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

December 12, 2017

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2017-Dec-12 (PDF)

L135 - Tue 12 Dec 2017 / Mar 12 déc 2017

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 12 December 2017 Mardi 12 décembre 2017

Orders of the Day

Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 visant à bâtir de meilleures collectivités et à protéger les bassins hydrographiques

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Mental health services

Energy policies

Energy policies

Energy policies

Energy policies

Hospital services

Poverty

Government accountability

Children’s mental health services

Opioid abuse / Abus d’opioïdes

College students

Highway safety

Autism treatment

Services for persons with disabilities

Correction of record

Deferred Votes

Cannabis, Smoke-Free Ontario and Road Safety Statute Law Amendment Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne le cannabis, l’Ontario sans fumée et la sécurité routière

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

Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 visant à bâtir de meilleures collectivités et à protéger les bassins hydrographiques

Introduction of Visitors

Royal assent / Sanction royale

Members’ Statements

Pinery Provincial Park

Diabetes

Nanjing Massacre

Christmas food drive

Child and youth mental health services

Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder

Anniversary of women’s right to vote

GO Transit

Local charities

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs

Introduction of Bills

Filipino Heritage Month Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur le Mois du patrimoine philippin

What You See is What You Pay Act (Consumer Protection Amendment), 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur l’affichage de prix toutes taxes comprises (modification de la

Loi sur la protection du consommateur)

Motions

Order of business

Petitions

Natural gas rates

Poet laureate

Tree seed services

Winter highway maintenance

Employment standards

Long-term care

Injured workers

Sexual violence and harassment

Wind turbines

Pharmacare

Long-term care

Animal protection

Long-term care

Orders of the Day

Lebanese Heritage Month Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur le Mois du patrimoine libanais

Lung Health Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur la santé pulmonaire

Trans Day of Remembrance Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur la Journée du souvenir trans

Lawren Harris Day Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur le Jour de Lawren Harris

Ontario Craft Beer Week Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur la Semaine de la bière artisanale en Ontario

Korean Heritage Month Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur le Mois du patrimoine coréen

Lebanese Heritage Month Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur le Mois du patrimoine libanais

Lung Health Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur la santé pulmonaire

Trans Day of Remembrance Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur la Journée du souvenir trans

Lawren Harris Day Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur le Jour de Lawren Harris

Ontario Craft Beer Week Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur la Semaine de la bière artisanale en Ontario

Korean Heritage Month Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur le Mois du patrimoine coréen

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 visant à bâtir de meilleures collectivités et à protéger les bassins hydrographiques

Resuming the debate adjourned on December 6, 2017, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 139,

An Act to enact the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act, 2017 and the Local Planning Appeal Support Centre Act, 2017 and to amend the Planning Act, the Conservation Authorities Act and various other Acts / Projet de loi 139, Loi édictant la Loi de 2017 sur le Tribunal d’appel de l’aménagement local et la Loi de 2017 sur le Centre d’assistance pour les appels en matière d’aménagement local et modifiant la

Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire, la

Loi sur les offices de protection de la nature et diverses autres lois.

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

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m pleased to stand to speak to Bill 139, the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017, because there is much that can be said about both building better communities and conserving watersheds. I look forward to sharing some of my perspective in the coming 20 minutes.

I’m sure everybody in this Legislature has heard issues from constituents where a municipality has exhausted all of their options when appealing a decision from the OMB. Just this past Friday I met with a councillor from Saugeen Shores expressing his frustrations with the OMB and the decisions that they make. Oftentimes, communities and local officials have been fighting for years, but too often, their efforts were in vain. As I mentioned, I did speak to a ward councillor at the end of last week. To him, unfortunately, the situation seemed helpless.

In fact, when reaching out to me, he said, “This isn’t the Ontario I want to live in or leave to another generation.” This is how powerless the old system left a ward councillor in my riding.

When we take a look at how the OMB has evolved over the last 10 years—with all the Liberal appointments that have happened—it’s really frustrating for people, not only in Huron–Bruce but across Ontario, to see how local autonomy gets stifled time and time again. This particular case just illustrates how far the current rules have moved away from local planning and why I think it will be important to support a new and more balanced approach.

Bill 139 was able to restore a degree of balance, but there’s still so much left to be desired. We believe that had the government actually slowed the process down and heard from every stakeholder, we could have landed in an even better place. But again, Speaker, time and again this government demonstrates its MO, where they do not consult. They already have their decision in the can and they placate constituents in Huron–Bruce and voters across Ontario with the concept of consulting. But again, I repeat: They already know what they’re doing. They have their decision in the can. It’s such a waste of time, effort and money.

What we have before us right now is a very important positive step, I must say, because municipalities have wanted more say in land-planning decisions for a long time. In fact, this is a promise that the government first made, believe it or not, in 2003—11 years ago.

Eleven years ago—let me do my math. How about 17 years ago? No, I have a “14” here. It only took them 14 years. My eyes skipped a line.

Interjection.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Thank you. I appreciate you appreciating that.

In fact, this is a promise that the government first made in 2003, and it only took them 14 years to fulfill this promise—there we go. Even at that, it took them until the eleventh hour of their fourth term to actually get it done. Is that an effective government, Speaker? I don’t think so.

On top of all of that, the Liberals lumped a second bill on top of this particular one. Let’s look at the name of this bill: the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act. You actually have the names of two perfectly good bills right there. This bill fundamentally changes the role of conservation authorities, yet it’s lumped in with changes to the OMB—and these are not small changes.

I have three conservation authorities in my riding of Huron–Bruce: Ausable Bayfield, Maitland Valley and Saugeen Valley Conservation. All three of them work hard to maintain watersheds.

I might give a little shout-out. A couple of years ago the former Minister of the Environment bestowed an amazing environmental award to the Scott family. Murray and Wilma Scott are farmers from East Wawanosh township. The former minister gave them his top environmental award for preserving pristine conditions for water to filter through their farmland. It is a model that is absolutely revered. They welcome so many tours to their farm to see exactly how farmers are amazing stewards of the land and they care. They want to do what they can for their watersheds in terms of that natural filtration.

The creeks from their farm that run into the Maitland River are sparkling, clear and crisp. This is the type of work that all of Ontario needs to be cognizant of, because being good stewards of the land and protecting our watersheds is technically a social issue; we all should be grateful to Ontario farmers for preserving them.

I wanted to put that out there because so many times, when it comes to watersheds and water quality, Ontarians, generally speaking, tend to say, “Oh, my goodness. Those farmers, they’re bad because they’re using different types of inputs to grow their crops.” But I can tell you, Speaker, in no uncertain terms, Ontario farmers do their best to put the right product in the right place at the right time and at the right rate. We have to applaud that.

There are other changes that we have to talk about in terms of governance, specifically, with conservation authorities throughout the province. If the government truly wanted to consult and debate—as I said before, their definition of consultation is very different from mine and the rest of the PC caucus’s. Honestly, they should have brought forth multiple bills so that stakeholders could have ample opportunity not only to speak about making communities better, but indeed to conserve our watersheds. Instead, as I said, they brought forward one piece of legislation, and that, in my mind, is unacceptable. It has left some glaring problems in the bill that could have been avoided.

Now, we must give credit where it’s due. Finally, the government has fulfilled its 14-year-old promise. Unfortunately, to do so, the Liberals had to pull out all the stops and, like many other bills, rush it through at the expense of stakeholders.

I have seen these members opposite pull a few tricks before, but on this bill, they did something new that, in my six years here at Queen’s Park, I had not seen before.

This trick, this stunt they pulled, was four days of hearings. Four days of hearings were scheduled and advertised to the public, as I said, for four days. Some 69 groups showed up, which was much more than a full slate. Yet despite that, the government moved a motion to cut four days in half. They only allowed two days of public hearings, Speaker, after they had already advertised that the consultations and the deputations were going to be for four days. So in the end, 50 of the 69 groups did not have their voices heard. They did not have a chance to speak to the committee on such an important bill.

Ontario deserves better than a government, as I said, that turns a deaf ear to stakeholder concerns. Again, it is totally unacceptable that they limit the opportunities for stakeholders to come to Queen’s Park and have their voices heard.

I would like to list a few groups that the government should have let speak during the committee’s hearings on the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act. To start, and I referenced it earlier, you would think that the agriculture sector would have gotten a chance to speak to a bill about watershed conservation because they are the stewards of the land. They are the people who day in and day out are working to ensure their watersheds are the best they can be across the province.

I’m sure most of us know that agricultural activities take place all across the province and some of these places share geographic areas with watersheds. Pending their location throughout the province, they naturally have different mitigating factors that they have to contend with and work with. Yet the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the Preservation of Agricultural Lands Society were both unable to appear before this committee.

In a written submission, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture outlined some very significant concerns. For example, the OFA requested clarity surrounding

definitions for key terms such as “pollution,” “watercourse” and “wetlands,” which are very important

definitions for farmers who are investing in projects on their land—as I described what Murray and Wilma Scott did, and it’s being maintained by their daughter Melanie. As the bill currently reads, these

definitions will be made by the minister. Again, Speaker, these

definitions will be made by the minister without the oversight and consultation of the Legislature. This is like Groundhog Day part three, because over and over and over again this government takes autonomy away from local communities and they feed it up to the minister, who maybe doesn’t have that direct line of contact, that direct experience with what needs to be assessed. It’s not right. We’ve seen it in the climate change act. We saw it with the waste management Ontario act. Now we’re seeing it here with Bill 139, the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, so here we go again.

Huron–Bruce has a very eclectic economy. We are very fortunate to have a whole source of job opportunities. I’m very proud to say that we are indeed the breadbasket of the province. On the shoulders of the farmers from Huron–Bruce, I want to say to this government that they’re concerned. While farmers wait for an updated regulation, they are left with several

definitions for a watercourse, which the Conservation Authorities Act defines as “an identifiable depression in the ground in which a flow of water regularly or continuously occurs”—a definition that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture says is “unduly vague.” The OFA submission continues on to say that the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs defines a watercourse completely differently, so again, we have a government at hand that has ministries that do not talk and they are actually introducing conflicting

definitions in terms of a watercourse.

OMAFRA’s definition of a watercourse, as I said, is completely different. OMAFRA defines a watercourse as requiring a “defined channel, with a bed and banks.” There’s an opportunity missed here to bring in the Ontario Federation of Agriculture before the committee to fix this issue, but instead, once again, OFA represents a stakeholder that was denied a seat at the table all together.

The same could be said about all of the municipalities that signed up to appear before the committee, but again, just like so many stakeholders, they were not given the opportunity to do so. Included in this list are the town of Ajax, the town of Aurora and the city of Burlington. Those three towns make up over 350,000 Ontarians. They were denied a voice on a bill reforming land use decision-making. These tactics were completely uncalled for. But it follows a disturbing trend that we see time and time again from the Kathleen Wynne government, where Liberals will attempt to rush through a bill and say, “It’s my way or the highway.”

My PC colleagues put forth some very thoughtful amendments. I can’t help but think that, had the government separated the bills and allowed everything to be unpacked, we could have gotten everything right. But again, as always, it’s their way or the highway.

One of the things we could have gotten right was a great amendment put forward by our PC members in committee which would require conservation officers to obtain a search warrant to visit a property. But guess what? It was voted down by the government. What could appear to be a minor issue of paperwork actually has some very practical merits. First, searching a property without a warrant violates the rights of the property owner, and we believe these rights should be protected by the law.

Again I want to repeat for everyone tuning in today that the PC Party of Ontario put forward a thoughtful amendment which was voted down by the government. What we’re concerned about is that searching a property without a warrant violates the rights of the property owner, and we believe in the PC Party of Ontario that these rights should be protected by the law. But, unfortunately, this Liberal government doesn’t agree, and they voted down that amendment.

On top of that, Speaker, there are also safety concerns. Unannounced entry into areas frequented by livestock or crops can pose a risk not only for those animals or crops but also to the entrants themselves, as they are unaware of potential risks inherent on the farm. I think about the farm I live on. We have a natural wetland at the back of our farm, and there’s a special way to get to that bush. If people don’t announce their arrival on our farm and are wanting to get back there, they will get stuck. That makes me smile because there’s an analogy here that we could use with this government.

This government is mired down and stuck in a pattern whereby it’s always their way or the highway, leaving all stakeholders—and property owners, in this particular instance—left to blow in the wind.

In committee, our members also pointed out that properties can have hazards and safety concerns that may require additional safety precautions—for example, if construction is being done. It is baffling that the government voted down such a common-sense amendment which would give a farmer a better ability to notify a visitor on their property of risks and allow precautions to be taken to protect the health and safety of both humans and livestock.

I think about the number of sheep producers in Bruce county that have guardian dogs protecting their herds. Those guardian dogs are there to serve a purpose: They are to keep people away from the sheep. What if, hypothetically, based on the new rules that we have ahead of us in Bill 139, somebody goes on to the farm of a Bruce county sheep producer who happens to have a guardian dog? That guardian dog would do its job. If the farmer had been notified and proper precautions had been taken and respect shown to the farmer in terms of property rights, there wouldn’t be any risk.

But as it’s defined by Bill 139 today, people do not have to notify farmers that they’re coming on to their land, and that is wrong.

Another amendment that was voted down specifically pertaining to local elected officials and their ability to sit on conservation authority boards hits home for me. I’m sure many of you in the House know this: The western boundary of the great riding of Huron–Bruce has a large portion of Lake Huron in terms of its shoreline. My constituents and I are very aware of the importance of being good stewards not only of the land but also of the water. We need to do all we can to protect our Great Lakes.

Within my riding, there are also, as I mentioned before, three conservation authorities: Ausable Bayfield, Maitland Valley, and Saugeen in the north. I have to commend the municipal representatives who sit on these boards. They lead with their hearts, Speaker. They are in touch with the ratepayers in their municipalities. They know what’s going on.

We all cannot appreciate enough the work that they do. Nobody appreciates the water and the beautiful shoreline more than we locals, who have enjoyed the sunsets and swum the beaches for years and years and decades.

We all would hope that municipalities, the local governments, would have more say in who is appointed to the board of directors at each of our conservation authorities. It only stands to reason.

We have the Pine River watershed in our area. There is an amazing group of farmers that sits together. Peer to peer, they discuss what they can do to protect our Great Lakes, protect our waterways and improve the pristine water that flows into the lake. Their greatest success is rooted in the fact that a farmer goes to speak with a farmer. We need to remember that.

In terms of conservation authorities, I think it works amazingly well that local municipal representatives sit on the boards of conservation authorities. I hate to think of what could happen if that local autonomy is dented and negatively impacted by people being appointed to local conservation authorities.

I think about the cottagers who we have south of Bayfield and down towards Grand Bend. There’s great concern over the erosion of their dunes and their lakeshore. The conservation authority vice-chair, Burk Metzger, lives in central Huron. He’s part of the local municipality. He has worked so hard to bring the cottagers together with the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority so that together, they can work out a resolution that benefits all. But when you have a government insisting on appointing people, who knows how that could be impacted in a negative way? I worry about that greatly.

AMO President Lynn Dollin agreed with our position and added that the provincial government wants to impose rules onto municipalities, despite the fact that municipalities foot the lion’s share of the bill. It is actually ludicrous that this government thinks they can get away with appointing people to local conservation boards and take for granted that the municipalities will just roll over and keep footing the bill. This is wrong. The autonomy that this government throughout the last 14 years has tried, again and again, to strip away from local municipalities—it needs to stop.

In closing, I will give credit where credit is due. My party brought forward a very important amendment regarding the transition of cases from the OMB to the new Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. Had the legislation passed as originally written, cases which would proceed under the OMB and which would proceed under the LPAT would have been determined case by case, in the right way—

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

Questions and comments?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: It’s always an honour to stand in the Legislature and contribute to debate on all the bills that come before us, because they’re all so very important.

The member who just spoke on this right now talked about some very key points that we have been pointing out to this Liberal government time and time again.

We need consultation that’s fulsome when committee happens. That’s when we hear from stakeholders. That’s when we can present amendments and changes to bills that affect the people who it’s supposed to make a difference for—legislation. That doesn’t happen; it doesn’t happen all the time.

The member pointed out a very good example. The Liberal government had four days of consultations for committee. That’s actually a very good, generous amount of time that should be allowed for presentations from stakeholders and people who are affected by this legislation. Yet at the last hour—like they do with many, many things in this House—they pull a stunt like a motion to limit the debate to two days.

Part of the problem with this government is that they don’t want to hear from the public, they don’t want to hear from the opposition and the third party. They don’t want to hear our suggestions. They want to shut down debate. They want to time-allocate everything and carry on with the legislation as if they know best. It’s not the way it should work.

One of the problems that we point out in this bill is that we don’t know when they’re going to actually enforce the bill, because this is under proclamation. They haven’t told us when it will be effective. Nobody knows; it’s in limbo. That shouldn’t happen. There should be transparency and accountability throughout this government’s actions in legislation.

So we have issues with regard to the way this government has handled the debate on this bill. They’re not standing up anymore. They don’t have anything to say because they just want to shut down debate. They want to move on to the next piece on the agenda that is going to make them look good. That’s not the way to run this Legislature. Thank you to the member for her contributions on Bill 139 and pointing that out.

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

Hon. Bill Mauro: I’m happy to have a couple of minutes to comment on the 20 minutes by the member from Huron–Bruce.

One of the parts of being in the Legislature that you get used to after a number of years of being here is that the opposition will have a certain approach when it comes to commenting on legislation that the government has brought forward. There always seems to be some sort of stock—if I could call it that—boiler plate, off-the-shelf criticisms that will be part of just about any discussion that occurs in the Legislature. One of those stock answers is always—almost always—that there has never been enough consultation.

I have to directly address that part and say I disagree completely with the comment that there has not been enough consultation on Bill 139. In fact, there has been extensive consultation both by myself and my ministry, the Ministry of the Attorney General and the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, who has a

part in this. The consultations went on at length. We held 12 public sessions right across the province, including one in my riding of Thunder Bay–Atikokan, and several in downtown Toronto.

In addition to that, a number of our individual Liberal MPPs, understanding the importance of this issue for their constituents and the people who they represent, held their own public meetings on Bill 139 as well. There was extensive consultation; hundreds of online comments and submissions were made. We took that all in and we considered it all before we came forward with our final package. There was a lot of consultation that went on.

Additionally, I would thank the member because at the beginning she highlighted a local councillor who felt that he had been locked out of the process, going back I’m not sure how far. That’s exactly what Bill 139 is about: showing respect for local municipalities, local councillors and local decision-making. That’s at the core of what we’re doing and what we’re accomplishing here today.

I would expect that the member from Huron–Bruce would share that detail with her local councillor, and I’m sure he would be pleased with what we’ve brought forward.

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

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I want to congratulate and thank the member from Huron–Bruce for making such a great presentation on the bill, pointing out some of the good things in the bill but also pointing out some of the challenges in the bill. I had the opportunity to speak to it at some length some days ago, and I pointed some of those out too, but I was glad to hear some of the other ones there too.

The minister talks about condemning the member for suggesting that there wasn’t enough consultation. I think that is the number one issue with this bill: The government seems to believe that, when you have consultation prior to preparing a bill and you let some of the people speak, somehow everybody should agree, and that, when the bill is finished and they come out with the bill, the people will all agree because they introduced this bill with what they thought they heard from the consultation.

Now, if that really happened, why would they be afraid to hold four days of public hearings instead of two? We had more than enough people who could have filled all four days, but the government decided, “No, no, we’re going to cut two of them off. We’re going to only have two days.” The people were coming in and coming up with good advice on things that should be changed in the bill that the government didn’t seem to have any wish to change.

The parliamentary assistant made the statement in committee that all the consultation had been done; they had heard enough to prepare what they thought was a good bill. I said at that time and I will say it again this morning: It isn’t about whether they’ve heard enough—and he suggested I should have been at some of those meetings—it wasn’t that I hadn’t heard enough, it was that they hadn’t heard enough from the people on whether this bill would accomplish what it’s supposed to.

I just want to end by saying that this is the fourth reform that this government has done to the Ontario Municipal Board. When I talk to people, the stakeholders in the industry, they think we are worse off today with this system than it was when they started four tries ago. I think they should have listened to the people.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Good morning. I’m going to dovetail on the comments from the member from Oxford.

We heard the Minister of Municipal Affairs just stand up and criticize the opposition’s criticism of the way in which they consulted on this bill. Let me criticize his criticism of our criticism.

You would think that if they did this much consultation, as the minister suggests, there wouldn’t be so many gaps left in this bill, one of which is glaring in that the bill will be passed through proclamation of the government. We have no idea what the rules will be, when they will be enacted and how they will affect our communities. This is a massive question. It calls into question the entirety of the bill, to be honest.

There are a whole lot of new responsibilities that are downloaded to the municipalities, none of which is clear in terms of what resources are going to be given from the province. Mainly, the Environmental Review Tribunal: What is the role? There’s no clarity offered in this bill to let our municipalities understand how that will operate.

Secondly, on our conservation authorities, these are important entities that protect watersheds in our communities. They are the guardians of what is sacred: our natural resources. They have expanded responsibilities without any expanded resources.

I can tell you that in my area of Windsor and Essex county, we need enhanced flood plain mapping, and we’ve needed it for quite some time. There’s no partnership at the provincial level. They’re not even thinking, talking or indicating that that is something that they are willing to do. That’s another glaring omission in this bill in terms of where the resources are going to come from, and how our municipalities are going to deal with it.

If you’ve consulted that much—and we hope you have, and I’ll take the minister’s word on it—why are there so many gaps left in this bill?

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

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I do appreciate the comments from the member from London–Fanshawe, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the honourable member from Oxford, who always does an amazing job, as well as the member from Essex.

Here on the opposition side of the House, we all agree that when the Minister of Municipal Affairs stood up—while, yes, we need to show respect not only for local municipal councils but also for local decision-making, after that I have to totally disagree with this minister, because his comments totally reflect the arrogance and the heavy-handedness that this government has grown in their 14 years of sitting in government. If he really respected local municipalities, he would have fought against the Green Energy Act that totally stripped away local autonomy. But we won’t get into that—

Interjections.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: It is still a blight on Ontario that this government has put all across our great lands. You can moan and you can groan over there, but the stripping away of local autonomy from local municipalities, when it comes to renewable resources, is going to be a blight on your government for history. That is your legacy.

Getting back to Bill 139, we all agree on this side of the House that there has been an undue lack of consultation. As I said when I started out, this government already had it in the can—they knew what they wanted to do, and they just placated stakeholders. Nothing was more evident than when they cut the four days of hearings down to two.

In saying that, I’m reminded of the former Minister of the Environment who went through great stakes and great efforts to host focused consultations when it came to climate change, because when he was in Peru, he was on tape saying that in 2015, they were going with cap-and-trade. That’s why we can’t trust anything this government does.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I am glad to also be able to stand in this fine Legislature and speak to Bill 139, the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act.

I am always interested, especially when thinking about my own home community of Oshawa, in building better communities. That’s great. The member opposite talked about stock criticisms. Well, I’m going to use one right now: As always, this bill isn’t quite enough to build the better communities that we would hope for.

I’m going to actually focus a little more on the conserving watersheds side of this, because in my home community of Oshawa we have some tremendous environmental spaces. We have McLaughlin Bay. We’ve got Second Marsh and a wonderful organization called Friends of Second Marsh, which does such tremendous work both in terms of advocacy and education, but also the hands-on, roll-up-their-sleeves environmental work that needs to be done.

Our Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority is our body that does such important work when it comes to conservation, when it comes to protecting our waterways and our environment. They do a lot of community connecting. They have certainly made sure that my education was a priority for them, so I have had the privilege of working with that team and going out into our water spaces. I have been in hip waders up to here in Oshawa Creek measuring the water flow, measuring the depth, and doing all sorts of work with them to have a better appreciation of not just the science behind it but the care that goes into it.

The folks who are involved in conservation do wonderful work, and we take that for granted.

They did a lot of explaining to me about the importance of our underground water; not just the importance of it—I know that we all have a fundamental appreciation of our groundwater—but noticing things. Even today, when I was driving into Queen’s Park, I was noticing the snow and thinking, “I hope the snow is consistent this winter and melts a bit and gives that water a chance to get into our groundwater,” rather than one big snow dump and one big melt that’s too much for our system to handle and that ends up not getting into the groundwater. I was just talking about that this morning.

It’s ironic that here I am—well, I didn’t know I would be coming in and speaking to this; I wasn’t thinking about it this morning. But I just happened to now notice that in my environment, because of the work of the conservation authority, they have made me recognize, when I look around, what it is that I’m seeing—the importance of conservation and the importance of the resources available to them as operators in our community.

Speaker, I worry, because in this bill—I’m glad to sort of speak around the bill, but I’ll speak to this bill—it gives more responsibility to those conservation authorities, but it doesn’t give more resources to them. It’s giving the municipalities more responsibility without giving them the additional resources. The government, again, is shifting—“Here, you look after this”—but they’re not also going to give the money that goes with that. Speaker, I can see the look of shock and amazement on your face that I say that the government is giving additional responsibilities to municipalities without supporting them. Maybe I misread that, but anyway.

Back to the bill: Bill 139 is the government proposing a massive overhaul of one of the province’s most entrenched and complex regulatory regimes, but despite the size and scope of this bill, so much of the substance is unfortunately not in the statute but is being left to regulation. The member opposite had criticized us about using stock criticisms; well, here’s another one. I wish they would stop giving us the opportunity to use these stock criticisms.

Because for crying out loud, if they would actually do their work and put it in statute, if they would put the meat and potatoes, so to speak, in the bill itself and not leave it to regulations, where we just have to cross our fingers and hope that they’re doing right by the province—which doesn’t often happen—then we wouldn’t have the opportunity to criticize them. The complicated regimes being left here to regulation, again, is a concern. It’s left to ministerial direction; again, a cause for concern.

They talk about fulsome consultation this time around. As my colleague from Essex brought up, if there was such fulsome consultation, why are there gaps? Why don’t we have the decisions being made now? Why can’t we see what they’re going to put into regulation?

We would like to see a more responsive government. We would like to see a more accessible process, of course. Always accountable is what we would like to see; never accountable is what we do see. When I have spoken to our conservation folks and anyone involved with Second Marsh, McLaughlin Bay or Oshawa Creek who are doing the work in the community, they know how important that is and they are glad to see the changes that are coming in a bill like this. Any time we are focusing on updating conservation language, that’s a good thing. But, again, they have questions. They would like some clarity. If there was such fulsome consultation, where’s the clarity?

As we’ve heard, these reforms are going to come into effect upon proclamation rather than upon royal assent, so we don’t know if the changes are going to be proclaimed before the next election, or if—and wait for it, Mr. Speaker, and this may sound a little cynical—this is just a show of goodwill, but it isn’t going to be proclaimed before the next election. Do you know what happens if we get to the next election and the House stops sitting and that bill isn’t a law yet—isn’t happening? I don’t know when it’s going to be, and I think that’s what they are counting on.

So if they’ve put in this work, they’ve had fulsome consultation—leaving gaps—and the folks that they have these fulsome consultations with have questions, I’d say that they dropped the ball there. Maybe we can challenge them today in this debate and going forward to actually give us that date so we can reassure the folks who do this hard work on a regular basis that, indeed, this will happen before the next election—sooner would be better.

But the province, as I said, has not offered additional funding for expanded conservation authority programs, so these additional costs are going to be borne by the municipalities. I know I’ve already said that there is important work that’s happening in Oshawa, down in our harbour area, by Second Marsh, McLaughlin Bay, Oshawa Creek, different waterways, but the challenges are ever-changing. We are seeing shifts. Everybody talks about the weather because we’re Canadian and that’s what we like to talk about, and maybe even complain a tad, even on a beautiful day like today when there’s not too much to complain about, but we will. We don’t really know what’s coming this winter.

It’s interesting, just like with the election coming up—everyone has a different opinion on what’s going to happen in the next election; it’s the same thing with weather. People talk about, “Oh, it’s going to be a really, really cold one,” and other people say, “Well, I don’t know, I think it’s going to be dry,” and another person will say, “We’re going to get so much snow and it will be all winter, and I’ve heard”—everyone has their different ideas. That’s because we don’t really know anymore, with our weather systems. We are seeing a change in the summer, we’re seeing a change in the winter, we’re seeing a change with our rainfall. We see these storms. We’re seeing different things.

How our conservation authorities are supposed to respond or rally is changing as well. What they need to measure, what they need to protect is changing. The municipalities are left with too many questions. This change is going to download costs onto municipalities and, as usual, too much is left up to regulation, which is problematic.

I hope that the government does follow through on the fulsome consultations. I know that this bill actually does put into law public meetings. I hope those public meetings are actually driven by the public and not just the government agenda or their checklist of three things that they want the public to answer for them. I hope it really, indeed, reflects the needs of our communities because, ultimately, that’s why we’re here and that’s what matters.

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

Hon. Bill Mauro: Thank you to the member for her comments.

One of the things I wanted to get on the record again, Speaker, was that the current Bill 139 that’s before us today for debate is not the first substantive change that our government has brought in since forming government some time ago. We created the ability, about 10 or 12 years ago, for all municipalities in the province of Ontario to be able to constitute what would be called a local appeal board. At the local level, they were given authority in 2006 or 2007 to create one of these boards, and it was prescribed at the local level what that local appeal board could hear.

No municipality in the province of Ontario, since 2006 or 2007, took up the ability to form one of those boards until just this year, when the city of Toronto, for the first time, out of all 444 municipalities in Ontario, constituted a local appeal board so that they could hear what is prescribed to be heard under that particular board, and that was site plans and consents—minor variances and the like.

Bill 139 increases the scope of what those local appeal boards can hear to include site plans. If passed, there will be a third component that the local appeal boards can hear. This is significant, Speaker. It was a major change 10 years ago, even though not a lot of municipalities took up the authority. There was a year—about two, three or four years ago—where, within the city of Toronto, 60% to 70% of what went to the OMB could have been dealt with by that local appeal board, saving time, saving money and getting more stock into the marketplace sooner. No municipalities took up that authority.

When we hear that it took so long to make changes, I just want to remind people that there was a very major reform brought to the floor of this Legislature and passed some time ago. It seems to be only now that municipalities are taking up the authority that was given to them 10 years ago and using it to the benefit of their communities.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: This piece of legislation is of great interest to me. Members may or may not be aware, but I represent one of the fastest-growing constituencies in all of Canada now. I represent a community, Nepean–Carleton, that has several former municipalities inside the city of Ottawa, but, as a result of redistribution federally, I actually have three federal members of Parliament in my one area. That is because we have rapid growth, and rapid growth means that rapid planning and development are occurring.

Just to give you an example, Speaker: When I first represented Nepean–Carleton, we were over just 100,000 people. Today, we’re over 200,000.

To give you another example: I can fly out from Ottawa—my constituency is under the flight path—and I can look down into Riverside South, Barrhaven and Findlay Creek and sometimes even into areas of Greely and Manotick, and I can see the growth. I can see housing developments cropping up.

In our case in the city of Ottawa, I believe we don’t use the OMB quite like we did when I was a bureaucrat and a political staffer there at the start of amalgamation in the year 2000, and I credit that to a strong planning chair and a very strong planning department which is ably led by my mentor and a very powerful senior city councillor, Jan Harder. Jan has been able to work with the community and the development industry to ensure that we have rapid growth and that we have expansion of not only our recreation facilities but certainly our parks as well as our roadways.

Whenever we have these discussions about the OMB, I think we should really encourage people to talk to those in the city of Ottawa—Pierre Dufresne, of course, is president of the Ontario Home Builders’ Association. He also used to be president of the Greater Ottawa Home Builders’ Association. He’s a fine, upstanding man. I look forward to working with him, working with Councillor Harder and community organizations.

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

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It’s my pleasure to rise to add my two minutes’ worth of comment to the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, or Bill 139. I had an opportunity to speak a little longer the other day on this, so I want to just reiterate what the member from Oshawa has said, which is: There is too much left to regulation. That’s a very important piece for people to understand: that there’s too much left to regulation.

The other very important piece she mentioned is that this bill does not become law upon royal assent; it’s upon proclamation. There are families across this province with children with developmental disabilities who saw a lot of changes coming down the line for them that were wonderful changes, that they had been waiting years to have happen because they’re waiting for the government to proclaim those pieces of that bill. Years, they’ve been waiting for support.

When you hear the government talking about how things that are going to be left to regulation, or that this will happen when there’s proclamation, I have to agree with the member from Oshawa that when we’re staring down the barrel of an election, is this just a fluff piece to be able to say, “Hey, look, we’re doing something good; we’re supporting communities”? Except we’re not—we’re not because there are no real teeth in this.

Another piece I want to point out too—because the Minister of Municipal Affairs mentioned the OMB. I want to say it again, because I had the opportunity the other day, that we had constituents in my riding who raised issues around Ojibway Parkway safety and a developer putting up a big box development close to this protected provincial preserve where we have the largest number of endangered species in the province, if not in Canada. Dr. David Suzuki came down and rallied to try to expand it and close the street to keep these animals safe. The OMB allowed this company, this developer, to actually sue the constituents who raised issues. That is not a fair process.

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

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I just want to take the opportunity to comment a little bit on the members’ comments—I mean, we hear about lack of consultation over and over again, and I’m not going to dive into the specifics. I’ve said that before, and I’m going to say it again in a few minutes. But I just want to take the opportunity to thank the people who came forward, whether through clause-by-clause or the number of consultations we did across the province, and also groups, for example, the conservation authorities, who played a huge role in bringing forward their issues. There was a lot of consultation with AMO, and they had a lot of input.

I would say to you that I’m not sure when consultation is enough—when we’ve heard all 13 million Ontarians on any issue? I’m not sure when that ever happens. But I will say to you, Speaker, can we do better? I’m sure we can, if you want to poke holes. All I know is that the majority of the main interest groups, like conservation authorities, stakeholders and so forth, had their say. Again, and I repeat it, Speaker, could there have been somebody else to help the process? Well, there are 13 million Ontarians, so there’s always room for improvement. But I would say, in general, right here, we want to move forward with this.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I appreciate the comments around the room. To the member from Nepean–Carleton: I hear you on the fast-growing municipality. We’re in Durham region, and we are growing so quickly—leaps and bounds—and the government hasn’t actually caught on to that yet. So if they haven’t even recognized that there’s growth east of the big city of Toronto, which—we’re not the greater Toronto area. I sort of see this as part of the greater Oshawa area, but then there’s a bit of bias in that. But if they haven’t even recognized east of Toronto, it will take a little while for them to recognize where you are, so hold tight, sister, because—

Interjection.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: No, that’s fair. That’s fair.

We know that growing need requires growing attention and additional funding. That brings me back to something that I mentioned that I really want to focus on: the increased conservation authority needs and requirements. They’re going to need more money, and nowhere in this bill does it say where the money is coming from. This is, again, another unfunded mandate that is being foisted upon already cashed-strapped municipalities.

I’m glad that during the consultation process, as the member from Northumberland–Quinte West said, all of those groups were heard—no, excuse me. He didn’t say they were heard; he said, “They had their say.” I hope that they were heard. I hope they were heard because I’ve so often been in committee or consultation processes and I see that people talk, but where that information goes remains—it’s questionable. So I’m glad they had their say. They seem to be relatively supportive of what’s in here, but they would like clearer protections for the environment.

They want to have clarity about the role of the Environmental Review Tribunal and planning decisions. They want to know when this bill will actually be a real thing, and so would we.

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

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: It must be election time, Speaker. But the beauty of this, I must say, as I hear the opposition, is that they’re running out of things to say and it gets very repetitive—very, very repetitive.

But I am hopeful that at the end of the day—for example, a quote from the member from Oxford: “I think the whole thing is set up to try and make the system work better for municipalities, and I totally support that.” So there are positives coming out of it. I don’t want to be negative. It’s Christmas. I want to recognize that. The member from Simcoe–Grey: “This is third reading, and we support the bill....” That’s encouraging, Speaker. That’s encouraging.

I know they are struggling. They’re really struggling. I know when I met with conservation authorities, when I met with AMO and a number of other groups, yes, there were things that they wanted changed.

Not to dwell on a situation, but I would say that this bill is at over seven and a half hours of third reading debate, and we’ve had many members from many sides of the House speak to this. Many members spoke to this. The bill is at—are you ready, Speaker?—18 and a half hours in committee. I know the member from Oxford took the majority of that time. I know he took the majority of that time. We heard valuable points from right across the different groups. However, at this point, much of that debate is now, as I said before, repeating, repeating, repeating.

Before I end here, I just want to wish this House a merry Christmas and a happy new year. Having said that, I think it’s time that this bill be put to a vote for third reading. As a result, I move that this question be now put.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Mr. Rinaldi has moved that the question be now put. I’m satisfied that there has been sufficient debate to allow this question to be put to the House. Therefore, is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I believe I did hear a no.

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

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

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

Vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Orders of the day? I recognize the Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, no further business.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Since there is no further business, this House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 0958 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mrs. Gila Martow: I’m very pleased to welcome today Emma Kaplan from my riding of Thornhill and Deniz Hasani from Richmond Hill. Welcome, girls.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I’d like to welcome representatives here today from the Ontario Environment Industry Association, and Alex Gill, the executive director.

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: I’d like to introduce Kim Gavine today in the east members’ gallery, who is the general manager of Conservation Ontario. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Miss Monique Taylor: It gives me great pleasure to welcome Angela Fowler, who is here on behalf of Children’s Mental Health Ontario, and Michele Sparling, who is a parent advocate who is with us today; as well as Candies Kotchapaw, who is with us today from my constituency office. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Arthur Potts: I also would like to welcome the members from ONEIA here and Alex Gill. I used to be a member of the association, and I encourage all members to come to their lobby day after the House today.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s my pleasure to welcome today, on behalf of our page captain Andrew Stevenson, his grandfather Howard Stevenson, his grandmother Dorothy Stevenson, his aunt Janet Stevenson, his dad, Graham Stevenson and his dad’s partner, Stacie Thompson, all in the members’ gallery this morning. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I am pleased to welcome some folks today to the gallery. My father, Alan French, is here, and some family friends, Pete and Pat Smith, have joined us today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Welcome. I like it when parents come. Everybody behaves.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Don’t get your hopes up, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I behave when my wife comes.

Further introductions?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I’d like to welcome Katherine Grzejszczak, a paramedic from my riding, here today to join us in the Legislature. Welcome, Katherine.

Mr. Grant Crack: I’d like to welcome my father, who is probably watching at home. It’s his 80th birthday today. I want to wish him a happy 80th birthday. Love you, Father.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Joining us here today is the former member for Don Valley East, David Caplan. He’s not in yet, but I’ve seen him in the hallways, and he’ll be here soon.

Interjection.

Hon. Michael Coteau: No claps?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No. The Speaker gave you the stink eye.

Further introductions?

Mr. Todd Smith: I’d like to welcome a number of very good friends, who should be arriving later today. They’re not here right now, but they are members of General Electric who will be arriving this afternoon for a meeting at my Queen’s Park office, and I look forward to their arrival and spending some time talking about the energy sector with them.

And I appreciate everything that you do, Mr. Speaker, as well. You’re outstanding.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That was absolutely perfect timing.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Someone from my community is here: Mr. Howard Stevenson, and Dorothy Stevenson, Graham Stevenson, Stacie Thompson and Janet Miazga are here to support Andrew, our page. Thank you all for being here and your contributions to the province of the Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): As it is the tradition of the Speaker to introduce former members: the former member from Don Valley East in the 37th, 38th and 39th Parliaments, Mr. David Caplan. Welcome.

Oral Questions

Mental health services

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Minister of Health. I’ve asked before in this Legislature about the aspect of the People’s Guarantee that I was most excited about, the $1.9-billion investment in mental health over 10 years.

Now, I know we’ve heard the government’s talking points, their rhetoric that what they have done is good enough, but it isn’t. I’m going to ask again: Will they match our commitment for an additional—that’s an additional—$1.9 billion into mental health to make sure that we close this gap, this dirty little secret, in our health care system?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’m happy to go through this again. In fact, I will give the opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition to correct his record and to correct his platform as well, because when he talks about a historic, unprecedented investment in mental health, when he talks about it being the largest investment of any province in mental health in this country’s history, he is absolutely and categorically wrong.

He needs to understand that his investment of $1.9 billion being proposed would result in a dramatic reduction in the level of funding and increase that this government has actually put into place.

Laughter.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I know he’s laughing, Mr. Speaker, but I’m happy from now through the election to remind Ontarians that we invested over $10 billion of new money over the last 10 years. He is proposing only $1.9 billion.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Minister of Health: I get that he’s probably getting these talking points from the Premier’s office, but it is incorrect.

Mr. Speaker, our challenge to the government is to match the commitment we’re making, which is an additional $1.9 billion, to make sure we close this gap.

In 1979, we spent 11% of our health care budget on mental health. Despite all their talk, all their rhetoric, all their fake spin, today we spend 6%. It’s not good enough, and that’s why I am challenging the government to match our commitment for an additional $1.9 billion towards mental health. Will they match this commitment—yes or no—of additional new funding?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, their commitment is simply not enough. In fact, I stood up in this Legislature—

Laughter.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: And I know the Leader of the Opposition is laughing now, but I’m happy to sit down with them and go through the numbers. Our increase in new funding, using precisely the same methodology as they do in their platform, results in—next year, they’re proposing to spend an additional $151 million. In our first year of the last decade, we added 600 million new dollars. In their second year, they’re proposing an additional $190 million; we added $650 million.

In fact, if you look at their first four years of new investments in mental health, they’re proposing less than a billion dollars—considerably less than a billion—in the first four years. We contributed new investments of over $3 billion over the same period of time.

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Minister of Health: It’s Liberal math at it again. They’re applauding, saying that everything is fine. Yesterday we learned in the Globe and Mail—this is from the Globe: “The majority of people treated in an Ontario emergency room after a suicide attempt are not seen by a psychiatrist within six months”—six months.

I hear stories from parents and grandparents who have had a young person, a child, who has reached out for help, and they have to wait six months. There are children who have tried to take their lives, who have the courage to ask for help, and our health care system is abandoning them. Yet we’ve got a government saying that everything is fine. It’s not fine.

Will the Minister of Health match our pledge to put an additional $1.9 billion in new funding into mental health, on top of all of the commitments they’ve made that have not come through?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, their bad math is not limited to mental health, because they’ve committed to building 15,000 new long-term-care beds, but they’ve only budgeted $77 million over their entire mandate to do that. We’ve committed to 5,000 beds over the next four years. That commitment is going to cost the government $380 million. They’re proposing to build three times as many beds, but they’ve budgeted one fifth of what we’ve budgeted for just 5,000.

We’re contributing $60,000 annually per bed, and they’re actually contributing only $5,000 annually for the operations, and nothing on capital.

They have to dramatically increase their commitment to make those 15,000 beds. They have to actually raise their commitment from $77 million to almost a billion dollars. That’s another billion missing in their platform.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): As I have been doing, and you have noticed, I’ve been providing you with an opportunity to be your own judge and jury. It hasn’t happened. We’re in warnings. Thank you.

New question.

Energy policies

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Minister of Finance. The government has currently been dodging questions about gas plants 2.0. There is almost $80 million that belongs to ratepayers that is still missing.

The minister knows that electricity companies bilked ratepayers for over $260 million through ineligible expenses, and the minister knows that there are still nearly $80 million worth of ineligible expenses that have yet to be repaid to the ratepayers and taxpayers.

My question is clear and direct, to the Minister of Finance: Will he commit to this Legislature to recoup that money on behalf of Ontario ratepayers?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: We take market oversight of our electricity system very seriously, and any instance of wrongdoing will be investigated and dealt with accordingly. We are confident in the Ontario Energy Board and our system operator to run an efficient, reliable and fair electricity market for ratepayers across the province.

There are strong measures in place under Ontario’s electricity market rules that allow the system operator to identify and take action on false claims. Under these market programs, our system operator has the authority to conduct audits of claims made by generators and other market participants and, if needed, our system operator can impose fines and seek the recovery of amounts that were incorrectly claimed.

I know that in the past, Goreway was an example. A record $10-million fine was imposed, $100 million in payments were recovered from the generator’s total claims, and $168 million of the $200 million has been claimed so far.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the minister: We know that one of those companies gaming the system was the government-run OPG. We know that they were doing this at the same time that hydro rates were skyrocketing; seniors couldn’t afford their hydro bills and were being disconnected; and families were afraid—petrified—to open their hydro bills.

How did the government respond? They ignored warning after warning after warning, and then, this is unbelievable, Mr. Speaker, they rewarded the former CEO of OPG with a bonus of half a million dollars—a half-a-million-dollar bonus while the system was being played like a fiddle—taxpayers, ratepayers abused. So my question, Mr. Speaker, is who signed off on this half-a-million-dollar bonus while OPG bilked the system and ratepayers had their funds stolen?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: OPG is Ontario’s low-cost provider of electricity, and they take their responsibility to Ontarians very seriously. OPG works every day to ensure they act in an appropriate and fully compliant manner that respects the rules that govern Ontario’s electricity system.

With regard to their participation in the Real-Time Generation Cost Guarantee program, OPG believed they were acting in compliance with the program’s policies as set out by the system operator. OPG has said in a statement that they did not intentionally misuse the market rules and OPG was not sanctioned as a result of their participation in that program. The audit did determine that there were differences in understanding of what constituted eligible costs under the program.

In respect of what some of those eligible costs were, OPG repaid certain claimed amounts after discussions concluded what were eligible costs. OPG promptly repaid all of the amount to the IESO in full in 2015, and the matter was concluded.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the minister: The response that some of the ineligible expenses have been repaid isn’t good enough. The front bench of the Liberal caucus has sat idly by while this has all happened. They let these companies claim expenses that were completely ridiculous. You hear stories of expensing scuba gear and raccoon traps. Scuba gear and raccoon traps: I’m asking about expenses like that in the Legislature, and they have the audacity to say everything is fine, everything is rosy. For the life of me—and this is the reason I asked the question to the Minister of Finance—I can’t understand why four Ministers of Energy and two Premiers have allowed this to happen.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Essex is warned.

Finish, please.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, four Ministers of Energy and two Liberal Premiers have been asleep at the switch while this has happened. Will the Minister of Finance tell us how this has been allowed?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I think everyone in this House would agree that abuses within the system are completely unacceptable, and that’s why our system operator has investigated those market participants. Where significant wrongdoing was present, compensation has been recovered and returned to the ratepayers; $168 million of the $200 million in ineligible costs have been recovered by the IESO. The $32 million that are remaining are still in discussions.

An example, Mr. Speaker, is Goreway. Goreway was caught gaming the system. They were fined a record $10 million, and they recovered $100 million of those costs and they brought those back to the ratepayers.

We all agree that abuses of the system are unacceptable. That’s why we continue to ensure that we’ve made the changes so things like this will never happen again.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I hope that’s not a test.

New question.

Energy policies

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Does the Premier of this province and the Liberal government believe that hydro bills should have partisan Liberal advertising and include partisan Liberal flyers?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: It is important that all ratepayers in the province know what is on their bills, Mr. Speaker. And that’s why Hydro One has a pilot project under way in which they’re doing a new bill redesign, helping customers right across the province who are Hydro One customers understand their bills and some of the complexity of the bills. Knowing that they’re getting a 25% reduction on their bills is important. It’s the same thing with the debt retirement charge.

The debt retirement charge has been eliminated for residential customers, but hindsight being 20/20, we thought letting people know on their bills that it was no longer a cost on there but leaving it on so people could understand that was actually the opposite, Mr. Speaker.

We believe in making sure that we have a clear guideline for all residential customers for all ratepayers across the province. We’ll continue to work with Hydro One. We’ll continue to work with all the LDCs to come up with a bill that is clear for all ratepayers right across the province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ontarians deserve to know why their hydro bill now includes desperate Liberal Party campaign advertising. I’m going to send an order in council across the aisle to the Deputy Premier, who’s claiming this doesn’t exist. What this does is it forces hydro companies to include Liberal campaign messaging in people’s hydro bills.

The order is personally signed by the Minister of Energy and the Deputy Premier, who also happens to be the chair of the Ontario Liberal election campaign. Can she clarify for us exactly which hat she was wearing when she signed that order in council?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: It is this Deputy Premier, this government that wears the hat that protects ratepayers. It’s that party over there that votes against the 25% reduction for every single family in this province. How can they look in the mirror and stand up every day and say that they’re defending the ratepayers in this province when they did absolutely nothing?

What they talk about right now is buying back Hydro One shares. That’s actually going to stop building hospitals, stop building schools. That’s what we’re doing on this side of the House. When it comes to northern Ontario or rural customers or low-income individuals or First Nations individuals, you know what they did? They forgot about them. They actually didn’t even put them into their plan. They can wave their finger all they want, but the truth hurts. It’s this party that protected ratepayers in this province.

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Minister of Energy and the chair of the Ontario Liberal election campaign personally signed the order for hydro utilities to include partisan messaging in Ontario’s hydro bills. Who is paying for these Liberal flyers, the people of Ontario or the Liberal Party?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: It’s an easy answer, Mr. Speaker. It’s the people of Ontario—unlike the opposition—who are the ones that we actually stand up for and—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Let me check my list; I’ll check it twice. I believe someone is warned.

Continue.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Again, it’s the people of Ontario. The 25% reduction that this government has brought forward is to help them with the relief, because we invested $70 billion in rebuilding the system. We made sure that we have a supply mix that can actually be relied on. It’s bringing forward clean power, and that is something that we should all be proud of in this province.

But when it comes to defending the interests of the people of Ontario, it is this government—we are building up our province and we’re making sure that our electricity rates are as affordable as possible.

Energy policies

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Deputy Premier. The Minister of Energy and the Deputy Premier, chair of Ontario’s Liberal election campaign, personally signed a government order forcing hydro utilities to mail out partisan flyers from July 2017 through to July 2018. That’s a month after election day. That means that partisan Liberal flyers are going to be mailed to homes across Ontario from now through to election day and beyond.

So let’s agree to call these flyers what they are: desperate Liberal campaign advertising. I don’t think that’s right. New Democrats don’t think that’s right. Does the Deputy Premier think that’s right?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I guess the NDP didn’t think giving people in Ontario a 25% reduction was right. They voted against it. I guess they didn’t think giving low-income individuals a break by an enhanced Ontario Electricity Support Program was right, because they voted against it. I guess they didn’t think giving First Nations a delivery charge credit was a good thing, because they voted against that as well. The list goes on and on.

They vote against everything. They vote against things that actually help people in this province. They voted against making sure people who live in rural and northern parts of our province see a 40%-to-50% reduction. That is significant for those customers who are living in those parts of the province, making sure that they can actually see their bills lowered significantly. Again, some of them don’t have a choice between natural gas or electricity, so they’re using electricity. We’re working on that with the Minister of Infrastructure, rolling out a plan to get natural gas to these communities as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, what isn’t right is using public money for partisan purposes; that’s what is not right.

There isn’t a single person in Ontario whose bill will be lowered because they received Liberal campaign ads in their hydro bill—no business, and no family. There is zero public good that comes from this advertising campaign.

In fact, local distributors are against the politicization of people’s bills. Jim Ryan, chair of Niagara-on-the-Lake Hydro, said this recently: “Putting political messages on the invoice is simply wrong.” I agree; it is wrong.

The only group that benefits from mailing out these partisan flyers is the Liberal Party. Is the Liberal Party paying for these flyers, or is it the people and businesses of Ontario?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: We have an LDC working group with the Electricity Distributors Association, which represents all local utilities across the province. They’re working with us, as part of the long-term energy plan, to create a bill redesign. They understand what needs to be done and how we need to ensure that we make it as clear as possible, for people to understand how our electricity system works and how our electricity bills work as well.

We work with the LDCs. We make sure that we work with all stakeholders in this sector—low-income individuals, First Nations groups—to bring forward a 25% reduction that they’ve been seeing on their bills now for almost six months. That is thanks to us, thanks to this government, unlike the opposition, who voted against it over and over again.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, he’s got a working group of the LDCs together so that they can figure out how they’re going to put the forced partisan advertising on the hydro bills in Ontario. That’s what’s going on.

Ontarians should not be paying for desperate, partisan Liberal flyers to be printed and then mailed to them in their hydro bills. It’s bad enough that people have to open their bill and see the costs that have come from decades of Conservative and Liberal privatization in our electricity system. They shouldn’t have to get Liberal Party campaign ads as well.

Will this Liberal government do the right thing by the people of this province and stop this practice immediately?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: When people open their bills in this province, what they see is a 25% reduction, thanks to this government, Mr. Speaker—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton Mountain is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: When low-income individuals open their bill, they see further reductions on their bill, thanks to the enhanced Ontario Electricity Support Program. When First Nations open their bill—when they live on a reserve—they will see that there is no longer a delivery charge on their bill. That’s thanks to this government working with many First Nations right across the province, and hearing and listening to their needs and acting on that.

We have made sure that Hydro One has come forward with some changes, especially with their distribution charge as well. They’re going to see the RRRP decrease their bills between 40% and 50%.

That is something that the opposition parties voted against. That is shameful. We listened to the people of Ontario and acted on their request.

Energy policies

Mr. Todd Smith: My question this morning is for the Acting Premier. Speaker, the auditor pointed out last week that nine companies bilked electricity customers out of $265 million on their bills. We know that three of them are Goreway, Resolute Forest Products and Ontario Power Generation. We know that two of the anonymous companies still sit on the panel writing the government’s new electricity rules after they broke the old ones.

The Premier can’t have it both ways. Why is the Premier protecting companies that cheated electricity customers, and will she stop allowing them to write the new rules for the electricity system after breaking the old ones?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Once again, I’m pleased to rise to talk about the market oversight that is put in place by our electricity system operator and the important role that they play. I think we would all agree that any abuses of our system just cannot happen.

We are looking at changing the system. We’ve got market renewal under way. What we have there is rebuilding the foundation of our electricity system to allow for more flexibility, but also to ensure that the abuses of this system stop and don’t continue.

We have a working group in place right now to make sure that we can find ways to ensure that we can make this system function properly. It is important to say that the two co-chairs of that working group resigned as of December 1, and they both came from the companies that were mentioned by the member from the opposition.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Todd Smith: This is an absolute snow job by the government again, and we need to get to the bottom of this. Even the electricity system operator, the IESO, is tired of covering for the government. The IESO told the Canadian Press yesterday that the government is allowed to change the rules and disclose the names of the other six companies that cheated electricity customers on their bills. So now we’re back to the greatest hits of the Liberals in question period: Who are they protecting and what are they hiding?

Will the Acting Premier commit to the people of Ontario that we’ll have the names of those anonymous companies by the end of business today?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Again, the IESO right now is continuing discussions with those companies, working on getting back $32 million of costs that were ineligible. As OPG came out and said publicly that they were, yes, one of those companies, they actually resolved that quite quickly back in 2015.

Through that process, OPG thought they were applying for program costs that they were eligible for. After discussion with the system operator, they recognized that they weren’t eligible for these costs, and so they acted quickly to make sure that they could repay those costs. They did that very quickly back in 2015. There were no fines levied because it was an error, they recognized that error and they fixed that mistake. The costs were recovered and they made sure that it was concluded in a timely fashion.

Hospital services

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Deputy Premier. Week after week, we’re hearing more heart-breaking stories of overcrowding inside Ontario’s hospitals and the suffering that families are going through.

Southlake Regional Health Centre in Newmarket is operating at 125% capacity. Patients are being put in hallways, auditoriums, lounges and even gymnasiums because there aren’t enough funded beds.

Executives at Southlake are speaking out now and calling it an overcrowding crisis, but the Premier has only given Southlake four temporary beds. Why is this government doing so little to help patients who are being treated today in hallways, auditoriums and gymnasiums in hospitals across this province?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, you’ll recall that a number of weeks ago, this government made the announcement that we were creating 1,200 new acute-care beds across this province and, in addition to that, roughly 600 for transitional care. I’m very pleased to announce and very proud, in fact, that we have now opened, as of Sunday, the Reactivation Care Centre that was formerly at the Finch site of Humber River Hospital.

I want to congratulate all of the hospitals and their staff that made an absolutely perfect and seamless transition. I want to acknowledge the CEO of Southlake Regional Health Centre, because they transported 30 of their in-patients into this reactivation centre at the Finch site, and that is just one of five hospitals where they now have 125 additional beds opening, as you can imagine, reducing by between 6% to 8% the complement of people in beds, including at Southlake. In fact, this is very important to that hospital.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Southlake has 100 more patients than they have funding to care for, but the Premier is only allocating four temporary beds. That means patients are stuck in hallways. Patients don’t have bathrooms; they have to share public washrooms down the hallway from their rooms. People don’t have privacy. The hospital isn’t able to use the right kinds of infection control measures.

People are suffering from the crisis of hospital overcrowding in the GTA and across Ontario. Why isn’t this government doing more to stop the crisis that the Liberal and Conservative hospital cuts have created over these last couple of years?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: We’re opening—and, in most cases, have opened—the equivalent of six community hospitals across this province. The hospitals that are involved in the Humber site include Mackenzie Health, Southlake, North York General Hospital and the Humber Wilson site as well. Each of those hospitals is moving 30 of their existing in-patients into that better transitional, rehabilitative and reactivation care.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, in early 2018, Markham Stouffville will transfer an additional 24, and Mackenzie is going to send over another 90. It will result in a 17% reduction in the in-patient load at Mackenzie.

Not to be beaten by that specific announcement, Hillcrest Reactivation Centre, through the University Health Network and Saint Elizabeth, just opened this past weekend an additional 75 beds for transitional rehabilitation care. This is fantastic progress, and I congratulate all of those involved.

Poverty

Mr. Han Dong: My question is to the Minister of Housing and minister responsible for the Poverty Reduction Strategy. We know that even though Ontario’s economy is strong, some people are still struggling to get by. Poverty is a problem that needs to be eradicated so that everyone has the opportunity to achieve his or her full potential and contribute to a prosperous and healthy Ontario.

One way we are working towards this goal is through the Local Poverty Reduction Fund. I know that it is a six-year, $50-million commitment by this government to help eradicate poverty in our communities. That includes my riding of Trinity–Spadina, and it’s working.

The minister was in Thunder Bay just yesterday to make a further announcement on the Local Poverty Reduction Fund. Could the minister tell us more about this announcement?

Hon. Peter Z. Milczyn: I want to thank the member from Trinity–Spadina for the question. In Ontario, we have an incredibly strong economy right now, Mr. Speaker, but unfortunately poverty remains a reality for far too many Ontarians.

On this side of the House, we’re committed to creating fairness and opportunity for all Ontarians. Earlier this fall, I announced Ontario’s commitment to the Poverty Reduction Strategy with $$16 million for 48 projects in communities right across Ontario.

Yesterday I was in Thunder Bay to announce the indigenous stream of Local Poverty Reduction Fund initiatives, created in partnership with indigenous communities and First Nations. These programs are going to assist those communities in tailoring programs that are specific to their needs. They will assist indigenous and First Nations peoples with food security, housing, income supports and employment supports.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Han Dong: I want to thank the minister for that answer. In fact, recently I was able to announce several projects in and around my riding that got funded through the Local Poverty Reduction Fund. This includes funding to the Access Capital Community Fund, which will use the funding to help train newcomers, visible minorities, women, youth and others in entrepreneurship and other skills development. This funding will help so many people by giving them the opportunity to thrive in Ontario.

I’m glad to hear that the Local Poverty Reduction Fund is helping indigenous communities specifically. Could the minister tell us more about our government’s efforts to alleviate poverty in indigenous communities and to support healthy, prosperous communities?

Hon. Peter Z. Milczyn: Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

Hon. David Zimmer: Our government knows that poverty looks very different depending on what part of the province you’re in. The needs of northern Ontario First Nations can in fact be quite different than those in southern Ontario.

Speaker, that’s why we are investing $5 million in 14 indigenous-led housing projects that were announced yesterday by the Minister of Housing. Through innovative programs like this, as well as our $95-million Indigenous Economic Development Fund and a further $56-million investment in indigenous institutes, we are creating fairness and opportunity for indigenous communities.

Our government knows that reconciliation requires action in addition to words, and that’s why we are working with indigenous communities to ensure a better future for indigenous peoples in Ontario.

Government accountability

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Finance. The Financial Accountability Office showed us that Ontario is working with three sets of books. That is simply ridiculous. We need one set of books, one true set of numbers, to guide us.

There’s a way to do this, and that’s for the government to follow the law, pass a regulation and release their pre-election finance report. The Auditor General said, “It is in the public’s interest for the government to give us a pre-election report to examine as soon as possible, with sufficient time to do our work.” This will give us one number, one set of books.

Will the government tell us when they will be bringing the regulation forward and when they will present the auditor with their pre-election finance report?

Hon. Charles Sousa: The reason there is a pre-election report is because this government mandated it, because of the elimination—and the fact that they held and hid a deficit throughout their proposals when they were coming into a budget.

We are balancing the books. I thank the FAO for the work they’re doing around the sensitivity. He acknowledges that our economy is growing, that we have taken steps to balance the budget. In fact, public accounts, which is the one that matters most as to what has happened to this day, illustrates that we beat again our targets last year by over $3 billion to under $0.1 billion in terms of our actual results.

I acknowledge the work that’s being done by the FAO, and I recognize that the member opposite, with his own promises, is unable to keep them because his own analysis states that they are not going to be able to achieve it. I will say more in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the minister: Families need to be able to trust what the government says about our finances. They deserve a true fiscal picture. That’s only fair.

But the Auditor General has refused to sign off on Ontario’s books multiple times under this Liberal government. The auditor has one more opportunity, and that’s to review a pre-election finance report. First, the government must pass a regulation confirming it will release a pre-election report by a committed deadline. We want one set of books so we can truly assess the damage that the Liberals have done to Ontario.

Speaker, I’ll ask again, will the government tell us when they will be bringing the regulation forward and when they will present the auditor with their pre-election finance report?

Hon. Charles Sousa: We are using the accounting principles that have been provided over the last 16 years. In fact, an independent review of the government’s pension accounting and other things that was commissioned illustrated—with an expert panel concluding—that the province’s accounting treatments are correct. I’ll leave those disputes to the accountants.

But I’ll say this, Mr. Speaker. Kevin Page, the individual who assessed the People’s Guarantee, says the following:

“Re: Assessing the reasonableness of the estimates of the fiscal plan underlying the 2018 election platform of the Progressive Conservative Party....

“We caution readers that the provision of an opinion on the reasonableness of the estimates underlying the fiscal plan includes the reliance on third parties for information.”

He says that they are “not currently in a position to pronounce” on those expectations, saying, “We look forward to seeing more detailed plans in the future.”

Their numbers are based on ours, and they are estimating a deficit with what we’re saying is—

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

New question.

Children’s mental health services

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is for the Acting Premier. Zara Anucha, Amanda Suleiman and Michele Sparling are here today. They are incredibly brave advocates for children’s mental health services. Zara and Amanda needed mental health supports, but like 12,000 children in Ontario, they were told that they would have to wait for the care that they desperately needed or that their parents would have to pay for it out of pocket.

It’s just not right that any child should have to wait months on end for mental health supports that they need. Will the Acting Premier commit to eliminating the wait-lists for children’s mental health services so that every child gets the help they need right away?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Our government is working to truly build a mental health system here in the province of Ontario for young people that aims to reduce wait times and offer more services to those who need it.

As a government, we’ve increased our mental health spending every single year since we’ve been in government. We’ve invested over $10 billion more into the system since 2008, and we’ll continue with that trend. Our party and the Minister of Health have publicly committed in this House on a number of occasions that we will put forward more than $1.9 billion over the next 10 years. We’re working with experts right across the system, right across the province, to ensure we’re putting the investments in the right place so we can reduce wait times for young people in our ministry and within the sector.

The reality is that the complexities that young people are going through today are different from where they were 10 years ago, and we’re building a system to take on those challenges.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Miss Monique Taylor: Community-based mental health centres have received only two small increases to their base funding in the past 25 years,. Here’s what this means for families: Moms like Michele have had to drive long distances to get the vital treatment their kids need, and every year, 50,000 children and youth end up in crisis inside our overcrowded hospitals because they have no other place to go. As we learned just yesterday, the majority of people who are treated in an emergency room after a suicide attempt are not getting follow-up appointments with needed psychiatrists.

When will this government take real action to improve mental health care and actually eliminate wait-lists for children and youth across Ontario?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Michael Coteau: Back in 2011-12, our government committed to a new process called Moving on Mental Health. It was to build a new strategy here in Ontario that was backed up with a $100-million investment into children’s mental health in the province of Ontario. That strategy commitment was to look at the way we fund youth mental health here in the province of Ontario, so that we could actually reduce wait times.

We know this is a challenge that continues to change, but here are some of the investments we’ve actually made over the last few years into youth mental health: In partnership with my ministry and the Ministry of Health, we’ve built nine new youth wellness hubs for young people aged 12 to 25. We spend $3 million annually to support training and professional development for indigenous mental health and addiction workers; $2.75 million for psychiatric hospitals; $16 million to create 1,000 more supportive housing spaces; nearly $48 million for specialized mental health services at St. Joseph’s Care Group in Thunder Bay; and the list goes on and on.

Opioid abuse / Abus d’opioïdes

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, the Honourable Eric Hoskins. One of our mandates and, indeed, animating beliefs is our government believes that everyone in the province of Ontario deserves high-quality health care that is dignified and compassionate. That, in particular, includes those individuals fighting substance-use disorders.

We’ve been clear of course throughout the past year that we’ve been dealing with this as a crisis, an opioid crisis that unfortunately has taken the lives of far too many people. To address this, our government has put in place the most comprehensive opioid strategy in the country, and we’ve been making critical investments to strengthen our strategy and support those saving lives on the front lines. But, still, last week we received tragic news from the Chief Coroner for Ontario that opioid-related deaths are continuing to rise in Ontario.

Speaker, my question is this: I ask the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care if he can inform this House what other critical steps our government is taking to address this growing public health emergency?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: As Minister of Health, as a public health physician and as a father and husband, not a day goes by that I do not reflect on the heartbreaking reality of this crisis, and those numbers are unfortunately going up.

Last week, in response to a recent federal policy change, I wrote a letter to the federal health minister declaring this crisis a public health emergency and formally requesting that they expand our ability to respond to the growing crisis by allowing us to approve and fund overdose prevention sites. We were granted this exemption immediately, and we can now further strengthen Ontario’s current harm-reduction efforts in communities and protect the courageous front-line workers at these sites from federal prosecution.

We have also ramped up access to addiction treatment across the province, including in over 30 communities that will now be able to access effective rapid-access addiction medicine clinics. Mr. Speaker, these are some of the life-saving supports that we’re providing.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: I thank the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care for that answer. As a physician and parliamentarian, I’m pleased of course to be part of a government that has taken such strong action to ending the opioid crisis. All health care partners have to balance the dictate between pain control and addiction avoidance, appropriate prescribing versus street recreational use, and timely access to care versus harm reduction on an acute, on-site basis.

Our government’s investments in harm reduction and addictions treatment are pillars of our overall opioid strategy. We know that even more support is required for those on the front lines, so I’d like to know what our government is doing to help our first responders in this shared fight.

I ask: Est-ce que vous pouvez élaborer sur le travail et les mesures que notre gouvernement fait?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: To the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: Thank you to the member from Etobicoke North for the question. Last week’s opioid overdose numbers from the chief coroner reinforce the critical need for urgent action to address this crisis. People suffering from addiction are often more likely to have contact with front-line responders. It is vital that we make sure our police officers and firefighters have the tools they need to respond when they find someone in crisis.

When someone is overdosing, minutes can make the difference between life and death. That’s why our government is making life-saving naloxone available for free to each and every police and fire service across the province. Mr. Speaker, our firefighters and our first responders are essential partners in fighting the opioid crisis, and we will continue working together to ensure the continued safety of our communities.

College students

Mr. Lorne Coe: My question is for the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Development. Ontario’s community college students lost a historic five weeks of class time due to the strike, which the Liberal government could have resolved earlier but chose not to. The impact has been devastating for Ontario students. Many students have made the very difficult decision to drop out of their community colleges.

Speaker, will the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Development confirm today that approximately 25,000 students have dropped out due to the Liberal government’s inaction during the strike?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We will be confirming numbers very shortly. We are collecting data from colleges to understand what that withdrawal rate was. We thought—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It really doesn’t matter where you sit; I can hear you. The member from Leeds–Grenville is warned.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, we thought it was important to give students the choice, given the strike, that they could stay in, get caught up and complete their semester. I’m happy to tell you that the vast majority of students have chosen to do that. However, for those who felt—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All right, you want to play? I win. The member from Niagara West–Glanbrook is warned.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We did think it was fair to students to give them the choice to make the decision that was right for them. If they chose to withdraw within two weeks after the strike, their tuition would be fully refunded.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Lorne Coe: Back to the Minister of Advanced Education. Ontario’s community colleges have done everything they can do to encourage students to remain in school. But the Liberal government, as it did for five weeks during the strike, continues to sit on its hands. For five weeks the Premier let the strike drag on, and now the Liberal government is delaying the release of the number of community college students who dropped out, because the information damages them politically.

Ontarians have the right to know the consequences of the Premier’s lack of leadership on the community college strike. Will the minister stop playing politics and confirm today that approximately 25,000 dropped out from Ontario’s community colleges due to the Liberal government’s inaction?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I have committed to releasing those numbers as soon as they are available. I reiterate that commitment today.

What I can tell you is the vast majority of students have stayed. There will be a significant number of those who withdrew, with a tuition refund and without academic penalty, who will be re-enrolling in January, or perhaps September, depending on the program.

But if the member opposite is suggesting that we throw collective bargaining out the window, that we just legislate back, he clearly needs to understand that, by law, we simply aren’t allowed to do that. We must let the collective bargaining process work. We wanted to let that happen. There’s no question that the people who were most impacted by the strike were the students. We’ve talked about that all the time, and we’ve given them choices.

Highway safety

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Last Friday morning, December 8, there was a tragic collision on Highway 11. Two transports collided on the Pan Lake corner, and our thoughts go out to the families of the deceased.

What makes this even more tragic is that on November 24 of last year, on exactly the same corner, another person in a transport lost their life.

What makes this even more tragic is that on December 12, 2012, again in the same place, another life was lost.

Each time the highway is closed, people in northern Ontario are cut off because there is no detour. People are starting to be very afraid to drive on the Trans-Canada. When will the minister step in and ensure that winter maintenance standards and highway construction are actually done correctly on this stretch of road?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I thank the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane for the question. He and I have had a chance to speak about this informally here in the chamber over the last couple of days. I have explained to him that I will ask the ministry—in fact, I have asked the ministry to go and take a look specifically at this particular

section of Highway 11 that, as he points out in his question, has had some challenges over the last couple of years. That’s work that we will undertake, and I’d be happy to inform him and/or the House once I have that update for him.

I will say, over the last couple of years as it relates specifically to the winter maintenance program that the ministry runs, we have continued to invest significantly in terms of the resources that are needed both in the north for our northern highways, and also in the south. We have more pieces of equipment out on our roads and highways, including in northern Ontario, than we have had certainly prior to the last three years. We are constantly working with our communities and working with our contractor partners to make sure that we have the appropriate resources deployed, and I’ll have more to say in a follow-up answer to this question.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Vanthof: Since my discussion with the minister, I’ve also had some time to do some research. According to the most recent statistics provided by the government in the 2014 Ontario Road Safety Annual Report, the occupants of a vehicle registered in the district of Timiskaming are four times more likely to die in a collision than occupants of vehicles registered anywhere else in Ontario, and that’s because they have to drive on that road.

That’s why the government has to step in and look. To the towns, the people, that road is starting to be seen as a death trap, and I don’t say that lightly. This is just one example. We have to step in and actually do the right thing.

We don’t have subways. We don’t have passenger trains. We don’t have LRTs. We have one road, and it needs to be safe, Minister, now.

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I thank the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane for his follow-up question. I certainly respect not only his advocacy, but his passion which is obviously clear in the way that he has asked the question today.

I will say, as I said in my opening answer, our government continues to invest in our winter maintenance program, including in northern Ontario. It seems—

Ms. Catherine Fife: That’s not what the auditor says.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Notwithstanding what the member from Kitchener from the NDP caucus just said, in fact the auditor did recognize last year that we had made substantial improvements in the program, both in Kitchener and in the north of the province. Having said that, I understand that our work is not yet done. The member’s question ties in both highway construction and investments in the infrastructure and also the winter maintenance program. I’ve already referenced what we’re doing in winter maintenance.

I will also say, Speaker, as I believe all members know, that over the last number of years—certainly, in the last couple in particular—the amount of money that we are investing as a government in our northern highways program is unprecedented. But we know that we have to continue to do more, and in subsequent years, through budgets presented by the Minister of Finance, I have no doubt that we’ll continue to invest in this and in other highways to make—

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

New question.

Autism treatment

Mrs. Cristina Martins: My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Minister, last Thursday, your ministry announced the details to some very important enhancements to the Ontario Autism Program, or OAP. I know our government has taken great care to consult with families in creating the OAP. I also know that in my riding of Davenport, I have spoken with many families and passed their feedback and concerns on to the minister. My constituents have expressed a need for choice and consistency in the program. Many families have also expressed the need for a direct funding option.

I know there has been much work to provide families with the clear choice they have been asking for: the choice between direct funding and direct service.

Minister, can you please share with this House the details of the new direct funding option?

Hon. Michael Coteau: I want to thank the member from Davenport for her question. She’s a strong advocate for families and for children here in the province of Ontario.

I had the opportunity to travel across the province to meet with families and parents and talk to them about the autism program here in the province of Ontario. I just want to take a moment to thank them for their feedback.

The member is right: We heard a very clear message from families when having those discussions. To respond to those families, we as a government are introducing a direct funding option to families. Beginning January 15 of next year—weeks from now—we will increase the maximum hourly rate for service purchased through the OAP from $39 an hour to a maximum of up to $55 an hour. We will communicate new qualifications for clinical supervisors that will be phased in. We will also create an OAP provider list that will help families select a qualified OAP service provider in the spring.

I have more in the supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: Thank you to the minister for listening to families.

I hope all members of this House are supportive of parents’ call for choice in the system and their ask for a direct funding option. There is no doubt that system transformation is a difficult undertaking and it can create a lot of confusion for families. I have also heard from parents in my riding that when it comes to accessing autism services, the system can be very difficult to navigate.

In the new Ontario Autism Program, how is your ministry going to ensure that parents are aware of the resources available to their families and are able to easily navigate the system?

Hon. Michael Coteau: There are a number of changes that are coming to the program, and I want all families to experience a smooth and seamless transition into the new Ontario Autism Program.

The new OAP has a single point of access in each of the nine service areas. This will make it easier for families to access services. Contact numbers are available on my ministry website.

I’m also hosting two tele-town halls, one on January 11 at 7 p.m. and again on January 17 at 7 p.m. Parents can ask questions and get direct answers from myself and ministry staff. Details of the tele-town halls and the regional provider’s information are on the website, ontario.ca/autism.

I hope that all members in this House are proud of this program and they share this information with their constituents.

Services for persons with disabilities

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is to the Deputy Premier. According to Community Living Ontario, there will be a 25% reduction in the number of hours of support for families with disabilities as a result of the government’s changes to labour laws.

Community Living Ontario said: “Ministry representatives have told our members not to expect any base budget increases, so that means the people that stand to lose the most ... are people who have an intellectual or developmental disability, families, community agencies and their support workers.” I’ve spoken to many families struggling to find the services they need for their loved ones. Not one of them has said they can absorb a 25% reduction in service.

With a 25% cut looming and no help offered from you, does the government expect families to fund this 25% wage gap themselves?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Certainly, our ministry is committed to ensuring that front-line services are available to those with developmental disabilities. We are aware of some of the recent changes to our legislation in terms of Bill 148 that are impacting those particular agencies. We’ve certainly heard from them; my ministry is very aware.

We are looking at the figures they have produced for us and we’re looking at them very carefully. I would assure the member that we will not see any diminution of any services for those adults with developmental disabilities.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I’m pleased that you’re aware, but the reality is ministry representatives have told Community Living “not to expect any base budget increases.”

Families who rely on Special Services at Home and direct funding know that the government’s changes will limit their ability to give their loved ones the care they deserve. Brampton Caledon Community Living president Kathy Bell said, “BCCL will be forced to make deep cuts to its services and labour force ... this will have severe daily living consequences for extremely vulnerable people and their families.”

In a letter sent to the Premier, Brampton Caledon Community Living identified the annual cost to comply with the changes at $2.4 million. How does the government expect Community Living organizations and families to fund this 25% wage gap?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Minister of Labour.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I do thank the member for the question. Prior to the introduction of Bill 148—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And again, the member thinks he can go to a different seat. I will catch him. The member from Prince Edward–Hastings is warned.

Minister?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you.

Prior to the introduction of Bill 148, we consulted broadly with the business community, with the non-profit sector, with those people who provide services. After the debate—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): These carry over into the afternoon, by the way.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: What became clear is that dedicated men and women who look after the most vulnerable in our society sometimes needed to have their pay increased, sometimes needed some better employment standards. These are the people who look after the most vulnerable.

What we said is that we would increase the minimum wage in the province to $14 an hour and then to $15 an hour. It would apply to them as well. The opposition party voted against this. They don’t stand behind the people who look after our most vulnerable. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Interjections.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Before I turn to that, I would just like to let people know there is never not an opportunity for me to continue to warn, even when we’re at the end of question period.

Correction of record

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Point of order, the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’d just like to correct my record, Mr. Speaker, in reference to a question from the member from Prince Edward–Hastings. In reference to the $32 million I used, these are disputed costs between the IESO and the companies, and the IESO’s rules have changed—

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

Deferred Votes

Cannabis, Smoke-Free Ontario and Road Safety Statute Law Amendment Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne le cannabis, l’Ontario sans fumée et la sécurité routière

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

Bill 174,

An Act to enact the Cannabis Act, 2017, the Ontario Cannabis Retail Corporation Act, 2017 and the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, 2017, to repeal two Acts and to make amendments to the Highway Traffic Act respecting alcohol, drugs and other matters / Projet de loi 174, Loi édictant la Loi de 2017 sur le cannabis, la Loi de 2017 sur la Société ontarienne de vente du cannabis et la Loi de 2017 favorisant un Ontario sans fumée, abrogeant deux lois et modifiant le Code de la route en ce qui concerne l’alcool, les drogues et d’autres questions.

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

The division bells rang from 1139 to 1144.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Would all members please take their seats.

On December 11, 2017, Mr. Naqvi moved third reading of Bill 174,

An Act to enact the Cannabis Act, 2017, the Ontario Cannabis Retail Corporation Act, 2017 and the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, 2017, to repeal two Acts and to make amendments to the Highway Traffic Act respecting alcohol, drugs and other matters.

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

Ayes

Anderson, Granville

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Baker, Yvan

Ballard, Chris

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bisson, Gilles

Bradley, James J.

Chan, Michael

Chiarelli, Bob

Colle, Mike

Coteau, Michael

Crack, Grant

Damerla, Dipika

Del Duca, Steven

Delaney, Bob

Des Rosiers, Nathalie

Dhillon, Vic

DiNovo, Cheri

Dong, Han

Duguid, Brad

Fife, Catherine

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Forster, Cindy

Fraser, John

French, Jennifer K.

Gates, Wayne

Gélinas, France

Gretzky, Lisa

Hatfield, Percy

Hoggarth, Ann

Horwath, Andrea

Hoskins, Eric

Hunter, Mitzie

Jaczek, Helena

Kiwala, Sophie

Lalonde, Marie-France

Leal, Jeff

Malhi, Harinder

Mangat, Amrit

Martins, Cristina

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGarry, Kathryn

McMahon, Eleanor

McMeekin, Ted

Milczyn, Peter Z.

Moridi, Reza

Naidoo-Harris, Indira

Naqvi, Yasir

Natyshak, Taras

Potts, Arthur

Qaadri, Shafiq

Rinaldi, Lou

Sandals, Liz

Sousa, Charles

Tabuns, Peter

Taylor, Monique

Thibeault, Glenn

Vanthof, John

Vernile, Daiene

Wong, Soo

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

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

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Bailey, Robert

Barrett, Toby

Brown, Patrick

Cho, Raymond Sung Joon

Clark, Steve

Coe, Lorne

Fedeli, Victor

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael

Hillier, Randy

Jones, Sylvia

MacLaren, Jack

MacLeod, Lisa

Martow, Gila

McDonell, Jim

McNaughton, Monte

Miller, Norm

Nicholls, Rick

Oosterhoff, Sam

Pettapiece, Randy

Romano, Ross

Smith, Todd

Thompson, Lisa M.

Wilson, Jim

Yakabuski, John

Yurek, Jeff

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 63; the nays are 27.

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

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

Third reading agreed to.

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

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

Bill 160,

An Act to amend, repeal and enact various Acts in the interest of strengthening quality and accountability for patients / Projet de loi 160, Loi visant à modifier, à abroger et à édicter diverses lois dans le souci de renforcer la qualité et la responsabilité pour les patients.

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

The division bells rang from 1147 to 1148.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On December 7, 2017, Mr. Ballard moved third reading of Bill 160,

An Act to amend, repeal and enact various Acts in the interest of strengthening quality and accountability for patients.

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

Ayes

Anderson, Granville

Baker, Yvan

Ballard, Chris

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bradley, James J.

Chan, Michael

Chiarelli, Bob

Colle, Mike

Coteau, Michael

Crack, Grant

Damerla, Dipika

Del Duca, Steven

Delaney, Bob

Des Rosiers, Nathalie

Dhillon, Vic

Dickson, Joe

Dong, Han

Duguid, Brad

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fraser, John

Hoggarth, Ann

Hoskins, Eric

Hunter, Mitzie

Jaczek, Helena

Kiwala, Sophie

Lalonde, Marie-France

Leal, Jeff

Malhi, Harinder

Mangat, Amrit

Martins, Cristina

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGarry, Kathryn

McMahon, Eleanor

McMeekin, Ted

Milczyn, Peter Z.

Moridi, Reza

Naidoo-Harris, Indira

Naqvi, Yasir

Potts, Arthur

Qaadri, Shafiq

Rinaldi, Lou

Sandals, Liz

Sousa, Charles

Thibeault, Glenn

Vernile, Daiene

Wong, Soo

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

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

Nays

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Arnott, Ted

Bailey, Robert

Barrett, Toby

Bisson, Gilles

Brown, Patrick

Cho, Raymond Sung Joon

Clark, Steve

Coe, Lorne

DiNovo, Cheri

Fedeli, Victor

Fife, Catherine

Forster, Cindy

French, Jennifer K.

Gates, Wayne

Gélinas, France

Gretzky, Lisa

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael

Hatfield, Percy

Hillier, Randy

Horwath, Andrea

Jones, Sylvia

MacLaren, Jack

MacLeod, Lisa

Martow, Gila

McDonell, Jim

McNaughton, Monte

Miller, Norm

Natyshak, Taras

Nicholls, Rick

Oosterhoff, Sam

Pettapiece, Randy

Romano, Ross

Smith, Todd

Tabuns, Peter

Taylor, Monique

Thompson, Lisa M.

Vanthof, John

Wilson, Jim

Yakabuski, John

Yurek, Jeff

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 49; the nays are 42.

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

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

Third reading agreed to.

Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 visant à bâtir de meilleures collectivités et à protéger les bassins hydrographiques

Deferred vote on the motion that the question