largest barrier to progress on the issue. For instance, the Ministry of Transportation and the Attorney General do not view the issue in the same way, according to the police services boards. When the POA system came into place, the idea was to take the burden off the administration of justice and replace some offences with financial penalties.

However, it seems that the Attorney General’s primary concern is with administrative justice, as it should be, so where there is a disconnect between primary goals, there is also a disconnect between co-operation.

Many individuals cannot be found and fines cannot be easily collected because their information is spread across fragmented databases. Because of this problem, stakeholders are calling for an integrated system that will streamline the collection system and make it easier to collect these fines. The police services board of Ontario has recommended in a white paper that the Ministry of Transportation’s driver’s licence, licence plate and Ministry of Attorney General databases be linked so offenders can be found and fines can be collected more easily.

There are other ways of collecting fines: by hiring a collections clerk who reminds people of their overdue POA fines, such as in North Bay, where they have used this and have been successful.

There’s also a need for operational changes to better align the authorities of the municipalities with their responsibilities, which they don’t have currently. The province and municipalities need to work together to ensure that appropriate tools are in place to improve the ability to collect unpaid fines.

Now, there is a lack of incentive to pay. Many Ontarians have figured out which fines they have to pay and which fines they can avoid paying without penalty. Stakeholders have ideas on how this can be fixed, including discounts for early fine payment, doubling of late penalties and that offenders be required to pay fines in chronological order, so that if you have five or six fines outstanding, your payment goes to the first fine first. That way, they can’t get out of paying the serious fines.

There’s a need for greater stakeholder engagement. Regular forums between the appropriate ministries and stakeholders to discuss best practices and identifying issues would go a long way to addressing the need for change and the range of solutions available.

I think it’s becoming clear that Bill 34 is only a very small step toward resolving the POA fine issue.

After listening to what needs to be done, here’s what the bill does: It amends the POA to allow the province to not validate or issue permits to convicted persons for traffic violations until a fine is paid. It outlines the infractions. It adds a

section to the act that outlines documents for out-of-province drivers, a document certified by the provincial offences officers as having been obtained from any government to keep records of vehicle permits. It stipulates the process of issuing tickets, including the officer’s signature on the certificate; it also provides a copy of the driver’s permit. It’s pretty clear that much more needs to be done if we expect the system to work and these unpaid fines to be reined in.

As a member of the Ontario NDP, we will be supporting this bill but we look forward to the committee process, where amendments can be made.

Now, as I speak to this bill, I’d like to take an opportunity to comment on the remarks by the Minister of Transportation and the member from Newmarket–Aurora. I would be remiss if I didn’t mention some of the issues I had with regard to their comments during their lead.

The Minister of Transportation spoke about the north and the fact that he’s done a lot of driving in Thunder Bay, Hearst, Kenora or Dryden in a blizzard or storm and the challenges in doing this. And then he went on to congratulate the government for their leadership on the safest roads in North America. But I would say that our members in the north—Timmins–James Bay, Timiskaming–Cochrane, Kenora–Rainy River, Nickel Belt and Algoma–Manitoulin—would not agree that the highways in the north of this province are the safest in North America.

In fact, they’ve been asking questions for the past several years about the snowplow operations and the reduced standards on all the roads during the winter driving months, regardless of the classification of those roads.

The government chose to contract out those services, and we’ve got contractors being supervised by another contractor as opposed to by ministry staff. The road conditions have been abysmal, and the circuits that were set up to clean the roads leave the snowplow operators running as much as 100 kilometres to 150 kilometres on one side before a return is done.

It has impacted the safety of drivers and their loved ones in the north. They are now driving on the wrong side of the road because it takes the operator 10 hours to clean the second side of the road, and there have been fatalities and serious injuries due to this reduced level of service in areas of this province where weather conditions can change dramatically on these long stretches of road.

Ms. Sarah Campbell: They’ve had five fatalities.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Five fatalities. Just this past winter I am sure this question was asked of the Minister of Transportation by at least three NDP members of this caucus.

Additionally, the snowplowing operations contract did not extend long enough into the spring to ensure continued safety of roads in areas where winter ends four to six weeks after southern Ontario and starts four weeks sooner than southern Ontario. In fact, my friends from Nickel Belt and Timmins–James Bay told me that they had snow last weekend and it has been snowing Monday and Tuesday up in areas of the north. So I wonder if the minister has that new, improved standards contract for snow removal in place right now—right now—to ensure the safety of our northern residents.

Perhaps some of this new fine-collection money can be used from the provincial share to beef up winter contracts across this province in the north and in the southwest.

Our member for Windsor–Tecumseh has asked a number of questions in the House since he was elected in the summer about the installation of deficient girders on the Herb Gray Parkway project. This too is a road safety issue that’s not going away. It may not have immediate impact on the drivers or their families in Windsor, or those travelling through the Windsor area, but somewhere down the road this will become a significant safety and economic issue for this province.

We—and I mean the NDP caucus—are waiting to hear from the Minister of Transportation on this issue as to whether they are going to order removal of the deficient girders already installed and what the go-forward plan is to ensure that we’re getting value for the contract that was signed and that the deficiencies are corrected so we are using taxpayers’ dollars in the most cost-effective and quality-effective ways, because there’s no point in trying to collect millions of dollars of fines if we’re just going to throw it away on deficient contracts and buyouts to contractors for cancelled gas plants and cancelled nuclear projects.

Centralization of programs and services, like ServiceOntario, POA courts and the court system in general, has become quite a problem for municipalities and for residents of those municipalities outside of the GTA, because there are municipalities outside of the GTA where transportation systems are ineffective or nonexistent to get people to these services to either pay a fine, get a renewal for a driver’s licence or update your plate sticker.

You think government is actually there to ensure that these services are available and that they’re accessible, but it becomes increasingly difficult as this government tries to balance its budget by cutting services. In Niagara, for example, there’s no longer a Via Rail service or GO trains, and GO buses only travel to St. Catharines; there are no GO trains to St. Catharines. In Niagara Falls, there are only GO trains in the summer, to get the tourists there.

Mr. Rob Leone: There it is.

Ms. Cindy Forster: There it is.

It takes people from Port Colborne, Fort Erie and Welland—which are in Niagara as well—up to 50 minutes to drive, if they have access to a car, and they may not, once their plate is withheld. Although there’s a regional bus service in its third-year trial, there are no direct routes. It could take one and a half to two hours for someone to get from Fort Erie to Niagara Falls, which is the only way then to get to St. Catharines, to access transportation to a GO bus out of the region or to get to the POA court in St. Catharines to either have their day in court or pay a fine.

Now, you’ll hear that you can pay online, but many people don’t use that system. I think I read something about how the government House leader didn’t even know that the system was available, so I don’t know that we’re doing a great job of communicating our online services. There are many people who don’t have a computer, don’t have access to one and don’t have transportation to get to the library to actually go online and do that.

So if the government wants to increase penalties and fines for offenders, they must consider ability to pay and ability to travel before they consider leaving residents to the failing public transit system in Ontario.

We heard from the member from Oakville as well, during the government lead, that between 1970 and 2000, the outstanding fines were significantly less than what we’re experiencing from 2000 to now, and he couldn’t quite seem to understand why that might be.

I think you have to look at the fact that many people don’t have jobs. We are in precarious employment situations, minimum-wage jobs, part-time work. So you make a decision: Do I eat? Do I pay my rent? Or do I pay a fine? What options are available to me when I’m living on a minimum wage, or when I’m living below the poverty level?

It was over the last 10 to 12 years that Ontario lost hundreds of thousands of good-paying manufacturing jobs across this province. Many of these workers have ended up in jobs paying 50% or less of what they were earning, if they have obtained employment at all.

I have friends, Speaker, who are office workers, bank employees, nurses, teachers, and are married to former manufacturing workers, who are and have been the sole breadwinners for many years since those manufacturing jobs have disappeared. So is it any wonder that people may not be able to find the money to pay outstanding fines and choose, instead, to try and struggle through another week or another month? Is it right that people don’t pay their fines? No, it isn’t. But there are many reasons why they don’t.

Part of this legislation is about punishing bad drivers, or at least making sure they understand the consequences of their infractions with fines or denial of plate renewal. This is a good thing, and hopefully it will reduce the number of infractions, make our roads safe for other drivers, pedestrians and communities in general.

That is why the NDP and, in particular, our justice critic, the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton, have been tirelessly advocating for reduced auto insurance rates for good drivers. We believe there should be an immediate 15% average decrease achieved through savings that insurance companies enjoyed when the Liberal government allowed them to reduce accident benefits two years ago, resulting in several billions of dollars in profits to insurance companies. So in a way, we want to ensure that bad drivers understand there are consequences for the infractions and for not paying fines. Good drivers also want to reap rewards for safe driving records.

Unfortunately, we’ve heard from many drivers since the spring budget who have told us their rates are going up, some by 30% or more, and not down, as promised by the government in the spring budget. Perhaps if Ontarians weren’t paying so much in auto insurance, they could actually afford to pay their POA fines.

Now, the member from Durham—I’m sorry he’s not with us today, but he actually spoke to this bill back in April. He was responding to the government lead by the Minister of Transportation saying that we should be congratulating Mike Harris—if you can believe this—for the history of this POA issue. Under Harris, the Provincial Offences Act and Highway Traffic Act—back in 1998, when the PCs under Harris were looking at municipal realignments of service and revenues, changes were made which committed this much-needed revenue to municipalities. The member from Durham is complaining because Mike Harris has never once been thanked for giving that revenue to municipalities.

I cannot believe what I heard, Speaker. This is the same Mike Harris that downloaded the most expensive programs to municipalities, like community and social services that had never seen an increase in funding; huge housing portfolios downloaded with very little reserves and, in many cases, so old and falling apart that they had to be gutted and completely renovated or rebuilt; ODSP and Ontario Works clients’ benefits cut by 20% that were already 50% below the poverty line, and it has taken 20 years for those recipients to climb back up out of that hole where they were 20 years ago.

The outstanding fines at the time of the transfer were in the millions. For Niagara alone, I believe there were $12 million in outstanding fines when this POA was transferred.

I would suggest to the member from Durham that the trade-off was not an equal one. I can tell you that, having been a municipal politician at the time. Mike Harris surely does not deserve any thanks for municipal realignment of services at that time.

All right. Now to add some local flair today to my remarks. I want to present an issue about the region of Niagara. It paints a picture of a resource-strapped municipality with a high unemployment rate trying very hard to deal with the enormity of this issue. It represents the case for what is happening in municipalities across the province.

As of December 2012, the Niagara POA has 42,000 active delinquent fines, with a balance of $36.1 million owing. Active defaulted fines don’t include any fines which have a pending or granted extension, which are closed or written off or which are not being pursued. These are the latest facts available.

However, for a more thorough look at the region’s situation, I’ve acquired a report from 2010. Looking through it, it provides a lot of insight into the trends of the POA collection process, and it highlights the need for action, which will also show the capacity that municipalities have shown for dealing with this impossible issue.

So 2010, the year the study was done, was the busiest in the Niagara POA courts. According to the Ministry of the Attorney General, Niagara’s courts experienced a 104% increase in charges filed in a five-year period. This increase is the second-highest percentage increase in all municipally administered courts in the province—second-highest. There are cities much larger than the Niagara region, which has a population of just over 400,000.

Since assuming responsibility for POAs, the region and its municipal area partners have each received $12 million in net revenue, while payments to the province during that same period amounted to just over $16 million, or 26% more than each municipal partner. So the province isn’t doing any work, but they’re clearly getting a better share of the profits.

From 2009 to 2010, the number of customers served at Niagara’s service counters increased by 4%, with a 50% increase from 2005 to 2010. Also, the burden of the courts is growing: appeal applications increased by 13%, reopenings by 61% and trial requests—a very expensive process—by 30%. These increases have forced the regional senior justice of the peace to permanently increase the master court

schedule from 367 to 442 days, as well as the scheduled 112 days of court on an ad hoc basis. Given these growth trends, there’s a concern that Niagara is approaching maximum court capacity. The age and conditions of facilities can be expected to lead to escalating maintenance and operating costs in the future. These higher costs will undercut the potential for maximizing net revenue. Maximizing net revenue assists both the region and the area municipalities, because that funding is actually split.

When it comes to delinquent cases, in 2010, 1,100 cases on average were added each month, representing a 34% increase from 2009 and $24.2 million in delinquency in 2010. The Niagara POA staff work collaboratively with defendants who are unable to pay the full fine amount yet need to retain their driver’s licence to remain gainfully employed. So the region of Niagara at least has this sense of wanting to work with people who rely on their car because of the lack of reliable public transit. Staff review the defendant’s financial status to determine their ability to pay, and they will negotiate a payment plan.

The report states that given the recent economic downturn it’s no surprise that the total dollar value is up and the number of delinquent cases continues to increase. This is important to why we should move forward with this bill and try to address the unpaid fine issue. We must consider, though, the hardships faced by Ontarians in today’s economy. While it’s important that we enforce fines on offenders who are contributing to unsafe road conditions, we have to work with them to ensure that their ability to pay is considered and not negatively impacted by collection tools.

It’s clear, however, that municipalities are being pushed to the limit of their resources and their capacities and vast changes need to occur to help municipalities collect unpaid fines. We see now that the government is touting their investment in infrastructure as their plan to help municipalities. They talk about—I think it’s a $100-million investment to help rural Ontario. Surely that number sounds big. It may sound big out there to the viewers of this today, but, in fact, there are 444 municipalities in this province. There may be—I don’t know—300, 350 that are small, rural, and this will have a very small impact on those communities.

I’ll tell you this: In my municipality of Welland, the bridge crossing the canal—just to repaint it is a $10-million price tag. It’s been on the books for 10 years and they can’t afford to even get to that project. It’s $10 million for one bridge. A small bridge over Lyons Creek in my riding, out in the rural part of my riding: $1 million for a bridge to go over that creek because it had to meet the standards of the MTO and the MOE.

We’ve known for a long time that this government is interested in press conferences and newspaper headlines more than actually bringing about positive change. If we want to help municipalities in a significant way, we need to deal with issues like unpaid fines and waste management. We need to do the hard work that’s necessary to help municipalities deal with services that were downloaded on to them a decade ago.

I want to spend the rest of my time talking about MTO issues. The member from Aurora raised some important issues under MTO when he did his lead, and I wanted to take this opportunity to raise some of those issues with the Minister of Transportation, who is here.

Probably on a weekly basis, we get complaints on a variety of issues from constituents in the riding around the Ministry of Transportation. One of the common threads is the wait times to get through to ServiceOntario. On average, people tell us that the wait time on the phone can be 50 minutes to an hour, for somebody sitting, waiting on the phone to try and get through to ask a question.

We had a man, actually, who was trying to arrange for MTO to come out and do presentations to a seniors’ group around MTO issues. They were unable to effect that. Although they had had a commitment from the MTO, a verbal commitment, at the end of the day, the MTO couldn’t meet that commitment. I’ve got copies of letters here from constituents who have come into my office; it’s taken months to actually resolve their issues.

The member from Aurora spoke about a staff member. I’m assuming she’s a senior staff member at the Ministry of Transportation. Her name is Elena Tersigni. He highly commended her in his time when he was in that ministry, when the PCs were in government. He said in his statement that day that he thought there needed to be a review of the Ministry of Transportation and it was because of constituent concerns. I’m sure that all of us in this House have concerns coming from our constituents and I wanted to share a couple of those with you today.

Here’s one. I’ve got a letter dated April 5:

“You’ll recall … I faxed you what appears to be a confirmation of ... medical reports from Dr. K. Kundi (the constituent’s family doctor)” to your ministry on January 18.

“Elena, it does appear that the ministry did receive these reports.

“I am hoping”—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Scarborough–Rouge River is a little loud.

Ms. Cindy Forster: “I am hoping you can arrange to expedite this medical review, if in fact it has not been actioned, as I believe the required medical was received ... January 18….”

This is three months later and the Ministry of Transportation is saying, “We never received the medical,” even though we have a faxed report showing that it went to the ministry. It is sad that people are waiting three months.

I have one where people are actually waiting eight months. It was to the Honourable Minister of Transportation at the time, in 2012. This constituent was having a problem with a medical review of his driving privileges: “Our ministry liaison has advised us to follow up on the status of the file in three weeks. We are told the committee which reviews medical files does not meet weekly.” Why aren’t they meeting weekly?

This constituent’s “life is being negatively impacted by the suspension of his driver’s licence. He has been further frustrated by delays in the processing of information and by a lack of communication.”

His suspension and review dragged on for eight months, almost an entire year.

Further medical was requested in mid-September; it was sent by fax. The wife tried to follow up by phone a month later. She was on hold for 55 minutes, which she says was a standard wait time for phone access to the Ministry of Transportation throughout the process. When he was finally able to get through, he was told that the fax sent two weeks ago by his doctor was illegible and a new submission was required. But nobody had contacted them.

He was at a complete loss as to why that fax was sitting on somebody’s desk at the MTO without anyone alerting him so he could correct the situation in a timely manner. The answer? The ministry’s medical review team does not contact drivers or physicians. Our question is, why not? If you get a piece of information and it’s insufficient or it’s illegible, why wouldn’t you pick up the phone and call to get the information that you need?

When I asked my staff to actually give me some of these things, it was a bit nostalgic because, at the end of the day—I’m going to share this little story with you. The subject was—and I can share this name—Mr. Donald James Curley. This was in 2007. Peter Kormos was the MPP in Welland at the time. The letter is from one of my staff to the Minister of Transportation at that time.

“I am writing to you regarding constituent and the family of Mr. Donald Curley,” living in Welland, “regarding his driver’s licence. Please be advised, Mr. Curley served this country” in our armed forces.

He “returned to Ontario from Georgia in ... 2007 after losing all of his identification in a house fire. Upon return, he initiated a request to exchange his valid Georgia driver’s licence for an Ontario driver’s licence. After an eight-month ordeal of not being able to drive, Mr. Curley is still inexplicably waiting for his licence.

“Two weeks ago, I contacted management employees within the ministry and was assured Mr. Curley had met all the requirements and he wouldn’t have any further barriers to getting his Ontario driver’s licence. However, at his last attempt in doing so and despite my assurances to them from your ministry staff, he was again unsuccessful. Mr. Curley has met the requested requirements each time only to be turned away again to meet new requirements.

“Again, I remind you, Mr. Curley is a veteran of this country who proudly answered the call of duty when required. I ask that you investigate and ensure prompt and correct attention to this matter.”

Well, I want to tell you about this story, because this story is about my father. It’s about my father, Speaker, who was a veteran.

I can tell you that I took him to the ministry office in St. Catharines five times to try and get his driver’s licence. This was a man who lived out of country for 30 or 40 years. He moved back to the area. We didn’t know that he wasn’t well at the time.

He wanted two things in his life at the age of—I think he was 83 at the time. He wanted his veteran’s medals, which were burned in a fire—which I was actually able to get, through Veterans Affairs, in about four weeks; kudos to Veterans Affairs—and he wanted his driver’s licence, because there’s nothing more important to men than their cars and remote controls, right?

Five times, I took this man to St. Catharines. Each time, they requested something different—each time. The first time we went, they said, well, he needed some medical proof that he had had his cataracts done, even though he had a valid Georgia driver’s licence. We go down to get the licence; “No, you can’t get it.”

We took him back five times: eight months, and probably $100 worth of gas, back and forth from Welland to St. Catharines.

Finally, by the time he did get his driver’s licence, which I believe was in January 2008—so now it’s probably 13 months—he’s too sick. He’s too sick to drive. So the man never drove again, because the Ministry of Transportation took so many months to not give this man—to make him jump through so many hoops that he was never able to drive again. It’s not a good thing.

My hope in raising this today is that, in fact, no other senior, no other veteran, in this country who has a valid licence and is just trying to exchange it for an Ontario licence, trying to do the right thing—because, frankly, if I were him, I would have just driven with my Georgia licence until somebody caught me. Right? Why would he change it? So he ended up losing it for the rest of the period of his life.

I’ve got some other ones here. I’ve got one:

“Last year I was charged with the following offence—class G1 driver unaccompanied. This charge also included a suspension.

“I attended appeal court and the charges were withdrawn/dismissed. However, my abstract was never corrected.” We hear this probably on a monthly basis. “I have since secured employment in St. Catharines and had attempted to secure car insurance.” He couldn’t get car insurance because his record wasn’t corrected by the ministry.

“In speaking with Driver Control with the Ministry of Transportation and communication, I understand that it will take ... five weeks” to get this matter resolved. That’s the earliest that we could be expected to address this. “This creates undue hardship and a risk to my unemployment as I reside in Welland and attend St. Catharines daily.

“I believe that the wait time of five weeks is inappropriate,” because it’s the ministry’s fault that you didn’t correct the record after he went to court and had the charges withdrawn. I think the Minister of Transportation needs to deal with some of these issues. The MTO “did not register/change my abstract.” He needs some help. It still took months after this to get this fixed for this guy.

As I tell you, we live in Niagara. We don’t have a direct public transportation system, as they don’t in London. London has one of the worst city transportation systems in the province. There are people who are suffering in this province because the Ministry of Transportation offices aren’t dealing with some of these issues. So I kind of agree with the member from Aurora that perhaps the ministry needs to do a review.

I’ve got a couple more that I’ll share with you. Here’s one. This man was a professional truck driver.

“At age 64 he must find a new way to meet his financial obligations. That is a tall order in this day and age.

“He slipped when helping a friend repair a tractor trailer tire last December. He fell and hit his head. That one mishap led to a series of events which altered his life in ways he could not have imagined.”

He “describes the after effects as being consistent with a concussion. He took a two-hour nap in the bunk of his own transport truck, then got back on the road and headed home. Near his destination he hit a guardrail.” It is his first accident, Speaker, in 40 years. For 40 years, he was a professional truck driver.

He is required to undergo a series of medical tests. One of those tests uncovers a small irregularity with his vision. That leads to them removing his A licence, so he can no longer drive.

Mr. Mustard goes to the doctor. He does all the right things. He sees the specialist. He sees the family doctor. The doctors tell him it’s just an eye irregularity, a side effect of aging and diabetes. Lots of people have the same health problems, and they’re still driving in Ontario. Yet he has to undergo a driving examination.

What sticks in Mr. Mustard’s craw is that the Ministry of Transportation “sets the bar to achieving a licence reinstatement higher for him because he drove for a living and because of a sudden series of unfortunate events. He believes that this is unfair.”

We’ve asked the ministry to investigate the circumstances surrounding the removal of his A licence and to ensure that all options for its reinstatement are presented to him. We also asked the ministry to explain the ministry’s rationale for requiring this constituent to jump through hoops, when other older drivers with similar health issues are not required to meet the same standards. I think we’re still actually waiting for a response on that one.

I’ll continue on, Speaker. I’ve got a few minutes left.

I think that these particular constituent issues are important to raise, because each and every one of us hears about them every day—and I hope the Minister of Transportation is listening. The department is probably under-resourced and understaffed and that’s why they can’t get to these issues in a timely way, but it really is negatively impacting the lives of many of our constituents, of their families.

This one is back in 2010. This constituent goes to the hospital; she’s suffering from some unexplained shaking in her legs and arm. The visit initiates a November 9 request by your ministry for a medical review, which the constituent has made every effort to provide. Now, you’ll know that it’s really hard to get to see some specialists in this province. People can wait a year or two years to get to a pain clinic, to see a pain specialist. You can wait for up to a year to get to see a neurosurgeon or a neurologist, and you may never see a psychiatrist in this province, because of the lack of psychiatrists across the country.

Anyway, this constituent commutes to her job, so she wants to ensure that the medical evidence requested in the letter from the ministry is forwarded and received quickly, as there’s already a 10-day delay between the date of issue and the date she received the request. She phones the Ministry of Transportation to follow up on her file and she has experienced a wait time in excess of 40 minutes before being told that the medical submission from McMaster Hospital was not attached to her file.

She subsequently phones a number of times, each preceded by a lengthy wait on hold, leaving her frustrated enough to request to talk to a supervisor. The last person she speaks to at the ministry’s toll-free number tells Ms. Hayward that it’s impossible. It’s impossible that she has had to wait this long; it’s impossible that they didn’t get the medical information.

Our liaison with your ministry gives assurances that her licence in this particular situation will still be valid on this date, as the medical submission requirement has been met. But we’ve undertaken to follow up so that Ms. Hayward can find out at the earliest opportunity the status of her medical review.

These issues go on day after day, and they’re important issues too. In fact, I think they’re perhaps more important than the issue of fine collections. Yes, people who break the law need to pay their fines, but the Ministry of Transportation is there to deal with more than just making sure that legislation gets changed to deal with the collection of fines. Municipalities are cash-strapped and they need the ability to do that, but I think the people who pay the taxes, who pay the freight in this province, deserve a better service. They deserve a timely service.

They deserve better access to the services that they need, particularly these people who depend, in their lives, on their driver’s licence or on their licence plate.

I can tell you that I had my own experience this past year at ServiceOntario in my riding. I’m thinking I went over to renew my registration on one vehicle, and I was told at the ServiceOntario booth that I didn’t have any insurance. Well, clearly, I did have insurance. I didn’t have my pink slip with me; it was in my vehicle. But they were insisting.

I said, “Well, if I don’t have insurance, how did you actually issue me a plate sticker in May?” So I must have been going to have my driver’s licence renewed. I said, “You issued me a plate sticker in May, on May 15, on my birthday.” “Well, no. You don’t have any insurance, and you’re going to have to contact your insurance company to get this figured out,” and whatever, “and you need to do that right away.” I said, “Why can’t you contact the insurance company? Just make a call. Hopefully there’s something in the database that says Cindy Forster has insurance.” Well, there wasn’t.

So I go home and I call my Buckley Insurance up there in Aurora, and I say, “Do I have insurance?” And they said, “Oh, yes, you do.” I said, “They say you have to call them and tell them that I have insurance,” and they said, “Well, no, no. All they’ve got to do is look at the database, and if the database is incorrect, it’s not our fault. We’ve sent your insurance in. They need to correct that database and make sure that the correct information is in there for the people who actually pay very high auto insurance rates in this province.”

Just to close—I’ve got 51 seconds—I want to take the opportunity to thank everybody who has spoken to this issue at the moment, and while the NDP will support this bill, as you’ve heard today from me and from the member from Aurora and from the people who had done the two-minute comments and hits on this back in April—can you believe it was actually back in April that we last talked about this bill? It takes a long time to get things through here.

We look forward to talking about the bill, we look forward to actually hearing from the people who will be making deputations to us, and we will be bringing forward amendments that we think will make this bill much more effective, not only for municipalities but for the people who pay the freight in this province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I thank the member opposite for her comments. I’m very happy to speak briefly in support of Bill 34. There is one aspect of this particular bill which is very important to me personally. This particular bill is very much supported by my community of Ottawa Centre and my city of Ottawa, and both our city council and the mayor, Jim Watson, are very supportive of this bill.

The one particular issue that is close to me personally is the issuing of offence notices for those who are caught through a red light camera and they come from out of province. As you know, Ottawa being a border town, this is a significant issue. Back on October 4, 2012, I in fact introduced a private member’s bill, Bill 131, entitled the Enhancing Red Light Camera System Enforcement Act, which allowed for municipalities like Ottawa to issue red light camera offence tickets to those car drivers who have licence plates out of province.

I’m very happy to see this, and I thank the Minister of Transportation for adopting my private member’s bill in this particular bill. It’s an important issue for my city. It’s an issue of road safety and pedestrian safety. We want to make sure that all drivers are treated equally in cities like Ottawa, and it doesn’t matter where you come from, what licence plate you have: If you break the red light law, then you should pay the fine.

I want to thank our mayor, Jim Watson, for his support, and our deputy mayor, Steve Desroches, for his hard work on this file. He and I worked very closely together. I thank the government and the Minister of Transportation for adopting Bill 131, my private member’s bill, and making it part of Bill 34.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Jack MacLaren: I’d like to congratulate the member from Welland on her speech. I found it fascinating. I happen to agree with just about everything she said.

This bill, in my opinion, is clearly about the money. We have a government here that is broke, and this is another example of looking for more places to collect money from the same people they’ve got to collect it from every time. It’s going to be billions of dollars, if they go back as far as 40 years. I went to a briefing by the MTO on what this bill is all about—the money collection part—and I find it appalling when we have so much unemployment, so many people having a hard time with other bills this government has created, like hydro bills etc.

Now we have a new way of collecting more money from the same people who are having a hard time out there paying the bills the government already gives them.

There are all kinds of cases of hardship and tough times among all these unemployed people. Imagine going back to somebody some years afterwards who has now lost his job, because he’s one of the 500,000 unemployed people here, and saying, “You didn’t pay your ticket some years ago.” Or maybe you’re unhealthy or maybe you lost your licence for some reason. You’re asking people who can’t give to give more.

I think what we’re going to find here is that you’re going to force people to do things they wouldn’t otherwise do. They’re going to break the law. If they have to drive to go to the hospital, if they have to drive to get groceries and they haven’t got a licence because they can’t pay the fines, they’re going to do it. And if you don’t have a licence, why do you need insurance? So they’re not going to have insurance. We’re going to create and force people to do things they wouldn’t normally do.

It’s a bad idea, Mr. Speaker, and it’s all about the money. It’s a government that’s broke that’s doing it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I want to thank the member from Welland for her remarks. I think she showed a strong grasp of the policy issues related to this legislation and also brought a wealth of experience based on her own background as a municipally elected official. I think that kind of experience is really helpful for us in this House as we debate issues that affect municipal downloading.

Certainly she has been working very hard on behalf of her constituents, and we heard that from the number of issues she identified with the bureaucratic roadblocks that people are experiencing in her riding and in all of our ridings in dealing with different government ministries.

There were a couple of issues she raised that I found particularly insightful and important as we consider the content of this bill and moving forward on this issue. We know that there has been significant downloading of responsibilities to municipalities without providing municipalities with the tools they need to enforce these new responsibilities. We’ve seen municipalities struggling to deal with infrastructure deficits. The member from Welland mentioned my own community of London and the challenges that we’ve been experiencing to improve our transit system, the length of time that’s going to be required to introduce a more effective transit strategy for the people of London.

Municipalities have been asking for this for a very long time. It’s very much needed. I really appreciate the comments that have been made and the support that has been stated for this bill. It’s an important one and I think it’s time to move forward.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Every once in a while you hear a comment in here that sort of stops you dead in your tracks. I listened carefully to the member opposite and I thought it was a thoughtful intervention. I was very shocked by the response of the member from Mississippi Mills.

This is about people who endanger the lives of seniors, of children. This is about people who commit serious and dangerous acts on our roads for the privilege of driving. This is about a financial penalty for people who endanger other people’s lives.

Whatever happened to the Conservatives who believed in personal responsibility? The fines for this, relatively speaking, in my role, are relatively minor for the danger these people provide. A cash grab for the provincial government, the honourable member suggests: What absolute nonsense. All of the money does not come to the government; it does not come to us at all in Ontario. This is money for municipalities to improve traffic lights, crossing guards, make our communities safer and help with police enforcement. We fund 700 police officers. We have uploaded health and social services that were downloaded by the previous government.

Comments were made about London. We have $14 billion in infrastructure. London’s priority, from their municipal council, is not public transit; it is four major interchanges, which we’re paying for as a provincial government. At 100% a pop, that’s about $40 million. I have been meeting with London Transit to try and engage them. They also get the gas tax. They’re also not having to pay health or social services. They have more financial room. Infrastructure spending traditionally, until we came to government, was $3 billion; it’s now $14 billion. London has never had more money available to it in its history.

Any time they want to expand a transit line or put a proposal in, like the ones Kitchener or Ottawa has, we’ll be all over it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Welland has two minutes.

Ms. Cindy Forster: I’d like to thank the members from Carleton–Mississippi Mills, London West, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Transportation for their comments.

I think this issue is about doing the right thing and it’s about making sure people are punished for breaking the law, as a way to hopefully prevent them from breaking the law again. But I don’t think we’re talking about bad people here. Every one of us can have an infraction of the law at some point in time around driving offences. It is about money as well. It’s about putting some money to that to actually send a message to offenders.

I think that perhaps there needs to be a review of the revenue-sharing of these fines, because the municipal portion is certainly getting less and less as they have to improve the infrastructure to collect these fines.

I’m glad that I actually had the opportunity—although it was a shock to me to receive the information about my father from my staff, I was glad to have the opportunity to revisit that and talk about how important it really is for the Ministry of Transportation, and all ministries for that matter, to review and request from our constituency offices on a whole myriad of issues in a timely way and provide that access to people. Really, that’s what we’re all here for at the end of the day: to serve the constituents that we represent.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

APOLOGY

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): A point of order, the member from Elgin–Middlesex–London.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Thank you, Speaker. I’ll be the first to admit when I make an error. I’d like to withdraw and apologize for the final comment I made yesterday during my debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you for that. Accepted.

It is close to 10:15. This House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to introduce Walter McKenzie, who is the mayor of West Perth, and Ken Ahrens, who is a retired project manager with Dofasco. Welcome to the House.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’d like to introduce, in the members’ lobby, Jeff Mole, who is here in order to circulate and help members remember that he has a petition in regards to waterfalls and the protection thereof.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’d like to introduce my guest in the members’ lobby, and that is Liz Young, who works in my office in the town of Oakville.

Mr. Michael Harris: I’d like to welcome delegations coming from the Canadian cement association today. I know they’ll be at Queen’s Park, but they’re also hosting the reception tonight in the dining room, and I encourage all members to go down and join those folks tonight.

Mr. Rick Bartolucci: I’d like to introduce Anis Farah from Laurentian University, representing the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations. I welcome her to Queen’s Park, and we look forward to our meeting.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park Richard and Carol Anjo from the great riding of Northumberland–Quinte West. They’re here to welcome.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I’m thrilled to introduce today our page captain, who is Arianna Dossa from my riding of Pickering–Scarborough East. With her today are her family members: her mom, Dinar; father, Farid; grandfather Nazir; grandmother Yasmin; grandfather Ashraf; grandmother Parviz; and great aunt Mary. It’s very wonderful to have them all here today at the Legislature. Welcome.

Hon. Brad Duguid: It’s my pleasure to welcome the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations and their reps. They’re joining us today from across the province. I’d also like to invite them to a reception tonight: 4:30 in committee rooms 228 and 230. Welcome, and thank you for being here.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Not to be outdone by my friend the Deputy Premier, I want to welcome to the world my newest grandchild, my first grandson, Hugh William Wesley, who was born last night in Orangeville.

Hon. David Zimmer: I would like to introduce and welcome Chief James Marsden from the Alderville First Nation, who is visiting the chamber today, and I’ll be meeting with him in Alderville tomorrow.

M me France Gélinas: I would like to welcome to Queen’s Park Mrs. Anis Farah, from Laurentian University, and Gyllian Phillips, from Nipissing University, who are here with the council of university faculties. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): In the Speaker’s gallery, we have joining us a new friend to Ontario, Akhilesh Mishra, the consul general of India in Toronto. Welcome and join us. Namaste.

ORAL QUESTIONS

POWER PLANTS

Mrs. Jane McKenna: My question is for the Premier. Premier, the people of Ontario have lost confidence in your Liberal government after you wasted almost $1 billion to save seats in Oakville and Mississauga in the 2011 election. Taxpayers are fed up with you wasting their money so the Liberals can cling to power. They want the Liberal Party of Ontario to pay it back. Will you support my private member’s resolution tomorrow and commit to reimbursing taxpayers the $950 million that the Liberal Party wasted?

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And while the clock is stopped—I don’t normally do this, but I’m blanket telling you that I will be tough today, and if you don’t get the message, you’ll get it quick.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the question is in the context of all of the issues that have been raised as a result of the relocation of the gas plants. Those questions have been raised repeatedly at the committee. We have sent tens of thousands of sheets of paper and documents to the committee. We broadened the scope of committee so all the questions could be asked. I think there is a much better understanding of what happened in the process of moving those gas plants, something that we all in this House agreed needed to happen.

I have said repeatedly that there were decisions made that shouldn’t have been made. What’s really important is that, as we go forward, we have in place a process that will ensure this will not happen again, and that’s what we are doing.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Jane McKenna: Saying sorry doesn’t fix the problem because now we’ve moved on to Pan Am.

Nevertheless, Premier, you signed a cabinet document authorizing the plant cancellation and you served as co-chair of the campaign that made the decision. When will you take responsibility for the money missing from the provincial treasury? This is money that the Auditor General said didn’t need to be spent.

Saying sorry just is not enough. You need to pay back the money that you owe the taxpayers. You need to stop using taxpayers as a personal ATM. Will you reimburse the hundreds of millions of dollars that you owe the Ontario people?

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, you asked the question. That’s enough.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Kitchener–Conestoga, come to order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, I think a discussion of money lost to the provincial treasury would be a very interesting one.

If we look at an asset like the 407, I can remember when I was campaigning in 2003, I met a former employee of MTO and he said to me that the $3 billion that was paid for the 407 was a fraction of what that asset was worth. There are billions of dollars at the outset that probably should have been paid, but that was a fire sale. But in an ongoing way, I believe the revenue—I’ll stand to be corrected by the Minister of Transportation—that could have gone into the provincial treasury is in the order of $700 million a year. That goes into a private company because of the fire sale that was made by the party opposite. That’s where—

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

Mrs. Jane McKenna: You keep looking at the past because you don’t want to deal with the future.

I was just asked this question: Am I trying to bankrupt the Liberal Party? Well, you’ve bankrupted Ontario taxpayers.

Premier, it’s your job as the government of Ontario to put the interests of the people of this province first. You failed to do that. We are calling on you to finally do the right thing. It’s time the people of this province saw that the money would be returned.

As the saying goes, if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. Your government spent $950 million for—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. I know what I’m doing. I’m not liking the tone of that particular issue, and I would ask the member to withdraw. I’m going to tell everybody that I don’t like that tone about crime and criminality.

Carry on and withdraw, please.

Mrs. Jane McKenna: Withdraw.

Now it’s time for the government to take responsibility for its actions. Premier, will you acknowledge your mistake in taking that money from taxpayers and pay it back to the treasury?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

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

As I have said, we’ve had many, many opportunities to talk about these issues at the committee, and that discussion is ongoing.

Interjection.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke says that people don’t care about what happened 10 years ago, but I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if the revenues I spoke to on the 407 were continuing to come into the provincial treasury, that would be billions of dollars that we would have, as a government and as a Legislature, that we could spend on services.

The question to the member opposite would be, will the party opposite find a way to pay back the billions on the 407, the hundreds of millions on the Eglinton subway, the stranded hydro debt? I think the member opposite understands that that is forgone revenue from the provincial treasury, and I would like to know what her leader would say about those debts.

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Back to the Premier: I obviously want to congratulate her and Jane for their first grandchild. That’s exciting—

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Third grandchild; first grandson.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Oh, sorry—first grandson. That’s fantastic. Hopefully, he’ll be wearing some Tory blue today.

Speaker, I’d like to go back on this matter of the gas plants, because it is clear that there’s no confidence left in the government’s handling of the energy file. In the last two weeks alone, the auditor confirmed they blew $1.1 billion in cancelling the gas plants. Then they cancelled $181 million worth of nuclear reactors. Then the OEB raised hydro rates. Then the 402 was shut down by angry Ontarians in rural communities who are opposed to this wind turbine development scheme. So if their energy policy wasn’t in shambles two weeks ago, it certainly is now. There is zero credibility left.

If you won’t support my colleague from Burlington in her effort to get you to pay back that $950 million, will you at least be honest with the taxpayers of this province when they open their energy bill—

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Minister of Energy will want to speak to this, but I want to just talk, because this notion about the $180 million that has been spent on getting ready for a new nuclear spend, Mr. Speaker—I just want to be clear about what that $180 million was for, because I think people need to know that.

Ontario Power Generation invested $180 million in environmental approvals, in project planning, public and stakeholder consultations, around a potential new build. All of the OPG’s expenditures related to the new nuclear planning were reviewed by the Ontario Energy Board, which is an independent, semi-judicial agency, as the member opposite knows, and those expenses were posted publicly on their website.

Much of what OPG is investing can be repurposed for the future, if and when the province decides to move ahead. So that is not lost money. That is money that has bought information.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I don’t think that helps the Premier escape the fact that the last two weeks in the energy file have been absolutely disastrous and have had a major impact on the ratepayers across this province.

We know that she was in the middle of a series of very bad decisions, Speaker, with respect to the Oakville gas plant. It doesn’t matter how many panels she creates for so-called “open government.” Everyone knows that she signed the cabinet document to cancel that power plant. Everyone knows that she was the campaign chair to make that decision. And now everyone knows, because of the Deputy Minister of Energy, that she knew well before she was quoting the $33-million to $40-million cancellation fee that it would be upwards of $750 million or more.

If her party will not pay back the funds they stole from the taxpayers of this province, the only thing that she can do now is actually tell Ontario taxpayers exactly how much it’s costing them.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, we have been asking for several months for the Progressive Conservative Party to come forward with its costing when it campaigned so aggressively for the cancellation of both of these plants. They have not been forthcoming.

Mayor Rob Burton of Oakville put something on his website that I’d like to quote. You’ll want to hear this. It’s called “The timeline…”

“On September 25, 2011, PC leader Tim Hudak says the Oakville power plant cancellation ‘cost $1 billion’ and suggests the Mississauga power plant cancellation ‘may cost another $1 billion.’

“On October 5, 2011”—you’ll want to hear this—“on the day before the provincial election, in front of the still under construction Mississauga power plant, PC leader Tim Hudak promises to stop the power plant if he wins the election, after only days before warning that he’s sure it ‘may cost another $1 billion.’”

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I’d like to go back to the Premier. It’s really nice for the government House leader to try and get up and talk about something that really doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter because, I’ll tell you something, Speaker, it was their government that cancelled the gas plant, it was their government that relocated to Napanee and it was their government that cost taxpayers in this province $1.1 billion.

Back to the Premier: It’s clear that the government either doesn’t know or doesn’t care how much ratepayers are being charged for these disastrous scandals of the past two weeks. They are making policy decisions on the fly. It is not in the best interests of our energy sector nor is it in the best interests of the people who are paying for it across the province. If she can’t tell us what that bill means and what the people of this province are paying when they open their hydro bills, when they open their natural gas bills, she’s not doing her job or she’s incompetent. Perhaps it’s both. Will she actually ask the Auditor General to open up the books since she simply won’t do it?

Hon. John Milloy: The member can shout and scream and put on all the dramatics she wants, but she cannot deny the fact that it was the leader of her party who stood up and said that if he was elected Premier of this province, the Mississauga power plant, in his words, would be “done, done, done.”

We have heard for months and months this criticism from them that somehow the decision that we took—the same one they promised—has been the worst thing to befall civilization. Well, it’s time they came clean. It’s time they allow their candidates to come before the committee and talk about their costing, talk about their analysis and talk about why Tim Hudak, after admitting it would cost $1 billion—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Objection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I do object. Sit down.

The member is asked, as all members are, to use the title or to use the riding, please. You have 10 seconds to wrap up.

Hon. John Milloy: It’s time they come clean—why their leader stood, after admitting it would cost $1 billion, in his estimate—and explain their costing and explain why they made the exact same promise.

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Ontario families are paying the highest electricity bills in Canada. They’ve seen this government spend over $1 billion cancelling power plants and at least $180 million for a nuclear expansion scheme that the government now admits is too expensive to carry forward.

Can the Premier tell us what contracts have been signed in regard to the refurbishment of the nuclear plant at Darlington?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Minister of Energy will want to speak to the supplementary, but I want to, as I did in a previous question, address the issue of the information that has been gathered and the planning that was done in anticipation of a new nuclear build. That money was spent, as I say, on planning, on public and stakeholder consultations, on environmental approvals. All of that work stands in good stead for usage in the future. That is not money that has been wasted. That is money that was invested in information that can be used at a future date. I just wanted the leader of the third party to have that information.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’ll help the Premier out. In documents that we’ve obtained, the Minister of Energy tells us that contracts worth $950 million have already been signed for Darlington. Can the Premier then tell us what the final price tag will be for this project?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know I said I would send the question to the Minister of Energy; I’ll send the next one to the Minister of Energy.

But again, I just want to get at what it is the leader of the third party is saying. The new nuclear: There’s a problem with that decision. She doesn’t like the idea of us refurbishing. We know that the NDP doesn’t support nuclear, doesn’t support having a baseload of nuclear, but they also don’t support green energy. It’s really hard to identify what their energy plan is.

We have said that we will refurbish our nuclear stock. We’ve said that having a baseload of nuclear is very, very important for this province, that it will be part of our long-term energy plan. It’s really a bit bemusing that the leader of the third party doesn’t seem to have any strategy for a long-term energy plan, where we do actually have that plan.

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What New Democrats are concerned about is prudency in terms of knowing what we’re paying for before we commit to spending the money.

We got an answer to our question about the costs in a document from the Minister of Energy, and I’m going to quote from that document: “The final timeline and cost will not be known until … construction contracts are signed.”

Can the Premier confirm that the government has no idea what the final price tag will be for this project, even though they’ve already signed contracts worth $950 million?

Interjection.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Next question. The Minister of Energy won’t trust me; I’ll give him the next question.

I have to respond to the notion of prudence. Prudence is absolutely at the heart of having a plan for energy in this province. I don’t know if the leader of the third party is familiar with the way large capital projects work, but the reality is that, yes, you won’t know the construction costs until a contract is signed. There are many moving parts and unknowns, but what we have is a plan to have a long-term, stable energy supply in this province. Part of that is refurbishing our nuclear stock, so it would be irresponsible of us not to have put in place the planning in order to get those contracts in place.

It would be irresponsible of us not to look at how much time we needed in order to refurbish that nuclear capacity. We have a prudent plan in place.

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Premier, I would say that prudence is not only having a plan, but knowing how much you’re going to put the taxpayers of this province on the hook for the cost of that plan. That’s prudence.

Here are the facts: The government has signed contracts worth nearly $1 billion to get started on a refurbishment of Darlington, but, by their own admission, they have no idea what the final cost is going to be. You wouldn’t start making payments on a car without knowing what the final price tag was going to be.

Of course, this question is to the Premier. Does the Premier think that it makes sense to once again start making payments and signing contracts for a new electricity plan without having any idea what the final cost is going to be?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I think it’s important that we know what’s going on in this place this morning. The critic for the NDP is quoted publicly, and he said it on several different occasions: He supports not building new nuclear.

Here’s what’s happening: We’ve had an outpouring of support for that decision from across the province. Much of it comes from organizations and from people who would normally be supporting the NDP, so rather than state that they support the idea of not building new, they’re trying to undermine the decision by attacking the previous costs and by talking about refurbishment.

I have a clear question for the leader of the third party: Does she support cancelling new nuclear construction?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order, please. I don’t get things quiet so other people can add their two cents’ worth. That includes the member from Cambridge; if I ask him to go to his chair, then I can ask him to stop.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Gee, Speaker, if the Liberals had listened to the New Democrats for the last 10 years we wouldn’t have wasted $180 million on planning for nuclear plants that we’re not going to build.

This all sounds very familiar to the people of Ontario. Two years ago, the Premier was signing documents that ended up giving away the farm to private power companies, costing Ontarians $1.1 billion. Now we find out that the government has signed off on another billion dollars in contracts to refurbish the Darlington nuclear plant, but has no idea how high that price tag is going to be.

What does the Premier have to say to people who fear that she hasn’t learned a thing from the gas plant fiasco?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, I take her answer to say yes, she supports not building new nuclear. She knew the costs that were out there. Why did she support cancelling new nuclear? She’s doing and saying exactly what we’re doing. Now she’s upset that the people in her party, the organizations that she thinks are the exclusive possession of the NDP, are very, very vocal in supporting the initiative we’ve taken.

The OPG has been very responsible in how it has been dealing with the nuclear issue. The refurbishment will be 15,000 jobs. Does she want to kill those 15,000 jobs? They have spent money on contracts. They have done environmental assessment. They have been doing project work, and that work is now there for us to use as a guide for the next 10 years when we make decisions on nuclear. It’s the right thing to do. We’re not going to spend money on power we don’t—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ontario families and businesses are paying the highest electricity bills in Canada, and they want their government to take steps to get costs under control. Instead, here’s what they see: over $1 billion handed to private power companies to scrap the gas plants in Mississauga and Oakville, $180 million spent on a doomed plan for new nuclear plants, and now the government is signing almost $1 billion worth of contracts for projects even though—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Eglinton–Lawrence, come to order.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: —final price tag will be.

Now, what does the Premier have to say to businesses and households who are tired of paying for this government’s electricity messes? Have the Liberals learned nothing?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: One thing we agree on—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Holding a paper in front of your face doesn’t mean that I don’t know that it’s you. But the problem is that you’re having a conversation with people on this side while they’re trying to answer, and even while the question was being put, so let’s just stop, please.

Carry on.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: One thing we’ve done to mitigate price increases in the electricity system is to cancel $15 billion of energy construction which we don’t need, because we have a surplus. Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? If she wants to go ahead with new nuclear for $15 billion, then she is going to have to answer to the ratepayers for the increase. We are making decisions that are responsible to ratepayers. We have made responsible decisions moving forward, and I want to say that refurbishing the Candu reactors will allow Darlington to continue operating until approximately 2055.

We are realizing on the investments we’ve already made. OPG is proceeding with definition work. They’re proceeding with environmental assessments. That $180 million is an asset we can use to—

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

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Premier. I’d like to ask the Premier a question about a $770-million contract that she signed off on as the Minister of Transportation in June 2010. That contract commits the government, through Metrolinx, to buy 182 LRT vehicles with very specific delivery dates. Well, the first delivery date has come and gone, and the reason that the government was not able to take delivery is that it has nowhere to put them.

Given the Premier’s new doctrine of transparency, I’d like to ask the Premier this: What are the penalties to date that the taxpayers have incurred as a result of that contract, and will the Premier agree to table that contract with us so that we can see the details of that contract?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: There are a number of—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Of scandals ongoing with this government.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: —contracts out, right across—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew will come to order, now. That’s the second time.

Carry on.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: There are a number of contracts right now. I know that many people think of these as Toronto projects, but, actually, it is in the riding of Barrie that all the tunnelling equipment is being manufactured; it is in Thunder Bay. Metrolinx has been doing a remarkable job of delivering on 15 major build-out projects, almost all of them—I think all of them—significantly under budget and on time. I have not heard of any particular problems with those.

I know there is management of these contracts, and the timings are adjusted. They’re hardly scandalous when you’re doing 15 major projects at the same time. I have a lot of confidence in Metrolinx to manage these contracts in the public interest.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: The Premier should have briefed her Minister of Transportation on this $770-million contract with Bombardier Transportation.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of the Environment, come to order.

Mr. Frank Klees: He clearly knows nothing about it. The fact of the matter is that we have it on good authority that the penalties on that single contract to date are more than $70 million and growing by the day.

I’d like to ask the Premier this question: Will you, in light of your commitment to transparency, let your Minister of Transportation know what’s in that contract? Will you table that contract with us here in the Legislature? Will you agree not to download the cost of that contract onto municipalities who are being blackmailed into taking those vehicles against their will, and will you commit that any municipal transit projects will be open to public tender from this point forward, so that they don’t have to—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: You know, it just kind of galls me to hear from the party that downloaded billions of dollars of health and social services costs, forced amalgamation onto municipalities, standing in the House, really being pretty petty and silly about this.

We work in a very challenging environment on what is quite frankly a $50-billion transit build-out. There are changes that are made, some requested by members opposite, and they’re complex. We are in the middle of negotiations right now, through Metrolinx, with the TTC and with the city to accommodate requests they’ve made. That will mean the cancellation of storage facilities and the reassignment of cars at additional costs. If you don’t want to be a high-handed government and you actually want to work with municipalities, there will be costs and changes to meet those. We have respect in municipal government, and the party opposite could take a few lessons from us on that.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question to the Premier: According to the Auditor General of Ontario, the cabinet decision signed by the Premier “clearly favoured” TransCanada “and gave it the upper hand in the negotiations for a project to replace the Oakville plant.”

Last week, New Democrats said publicly that we’re calling for the Premier to attend the justice committee and explain why she set the wheels in motion to pay TransCanada more to cancel the plant than the original cost. The Premier is on notice in the press, here in the Legislature and with correspondence from the Clerks.

Will the Premier come to the justice committee to explain why she signed on to a plan that the auditors said “favoured TCE and waived the protections the OPA had under the Oakville contract”?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the government House leader will want to comment on the broader issues, but I have actually not received an invitation from the committee, as far as I know. As I have said in this House, I have been to the committee, I have answered all the questions that were asked of me and I have given all the information that I have on this matter. Again, if the member has a specific question, I’d be happy to answer it here in the House, but as I say, I’ve acted responsibly; I’ve been to the committee.

What I really think would be terrific right now is if all the information that has been gleaned by the committee could come together in a report and we could get some advice from that committee on what we need to do going forward, because we’re putting a plan in place, but it would be great to have the committee’s perspective on that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: The Premier has claimed that she wants to be more open. Since the Premier’s last appearance, the Auditor General put the true waste of the gas plants at $1.1 billion. The auditor specifically highlighted decisions signed off by the Premier.

Will the Premier respond in committee to those issues? Will the Premier come to the justice committee and explain why she was signing a document that helped put money into the pockets of private companies and took it out of the pockets of Ontarians, or will she keep hiding from the committee?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, it was this Premier that asked the Auditor General to look into the Oakville situation. It was this Premier who worked and asked me, as House leader, to work with the opposition to establish a committee process which has full access to witnesses and to documents to move forward. But you know, it’s a little strange that this member has changed his tune about this particular document, because on April 11, he had this to say about the cabinet directive that he just asked about: “I don’t see it as a smoking gun. We knew that the cabinet was approving this process. So this does not surprise me.”

The simple fact of the matter is the Premier has appeared in front of the committee. She answered dozens and dozens of questions. She has been forthcoming with documents. Members of her staff, members of her cabinet—I had a very enjoyable hour and a half in front of the committee answering questions about documents I had never seen and meetings I had never attended. We have been as forthcoming as possible, and it’s time for the committee to wrap up its work and issue—

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

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, over the summer and through the fall, I’ve had the opportunity to meet with many residents and families of Ottawa South and listen to their interests and their concerns. All of us here know that the most important part of what we do is to connect people to government and the services that they and their families need.

I’ve met with a number of families and groups who are wondering what the future may hold for those with a developmental disability, whether it be for a friend or family member. After listening to their concerns, I fully understand and share them. I know that there are limited resources available and I also know that this government has consistently expressed a commitment to help. Could the minister tell us what actions the government is taking this year to help individuals with a developmental disability and their families?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Mr. Speaker, I’m first going to ask for some mercy because I’m losing my voice. But I want to thank the member for his question.

Our government’s commitment to this sector is strong and continues to be strong. In fact, this year we’re investing over $1.7 billion in the developmental services sector, and I think it’s important to point out that 98% of that funding goes directly for services to individuals.

This year, the additional $42.5 million in the budget will help more than 1,100 adults and their families, and that’s good. Since we came to office in 2003, funding for this sector has increased by 62%, and I know that the demand for developmental services continues to grow. That’s why we all in this place need to work tirelessly to understand the needs and to respond to them.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Fraser: I’d like to thank the minister for that answer. It’s encouraging to hear about these investments the government has been making to support families in need. I know that there are more people in urgent need of care, and it’s good to learn that more families will be receiving the care that they need with these steps.

As encouraging as that is, we all know that the need is great and there is more to do. I would ask the minister if he can elaborate on what this government’s vision is for those with a developmental disability.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I’d be delighted to do that, and I appreciate again the question because it highlights the concern that I think all members of this House have for people in this sector.

I believe we have a common goal, all of us here, to make sure that we respond as best we can. We all want to see people with developmental disabilities receiving appropriate supports and taking

part in their communities as full and equitable members, but there’s a lot more to do. Let’s not kid ourselves about it. That’s why I was so pleased to support the resolution that came from the honourable member opposite to create a select committee. I understand that that select committee will actually be meeting today, and we pledge, from this side of the House, to do everything we can to assist them in their work.

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

Mr. Douglas C. Holyday: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday we discussed the fact that you had had 36 consultation groups since you’ve taken over nine months ago. In the course of that I had some questions from people about why Conservatives are involved in some of these groups. Of course, the obvious answer to that is that they give credibility to it.

In thinking about the matter, what we’ve really concluded is that you have 37 groups. And, of course, the 37th group is the most important group of all, the one that you consult with every day, the one that’s making the real decisions around here: our colleagues here to the left.

My question is, when are you going to formalize this arrangement and let the people of Ontario know who is really running this place?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing says, it’s sort of hard to know where to start in answering that question. But, Mr. Speaker, I think I’ll start here, and that is that, as I said yesterday, we are a government who believes that it is better to talk to people who know, who have expertise, who are able to give us advice on a range of subjects. I really believe that that is how good decisions are made.

I will just paint a picture, and again it goes back to a time that I know the member opposite remembers, when it was impossible to get a meeting with a minister. I remember during the discussions around amalgamation, I tried to have a meeting with the minister of the time Al Leach, and his doors were locked; his people wouldn’t answer our calls. We couldn’t get a meeting with him to talk about amalgamation. I remember being a school trustee, not being able to get a meeting to talk about amalgamation of school boards. That’s not how we operate; that’s how they operate.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Douglas C. Holyday: This again is to the Premier. It’s very easy to try to offset blame by blaming somebody else and bringing up examples of things that you think happened many, many years ago. But the fact is, right in this very House this morning, we had the perfect example of open and transparent: MPP Klees asked you and your minister for some information on a contract, and he got a bunch of gobbledygook and no answer whatsoever. Now, what in the world is going on? The residents of Ontario are entitled to an answer; we’re entitled to an answer. When are you going to become open and transparent?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m not going to say it’s a good question, but I’m glad that the member opposite has asked this question, because, obviously, if there is a question about a specific issue and we don’t have the specific information about that contract, we will get that information for the member opposite. That is how it works.

I know that the member opposite hasn’t been a minister of the crown, but the member for Newmarket–Aurora has been a minister, and he knows perfectly well that when there are specific questions about a contract or a situation, the minister can go back and get that information from officials, which we will do.

But, fundamentally, I was not blaming anyone. What I was saying was, there is a contrast in the way we do business with the way they do business. There always has been. Listening to people and taking advice and making decisions in that way—

Interjections.

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

SENATE OF CANADA

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Speaker, my question is to the Premier. What’s clear is that senators Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin and others are really making the case that we should be getting rid of the federal Senate.

Applause.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I like that.

Your former leader, Mr. McGuinty, was pretty clear on abolishing the Senate. Why don’t you take the same position? How can you now say, in light of everything that’s going on with the federal Senate, that you think this institution could be reformed rather than scrapped?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We are not the federal government, if the member opposite hadn’t noticed. This is not a decision that we can make on our own.

My job, as Premier, is to unite people, not to divide them. The changes that are being advanced by the federal government fundamentally alter the nature of the Senate. So I have taken the position that I think that there is the possibility of reform. That is my personal position, Mr. Speaker. It is a discussion that has to happen across the country, and it has to be led by the Prime Minister, as he said he would.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, what’s clear is that people in this country, and people in this province, are united in trying to get rid of the Senate. What we’ve now got is we have Senator Duffy and others who are demonstrating, quite frankly, that that institution long should be gone.

We as a province have a role to play, because amending the Constitution—which it will take to get rid of the Senate—takes provincial approval. So I say again, as the leader of the government, are you prepared to take the position that in fact Ontario should adopt the position of abolishing the Senate in this country?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member opposite may want to suggest that this is a burning issue on the mind of every single person in this province, but I can tell you, as the chair of the Council of the Federation, when this issue was raised in the summer by one of my colleague Premiers—one Premier raised it—it was such a non-issue in terms of constituency around the table, no one else even wanted to comment on it. There was no discussion.

There was a consensus that this was something that the federal government needed to lead, that Prime Minister Harper had said he wanted to put on the table, and he was going to lead the discussion. That’s where the discussion has to take place. I believe that it’s rightly there, and I would hope that the member opposite is in active conversation with Thomas Mulcair. Let them have that discussion at the federal level.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr. Bill Mauro: I’ve got a question today for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Minister, our government’s economic plan to drive jobs and growth has three pillars: We’re investing in people, we’re investing in infrastructure and we’re supporting a dynamic and innovative business climate in Ontario.

Now, I know in my riding of Thunder Bay–Atikokan, I’ve got great examples of what we’ve done on the infrastructure front, bringing forward projects that have been sought after for decades actually that we are now delivering on, that have created tremendous infrastructure improvements and are also creating a lot of work, and so that’s a wonderful piece. On the business climate piece, through the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund and through a long list of significant tax reforms, we’ve gone a long way to support businesses in Ontario as well.

As the minister has reminded us many times in this House, Ontario is the leading jurisdiction for exploration and production of minerals in Canada and remains to this day a major player across the world. There is no question that the mining and exploration industry is an important contributor to our provincial economy. Will the minister please inform the Legislature how our government’s economic plan to drive jobs and growth is working hand in hand to grow Ontario’s mining industry?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thank you to the member from Thunder Bay–Atikokan; he put it so well.

Yesterday was a great example of that. I had the great pleasure of being at the Lac des Iles mine site north of Thunder Bay at the commissioning of a new mine shaft, our great platinum and palladium mine. It’s a very impressive project, a $400-million investment by North American Palladium, sustaining 500 jobs. It’s just a great example of how our mineral exploration strategy is working.

Our government has invested over $140 million in Ontario’s mineral sector activity to date, and the success is there to be seen. The real good example is that over the last 10 years that we’ve been in government, 23 new mines have opened in the province of Ontario, more than anywhere else in Canada.

We are confident that by providing the right climate to attract investment in mining, we’re going to continue to support job creation and economic activity that will help to continue to grow Ontario’s economy.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Bill Mauro: Minister, obviously 23 new mines opening over the course of 10 years speaks very clearly to the support and the climate that we’ve helped to create here in Ontario.

One of the projects that’s on the minds of many Ontarians, especially those in northern Ontario, is the Ring of Fire. I must say I’m always amazed, and find it remarkable, the criticism that comes forward—that we expect as a government, but the incredible simplicity of the criticism. Many of the members who will criticize us on this project will not speak about the First Nations involvement. They won’t talk about the federal government’s role. They will criticize us as the provincial government.

They don’t talk about the individual municipalities or the federations of municipalities that have their own perspectives on these issues. They don’t talk about infrastructure, and, of course, they don’t talk about the multiple mining companies that all have a role in this.

Minister, please share with the members of the Legislature how our government is working hard to ensure the development of this project, including considerations such as investments in communities and infrastructure.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: It really is a great question. Thanks so very much to the member from Thunder Bay–Atikokan. The truth is he has given a great example of just how complex it is to realize the economic potential of this extraordinary opportunity.

We know a number of things. We know that in order for a community to take advantage of this tremendous opportunity, they need to be ready, and that’s the kind of work that’s under way in our ministry. I’ll mention the work we did with the Matawa First Nations on a historic framework agreement, and community readiness strategies for communities such as Thunder Bay and Greenstone, which will ultimately be the transportation hub for the Ring of Fire.

I want to encourage all members to speak to us about the work that we’re doing, because indeed that’s going forward in a positive way. We’re having discussions with all interested companies. Those discussions obviously will include important infrastructure links. We recognize how important infrastructure is. You’ve got to be able to have, obviously, access to the—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: —and you’ve got to have access out. It’s key.

Let me tell you this: We are assessing a number of options that will see the greatest benefit for Ontarians. We’re looking at those—

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

Hon. Michael Gravelle: —the most beneficial and appropriate role for—

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

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Robert Bailey: My question is to the Premier. Premier, your Liberal government has refused to recognize the opportunity that the development of Alberta’s oil and gas sector would mean to the economy of Ontario.

Alberta will require an estimated $120 billion in goods and services over the next 20 years. On Friday, it’s my understanding, you’ll be in Calgary to discuss economic issues and energy with the Alberta government. Will you commit today to this House to creating those conditions of economic growth and job creation in Ontario by pledging your unwavering support—and your government’s—for the Alberta oil and gas sector and those thousands of well-paying jobs and the billions in investment that will create in Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you for the question, because I am very pleased that I’m going to be able to meet over the next couple of days with both Premier Selinger and Premier Redford. You are absolutely right that oil and gas and the importance of our relationship with Alberta are going to be at the core and at the heart of my conversation with Premier Redford. I have said probably many times that I understand the interconnections, and I understand how important it is that we strengthen that relationship.

On the issues around oil and gas and the transportation of fuel, I again have been very clear that I understand how important it is that we’re able to move those goods across the country while at the same time ensuring that the environmental protections are in place and making sure that the relationships with First Nations people are in place as we do that. It is a fundamental concern to me. I have said that publicly, and I will be reinforcing that with the Premier of Alberta.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert Bailey: Back to the Premier: Premier, experts agree that the greatest beneficiary of developing the oil and gas and resource sector in Alberta and the west outside of that wild rose country is the province of Ontario and our highly skilled workforce in this province, despite the fact that your predecessor, Premier McGuinty, was steadfastly opposed to Ontario benefiting from the Alberta oil sands development.

Premier, will you stand in your place today and admit that the former Premier was wrong, and instead outline what you will do to make sure Ontario benefits from the Alberta resource and makes it an Ontario advantage?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: My predecessor took a leadership role in bringing people together across this country and working with Premiers across the country, and particularly with Premier Redford, as a matter of fact.

It is very important to me, as this year’s chair of the Council of the Federation and as the Premier of Ontario, that we understand that this country will work better if we work together.

The leadership that the Minister of Finance has taken on a single securities regulator is extremely important to the well-being of the country. The leadership that I want to take on advancing the cause of enhancing the CPP so that people in this country can have a retirement and can look forward to a decent and dignified retirement is something that is very important to me. I will be working with my colleague Premiers to raise that issue, and I hope to engage the federal Minister of Finance on that. That’s the kind of leadership that we want—

Interjections.

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

New question.

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, two little girls in Sudbury shaved their heads, and they did it to honour the memory of Sam Bruno, a close member of their family, and to raise money for the cause that he championed until the very day he died: bringing a PET scanner to Sudbury.

Northwestern Ontario has had a PET scanner, and southwestern Ontario has several PET scanners. This is about equity. If a 10-year-old and an eight-year-old get it, why can’t this government understand that patients in northeastern Ontario deserve a PET scanner?

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I first want to say to the two 10-year-old girls who care so passionately about health care that they would shave their heads, thank you for caring so much about health care.

I think it’s very important to acknowledge that people in northeastern Ontario do have access to PET services. All people in Ontario have access to PET scans when they need them. Every LHIN and every hospital makes decisions about how they spend resources. The issue of whether or not a PET scanner is required in northeastern Ontario is a decision that is of the LHIN and of the hospital, Speaker.

What’s important to me is that people get access to the care. We know that in northeastern Ontario, this has been a request—I know the member from Nickel Belt has talked about this—but we must be very careful about how we spend the health care dollars.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, perhaps the Minister of Health needs to be reminded that the LHIN and all of the hospitals have actually requested the PET scanner be brought to this part of the province.

PET scanners can help very sick patients. They give doctors a special set of eyes that can help determine a course of treatment.

Anyone who has supported a loved one suffering from cancer knows that getting them out of bed and into a car is hard enough, never mind transporting them hundreds of kilometres away for a test.

There’s no doubt that PET scanners are expensive, Speaker, but the community is doing its part to offset the costs. In fact, they’re holding another fundraiser tomorrow night.

If this government can blow more than a billion dollars of public money on moving gas plants around in southern Ontario, why can’t it spare some change to bring a PET scanner to Sudbury?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: It’s disappointing, frankly, to hear the leader of the third party talk about the costs of operating a PET scanner as loose change. PET scanners are very expensive machines and operating them is a very costly undertaking. So it’s important that we’re smart about where we locate PET scanners.

I take issue, Speaker: To the best of my knowledge, neither the LHIN nor the hospital agrees that a PET scanner is the priority investment right now. I have not had an update on that in the last few months. If that has changed, I will happily correct my record. But my understanding is that that is not a priority for the hospital or for the LHIN at this time.

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. Phil McNeely: My question is for the Minister of Energy.

Mr. Speaker, protecting the health and environment of Ontarians has been a priority for me as long as I have been a member of this Legislature, so I was proud when our government committed in 2003 to eliminating the use of coal-fired generation in the province.

Eliminating the use of dirty coal is providing numerous and significant benefits to the people of Ontario. For one, it’s going to mean cleaner air for people in all parts of the province and less Ontarians suffering from air-pollution-related diseases.

I understand that this morning the Minister of Energy announced an update on the progress of our government’s initiative to get off coal. Could you please share with the House the progress we have made on this important initiative, Minister?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I thank the member from Ottawa–Orléans for his question.

Speaker, it was my pleasure to announce this morning that the Lambton generating station has burned its last coal. This leaves the Nanticoke generating station, slated to close at the end of this year—

Applause.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: You’re using my time. Now I’m going to have to talk more quickly.

This leaves the Nanticoke generating station, slated to close at the end of this year, as the last operating coal-fired facility in southern Ontario.

Ontario is now on track to become the first jurisdiction in North America to totally eliminate coal-fired generation. Getting off coal is going to save our health care system $4.4 billion in avoided health care costs, and it’s going to lower Ontario’s carbon emissions by over 30 megatonnes. Mr. Speaker, that’s like taking seven million cars off the road.

Today, we have Canada’s most modern electricity system, its most advanced smart grid and a diverse and reliable supply of clean and renewable energy.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Phil McNeely: Thank you to the minister for the update. I believe that this makes Ontario a global leader in clean energy initiatives.

Along with improving the health of Ontarians and reducing health care costs by reducing illnesses from pollution, I understand that getting off coal also represents one of the largest climate change initiatives in all of North America. As the minister mentioned, it means a massive reduction in climate-change-causing emissions that our province produces, especially as the carbon content of our atmosphere moves beyond 400 parts per million this year. All this adds up to a substantial improvement in both the health and the environment for the province.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that Ontario’s efforts to get off coal have made it a global leader in clean energy. Can the minister please tell the House how this government’s initiative compares with the efforts of other jurisdictions to decrease their dependence on dirty coal?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Getting off coal is the single largest climate change initiative in North America. Don’t just take it from me. Listen to what the federal Minister of Foreign Affairs, John Baird, said earlier this year: “We’re the only country in the world that’s committed to getting out of the dirty coal electricity generation business.”

If the federal Conservatives can support our efforts to stop burning coal, why can’t their counterparts at Queen’s Park understand the importance of this initiative? Maybe it’s because when the PC Party was last in office, the use of dirty coal grew by 127%.

Our efforts to get off dirty coal are making Ontario a healthier place to live, and we think it’s time the opposition joined their federal colleagues and supported a cleaner, healthier Ontario.

WIND TURBINES

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is to the Premier. More than 20 years ago, a group of peaceful, respectful people known as the Buddhist Association of Canada’s Cham Shan Temple toured the township of Cavan Monaghan in the area of what would become the city of Kawartha Lakes. They purchased land for its beautiful scenery and peacefulness.

Their $40-million plan was to build a pict