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

September 14, 2017

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Orders and Notices

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2017-Sep-14 (PDF)

L093 - Thu 14 Sep 2017 / Jeu 14 sep 2017

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 14 September 2017 Jeudi 14 septembre 2017

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

Arnold Chan

Oral Questions

Ontario economy

Agri-food industry

Long-term care

Long-term care

By-election in Sudbury

Long-term care

Commotions cérébrales / Concussions

Long-term care

By-election in Sudbury

Arnold Chan

Disaster relief

Hospital funding

Opioid abuse

Wind turbines

Arnold Chan

Visitors

Hat on desk

Wearing of pin

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Nuclear tests in North Korea

Parkwood Estate

Mississauga police and firefighters

Long-term care

Ovarian cancer

Rivière des Outaouais / Ottawa River

Financial literacy

Ismaili community

Energy efficiency

Introduction of Bills

James Guy Limited Act, 2017

Cutting Unnecessary Red Tape Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 visant à réduire les formalités administratives inutiles

Petitions

Long-term care

Anti-smoking initiatives for youth

GO Transit

Automotive dealers

Mental health services

Long-term care

Pharmacare

Anti-smoking initiatives for youth

Long-term care

Bruce Power

Organic products

Automotive dealers

Private Members’ Public Business

Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur le ministère de la Santé mentale et des dépendances

Long-term care

Workplace Safety and Insurance Amendment Act (PTSD Benefits), 2017 / Loi de 2017 modifiant la

Loi sur la sécurité professionnelle et l’assurance contre les accidents du travail (prestations pour état de stress post-traumatique)

Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur le ministère de la Santé mentale et des dépendances

Long-term care

Workplace Safety and Insurance Amendment Act (PTSD Benefits), 2017 / Loi de 2017 modifiant la

Loi sur la sécurité professionnelle et l’assurance contre les accidents du travail (prestations pour état de stress post-traumatique)

Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur le ministère de la Santé mentale et des dépendances

Long-term care

Workplace Safety and Insurance Amendment Act (PTSD Benefits), 2017 / Loi de 2017 modifiant la

Loi sur la sécurité professionnelle et l’assurance contre les accidents du travail (prestations pour état de stress post-traumatique)

Committee membership

Orders of the Day

Construction Lien Amendment Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 modifiant la

Loi sur le privilège dans l’industrie de la construction

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 September 11, 2017, on the motion for second 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): The member from Northumberland–Quinte West.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Speaker, thank you very much to just allow me the time to—just a bit over four minutes, to when I started the other day. So I’ll start from where I left off.

As I said the other day, we are listening carefully and closely and will continue to do so throughout the legislative process. I look forward to continuing to support the minister as we receive and consider the input of communities and stakeholders and the views of the members of this House.

I reviewed a lengthy list of significant reforms this government has already made to enhance the land use planning appeal process in Ontario. It is also important that I point to the impetus for this government’s review of the Ontario Municipal Board and the bill before us today. Indeed, it was during the extensive public and stakeholder consultations on the Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, the update to the Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy, and the coordinated land use planning review that we heard at length from communities and stakeholders of improvements that could be made to the OMB.

We listened and we agreed. We need to build on the reforms we’ve made by addressing what this tribunal deals with and how it operates in Ontario’s land use planning system. That’s why, Mr. Speaker, this government reviewed the OMB and introduced Bill 139 in May of this year. We asked, we listened and we proposed reforms, and we agreed there was a need to do even more. Ontario continues to require a provincially mandated land use planning appeal process, but we heard during the consultations for the OMB review that this process must be carefully scoped.

A land use planning appeal process with too broad a scope can delay or disrupt the development of important policies. A land use planning appeal process with too broad a scope can negate months and even years of municipal planning work. Work completed with the public and stakeholders on planning policies to guide development and protect public interests should be respected. A land use planning appeal process that is too broad in scope can impede our ability to protect agricultural lands, natural heritage systems and our cultural heritage.

A land use planning appeal process that is too broad in scope can discourage and dishearten residents who participate in community-based planning processes by subjecting their will to deferrals, delays and sometimes even derailment. That’s why Bill 139 proposes to carefully scope the work of this tribunal to better protect the public interest in land use planning at the local level.

Our bill, if passed, would better serve all who have an interest in effective land use planning, which is to say all people in Ontario. As I’ve said, this bill would, if passed, make transformative changes to the land use planning appeal system in Ontario. Through these changes, we propose to build on land use planning reforms already made by government. This bill, if passed, would give the public and local elected officials a stronger voice in planning for growth and land use in their communities.

As we progress through the debate and consultation, hopefully it will clarify some of the issues that have arisen. Certainly, this is something that has been asked for and demanded by the public and stakeholders. We look forward to working with the whole of the Legislature to end up with the best possible product.

Madam Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on this subject.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Mr. Robert Bailey: I want to have a few comments to Bill 139 as well. I see it affects 21 different acts in the legislation. Our party certainly agrees that there need to be reforms to the OMB, as has been talked about for many years by anyone that’s involved in municipal politics. All of the different delegations we received at either Good Roads or ROMA have all, at some time or other, raised their issues with the OMB with the so-called interference, in some people’s opinions, with municipal legislation and with decisions made back home.

We agree with the reforms to the OMB, but we have concerns about how the government is proposing to change the system. We’d like to see a system that respects the authority of the municipalities and the input of local community groups as always, without, of course, adding any additional red tape, which there seems to be an abundance of in this province, as many people have alluded to before. We’d like to see well-planned developments.

It’s clear, from a number of concerns that have been raised by different stakeholders, from environmental groups to lawyers that work with the OMB, and home builders, that they feel, in their opinion, that this bill has missed the mark. Certainly, we’re going to be making amendments to this and offering suggestions. I’m sure our municipal affairs critic, when he speaks a little later, will go into it in a lot greater detail.

It is a pleasure this morning to rise and speak to this. I’m sure all of the members are going to have something to say about this, so I look forward to the rest of the debate.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Ms. Cindy Forster: Thank you to the member from—

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Northumberland–Quinte West.

Ms. Cindy Forster: —Northumberland–Quinte West for his comments.

I had an opportunity yesterday, along with a number of our caucus, to meet with ministry staff to get a technical briefing. It’s interesting.

I want to focus once again on the conservation piece because, as you’re all aware, we are having issues in the Niagara Peninsula with our conservation authority.

Some of the changes will clarify board member appointment processes, which is a good thing. I have a private member’s bill in on that issue, which would see at least 50% of the members appointed having qualifications around areas such as conservation, the environment, climate change and all those kinds of things.

The one piece that I think is missing in this bill is, somebody has to have some ultimate authority for the conservation. Taxpayers put a lot of money in, whether it’s at a local level or a provincial level. That’s how they’re run. At the end of the day, there needs to be an amendment here that puts a supervisor in place in situations where there is no accountability, integrity, trust or transparency left in an agency.

I did make those comments to the ministry staff yesterday. I’m hoping that they will turn their minds to putting something in there that will actually assist the taxpayers in this province at the end of the day. I know that we’ve had all-party assistance on this issue down in Niagara, but ultimately there has to be somebody that makes the decisions.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Mr. James J. Bradley: I found the member from Northumberland–Quinte West’s comments to be very, very good on this particular bill because he recognizes the virtues that are contained within this bill, both in terms of its effect on municipal planning and its effect on conservation authorities.

As with the member for Welland, I have a great interest in the conservation authority issues that are emerging in Niagara at this time, because we have to recognize—and this bill goes a long way to doing this—that the role and responsibility of those who are on conservation authorities is to protect the environment and the nature of the area, not to do the bidding of developers.

There are different departments within municipal government that are promoting development. They have that role and responsibility, if you have an economic development department in any municipality. But first and foremost, the responsibility of a conservation authority is to protect the environment. Unfortunately, what we have seen in Niagara is an exodus of people from that authority. This is staff members who have been fired out the door, and they are staff members who have a great concern about the environment.

When the new group took over the regional government, they made a determined effort to make it pro-development, and I understand that. Again, within the economic development department, that’s fine. But they wanted to change the nature and the role and responsibility of the Ministry of Natural Resources to promoting development or making development much easier, while all we want is the professional opinions of those who are there, just as we want the professional opinions of those in the Ministry of Natural Resources when commenting on proposed developments and when trying to protect the environment.

We’ve had some good experience with that in the past. There has been a huge shift, and that is what is causing the concern in our area.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Further questions and comments?

Mrs. Gila Martow: I’m pleased to rise and say a few words on Bill 139, the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act.

The chief government whip was just talking about the Niagara area and the conservation authority becoming more pro-development and all the changes. I think that’s what my constituents and I take away from all of these types of discussions—what we want is to have the right balance. That’s very tricky and you can’t get it exactly right. We want to get as close as possible between the government regulations, the authority of the municipalities, the interests of development, the people who already live in the community, the people who are moving to the community, agriculture, conserving the environment and conserving all the watersheds.

We all know that there’s a company, Ducks Unlimited, that comes to visit us to talk about watersheds. There are a lot of community groups—the Oak Ridges moraine is up in York region and I’ve met with them and spoken to them and learned a lot of interesting things. For example, one of the things that one of their members mentioned to me—and I wanted to look into it, so maybe somebody listening has some insight into it—is that one of the reasons the water table is rising so quickly in York region is because most of the houses or farms that were in the area used to be on a well system.

That meant they were taking water out of the wet sponge of the ground. Now what we’re doing is, since we’re no longer on well water, we’re piping water actually up and watering lawns and things like that from Lake Ontario. Between the rain and taking water from the lakes and putting it back into the ground, we’re not taking that water out of the wet sponge.

I think that there’s a lot of discussion that has to be had in preserving our wetlands, our watersheds and protecting ourselves from flooding. We’ve all seen what happens with the storms when the water isn’t able to be absorbed.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I return to the member from Northumberland–Quinte West to wrap up.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I certainly would like to thank the members from Sarnia, Welland, St. Catharines and Thornhill for their thoughtful comments. If I sort of bundle them together, I think there is some support for Bill 139, although we need to look at some other things specifically.

I know the members from Welland and St. Catharines spoke very passionately about the conservation authorities and the role that they play. Within my riding, I deal with three conservation authorities. They all do fantastic work with the resources that they have; I want to be clear about that. I do have a lot of respect for the work they do.

On the other hand, we need to help them, to give them the tools to be able to do that good work that they do. So when we talk about board composition, I agree with the member: We need to look at some expertise. They do that with hospital boards; they do that with other boards. Yet what troubles me is that the other day, in a two-minute comment from the official opposition, they said, well, the public should just appoint them at large; they elect us at large. I think it’s a bit of a different story, because agencies like conservation authorities are there with a mandate. To have that expertise to guide them through the board, I think, is great.

I’m encouraged from what I hear as we debate Bill 139, and I look forward to working with all sides of the House to make sure we end up with the best possible product.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Further debate?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I just want to say that I’m happy to be here to do the lead for Bill 139 on behalf of the PC Party, and I thank the House for allowing it to be delayed because I was away on a conference.

With that, Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be back in the House after our summer recess. It was a busy summer meeting with constituents and stakeholders, where I heard many concerns about provincial legislation and the impacts it is having on their lives. My constituents and Ontarians across the province are finding it harder under this government, and many small businesses are concerned about the increasing costs they’re being forced to face. In my riding, we have also had three significant layoffs in the last 10 months; that is 1,300 jobs disappearing.

Over and over, I hear from people in my riding and across Ontario that this government charges ahead with new policies without doing the proper research on how those policies will actually impact their businesses. We saw that earlier this week, when the FAO looked at the impact of the government’s Bill 148 and found that it would kill 50,000 jobs in Ontario. We saw that in the Green Energy Act that resulted in high hydro costs. We saw it again in the foreign homebuyers’ tax, where the Minister of Finance would say there were three different numbers of foreign homebuyers depending on which day you asked him.

Madam Speaker, today I’m here to talk about Bill 139. These are planning issues that impact every single community in Ontario, so we need to ensure that the research has been done to get it right. But, unfortunately, there are still too many questions that haven’t been answered, such as what the impact would be on the housing shortage. We haven’t seen a single study or analysis from the government.

There’s also research that hasn’t been done. I found an order paper question that asked, “Would the Attorney General please provide the percentage of cases in which the Ontario Municipal Board approved or found in favour of a development that was previously denied by the municipality.” The response I received from the government was that they don’t track that information. That means that, once again, they are introducing legislation without doing the research or knowing how well the current system is working. Once again, they are making significant changes without doing the proper research to know what the impact will be.

Land use planning isn’t easy. Most people agree with the concept of intensification to protect our agricultural land and environmentally sensitive areas. But at the same time, many of those same people want to protect the character of their neighbourhood. People are concerned about sprawl, but many people still want the option of a house with a backyard. People are concerned about the housing shortage driving up the cost of housing, but they put up roadblocks to building the new housing that would bring down the price.

Balancing all of these interests is difficult, and it can and should be done better. We agree with the need to reform the Ontario Municipal Board. The question we need to debate here is not whether to reform it, but how. How do we ensure communities have a greater say in their neighbourhoods? At the same time, how do we help planned developments get through the system faster so we can address the housing shortage? How do we ensure the new legislation respects municipalities?

We have heard from numerous organizations having concerns with the government’s proposed changes, from home builders to professional planners to environmental groups. In fact, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, CELA, said in their submission:

“In our view, none of the foregoing rollbacks from the current land use planning regime can be considered as progressive, justifiable or protective of the public interest. To the contrary, Bill 139 will make it exceedingly more difficult for CELA’s client community to play a meaningful role in the land use decision-making process, or to ensure that decision-makers are held accountable through appropriate appellate procedures.”

Their submission went on to say:

“Bill 139 should not be enacted as currently proposed. Instead, Bill 139 should be withdrawn by the Ontario government unless the legislative proposals are significantly amended in order to safeguard the public interest, and to ensure that Ontario’s land use planning system is fair, robust, participatory, transparent and accountable.”

As Karen Peterson of Environment North said in a recent Thunder Bay Chronicle Journal column:

“The main concern with the OMB transfer is that no matter how stellar the process, when official plans are more general in nature and not aligned specifically with sustainability concepts, planning can be compromised and disputes over the decisions regarding land use will have no choice but to go through the court system for resolution, a more costly process than an OMB hearing.”

She went on to say, “For quality assurance and to enable trust in the planning process, the province needs to take pause and review the effectiveness as well as the efficiency of this proposed transition.”

Madam Speaker, these are not people arguing that we should keep the OMB as it is today, but the fact that they are all raising concerns with this bill shows the government has missed the mark.

It has also been pointed out that many of the contentious hearings before the OMB have actually been developments for infill in the cities, which are a direct result of the government’s growth plan.

I’ve heard from some groups, like the Advocates for Effective OMB Reform, who are concerned that these changes go too far and take away from the initial purpose of the OMB. This group has extensive experience at the OMB on both sides. It’s a group of over 20 senior municipal land use planning lawyers with extensive experience concerning a wide array of land use planning matters. They believe that much of the OMB already functions properly to ensure that provincial policy is not simply discussed but it’s implemented.

They believe that “rigorous public debate and arm’s-length checks and balances in the system are essential to good planning. They keep all of the players in the planning process (including municipal staff, municipal councils, consultants, lawyers and applicants) accountable.”

They support OMB reform, but they believe that Bill 139 will make the OMB less accessible to community groups and that more appeals will end up in the court rather than being settled by the OMB.

One of the challenges that they see is that municipal councils simply don’t have the time to properly review development proposals. I’ve heard the same concern from a number of people in the development industry: Multi-million-dollar projects that are going to provide homes or jobs for hundreds of people are given just five minutes to present to municipal council. That doesn’t always provide the opportunity for councillors to ask all the questions that they need to in order to evaluate the planning decision. For instance, expert opinions play a crucial role in planning.

Committee and council meetings provide very limited opportunity or time for the scrutiny of these opinions, and while councillors work toward the best interests of their communities, there are times when some small groups speak up louder than the majority and can change the way decisions are made.

As the Advocates for Effective OMB Reform put it, “The will of the local majority is not necessarily good planning. It can fail to achieve the provincial policy objectives that are essential to the province as a whole. It can also oppress important and legitimate interests that happen to be in the minority. As well, the majority vote may be silent—those that are not concerned may not speak up—and thus the decision may not in fact represent the majority voice, just the loudest voice.”

The Ontario Professional Planners are also concerned about the potential for the broader public interest to be ignored in favour of the voices of a few who are able to influence council decisions. As they said in their submission, “At this time, it remains unclear as to whether the proposed changes will support the principles of good planning and the broader public interest—that guide the practice of professional planners—or whether these will increase political pressure on local councils to make decisions that serve the narrow interests of a minority of private property owners, developers, builders, neighbourhood or other interest groups.”

They went on to say that while “there is no doubt that the proposed reforms will increase the authority of local decision-making—and while the tests for an appeal are conformity with provincial policy/plans and local plans, these tools are often not distinct and typically provide minimal policy guidance on site-specific matters.”

For example, most provincial plans and official plans do not provide sufficient guidance at the site level, such as heights and densities of buildings, and it is possible that two drastically different development concepts could both conform with provincial, regional and local policy, but one may be more appropriate, given the full consideration of planning matters.

It was pointed out that if someone gets a speeding ticket, they can appeal it, bring forward evidence and have their day in court. But under this legislation, people who are planning communities or trying to protect their communities and environment won’t have that same opportunity. Does it really make sense that you can appeal a $40 speeding ticket but you can’t appeal when millions of dollars of investment and economic opportunity are at stake?

It is telling that the development industry, the professional planners and a number of environmental groups all share concerns with this legislation.

The Preservation of Agricultural Lands Society published a column outlining some of their concerns with the legislation. In the column they said, “An important role in our OMB victory was played by our lawyer, David Donnelly, who acts in effect as a policy adviser to many Ontario environmental groups. He has warned that the proposed double hearing process could turn the proposed” tribunal “into a rubber stamp for municipal councils.” That’s the new tribunal that is being proposed.

The professional planners are also concerned that short-term objectives could undermine broader, long-term city-building objectives, and suggest that guidance be provided to municipal councils on this matter, reiterating the importance to the public interest of the role of municipal planning staff in providing expert advice to their respective councils.

A number of groups have raised concerns that the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal’s rules of practice and procedure, when they are written, will prevail over the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, which governs legal proceedings to ensure they are fair.

This legislation also removes the protection of requiring a warrant before entering private property in a number of circumstances, including allowing a member or employee of the tribunal to enter into and inspect any place other than a dwelling if they believe there is evidence there.

Madam Speaker, we’re talking about land use planning appeals. They are unlikely to be emergencies where a person couldn’t take the time to get a warrant, or permission from the owner. In fact, I expect that the owner of the property would often be involved in the appeal, so asking for permission to access the property would be rather simple.

Madam Speaker, I’ve raised this point before: An exemption for a warrant should be for emergency situations only. This legislation says that the member or employee of the tribunal doesn’t even need to identify themselves if they’re not asked.

It’s safer for everyone if the owner of the property is aware that people need access. It allows them to warn the visitors of any hazards, and in ridings like mine, it allows the farmers to better manage their biosecurity.

Requiring permission of an owner, or a warrant, also shows respect for property owners and the rule of law.

Concerns have also been raised that the government is showing a lack of respect for the rule of law by changing the hearing type to eliminate cross-examination. They will have written submissions to appeals rather than the traditional oral hearings required by the board. The concern has been raised that it may mean that community groups are unable to sufficiently question information and expert opinions.

In his leadoff speech, the minister said that one of the things that they heard strongly during the OMB review consultation was the desire for more community involvement, and yet this bill achieves the opposite.

The use of oral testimony and cross-examination allows opinions to be tested and validated. Under the new tribunal guidelines, there should be criteria and guidance to allow the tribunal to undertake a more comprehensive hearing process where required.

The hearing format should not be limited, and there should be flexibility for a range of different types of formats depending on the complexity of the case. There is not a one-type-fits-all solution for municipalities, and the same is true for their planning matters.

The Advocates for Effective OMB Reform met with the ministry to discuss the change to hearings and were told that these oral hearings aren’t required because they take place at the municipal level—but in reality, that’s not the case.

As well, under the new tribunal, many issues that local residents are concerned about cannot be appealed, such as changes to traffic, shadows from new buildings, and other concerns that may not be considered in local plans and council decisions. In fact, in a recent Law Times article, lawyer Alan Cohen said that under Bill 139, “Ratepayer groups may be denied the right to appeal. They may be disenfranchised.”

Many groups support the introduction of limits to evidence introduction, where new evidence cannot be introduced as part of an appeal if it was not introduced before the original decision on the application was made locally at the local council. This would help to decrease the length and cost of hearings and encourage stakeholders to be involved earlier in the process by providing relevant information in submissions to the council in advance of their decisions. In some cases, this can save time and allow for quicker decision-making.

However, in other instances, as noted by the professional planners, the introduction of new planning evidence in complex matters recognizes that circumstances can change between the time a decision is made by council and the time when an appeal is considered. Policies change, market trends evolve, and local conditions change.

AMO has also raised concerns that the way the bill is written will make the entire planning process more complex. In a recent letter to the minister, they said, “There are a few areas of concern, some are administrative and others pertain to work cultures. First, throughout the bill there are references to other acts, such as the Metrolinx Act and the Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act.

The intent of the provincial policy statement is to assemble all provincial policy that affects land use planning into one document to simplify and thus ensure all municipal planning is done in keeping with the provincial policies. In the past, planners had to sift through some hundred different pieces of legislation, regulation, and guidance to find provincial policy.”

AMO recommends that the bill be amended to remove references to other legislation and, instead, the provincial policy statement be amended to include those policies.

Madam Speaker, as I said, municipalities, community groups and individuals have long been asking for a review of the Ontario Municipal Board and its role in mediating decisions between municipal governments and developers. I’m not convinced that the way to do this is to abolish the OMB and create a new oversight body. We agree with the need for reform, but the new name seems to be more about public relations than making the system work better.

The OMB was created in 1906 as the Ontario Railway and Municipal Board, and has been called the Ontario Municipal Board since 1932. With such a long history, it’s concerning that time and money are being spent to change the name when changes about the board’s function could have been made under the name Ontario Municipal Board, ensuring that it maintains its familiarity while saving time changing documents and legislation to reflect the new name.

And while renaming the OMB in this new legislation to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal suggests vast changes and overhauls, much of the OMB remains intact under a new name. As written in the explanatory note of the bill, “Many provisions in the new act and the old act are substantively the same.” Those are not my words; those are the minister’s words. This could be misleading to those anticipating a completely new oversight body under the new name. It could also be confusing to those who are familiar with the old name and are looking to access its services. This is another case of the government trying to give something a nice-sounding name rather than worrying about the impact.

If you look at community groups behind appeals to the OMB, most of them are not made up of professional planners. They are regular people who are taking time out of their busy lives to have a say in the future of their community. We need to make the process as clear to them as possible. Instead, this government is expecting them to know that a local appeal body can be set up and operated by each municipality, but a local appeal tribunal is a provincial organization.

For example, in my riding, the community has been fighting a proposed landfill site in Beachville. If developed, this landfill would pose a threat to the town of Ingersoll’s drinking water as it is close to one of their main wells. The proposed landfill is also close to the Thames River, which means it could impact the entire Thames River ecosystem, from Oxford county to London and Chatham and the mouth of the river at Lake St. Clair. The county of Oxford has passed a resolution concerning a moratorium on the landfill’s approval, and the community is united in its effort to stop the landfill development process.

The community has put significant time and resources into fighting the landfill, and while I’ve written the Minister of the Environment many times to block this proposal, if that doesn’t happen, the local municipalities, the community groups and the volunteers would need a strong appeals body to protect community interests, plans and our important natural resources.

Volunteers in these types of campaigns are people who became champions in their community because they saw a need. They didn’t go to school to learn how the planning process worked. They don’t have years of experience navigating government red tape. They are just trying to make their voice heard and make their community a better place.

Madam Speaker, I expect that there are MPPs in this Legislature right now who couldn’t explain the difference between the city of Toronto’s local appeals board and the government’s local appeals tribunal. So is it really fair to expect our community volunteers to automatically understand that? In fact, budget documents from the city of Toronto already mistakenly refer to the local appeals board as the local appeals tribunal, as do some documents from the city clerk.

Trent University proudly states on their website that a member of their local board of governors has been appointed chair of Ontario’s first seven-member local appeal tribunal. Unless the government has started making appointments before this legislation is passed, it is clear the new name is going to cause confusion, because that is not the tribunal that that member was appointed to.

A registered professional planner wrote on his blog, “Recently, the Ontario government has announced the creation of local planning appeals tribunals, which will replace the OMB with a locally appointed body that has limited power.” If an industry expert doesn’t understand from the name that this is one provincial body, rather than locally appointed appeal boards, how do we expect community volunteers who have never been involved in land use planning to be clear on the role of this new organization? This is just going to create further confusion to those looking to appeal planning decisions.

The Preservation of Agricultural Lands Society said, “The proposed new name for the tribunal however, LAT, does not give sufficient dignity to the important matters it will be adjudicating. A more appropriate one would be the Ontario land use planning board.”

The name isn’t the only part of this bill that’s causing confusion. When the government announced this legislation, media outlet after media outlet reported that there would no longer be appeals permitted near transit stations. One media outlet ran a headline saying, “OMB Challenges To Be Barred within 500 Metres of Transit Stations,” following an interview with a government source who refused to be named.

The problem is that this bill does not ban appeals within 500 metres of transit stations. It says that municipalities may include in their official plan policies that identify the area surrounding and including an existing or planned higher-order transit and identify the minimum numbers of residents and jobs. If the municipality chooses to put these policies in place, they will not be appealable, but the municipality has to choose to do it. It is a small step towards increasing the density around these stations, not the significant step that the media reported.

There has also been a lot of discussion about the need to address the missing middle: to provide housing options between high-rise condo towers and detached homes. However, this bill does nothing to solve that problem.

As I pointed out in this Legislature numerous times, Ontario is facing a housing crisis. There are over 171,000 families on the waiting list for affordable housing in Ontario. Not only is the list bigger every year, but the wait times for every single category have increased. In 2003, seniors were waiting two and a half years for affordable housing, and now that has almost doubled to 4.4 years waiting for affordable housing.

We need to provide supportive housing for those who need extra services. We need to help those who can’t afford a good place to live, and we need to ensure that there is housing available across the spectrum—from social housing to single detached homes, townhouses or rental units.

Earlier this week, the Minister of Municipal Affairs listed all types of buildings that he saw around the province, and nowhere in that list did he mention rental units. We believe they are an important part of the mix.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp.’s 2016 figures show a vacancy rate of 2.1% for the province as a whole, with the city of Toronto facing an even worse situation with vacancies at 1.3% of local stock. Vacancy rates in the broader greater Toronto area have decreased from 3.2% to 1.4% since 2007. The vacancy rate is so low that people are having bidding wars over apartments. Clearly we need to encourage more landlords to enter the market and increase the supply. Yet this government continues to implement policies that discourage landlords.

Housing is a serious issue, and it isn’t one where the government should be playing games. It’s not an issue we should be rushing. It is complex. A problem in one part of the housing spectrum impacts all of the housing market. We should be taking time, doing the research and getting it right.

The same goes for planning and development. We need to ensure that new units are being created and that planned developments do not face unnecessary delays that leave Ontario families without options. And those options involve ensuring there is social housing available for those who need support services, as well as access to affordable housing for all Ontarians. It involves policies that would encourage rental housing development. It involves co-operative housing, where people not only have an affordable and suitable place to live; they have pride of belonging and ownership.

It involves making sure that the dream of home ownership isn’t out of reach for families. It means ensuring that the rapidly increasing cost of living isn’t forcing people out of their homes or forcing them to choose between heating their home and eating. It involves ensuring that there is new supply on the market and that developments aren’t stuck waiting years at the OMB or at the new tribunal.

Concerns have been raised about the potential for further delays and the cost that the new tribunal could create, especially in a housing market that is already struggling to meet the needs. Yet the government doesn’t seem to have looked at the impact on housing at all. Once again, they’ve introduced legislation without doing impact analysis. If new rental housing developments or affordable housing options are held up at the tribunal, the wait-list will continue to grow and housing in Ontario will continue to be unaffordable.

We need to ensure that we can allow developers to build where plans exist to do so, without unnecessary delays and red tape caused by challenges before the tribunal and delays allowed by the process.

A TVO column said, after this bill was introduced: “The cost of getting even a small project through the city’s planning process can easily be tens of thousands of dollars after the lawyers and planners are paid, and timelines of two or more years are common. It’s only worth doing if the home can be resold for well above market prices—exactly the opposite of an affordable housing strategy.”

The column pointed out that while this government was introducing this legislation making it more difficult to build, two states had actually introduced legislation to do the exact opposite in order to make housing more affordable. They pointed to plans in California and Oregon, where they streamlined the building process to deal with high housing prices. Those states recognized that all costs that go into a development are eventually passed on to the homeowners or renters.

Just yesterday, a developer told me about an example where he had proposed to build 40 units, which he was planning to sell for $190,000 each. As the development went through the planning process, he had to reduce the number to 27 units. As a result of the cost of the land, the planning process and the common infrastructure being shared by less units, he had to put the price of each one up to $279,000. That’s $80,000 in additional costs per unit on that one development. That developer was worried that under the new system he would have even less units approved and would have had to increase the housing cost even more, making home ownership out of reach for many more Ontarians.

Madam Speaker, we frequently hear that we have too much red tape in the planning and building process. It takes years and years to get developments through the process. Those delays contribute to our housing shortage and add to the cost of housing for new homeowners and renters.

The Federation of Rental-housing Providers said in a recent column:

“Some of the proposed changes in Bill 139 may further complicate the land development process, resulting in more delays and costs. Any changes that lengthen or complicate the process, will impact the development of new rental housing supply.”

Despite knowing the impact on new rental housing in this bill, the government has once again lengthened the timelines for approvals. In Bill 139, the government is extending timelines for making decisions related to official plans and zoning bylaws by another 30 days. For official plans the timeline will be extended to 210 days, and for zoning bylaws the timeline will be extended to 150 days. The government says they want to cut red tape in housing, but at every opportunity they add more delays.

Last year, we put forward an amendment to restore a number of planning timelines to what they were in 2004. An industry expert said, “These are the type of amendments that would help facilitate bringing supply to the market more expediently and putting some more tension in the planning system to get discussions and negotiations moving more quickly.” But the government voted our amendment down, and now they are lengthening the timelines even further. When the government does housing photo ops, they talk about wanting to cut red tape, but every time they have the opportunity they just add more.

The city of Guelph pointed out that municipalities and appellants are subject to timelines under this bill but the tribunal is not. Staff recommended that the government set timelines for the tribunal regarding the amount of time that can pass between the completion of a hearing and the issuance of a tribunal decision. For instance, city staff recommended 30 days for simple matters such as minor variances and 60 days for complex cases.

Setting a time limit for scheduling a hearing once a complete appeals package is received is also important. City staff recommended 90 days for stand-alone minor variance cases and 180 days for more complex issues. Timelines for complex cases should be firm but flexible.

The government also added another new delay. Under this new tribunal, municipal councils have a chance to reconsider a plan or zoning bylaw that did not conform to the local or provincial policy. However, if they still choose to ignore the policies, it goes back to the tribunal again, meaning a decision that could have been made sooner is delayed unnecessarily. While the intent is admirable, the result is an unnecessary delay in cases where the municipality does not want to reconsider or amend their official plan or zoning bylaw.

Oxford county—you may know where that is, Madam Speaker—suggested that, to further reduce delays, when councils knowingly adopted an official plan and/or zoning bylaw amendment that did not conform to provincial or local policy, it may be worthwhile to consider providing municipalities with the ability to opt out of the reconsideration period in certain circumstances and simply allow the tribunal to proceed with a hearing and decision on the matter, since it is less likely that a different decision will be made the second time a council is given the same information.

Some of the appeals occur because a municipality has been unwilling or unable to make a decision for some reason. Under this bill, if a municipality can’t make a decision, it goes to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, which then refers it back to the municipality for 90 days. If the municipality has already had 150 days to make a decision and has not done so for some reason, I suspect that the only thing that the 90 days does is further delay the project. Instead of an opt out, perhaps this should be an opt in.

If the municipality is ready and wants the opportunity to make a decision, they should request that the matter be referred back to them. If no request is received, it would be assumed that they are still not able to make a decision and the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal would proceed.

Under this bill, if a municipality is unable or unwilling to make a decision, it is estimated that it will take at least 1,000 days to get a decision—1,000 days, and it could be longer. When the application is filed, the municipality has 150 days to make a decision. If no decision is made, then the developer files an application with the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. Based on the requirement for mediation and current experience, experts are estimating it will take a year for that case to be heard and have a decision. Since there is no municipal decision to be ruled on, the issue would then be sent back to the municipalities to give them another opportunity to make a decision.

After 90 days, if the municipality still hasn’t made a decision, then it goes back to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, which then, once again, takes a year to hold a hearing and finally makes a decision. To put that in perspective, if an application was a child, it would be almost three years old. It would be walking, talking, able to tell stories and not far from going to junior kindergarten.

Along with the change of the name will be a change of the rules. If passed, the bill will overtake the OMB in adjudication matters. But what about decisions already before the board? The bill is unclear about how these will be dealt with, leaving much of the decision-making to the minister in regard to which cases will be presented under which rules. As suggested by the Ontario Professional Planners Institute, “The province should include very clear guidance on the implementation of the proposed reforms and how existing appeals which are brought forward before the effective date of the legislation will be adjudicated.”

One suggested method is put forward by the city of Toronto. The city of Toronto adopted a motion requesting that the province ensure the legislation contains provisions limiting the transition period so that any application made after first reading be subject to the new legislation. Other municipalities are also supportive of this motion, including the city of Oakville. Other municipalities, including the city of London, believe that certain cases that have started the appeal process should be considered under the new rules.

After significant public consultation, the city of London developed its official plan, the London plan. The plan was developed over many years with many revisions based on consultation with local and provincial input. It was also approved by the Minister of Municipal Affairs late last year. The plan received 42 appeals and it began its pre-hearing conference at the OMB on September 5. The city doesn’t anticipate the hearing to proceed until 2018.

Now that we are debating replacing the OMB with the local tribunal, and under the new changes to the OMB, many of the appeals would not be allowed. Considering the hearing is still many months away, it is likely that the municipality and tribunal will be expending resources on appeals that would no longer have merit, except that the process was started under the old system and grandfathered into the new tribunal with the old rules. This kind of confusion is created when legislation is introduced that doesn’t have clear rules.

There is also confusion about the development application. We’ve heard reports that some municipalities assume any application filed after first reading of the bill will be under the new appeal system. Others assume that it is when the bill passes third reading. Some organizations believe that it will only be applications filed after the regulations are in place. How can anyone operate in that much uncertainty? The answer is that they can’t, so we are already hearing reports that planning departments are slowing down, waiting for answers. That will just make our housing shortage worse.

Not only does this bill leave the transition to the new organization up to regulations to be determined at a later date, it also gives the minister the power to choose individual cases heard under which rules. That means if someone who has been very generous to the Liberal Party happens to have a development proposal that is being appealed, the minister can decide to send it wherever the developer has a better chance of winning. I don’t think most people would trust this government to make those kinds of decisions.

It also means that the new tribunal would have to function as the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Ontario Municipal Board until all old cases had been completed, making things more difficult for tribunal members who continually have to juggle two sets of rules for the same cases.

This bill also includes the creation of a Local Planning Appeal Support Centre. If it is implemented properly, that could be of great use to community groups like those fighting the landfill in my riding, if the need arises to fight it at the tribunal level. However, there is nothing that says that community groups will qualify for support through the Local Planning Appeal Support Centre. In fact, this new bill prevents them from receiving some of the assistance they could qualify for under the old act.

Under the Ontario Municipal Board Act, the OMB had the right to waive fees when they deemed it was “appropriate circumstances.” That means that they could waive them for community groups such as volunteers in my riding who are concerned about the impact of a landfill on their drinking water. Bill 139 says, “The tribunal may waive all or any portion of fees for individuals who are determined, in accordance with the rules, to be low-income individuals.” So someone who is not a low-income individual and wants to protect their community does not get the same consideration. That means community groups are no longer eligible to have their fees waived.

I am also concerned by how few details are known about the centre. For example, how will the centre operate? Who will be able to access the services? How will the services be financed? Where will the centre be located? Will there be limits on how many individuals or groups can access the services each year? And who does the support centre report to? We asked many of these questions during the ministry briefing, and the staff couldn’t provide answers.

In their report to council, the city of Brampton said more information on the support centre and how to secure representation would be helpful as they try to understand this bill and the new tribunal. They too had questions about the tribunal, such as, “Would this option only be available to parties who are direct appellants? Can parties secure representation at any stage in the appeal process or only at the start before hearings begin? Where the tribunal appoints legal or planning representation for a party, how will that information be communicated to parties in advance of hearings?”

The appeals process can be difficult to understand, so I support the development of the support centre for the tribunal; however, the details must be worked out ahead of time.

There must be support for people in different areas of the province. It cannot simply be in Toronto or major cities. The group of volunteers fighting the landfill in my riding should be as able to access assistance as any group in downtown Toronto.

When individuals and groups are faced with the stresses of the appeals process, creating more stress through an unorganized or inaccessible support centre will only make things worse. There need to be clear guidelines on who can qualify for support to ensure that people and groups are treated fairly and equally. It cannot be determined based on the favourite causes of the people making the decisions.

There must also be consistent tests for which cases are frivolous and not worthy of support. A person who is filing an appeal because of a personal vendetta should not do so at the taxpayers’ expense.

The taxpayers should also have a clear understanding of the proposed cost of the centre. We asked the government, and they can’t provide even a draft budget for starting this support centre. Will the budget be so limited that it wouldn’t be able to help anyone? Will the government be funnelling millions and millions into this organization and taking it away from health or education? We don’t know, and it appears the government doesn’t know either.

These are all questions the minister should be answering while the bill is before the Legislature so that all three parties can have input, and stakeholders can help improve the centre through the committee process. But I know that this government does not always want to listen to input from others and does not always put careful consideration into their legislation.

Madam Speaker, there are many other questions that haven’t been answered. Who will the members of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal be? These people will play an important role in shaping Ontario’s future. The decisions they make regarding planning proposals will be important in building cities across the province, but in Bill 139 there are no details of what qualifications members of the tribunal will be required to have.

The city of Guelph has suggested that the tribunal members should physically visit the site of an appeal to better appreciate and understand the arguments based on local knowledge and features, as each municipality has unique features, opportunities and challenges. They also suggest that continuing education opportunities be available for tribunal members to improve their dispute resolution skills and exposure to best municipal practices on common issues. It is another area that has not been covered in this bill.

While municipalities want OMB reform, they have also expressed concerns with the lack of details for many areas of the new bill. For example, in reference to changes to the way hearings are done and the elimination of cross-examination, the city of Brampton said that “additional details on the hearing process and submissions are needed to fully comprehend the effect of this significant change.”

They also said that more clarification is needed about what tests and criteria will be applied by the tribunal to determine whether an official plan amendment or zoning bylaw amendment is consistent and conforms with applicable plans.

They also said it’s not clear how these tests will be applied to different types of appeals, like non-decision appeals where the municipality has not made a decision within the required timelines in the Planning Act.

As the county of Oxford said, “There are still a number of areas where further detail and clarification would be beneficial. Further, given that much of the detail is to be provided through future regulations, they are requesting that a formal opportunity be provided for municipalities to review and provide feedback on such regulations.”

Madam Speaker, in my own briefing with the ministry, they did not even answer some of these questions, which concerns me about their ability to implement the planned changes effectively and efficiently, with so much left to sort out through regulation.

While municipalities hope that the proposed changes to limit testimony, require case management conferences, and restrict new testimony will help to decrease the cost and length of the appeals process, they once again lack details. They require clarification and direction on the circumstances and criteria for how these will play out in the tribunal and how procedures will be applied to different types of cases.

It’s difficult for a municipal partner to play a meaningful role in the OMB review if they do not have the details required to make detailed, knowledgeable improvements and suggestions.

In another example of lacking details, it is also unclear if public notices, meetings or open houses are required before a second decision is made by the approval authority. Therefore, as Oxford also suggested, it may be useful to allow a second opportunity for public input to be received on the matter, as there may be cases where the staff recommendation could change in light of new information gathered as the process proceeded.

One of the major concerns with the OMB was the amount of time and resources required to put forward a case at the OMB, and the delays that it created for developers and municipalities. I think we could all agree with that. I hope, when we have more details about the way the new tribunal will operate, that we strive to expedite the process wherever possible.

Our builders, developers and municipalities have enough red tape to get through already. Any amount that we can take away, to improve their ability to build world-class cities in Ontario and provide new housing, is a positive step in the right direction.

By hiding the details of how different aspects of the bill will play out, this government is missing an opportunity to allow municipalities, community groups, planners and experts to weigh in on the changes and influence the outcomes.

Rather than working with those who are experienced and have valuable input, this government is doing all the work behind closed doors, which will leave many stakeholders, municipalities and community groups scrambling at the last minute to understand regulations as they are implemented.

This is why we will be requesting that the minister and the Attorney General appear before committee to answer questions before the bill moves forward. If they have done their research and they believe in public consultation, this is their opportunity to demonstrate it.

It’s also worth noting that comments on the Environmental Bill of Rights, or EBR, were originally due on August 14. Madam Speaker, you will know that our Legislature does not usually sit in the summer. We spend most of the time in our constituencies doing work there, as I pointed out at the beginning of my speech. While I know that our municipal governments work hard and are very diligent in getting things done on time, with so many things keeping them busy during the summer, there was very little time for councils to provide quality input.

Municipal councils have fewer sittings in the summer, to allow them to be out working in their communities and developing skills and knowledge through programs and conferences like that of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, which actually was meeting this year from August 13 to 16. They had a wonderful conference, Madam Speaker.

I was pleased to meet with many delegations of municipal representatives and heard many concerns about the way this government was doing things and the challenges they are creating for municipalities. In fact, many of these meetings also took place on August 14, the day the comments were originally due.

On the Friday before comments were due, when many councillors were already on their way to AMO, the province announced a two-week extension. The extension was so late that it didn’t help most municipalities.

The minister and committee may notice, as they review submissions, that there were many done as staff submissions because there was simply not sufficient time to get council approval. That shows a lack of respect for municipal councils and their input on local matters, as does waiting until the Friday before AMO to give a short extension.

I want to commend those who were able to put together a submission in time and thank all of the municipalities and different stakeholder organizations that made the effort to share their submissions with us.

Given that the OMB bill is together with the Conservation Authorities Act, it is important to ensure that reforms to the OMB allow for consideration of comments from public agencies like conservation authorities. Groups like the professional planners are concerned that the status of commenting agencies may be diminished or ignored through the proposed reforms.

Under this new legislation and tribunal, when matters follow the official local plans and provincial plans, they are given precedence in the adjudication process, meaning that the role of these agencies is reduced in their ability to suggest changes and point out areas to improve processes to meet standards.

Madam Speaker, as I said, we agree with the need to reform the Ontario Municipal Board. We believe that the process can and should work better. But we also shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that there are cases where the OMB was needed in order to build services for vulnerable people. For instance, the Lynwood Charlton Centre for adolescent girls with mental health challenges would not have been built without the support of the Ontario Municipal Board. As the executive director said, “Without the OMB process as a counterpoint to the council process, our youth and our organization would not have been able to benefit from becoming a contributing member to the Corktown neighbourhood.”

The Summerhill development and LCBO store where the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs did an announcement a few months ago would not have been built. Neither would the Distillery District or the church in Scarborough where the only land the congregation could afford needed to be rezoned and it was appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board.

We need to ensure that, in reforming the Ontario Municipal Board process, we aren’t stopping the well-planned developments that will provide needed rental units, affordable home ownership or the developments that provide services for our vulnerable citizens.

Madam Speaker, I’ve talked a lot about the Planning Act and the changes to the Ontario Municipal Board, but that isn’t all that is included in this bill. It actually includes changes to 19 different acts, including significant changes to the Conservation Authorities Act. I know that my colleague from Parry Sound–Muskoka has outlined many of our concerns with this portion of the bill, but I just want to point out that I believe the conservation authorities are an important part of conservation efforts in Ontario, and I think they deserve to have a stand-alone bill so these changes can be thoroughly debated.

During our briefing, I asked the Liberal staff involved in this legislation why they chose to put the OMB changes together with the changes to the Conservation Authorities Act, to which they responded that it was because of the busy legislative agenda. In other words, they don’t believe that municipal land use planning or conservation authorities deserve whole and meaningful debate in this Legislature or in committee, but can instead just share the time. You know, we’re busy people here. It’s just another example of this government’s lack of respect for municipalities, and now conservation authorities.

These levels of government are important to deliver services to Ontarians and implement provincial plans. They’re important partners in the work that we do, and we need to respect them and give their legislation careful consideration and time, especially when they put so much time and consideration into their work.

Madam Speaker, you may recall from the spring session that the government spent much of the session doing some spring cleaning, trying to tidy up the messes they’d made. They passed legislation in response to the outrageous hydro prices that were hurting Ontarians because they let the problem get out of control, and created a labour bill that required committee time after first reading just to fix all the errors it had.

So instead of spending more time focusing on other legislation and giving these acts stand-alone attention, they are bunching legislation together to get things done faster, to catch up. They’re trying to push through as much legislation as they can, without the due diligence it deserves.

This government has been in power now for 14 years. They’ve had many opportunities to put forward legislation and make changes to the Ontario Municipal Board and the Conservation Authorities Act. But instead, they are waiting until right before an election to make these changes, as well as other changes to legislation, in an attempt to further their own interests rather than the interests of Ontarians.

I want to take a moment to point out a change in the Conservation Authorities Act that may create challenges for municipal councils. The government is proposing giving themselves the authority, by regulation, to set qualifications for who can serve on the conservation authority board. A number of municipalities, including Norwich in my riding, have already passed resolutions opposing those changes. The challenge is that municipalities fund 90% of the conservation authorities, so in many cases municipal councillors make up the majority of the board.

Madam Speaker, it is not up to this government to tell the people what qualifications municipal councillors should have; that privilege belongs to the voters.

As this bill goes forward into committee, I hope that many of the questions and concerns I’ve raised can be addressed. I look forward to hearing from the ministers at the committee so that we can have time to ask some of these questions. I want to hear from the Minister of Municipal Affairs about the impact on development and how this will impact our housing crisis. We also want to hear from him about the transition questions and how he plans to deal with ongoing appeals such as London.

We want to hear answers about how the tribunal would operate and why the government has decided that the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal’s rules of practice and procedures, when they are written, will prevail over the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, which governs legal proceedings. We want answers on conservation authorities and why this government doesn’t trust municipalities to select the people who are appointed to the boards.

I hope that we can have community groups come and speak to our committee, to hear their concerns and ensure that these changes work for them and give them a say in the future of their community. It’s important that bills are clear and can be understood by those people who are impacted.

When questions remain about the process, it can lead to legislation that needs to be put back through the legislative process to fix the errors. While the government is pushing through many pieces of legislation, even putting different bills together under one piece of legislation like this one, errors can and do happen. My goal is to correct the problems and to make legislation that works for Ontarians.

Madam Speaker, we’ve talked about some of the broader problems with the bill, but there are also drafting errors that resulted from rushing legislation through. For instance, in

schedule 4 of the conservation authorities

section of this bill, it still refers to the Ontario Municipal Board, even though the board is replaced by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal in the same bill. In

schedule 5, there is a subsection that says that a clause only applies if Bill 68 has had royal assent, even though Bill 68 had royal assent on the same day that this bill was introduced in this Legislature. Clearly, there is some confusion on the other side. That’s why we need to make sure that we take the time to fix these mistakes, big and small. Let’s get it right.

I hope that, as this bill continues, we continue to consult with our municipal partners and provide them with the opportunities to give input towards this bill, which has a significant impact on their mandates. There are many unanswered questions in this bill, and we need to work together—all three parties and our municipal sector—to make sure we get it right.

I want to thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to put the party’s position on this bill on the record.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Seeing as it is almost 10:15, I will recess the House until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I am honoured and pleased to welcome to Queen’s Park today Susan Noordermeer. Her daughter Nicola is page captain today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I would like to welcome very special guests to the Legislature today: Sam Andrews; Amanda Avery; Carol Berdan; Tammy Carbino; Peggy Clark; Donna Corewyn; Gary Donovan; Naomi D’Souza, a family council network association founder, Toronto; Janice Duffy; Sue Fairweather; Madeleine Gill of the Ontario long-term-care family council network association; Deanne Houghton; Joanne Ingrassia; Debra Kusmirski; Jim Lamont; Don Mastin; Heather Neiser; Mary Oko; Catherine Renaud; Bob and Carol Saxby; and Gus Koutoumanos. Welcome to the Legislature today.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I just found out that there’s a constituent of mine here from Pickering–Scarborough East: Cheryl Lewis-Thurab. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I want to welcome Alan Reisler, who is here from the wonderful riding of Thornhill. Welcome, Alan. So good to see you.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Please help me welcome, in the east members’ gallery, Amanda Yeung Collucci, Markham’s ward 6 councillor and our newly nominated candidate for the new riding of Markham–Unionville.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s my delight to introduce—it’s not his first time here—my son, Damien. But what is a first time here is his fiancée, Sophia Shiner. They are in the House.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: It gives me great pleasure to welcome today Susan Kitchen from the Coaches Association of Ontario, as well as, of course, Howard Brown. Thank you for coming to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Bob Delaney: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature my constituency office manager, Monika Duggal; her husband, Satyam; and Saty’s parents, who are visiting us from Jalandhar in Punjab, India. I’d like the Legislature to join me in welcoming Mr. Kamal Duggal and Mrs. Komal Duggal from Jalandhar. Thank you very much and welcome to Queen’s Park.

M me France Gélinas: It is my pleasure to welcome, from northern Ontario and Sudbury, Peter and Melodie Hughes, as well as Ellyne Reider and Melissa Belanger. Welcome to Queen’s Park. Bienvenue.

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: It is my pleasure to welcome Anthony Buragina, who is a local constituent, and Ben Hendry, and of course Howard Brown, of the Professional Engineers Government of Ontario, here today to the Legislature.

Hon. Eleanor McMahon: I’d like to welcome the members of the Rowan’s Law committee to Queen’s Park today and congratulate them and thank them for their hard work on the report we’re tabling today.

I’d like to welcome Susan Kitchen from the Coaches Association of Ontario; Elisabeth White, who’s a nurse practitioner at SickKids hospital; and former NHL great Eric Lindros, who I understand is going to be joining us later. Thank you and welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Chris Ballard: They’ve been introduced once already, but I want to introduce two fantastic employees from the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change: Ben Hendry and Anthony Buragina. They’re both engineers and are both here representing PEGO today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): In the Speaker’s gallery today, accompanying Ms. Tonia Grannum from the Clerks’ table, is a special guest. Members, please join me in welcoming Mr. David Wilson, the Clerk of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of New Zealand.

Welcome.

Arnold Chan

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Economic Development on either a point of order or an introduction.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure how appropriate this is, but a good friend of ours, Arnold Chan, MP from Scarborough–Agincourt—I’ve just received a note that he has passed away. He was a very, very good friend. He worked here for a number of years. I think most of us know him as a wonderful, wonderful man who dedicated his entire life to public service. I just received the note seconds ago, and I hope it’s not inappropriate for me to advise the Legislature of this. Perhaps I could ask you to ask for a moment of silence?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The minister is seeking unanimous consent to have a moment of silence for Arnold Chan. Do we agree? Agreed.

I would ask everyone in the House to please rise for a moment of silence to pay tribute in honour of Arnold Chan.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

Oral Questions

Ontario economy

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

Yesterday, the Toronto Star noted that Canadian incomes have risen by more than 10% over the last decade, but according to Statistics Canada, the number of low-income persons is rising in Ontario, where growth has been sluggish.

The fact of the matter is, we buck the national trend when it comes to growth. And now the FAO says that the latest Liberal policies do nothing to help low-income families.

Mr. Speaker, how can Ontario afford to continue down this road? Would the Minister of Finance please enlighten us?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the Leader of the Opposition and his newfound concern for those with low income, for those individuals who are most vulnerable in our society.

This is the member who is saying to them, “Do not”—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s not helpful.

Carry on, please.

Hon. Charles Sousa: The question is—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton will come to order. And we’ll move very quickly.

Carry on.

Hon. Charles Sousa: So the question is, what are the members of the opposition going to do in regard to the minimum wage and helping those most in need? Are they going to support increasing the minimum wage to increase consumer spending, to grow our economy and to enable all of us to be better off?

Ontario’s economy is growing. We have the lowest unemployment rate in 16 years, at 5.7%. Companies and businesses are looking for—

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the minister: The Liberal talking point when it comes to this tends to be that we’re leading the G7 in growth. But we’re not even leading Canada, let alone the rest of the world.

To quote the stats, “The median income in Ontario was ... up just 3.8% over the last decade, the slowest growth of any province or territory” over the last decade in which they have been in power. I’ll repeat: the slowest growth of any province or territory in the last decade. That is their legacy. That is their record. This number has been attributed to the Liberal “gutting of the manufacturing sector and the loss of 318,000 jobs.”

How can the Liberals possibly be proud of this? How can they be proud and say that we lead the G7 in growth when we’re last in Canada? It’s unacceptable. We have to do better.

Hon. Charles Sousa: The opposition has voted against a number of initiatives that help those most in need. They voted against equal pay for equal work. They voted against increasing vacation time. They are not supporting survivors of domestic and sexual violence. And in fact, they are voting against being more open and transparent with regard to unionization in our labour movement.

In our last budget—in our last many budgets, in fact—we have put programs and initiatives to grow the economy. We are leading Canada. We are leading Canada in economic growth. We are leading the G7 in economic growth. We have a debt-to-GDP ratio of about 39%, and it is tempering down much more effectively than it is in other provinces, and around the world, for that matter.

We’ll take the effective initiatives that we put in place to have some of the—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Hon. Charles Sousa: We are the lowest per-capita-cost government anywhere in Canada, Mr. Speaker, and we’re growing the economy, no thanks to the members opposite who voted against those measures.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Minister of Finance: You get the Liberal spin that everything is rosy. But you look at Stats Canada and it paints a different picture. This was actually in the Toronto Star. I would encourage the Minister of Finance to maybe read the Toronto Star a little bit more, because it actually says that out of all the provinces in Canada and all the territories, we had the slowest growth over the last decade. And whatever spin you say, you can’t change the fact that we’re falling behind in Ontario.

Rather than trying to pitch some other story, how do you acknowledge that Stats Canada says that we are dead last? Is the Minister of Finance willing to settle for our great province being last in Canada? I’m never willing to settle for Ontario being last. We must do better.

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Ontario is one of the best jurisdictions around the world. We are number one in North America when it comes to economic growth. We’ve had over 720,000 net new jobs in the depths of the recession, and every year, even when we qualified for equalization, we were net contributing to the federation and we always have been.

In this last budget, in this last public accounts, we beat our target by $3.3 billion, with over $190 billion more in investment for infrastructure.

That member opposite sat in the federal party that voted in the largest deficit in Canada’s history. He doubled debt for all of Canada.

We in Ontario are leading and we’re helping the people of Ontario.

Interjections.

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

New question?

Agri-food industry

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. I know the minister is probably just as excited as I am to head next week to the beautiful riding of Huron–Bruce. I love attending the International Plowing Match, and I love to see all the amazing work that our farmers and agricultural sector do. I know they have a few questions for the minister and the government.

The Local Food Act passed in 2013 and in the law there was a

section for the minister to set goals for “encouraging increased use of local food by public sector organizations.” But four years later, nothing has happened. This

section of the law has not been proclaimed. Why not? And will the minister have this

section proclaimed before he goes to the IPM?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question this morning.

We’ve been outreaching over the last four years. I think of Sysco. We have been dealing with Gordon Food Service and all the big suppliers in the province of Ontario to continue to make sure that they work with our local farmers in the province of Ontario—50,000 family farms contributing $37 billion to Ontario’s GDP.

While I’ve got the floor this morning, I’m very proud to say that one of the BMO farm families of the year that will be recognized at the International Plowing Match is the Crowley family from the great riding of Peterborough.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the minister: Previously with the Liberals we had stretch goals; now we have outreach goals. They come up with new terms for why they can’t honour their commitments. I would have hoped the minister had said he would have proclaimed that aspect of the act, but we didn’t get that.

This summer, I had the opportunity to meet with the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers, and they had a number of concerns with Liberal policies and the impact on farmers. They said that recent “changes greatly inhibit the ability of farmers to plan their investments.... At a provincial level, the result will be less investment in Ontario and less stability for rural Ontario.”

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

Mr. Patrick Brown: We are seeing growers courted all the time to go to Mexico, to take their investment to Mexico.

Personally, I love locally grown food. I love locally grown food in my hometown and in Simcoe county, and I want all of Ontario to continue to enjoy Ontario-grown produce. But if the Liberals are intent on driving this investment out of Ontario, it’s not going to be here.

What is the minister going to do to make sure we keep that investment in Ontario?

Hon. Jeff Leal: Again, I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question this morning.

Just recently we put in place support for our greenhouse sector in the province of Ontario—some $19 million that we asked the greenhouse sector to design themselves to continue to make investments in innovation and productivity in Ontario’s very robust greenhouse sector, whether you’re in southwestern Ontario or the Niagara Peninsula or other parts of Ontario, to see this growth.

The Leader of the Opposition was in Ottawa. For four straight years, we asked Ottawa and Gerry Ritz, when he was the minister, to fund 60% of the Risk Management Program for our farmers in the province of Ontario. He sat there, didn’t support it and said no every time it was brought to his attention.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary, the member from Huron–Bruce.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Back to the minister: I’m going to read you a quote from Ken Wall from the Asparagus Farmers of Ontario.

“Several years ago, the Premier encouraged us in agriculture. She said, ‘Listen, I want you, by 2020, to produce 120,000 new jobs here in the province in the field of agriculture.’” Ken Wall went on to say, “Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds to farmers like myself? We’ve got increased costs from hydro and cap-and-trade, and now we’ve got a 32% increase in our minimum wage rate.”

I ask the minister: How can they grow, let alone survive, when you continue to attack their industries? Speaker, I ask the minister as well: As an adviser to the Premier, have you told her how ridiculous this sounds to farmers?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank the member from Huron–Bruce for her questions this morning.

I continue to engage the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. I engage the National Farmers Union and the Christian Farmers. This past week, I had the opportunity to meet with other groups that are part of the leading driver in Ontario’s economy today—$37 billion to Ontario’s GDP, 800,000 jobs each and every day, and a sector that’s known around the world for quality and safety. Through these representations, we certainly heard the potential impacts of increases in minimum wage. I think the Premier said very clearly that we’ll be looking at mitigation measures, as we go forward, on a sector-by-sector basis.

As I said, I want to thank the member for her questions this morning.

Long-term care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Deputy Premier.

This morning I was joined by 22 people from all across the province who have a loved one in long-term care. Many of them are here in the gallery now, and I personally want to commend them for the advocacy that they undertake on behalf of their loved ones each and every day.

They came to Queen’s Park today to tell the government that their loved ones are not getting the care that they deserve. Our long-term-care system is broken, and we need a broad public inquiry to begin undoing some of the damage that has been done.

Will the Deputy Premier commit to immediately broadening the scope of the narrow long-term-care inquiry already under way, to finally start fixing the mess that our long-term-care system is in?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: First of all, I would also like to acknowledge and thank the advocates, the care partners, the caregivers, the family members and the patients who are here with us today to discuss this important issue.

Importantly, I also want to again express my sincerest and deep condolences to the families, the loved ones and the communities in and around Woodstock and London and the other areas that were affected by the horrible tragedy that led to the creation of the public inquiry in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, we have created a public inquiry to look into the events surrounding the offences committed by Elizabeth Wettlaufer, who, as we all know, was the long-term-care RN convicted of the murder and assault of many patients who had entrusted her with their care.

I’m happy to speak in more detail about the inquiry in the follow-up.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, these people didn’t come here today because they think that the Liberal government is doing everything that it can do to make sure that their loved ones are properly cared for. They came here today with horror stories. Each and every one of them can tell you about a time when their parent or grandparent or spouse was left in bed for 17 hours without being moved, or when they missed a meal or more than one meal in a day, or, in some heartbreaking cases, when their loved one was abused.

Front-line staff are doing the best that they can, but they are run off their feet and they need help.

Will this Liberal government commit to expanding the public inquiry, so that Ontario families can get an honest picture—an honest picture—of the expanse of this crisis?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, the public inquiry—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I appreciate that we do have visitors here, but just as a reminder, there are no public displays whatsoever allowed in the House, and I’d appreciate it if you followed that rule. It helps me to make sure that we have civility in the House, so I’d appreciate you not participating in that.

Minister?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The public inquiry, as we know, is being led by the highly capable and honourable Justice Eileen Gillese. This inquiry will help to ensure that we get the answers that we do need, to prevent a tragedy like this from happening again.

But, Mr. Speaker, the Gillese inquiry will have a broader scope. It will have a broader scope than a police investigation or a prosecution. It will not only look into what occurred, but also look for any underlying issues that need to be addressed to ensure that the objectives of the Long-Term Care Homes Act were and are being met, and will make recommendations as to how to address them. It will provide the government with specific recommendations to improve the safety and well-being of residents by reviewing the policies, procedures, practices and oversight mechanisms for long-term-care homes.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The public inquiry that this minister and this government have called is simply not broad enough. It is tied to the Wettlaufer murders. We know that that work needs to be done, but a broader inquiry needs to happen in the province of Ontario.

Seniors’ care has been pushed to the breaking point. These families see it each and every day, and they are a small proportion of the hundreds and thousands of families around the province that are seeing the exact same thing happening, from community to community across Ontario. Every family with a loved one in care sees it every day.

It’s time to get to the bottom of the problems in seniors’ care in this province, and then actually do something about it. Why won’t the government take this crucial, important, first honest step and look at this in a broader perspective through the public inquiry?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I fundamentally disagree with the assumption being made by the leader of the third party. The terms of reference for the Gillese inquiry were intentionally drafted to be very broad, including the potential to look at—and this is at the discretion of the commissioner herself—systemic issues of oversight and accountability in the long-term-care system.

We want to allow the commission the freedom to follow whatever direction the evidence requires, and this includes specifically in the terms of reference to be able to address “the circumstances and contributing factors allowing these events to occur ... policies, procedures” and others, but also, explicitly—and I know the leader of the third party has read this; I’d encourage our visitors to read it as well if they haven’t already—it allows the ministry to look at any “other relevant matters that the commissioner considers necessary to avoid similar tragedies.” If that isn’t broad, I don’t know what is.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): New question. The leader of the third party.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I can tell the minister exactly what is broader: Looking at the hours of hands-on care, looking at the funding levels, looking at the for-profit versus non-profit model. These are the kinds of things that are systemic issues in our system that need to be reviewed.

Long-term care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Deputy Premier.

For too long, this government has heard these heart-wrenching stories, but they’ve only made the problems worse. They’ve continued with Conservative policies by cutting and freezing hospital budgets and refusing to listen to families who are telling them that their parents, their grandparents, their spouses, their loved ones are living without dignity in long-term care.

Why are the Acting Premier and the Liberal government content to just sweep this problem under the rug instead of actually fixing it?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: All of the issues that the member opposite has articulated are absolutely at the discretion of Judge Eileen Gillese. It is almost an insult, I think, to the justice herself to suggest that, when explicitly in the terms of reference it gives her that degree of latitude, as I’ve said, to actually address and investigate any “other relevant matters that the commissioner considers necessary....” It includes policies, procedures, practices and accountability. It allows her to look at the Long-Term Care Homes Act, in its entirety, to ensure that its objectives are being met broadly across this province.

To suggest otherwise just simply isn’t an accurate reading of what the terms and what the inquiry itself is allowed to do. It’s absolutely at the discretion of the judge to look at the issues that the member opposite is asking for.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Do you know what’s an insult, Speaker? That this government did not have the courage to do the right thing, and are leaving it up to the discretion of someone else to do their damn job. That’s what’s an insult. That’s an insult.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Withdraw.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I withdraw, Speaker.

Look, it is vital that we expand the scope of the public inquiry into long-term care to look at the systemic problems. We have residents living in fear of resident-on-resident violence. We have staff living in fear of going to work and experiencing violence. We have severely understaffed homes with front-line workers who are getting more and more burnt out by the day. How can the government continue to ignore this crisis, continue to refuse to take an honest, full look through this public inquiry? Why will they not do the right thing?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Ontarians want an answer. They want an answer to how possibly a single individual—a trusted individual—a registered nurse in a number of nursing homes and in the community could possibly be allowed to carry out the atrocious and tragic acts that resulted in the deaths and the assault of so many innocent and vulnerable individuals. That’s what Ontarians are asking for. It doesn’t matter what the third party thinks about that issue. We know that Ontarians expect and deserve answers to that horrific set of circumstances that we’ve all witnessed over the course of the past year.

That’s why we’ve appointed Justice Eileen Gillese, who is highly capable, from the local area and with remarkable expertise that can address this effectively.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: There is no doubt that people want those answers, but Ontarians want and deserve answers to so much more of what’s going wrong in long-term care today.

Our parents and grandparents don’t have to live like this. It does not have to be this way. We can actually take action to fix seniors’ care in Ontario. We can give our loved ones the care and the dignity, every single day, that they deserve.

Will the Acting Premier do the right thing; acknowledge that the scope of this inquiry is not broad enough to answer all of the questions that people have about our failing long-term-care system; seize this important moment and take the chance to make long-term care better for seniors in Ontario; commit to the broader inquiry; and then commit to fix the system?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I am absolutely confident that Justice Gillese will be addressing the issues that are critically important to Ontarians to ensure the safety, security and the quality of care for individuals that we entrust to our long-term-care homes and to provide them with that highest quality of care, particularly when they’re vulnerable.

Justice Gillese has enormous experience both at the Superior Court and the appeals court. She was dean and professor of law at the University of Western Ontario’s Faculty of Law. She was named a Leading Educator of the World in 2008 and was one of Canada’s top 100 women shortly before that. She has an impeccable legal record, and I have no doubt at all—I hope that all of us can trust this remarkable individual to do the work that’s required.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is for the President of the Treasury Board.

The Premier was adamant that she was testifying at the Sudbury bribery trial as the leader of the Ontario Liberal Party. In fact, she swore an oath on the Bible and opened her testimony by saying, “I am the leader of the Ontario Liberal Party.”

So I want to ask, who paid for the Premier’s flights and accommodations in Sudbury? Who paid: the Liberal Party or the taxpayers of Ontario?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Over to the Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you for the question and thank you for clarifying the role of the Premier yesterday, unlike what your leader has done.

Speaker, this has been in the public realm for some time. We’ve been very clear that—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All sides. That is not appropriate.

Finish, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Ontario Liberal Party is paying for Pat Sorbara’s legal bills, for Gerry Lougheed Jr.’s legal bills and for the Premier’s legal bills.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Steve Clark: Back to the minister: The Premier, as the leader of the Ontario Liberal Party, didn’t travel alone to Sudbury. So I ask, who paid for the Premier’s staff’s flights and accommodations in Sudbury? Who paid: the Liberal Party or the Ontario taxpayer?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Ontario Liberal Party, as we have said.

But, Speaker, I see that the leader has stepped out—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And this is where we want to go.

Interjection: She’s laughing.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m not. Every member knows better. Every member knows better. Don’t turn this into something you would regret. The member should not have done that.

Carry on.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I apologize, Speaker.

The Ontario Liberal Party is paying for those bills.

Long-term care

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: My question is to the Acting Premier.

The Liotti family has recently reached out to my office. Their mother, Joanne, was living in a long-term-care home in London. The Liotti family expected that their mother should have received the best care possible but when their mother, Joanne, suffered a stroke, she waited hours before receiving any medical attention or assistance. In fact, it was discovered by a privately hired companion, who finally brought their mother to hospital.

As a result of their mother, Joanne, being left unattended, she suffered irreversible brain damage and later passed away. That kind of tragedy should never happen to anyone in a long-term-care home in Ontario.

Is the Acting Premier ready to listen to families like the Liottis and take action to fix the crisis in seniors care?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: First of all, my sincere condolences. My heart goes out to this family that has had to bear an extremely unfortunate tragedy, and I’m sorry to hear that.

We are making significant investments in the long-term-care system. We’ve been doing that since 2003, when we first came into office. We have approximately doubled our investments in long-term care. We have increased the number of long-term-care beds right across this province by 10,000 beds since that time. We are in the process of redeveloping a further 30,000 beds. Even in this year’s budget, we had a significant allocation, an increase to long-term-care homes, which the third party voted against, which would continue to demonstrate that this is a high priority for this government, which I’ll speak to in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: The Liotti family is not alone. There are many more families here today, and thousands of families and their loved ones have experienced the crisis in seniors’ care across Ontario. Some of those families are here with us today to speak up for the care that our parents and grandparents deserve. What I want to do is thank them for their courage in doing so.

Front-line workers are doing the best they can, but homes are chronically underfunded and understaffed. Some 30,000 people can’t even get the long-term-care bed that they need. Instead of families spending quality time with their loved ones, they are spending sleepless nights worrying about the safety of our parents and grandparents in long-term care.

Is the Acting Premier prepared to do the right thing for families here today and expand the mandate of the public inquiry to look at the systemic problems in long-term care?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: There’s nothing more important to me as minister and in government than the safety and security of Ontarians, especially our seniors who find themselves in our long-term-care system. We have a debt of responsibility. We owe them a debt of gratitude, and we have responsibility to ensure that that care is of the highest quality.

This year, we increased the budgets of our long-term-care homes: 60 million new dollars going into resident care needs, including specialized supports for those most complex individuals; and an additional $10 million—for more than $50 million—for behavioural supports, which is important because of the increased number of seniors with dementia. And we increased the raw food envelope for the diet, for the meals, by 6.5% this year.

Those are just three examples of how we continue to invest, but three examples that the third party voted against.

Commotions cérébrales / Concussions

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: Ma question est pour la ministre du Tourisme, de la Culture et du Sport. Il s’agit d’une question importante pour ceux d’entre nous de la région d’Ottawa qui ont été touchés par l’histoire de Rowan Stringer et pour tous les parents qui, comme moi, veulent encourager leurs enfants à être actifs, à faire du sport et à faire du sport d’équipe, mais qui sont inquiets pour leur sécurité. C’est une question importante aussi pour tous les Ontariens et Ontariennes qui s’intéressent à la sécurité dans le sport.

In May 2013, 17-year-old Rowan Stringer’s life was cut short as a result of a head injury she sustained while playing rugby with her high school team. A coroner’s inquest was convened in 2015 to look into the circumstances of Rowan’s death. The coroner’s jury made 49 recommendations for governments, school boards and sport organizations to prevent concussions.

The Rowan’s Law Advisory Committee was created through a private member’s bill that MPP MacLeod, MPP Fraser and MPP Fife—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

L’hon. Eleanor McMahon: J’aimerais remercier la députée d’Ottawa–Vanier pour sa question.

I want to recognize and thank the members of this House who introduced Rowan’s Law and also thank our committee members, some of whom are here today, for their critically important work. In particular, I’d like to thank committee chair Dr. Dan Cass, VP of medical at St. Joseph’s Health Centre, for his leadership. I especially want to thank Gordon Stringer, Rowan’s dad, who was able to channel his grief into this work that will have a lasting and meaningful impact.

The committee met eight times this year, and the unique perspectives of its members have all contributed to a comprehensive report, which we were proud to table this morning. The report makes recommendations to our government, with ambitious but practical steps to make our schools, arenas, playing fields and communities safer.

Every Ontarian should have the opportunity to safely participate in sport, and we expect the committee’s thoughtful input will make Ontario a national leader in concussion safety.

I hope all members of the House will read the report, and I look forward to adding more information in my supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: Merci à la ministre pour son travail sur cette question.

Concussion safety is a priority for all of us, and I’m pleased to see this important progress.

Pour que les sports soient pratiqués de façon sécuritaire, il est primordial que tous les secteurs travaillent ensemble, soutenus par la coordination.

Mr. Speaker, I’d like the minister to update this House on the government’s response to this important report.

L’hon. Eleanor McMahon: Encore une fois, merci à la députée pour sa question.

Our government understands the importance of creating a world-class amateur sport system where athletes can play safely. That’s why I’m happy to inform the House that our government is taking decisive action, informed by the comprehensive feedback in this report.

Working with sport and health care leaders, the province will review and work to implement the report’s recommendations to make our sport system as safe as possible. As part of this, our government intends to introduce legislation that, if passed, would govern amateur sport across Ontario and serve to change the conversation about concussion protocol in Ontario and across the country. This report will inform our government’s next steps and will have an important focus on surveillance, prevention, detection and increased awareness.

Above all, we want to honour Rowan Stringer and her memory to ensure that other athletes and families are spared such an agonizing loss.

Long-term care

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

The current Long-Term Care Homes Act includes enforcement tools like licence suspensions, financial penalties, duty to report and the residents’ bill of rights, yet life for seniors in long-term care is getting harder and more tragic. Sadly, cases of vile abuse, neglect and sexual assault persist.

I want to know: Why aren’t the minister and his government protecting seniors in long-term care by enforcing the existing law?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: We are enforcing the law. In fact, later this fall, I’ll be introducing legislation to further strengthen our ability as a government to oversee, inspect and protect long-term—

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Fourteen years too late.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I know there’s heckling coming from the official opposition. Unlike the Progressive Conservatives, we were the first party to actually implement that 100% of long-term-care homes in this province would have to undertake an annual inspection. Under the Progressive Conservatives, they were not inspected. So 100% of the long-term-care homes are being inspected.

What we’re already seeing is the results of those inspections. We’re seeing that the orders being issued by my ministry inspectors—year over year, the number of orders needing to be issued is going down. That’s because, through the inspection process, our long-term-care homes are getting better.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Bill Walker: Back to the minister: Not only is the minister not enforcing the law, but we have also learned that he has been sitting on recommendations that were a blueprint for change to protect seniors in long-term care.

From the 2005 Casa Verde inquest into murders in long-term care—less than 30% of the recommendations—to the Shirlee Sharkey and Gail Donner reports, this government and minister have had hundreds of recommendations from the multiple task forces, inquiries and reports over the last 14 years.

To quote the minister in an earlier comment he made, “The people of Ontario want to know.” Why have you been sitting on all these reports and inquiry recommendations and not helped our senior citizens and residents?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: There have been a lot of reports, and we’ve benefited from the expertise behind them. It’s easy for the member opposite to cherry-pick the ones that he wants.

What we’re doing this fall is we’re introducing further legislation beyond the 100% inspections that we implemented under the previous Minister of Health, who is to my left. We are implementing further measures to further strengthen our ability to oversee and to ensure that the long-term-care act is enforced and adhered to 100% by 100% of our long-term-care homes.

At the same time as we invest in our long-term-care system, we are tightening, improving and strengthening the regime, a regime that didn’t exist under the Progressive Conservatives. They did not see this as a priority whatsoever when they were closing 10,000 hospital beds. They ignored the long-term-care sector.

We’re investing. We’re investing in oversight as well.

By-election in Sudbury

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Deputy Premier.

Yesterday, the Premier of Ontario took the witness stand in the Sudbury bribery case. Her testimony leaves Ontarians with even more questions. She seemed to have forgotten quite a few of the details of the interactions between herself and the Minister of Energy during the time that her party was courting him to run for them. For example, the Premier couldn’t remember if she ever talked to the minister about paid jobs for his staffers.

Does the Acting Premier know why she had so much trouble remembering details yesterday on the stand?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Premier Wynne has been very open with the Legislature, with the media and with the public about the allegations related to the Sudbury by-election.

As I’m sure everyone knows, parliamentary privilege extends to all members of the Legislature, and exempts a member from the normal obligation to attend court if summoned as a witness. The Premier, however, chose to waive that privilege and appeared yesterday. She was open, she was transparent, and everything that she said is on the public record.

This issue is before the court. That’s where it must be.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: Again to the Deputy Premier: The Premier has claimed over and over again—in fact, throughout this entire scandal—that she has been transparent here in this House and with the media. But yesterday, when she was on the stand, we learned a whole slew of new information from her that she had not disclosed in this House. Her recall was inconsistent.

Does the Acting Premier think that the Premier just suddenly remembered those details? Or does she care to explain why the Liberal Party’s definition of transparency is different from everyone else’s in this province?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As has been said multiple times, this is an issue before the courts, and that’s where it will stay.

Arnold Chan

Mr. Arthur Potts: My question is to the Minister of International Trade.

It is well known that the process of modernizing the North American Free Trade Agreement is currently well under way. The overarching benefits of this agreement for all three parties are well documented.

In 2016, in fact, the trilateral trade among Canada, the US and Mexico reached C$1.4 trillion, more than a threefold increase since 1995. It is this trade interdependence that supports millions of jobs across North America and strengthens trade and investment in Canada.

Unique in its makeup, NAFTA is a robust trade agreement that covers a wide array of sectors, many of which are the backbone of local economies across Ontario, such as the auto sector. Speaker, our Premier and Minister Chan have worked tirelessly to ensure that the views of Ontarians on this important trade agreement are brought to the negotiation table week in and week out.

Will the minister provide the House with an update of the ongoing negotiations process?

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you for the opportunity. Speaker, before I answer the question, allow me to say a couple of words about the passing of Arnold Chan. He was a good friend of mine and a great colleague. He was my first chief of staff. It’s a great personal loss to my family and a huge loss to the community.

I ask the member to ask his second question, please.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Arthur Potts: I too knew Mr. Chan, and he was an extraordinary Ontarian. He worked in the Premier’s office. I had the pleasure on many occasions—and if the minister would like to take another minute and a half to talk more about Mr. Chan’s legacy, I would be happy to ask him this question on another date. As important as our North American Free Trade Agreement negotiations are, nothing trumps personal relationships in this House or in our lives. With great respect, I will ask the minister if he would like to say a few more words, he would be welcomed to, or speak to the agreement, as he wishes.

Hon. Michael Chan: Arnold was a great guy. He was a person who never stopped talking. During his two years with me, because of the culture, he was able to give me so much advice, so much, many times, direction on running my ministry.

Three weeks ago, he gave me a call and got my family to his house. He told me, “There’s no more medicine.” The doctor advised him that after five doses of trial medicine, they decided there’s no more. So at that time, he told me the fight, the battle will be between his body and the cancer. Needless to say, I expected this. He told me, “Michael, I’m dying.” That’s a message from him. So we had a very good talk. It will be a good funeral; I’ll talk to the family.

You know what, Speaker? Life, for everyone, is short, so enjoy it. Thank you.

Disaster relief

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Acting Premier.

More than 5,000 basements were flooded by a record-breaking rainfall in Windsor-Essex. The Windsor Star noted, “The disastrous ‘storm of the century’ that swamped Essex county in late August caused $175 million in damage to homes in Windsor alone,” and that number is likely growing. According to the Windsor Star, even the minister doesn’t hold out much hope that the province’s disaster assistance program will be able to cover the costs and help those impacted—

Interjection.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mayor Dilkens told the reporters that it’s likely there are going to be “thousands of people in Windsor and Essex” who simply can’t get insurance, who can’t get help. The province must step up and must help these families.

Will the Acting Premier promise that they won’t turn their backs on the people of Windsor during this hour of need?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I’m happy to take this important question on behalf of our colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

I know that over the last number of days, he has had the opportunity to respond to questions on this very grave and important topic that is affecting the people of Windsor and Essex. I know that he has had the chance to speak to municipal representatives and leaders in that part of the province about the challenges that the people of their respective communities are facing. I know that he has also paid a personal visit down to the area to see first-hand exactly what the circumstances look like on the ground.

Just yesterday, I believe, the Minister of Municipal Affairs did reference specifically that the Disaster Recovery Assistance for Ontarians Program has gone forward. It is performing as the program is designed to perform.

Having said all of that, I know that the minister yesterday spoke to some of the challenges with respect to what has taken place, around private insurance versus not. But I know that this minister and his team, his officials, are on the ground, doing the work that needs to be done. They’ll continue to talk to the mayor of Windsor, other mayors in the area and the residents to make sure that we strike the right balance.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from Chatham–Kent–Essex.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Back to the Acting Premier: The disaster relief program “does not cover damages to homes that were flooded due to sewage system backups.” But according to one restoration company, “Every home we’ve been to, it’s been due to sewage backup.”

“Windsor mayor Drew Dilkens is asking the province to create a comprehensive affordable insurance package homeowners can buy if they can’t get flood insurance,” but instead of taking action, the Premier only issued a vague tweet about the flooding and would rather be in Washington than Windsor. Pretending to care on Twitter or leaving the country just isn’t good enough, Acting Premier.

So, Acting Premier and Speaker, what assistance will the Acting Premier actually provide to the people of Windsor hurt by the flood?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: As I said in the initial answer to the first question, from the Leader of the Opposition, Minister Mauro has been to the area and he has spoken to the mayors. He referenced this exact issue around sewer backups yesterday in this Legislature, in response to a question from the member of the NDP caucus from the Windsor area.

Minister Mauro did say yesterday that insurance coverage for damage that is caused by sewer backup is widely available. The program that we have in place is there, and it’s designed to help deal with what is known as “overland flooding.”

This is not to suggest in any way, shape or form that there is not a great deal of concern on the part of the minister or our government or the Premier, or everyone on this side of the House, with respect to the challenges the people of this region of the province are facing. It’s why the minister spoke very quickly to all of the mayors in the area. It’s why he has paid a personal visit to this particular area. It’s why he and our government champion the need to invest significantly more money—hundreds of millions of dollars more—in dealing with issues relating to water and waste water, which will help improve some of the challenges in the long term.

I know the minister will continue to be vigilant and work with the communities that are affected to make sure that we get it right.

Hospital funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’d like to begin by extending sincere condolences, on behalf of my NDP caucus and New Democrats around Ontario, to the minister of international affairs, the minister of economic development and trade, and all of the friends and family and loved ones of MP Arnold Chan. His loss, I’m sure, will be very, very difficult to