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

May 18, 2016

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-May-18 (PDF)

L176 - Wed 18 May 2016 / Mer 18 mai 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 18 May 2016 Mercredi 18 mai 2016

Orders of the Day

Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur l’atténuation du changement climatique et une économie sobre en carbone

Special report, Auditor General

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Energy policies

Government deficits

Health care funding

Health care funding

Education funding

Autism treatment

Energy policies

Autism treatment

Government deficits

Aboriginal affairs

Energy policies

Affordable housing

Energy policies

Visitors

Deferred Votes

Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur l’atténuation du changement climatique et une économie sobre en carbone

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Pope John Paul II

General Motors in Oshawa

Burlington’s Best Awards

Financial services sector

Prompt payment

Nurses at SickKids

Ehlers-Danlos syndrome

Rotary Club of Toronto-Don Mills

Homelessness

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly

Introduction of Bills

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

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Act (Double-Crested Cormorants), 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant la

Loi sur la protection du poisson et de la faune (cormorans à aigrettes)

Motions

Private members’ public business

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

South Asian Heritage Month

Petitions

Prompt payment

Workplace safety

Home inspection industry

Autism treatment

Privatization of public assets

Hospital funding

Water fluoridation

Hydro rates

Health care funding

Health care funding

Health care

Hydro rates

Hydro rates

Energy policies

Orders of the Day

Waste-Free Ontario Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 favorisant un Ontario sans déchets

Royal assent / Sanction royale

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur l’atténuation du changement climatique et une économie sobre en carbone

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 16, 2016, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 172,

An Act respecting greenhouse gas / Projet de loi 172, Loi concernant les gaz à effet de serre.

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Could I stand on a point of order?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A point of order.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: There’s no quorum, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A quorum count, please.

The Deputy Clerk (Mr. Todd Decker): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

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

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Deputy Clerk (Mr. Todd Decker): A quorum is now present, Speaker.

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Speaker, it’s great to be here this morning and have a quorum in the House and have this wonderful opportunity to talk about Bill 172. It’s a very substantial bill, and this government needs to allow time for a full debate on this bill so we can express our concerns, and specifically, express our constituency concerns.

One thing that I’ve been hearing lately, which is kind of new to this debate, is that constituents are calling the office about this kind of random natural gas plan that was put out there. I see one member very nicely wondering about it himself. But people are concerned. There is now apparently a petition on Facebook—I just got that email this morning. They’re asking, “What’s happening with natural gas. What’s the plan?” And we’re not sure, Speaker. All we know is that the Ministry of the Environment talked about natural gas, put it out there and apparently said something to the effect that they were going to eliminate natural gas.

Speaker, I would appreciate, if announcements like that are being made, that we get some background information about what they’re doing, because we’re left to reply—and my reply will be—that this was something I wasn’t expecting, and that no one was expecting. This is something where we don’t know if there is a plan, when it will be implemented, how it’s going to affect Ontarians and how it’s going to affect the affordability of energy that is delivered to Ontario and to people who pay energy bills.

It’s kind of unfortunate that that announcement was made kind of off-the-cuff like that and got everybody concerned about the issue of natural gas. I’ll tell you, Speaker, that I was in the riding last week and someone I know very well sent me that email and I forwarded it to the energy critic. Again, we’re all kind of wondering what is going on with regard to natural gas and what’s going on with the government on that side.

Saying that, Speaker, the environment and energy is an extremely important issue in Ontario. It’s a file that needs to be addressed. It’s long overdue. Back in 2008, this government was supposed to follow through with an action plan on pollution. It didn’t happen, and finally, it’s here.

I do have concerns, though, that this is maybe a bill that has been pushed and rushed through. I personally think this bill is a very big bill and needs to have more discussion. We’ve had since 2008 to bring this up, to go around Ontario to talk about it, to have input, to listen to opposition members and what amendments they would want to make. I don’t think that what the process has become, as of today, has really allowed that to occur. It feels like we’re being pushed, and it feels like we’re being rushed. I hope this government will allow debate, and for each member to stand up and talk about this bill to represent their constituents’ points of view.

Speaker, I can tell you that in my riding, people are concerned about the environment and concerned about energy and conservation. This is something that people really put as an important issue when it comes to the future of this planet and the future of this province. What we want to do, Speaker, is ensure that this would mean a system that has to be fair, effective and transparent. My understanding is that the commissioner of the environment—

Mr. Peter Tabuns: The Environmental Commissioner?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Peter, correct me if I’m wrong: They won’t have oversight over this bill, will they—this energy contract?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member can’t have a conversation when she’s up talking through me. You might want to get your information before or after. Thanks.

Continue.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Thank you, Speaker. I just found my note on it, so I can answer my own question.

It says here that the act completely disregards the Environmental Commissioner. We want to know if the government forgot about the Environmental Commissioner when it comes to this act. The Environmental Commissioner should have access to the information and data she needs to properly assess the cap-and-trade system. That, I believe, is the point: The Environmental Commissioner doesn’t have access to the information that was used in order to formulate this act.

That is problematic when we’re talking about transparency and accountability, and when we’re talking about making people buy into legislation and feel like they’re part of that legislation and know that it is actually there to work for them and for the environment, for future generations to come. That is very concerning. I think we should all be worried that the Environmental Commissioner hasn’t had access to information that this bill is composed of. It’s problematic, Speaker.

The other piece we are concerned about is the fund that has been set up. The government has recently announced $325 million worth of programs that are being funded from cap-and-trade revenues. We believe that money should be invested in cap-and-trade so that people can make the adjustments into this new legislation. The problem is that there are no greenhouse gas reduction targets connected to these programs.

That’s contradictory. You have funds that you have announced—$325 million worth of programs to be funded from the cap-and-trade revenues—but on the other hand, they don’t associate greenhouse gas reduction targets connected to these programs. Now, there is one part that’s a very useful piece: The programs will be able to help co-op and non-profit housing. That’s good to see.

But to have a more comprehensive fund program, we need to know that there should be greenhouse gas programs attached to those funds, so that we can have measurable goals as to how that program will relate and roll out to how people are going to conserve and be conscious of taking measures to make sure that energy isn’t wasted.

Speaker, that is a problem, and we think that it needs to be tightened up. I hope we’re going to have the opportunity in the future. I don’t think so.

Interjection: No.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I just heard a no, and that is very discouraging. Again, the transparency and oversight piece—why isn’t that in there? Why isn’t it connected—program funds to outcome to targets to results? Why hasn’t the Environmental Commissioner been allowed to look at the documentation that was composed and gathered to formulate this bill? It’s discouraging, Speaker, when those simple, standard, foundational operational components aren’t part of a bill process so that people can feel that this is the best bill we can put forward.

It almost feels like it’s going to be constantly challenged over and over again. That’s the problem with many of the bills that come to this House, Speaker.

The cap-and-trade revenues are in question. There’s also a so-called Greenhouse Gas Reduction Account. It’s not a separate special-purpose account at all. Again, it leaves it open to being used in many different ways. I think it should be targeted to the environment and to energy. When we’re having a bill opening up a special fund, those funds should be dedicated to help improve energy costs, retrofitting and the environment. I think that’s a simple kind of concept when you do that, Speaker.

It actually makes people question why this government is opening up this kind of slush fund—nobody will know how it’s being used. There won’t be any kind of rules of the game when it comes to the money. But that’s kind of what this government’s modus operandi has been when it comes to using money in this Legislature. They don’t have rules of the game; they just spend it, and later on they worry about deleting documents so people can’t follow the money trail.

I appreciate the time debating this bill. I look forward to questions and comments.

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

Mr. John Fraser: It’s a pleasure to respond to the member from London–Fanshawe. I appreciate very much the support for the bill that exists over there, even given—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It’s nice if you look over here once in a while. I don’t know: Your guy is up speaking and all the noise is coming from over there. It might nice if you—I’d like to hear what he has to say. Thank you.

Mr. John Fraser: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The perfect is sometimes the enemy of the possible. We have to have good tension between those two to get it right.

I do want to let the member know that no, we are not eliminating natural gas. I repeat: We are not eliminating natural gas. We have a rural gas extension program that’s going on right now, and I think—

Interjections.

Mr. John Fraser: Everybody’s getting excited over there. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the erudite comments from the opposition, their thoughtful debate, especially the kind of debate that’s going on right now.

The reality is that we have a collective responsibility to look towards the future 20, 30 years from now. Things are going to look different; they’re going to be different. We have to make them different.

Next week in my riding, with Ecology Ottawa, who are very supportive of the bill and the legislation that we’ve put forward, we’ll be holding a town hall. I know they held a similar one in Ottawa Centre. They had about 250 people there, which, I think, at any town hall is a good number, and it shows how important it is to the people that we represent.

I take to heart what the member has to say, and her advice. I would like to remind her again about that tension between the perfect and the possible.

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

Mr. Jim McDonell: It’s always a privilege to rise in the House. I’m somewhat surprised now that it seems to be that the government is trying to do some damage control here and trying to convince us that now they aren’t going to get rid of gas. They very much changed the name of the minister to be the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. He talks about getting rid of gas. He talks about getting rid of nuclear.

You really wonder: Is there a plan in this government? Where are you going? We talk about the need for a collective plan. In my mind, a collective plan would be something more than three jurisdictions in a continent of hundreds. I mean, let’s be serious here. We’re trying to talk about buying credits from California that are going to cost us hundreds of millions of dollars over the next number of years, and yet where is this money coming from? It’s coming from our economy. It’s very nice that we send this cheque to California, but how is that helping our businesses? If we get off natural gas, we’re talking about another $3,000 a year per household—a huge cost.

This is a government that promised, just a short two years ago, that this would not be an issue in this term. I guess that should have been the first clue from this government that they were actually going to pull it ahead, because when they make a commitment, it seems it always changes, whether it be the HST or raising taxes.

Here we are with what many people are calling a very radical plan. Really, when you look at the reason for it, they’re out of money. We see them yesterday, very much on board to cut off services to autism, a group of people very much in need where, actually, we could make a difference. Funds are cut off.

This is a government without money. So we’re nervous about this extra money in their bank account, because we know one thing for sure: It will disappear.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I appreciate the opportunity to speak this morning. My colleague from London–Fanshawe has expressed some of her concerns—real concerns, I think—about the bill before us.

Speaker, there’s no question that as the world heats up, our way of life is going to be disrupted. Our standard of living is going to drop. There is risk that tens of millions of people will be driven away from their homes and will become refugees. We’ve already seen the impact on the stability, political and otherwise, of Europe, with a comparatively small flow of refugees from Syria and North Africa. We are not facing very many pleasant prospects in the decades to come. Action on climate change is needed.

The bill before us is useful, but it has some substantial problems that I hope will be addressed by this government. We tried to address them with amendments. As it is structured now, it doesn’t provide support for low- and middle-income rural and northern residents, who in fact are going to have a tougher time dealing with the changes that this society is going to go through. This bill is going to need tremendous political support, and to the extent that those who are most disadvantaged aren’t given extra support, the ability of this bill and climate action to garner political support is going to be reduced.

The problems with transparency were ones that we tried to correct in amendments during clause-by-clause. Unfortunately, Speaker, those have not been corrected. Again, the legitimacy of climate action is going to depend on people’s feeling broadly that what is before them is understandable, clear and directed at the concerns they have and that society has as a whole.

Speaker, we do need action on climate change. We also need this government to address the political problems that will arise if this bill is not administered in a way that is fair, transparent and effective.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Scarborough–Agincourt.

Ms. Soo Wong: I’m pleased to rise this morning in support of Bill 172. I hear the concerns raised by my colleagues opposite from Toronto–Danforth as well as from London–Fanshawe, because they do believe and support the fact that there is climate change concern across Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill has been clearly stated in the

preamble. More importantly, it talks specifically about the issue of carbon and how it has been affecting climate change and global warming. We need to take action now, and not wait until the next generation, because we know very clearly that climate change is affecting every household and every community: agriculture, infrastructure, natural areas and ecosystems. But more important are our Great Lakes. All three parties need to do everything to support and protect the Great Lakes for future generations.

I was very pleased and listened attentively to the member from Toronto–Danforth talk about why we need to do something now, and not wait, as those members from the opposition say we need to do this and that. At the end of the day, the government is required to protect the citizens. This bill, if passed, would ensure some protection in terms of climate.

More importantly, this bill also helps our First Peoples, because their culture and their spirituality are reflected in the land, the water and the animals. The indigenous population and the Métis community depend on the land. With this proposed bill, if passed, we are going to be working with our indigenous population and making sure that we respect their traditional ecological knowledge and systems. We as a government need to do everything we can to protect them as well.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from London–Fanshawe, two minutes.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I would like to thank the members from Ottawa South, Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, Toronto–Danforth and Scarborough–Agincourt.

Yes, I think the majority of Ontarians and the majority of the global population agree that climate change is at our doorstep and that something needs to be done. My disappointment comes that when we were looking at this issue back in 2008, I would have appreciated that this issue had been an education piece since 2008 for legislatures at large, for the public and for stakeholders, so that we didn’t feel like this was being pushed through so quickly.

It is imminent that we meet climate change; there’s no argument. But we also need assurances that the cap-and-trade revenues will be dedicated to climate change action, and the Financial Accountability Officer isn’t so sure that is going to happen.

We talked about affordability. I’m the seniors critic. I’m the citizenship and immigration critic as well. Those two areas that are part of my portfolio are very concerning. As the member from Toronto–Danforth mentioned, people coming from other countries into Ontario need to have that affordability piece till they get on their feet. Seniors, of course, are struggling every day.

Other places are already doing things to help affordability. The British Columbia tax credit helps people recoup the losses from increased energy costs from the price of emissions. Alberta is rolling out a credit in 2017. Already in California, the law requires that 25% of cap-and-trade revenue is to be put back into communities that need help.

Those are some of the things other jurisdictions are doing to help this move along in a smooth process. It’s kind of disappointing sometimes that those things aren’t taken into consideration when legislation is passed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Mr. Mike Colle: Bill 172 is a bill that has a very, very daunting goal and task before it. It’s a bill that tries to deal with a problem that the whole world is trying to deal with. Wherever you go in the world, they are in some way trying to deal with this challenge of the changing temperatures in the world, the erratic climate patterns, the unpredictability of climate and the threat of global warming. There is no jurisdiction in the world that has found a perfect solution to these challenges, whether you go to the United States or Europe or Asia. It is not easy.

Look at the challenges China is having, with its population of over 1.3 billion people, trying to deal with their climate challenges as they try to keep growing, as they keep building their industrial capacity. So you can imagine.

We think we have a challenge here in Canada, with our clean water and vast forest system, but you can imagine the challenges that they have in India, dealing with the challenges of climate change.

By no means is this bill a perfect bill, but certainly a lot of work went into it. I know there were many, many opinions offered about how to improve the bill. There were some improvements in committee. By no means is this the end, nor is it the perfect solution, but at least it is a bold and very, very energetic attempt, you might say, to try and deal with this daunting problem of climate change.

There are a lot of people still who do deny the fact that there is a challenge here. I can understand why some people may deny. It is hard to understand, because you don’t see it in front of you. But certainly, scientists internationally feel there is a real threat, so we have to listen to them.

Some people will castigate the deniers, but I think they have, in some cause, reason to raise questions about this threat to the world’s sustainability. But I think we have to take the science seriously in this case. We don’t have any other choice, because if we don’t take it seriously, the consequences are irreversible.

One thing we should look at is that there are changes that can be made and that give us hope. At one time in Ontario, we had all these dirty coal-burning power plants. I know when we had the debate in this House years ago about whether you could even close the plants, they said, “You’re crazy. You could never close the coal-burning plants. The energy of this province will come to a standstill, because we depend on coal. You can’t replace it.”

All the coal-burning plants are closed. Somehow, we’ve survived that. It’s still working, our energy supply. We’ve replaced those plants. One of the real outcomes of that is that we don’t have any smog days coming from Hamilton and, later, Ontario. We know how we used to face that air-quality issue every summer. It was frightening for a lot of parents to see what was in our air in Hamilton and Toronto. A lot of it was also coming from the States. But now, those smog days have been almost eliminated, and that is the result of government action. So it can be done, but it’s never going to be the total solution, that’s for sure.

I think of the changes we can make to the quality of our water. I remember Lake Ontario. You would never go salmon fishing in Lake Ontario. I remember there were the smelts in Lake Ontario, perhaps, and there were lampreys. But now we have edible salmon, 25-, 30-pound salmon, in Lake Ontario. They’ve come back. Our own river here in the west end of Toronto, the Humber River, was basically a swamp. It was filled with garbage. About all that was in the Humber River were carp. Carp were the only things in the Humber River.

But we had a sustained effort by local government and by provincial government to clean up the Humber River. Now the Humber River has salmon in it every year that are spawning, that are healthy, that are going upriver to spawn every September. Right in the middle of Toronto, we have healthy salmon. They’re Pacific salmon, but now we’re introducing Atlantic salmon—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Renfrew might want to sit in his own seat.

Mr. Mike Colle: It’s too bad that some members don’t appreciate the work that has been done in cleaning up our rivers and lakes, and our air. But it is something that we’ve done, not government by itself but with the co-operation of all the local groups and all the advocates and the population of these cities in Ontario. We’ve done some good work.

We in no way think that this bill or past bills are going to solve all the problems dealing with environmental sustainability, but we owe it to the citizens of Ontario to try. This is a very valiant effort to try and do something about climate change. We’ve got to all ensure that everyone is engaged in it, because the battle cannot be won by government alone. We have to have the co-operation of everyone.

I think that one good thing is that industry and commerce understands that there are a lot of jobs in cleaning up the environment, a lot of good, high-paying jobs in this whole area of promoting environmental sustainability and cleaner air and water and, hopefully, lowering the threat to our climate.

Again, there are many difficult things to be done. This bill asks for many difficult things to be done. But it also promotes a lot of good, positive actions. I just think that the work before us is daunting, as I said. There’s a heck of a lot to do. We’ve got many, many very challenging days, months and years of work ahead of us. We’ve just got to get at this work as soon as we can.

Mr. Speaker, we’ve had nearly 10 hours of debate at third reading. This is an unprecedented amount of debate on a bill before the House. I know when the Conservatives were power, no third reading debate was even allowed in this House for about nine years. So I think it’s about time that we get to the work ahead of us and start really working on improving our chances of mitigating climate change. As a result, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Todd Smith: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Point of order, the member from Prince Edward–Hastings.

Mr. Todd Smith: Thank you very much, Speaker. I would just like to acknowledge the fact that I haven’t spoken to this bill yet, and there are a lot of people in Prince Edward–Hastings—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): That’s not a point of order. Thank you.

Continue.

Mr. Mike Colle: I know, Mr. Speaker, that the Conservatives don’t want to get on with the work. But I think there are enough of us here to understand that we’ve got to work at this as soon as possible. Mr. Speaker, as a result I move that this question be now put.

Mr. Jim McDonell: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Point of order, the member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry.

Mr. Jim McDonell: Speaker, there’s much more debate that needs to be done on this—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you. That’s not a point of order. Have a seat. Thank you very much.

Mr. Colle has moved that the question be now put. I am satisfied that there has been sufficient debate to allow the question to be put to the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

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

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

I believe the ayes have it.

This will be dealt with after question period.

Vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Orders of the day.

Hon. James J. Bradley: No further business.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): There being no further business, this House stands recessed until 1030.

The House recessed from 0934 to 1030.

Special report, Auditor General

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Before I move to introduction of guests, I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table a special report of the Auditor General of Ontario on government payments to education sector unions.

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I also beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table a report from the Financial Accountability Officer entitled Economic and Fiscal Outlook: Assessing Ontario’s Medium-Term Prospects.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Chris Ballard: I’m delighted to introduce the father of page Leah Walsh. Damien Walsh is in the House, along with Leah’s brother, Riley. Welcome, Damien and Riley, to the House.

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: It is my privilege to introduce the mother of our page captain, Samuel Simeon Suresh, standing next to me. His mother is Dorothy Thiagarajan, and she will be in the public gallery this morning.

Mr. Michael Mantha: It is with great pleasure that I have school kids visiting Queen’s Park today from Manitoulin Island, from Biidaaban Kinoomaagegamik, from Sagamok.

Mr. John Vanthof: On behalf of my colleague from Hamilton Mountain, I’d like to introduce one of our pages, Laura Persichini—and I hope I pronounce this correctly. Her mother, Mary Persichini; her brother Alex Persichini; and her cousin John Jackubowicz are in the public gallery this morning. I hope I did justice to the pronunciation. Welcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Welcome.

Hon. David Orazietti: I’m pleased to introduce Shelby Dockendorff and Shaan Sharma, who are in the members’ gallery and are interns in our ministry. Thank you.

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

A point of order: the member from Trinity–Spadina.

Mr. Han Dong: Thank you, Speaker. I seek unanimous consent of this House to allow me to place this hat on my desk in support of the “other” NBA east conference finalists, our beloved Toronto Raptors.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Trinity–Spadina is seeking permission to leave his hat on his desk. Do we agree? Agreed.

Further introductions?

Mr. Arthur Potts: I’m absolutely delighted that our page captain today, Spencer Couch, is joined by his mother, Shannon Williamson. She will be in the public gallery this morning. Welcome. You have a great son.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I would like to welcome, from the Canadian Institute of Steel Construction, Walter Koppelaar, John Rogers, Chris Adach, Jacob Kachuba, Erwin Terwoord, Paul Seibel, Zoran Radonjic, Scott Pope, Scott Harris, Paul Power, Imre Kenedi, Dan Tadic, Tanya Brown, Tony Defina, Paul Mikolich, Anthony Ober, Adam Hurst, Charlie Jenks, Edward Whalen, Katie Keenie and Jas Singh. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Welcome.

Miss Monique Taylor: I’m pleased to welcome one of our pages, Laura. Her mom and her brother are here today, Mary and Alex Persichini, and her cousin John Jackubowicz. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We have with us today in the Speaker’s gallery a student delegation from the Maggie L. Walker Governor’s School for Government and International Studies from Richmond, Virginia. They are the future political leaders of the United States, so let’s treat them the way we want them to be treated. Welcome to our guests.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Please, let’s not heckle the visitors. Thank you.

Oral Questions

Energy policies

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Acting Premier. Despite the fact that natural gas accounts for 76% of heating in Ontario, we learned that the Liberals’ climate change plan will apparently phase out the use of natural gas. Converting a home from the natural gas to electricity would cost about $4,500. That’s in addition to the $3,000 a year more that it will cost to use electricity over natural gas.

An

article in the Financial Post said, “The ban on natural gas means Ontarians will either soon end up a lot colder or a lot poorer.”

To the Acting Premier: Which is it? Is this government making families and seniors a lot colder or impoverished?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Once again, the opposition never fails to disappoint when it comes to actually inventing our policies. In fact, despite what the opposition says, we are not forcing anyone off natural gas. What we are doing is looking for ways to help homeowners save money and reduce—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Deputy Premier?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: In fact, we’ve announced $230 million to expand natural gas for northern and rural communities, and we’ve announced $100 million to help owners who use natural gas, oil and propane to upgrade their homes, reduce their energy bills and cut pollution.

This leader claims that he cares about the planet. I don’t think he does.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: It appears like the Acting Premier hasn’t seen the work and the pledges of the Minister of the Environment or the Premier on their climate change plan.

Since the Liberals took power, Ontario hydro rates have gone up 325%—unbelievable. That’s three times the cost of any other good or service. Naturally, the Liberal solution to this problem is to force 76% of families and businesses that use more affordable natural gas to convert to electric heating. That’s going to cost the average family $4,500 to make the switch and $3,000 a year to heat their homes thereafter. That’s every single year.

How does the Liberal Party, how does this government believe families can afford to pay another $3,000 a year? It’s ridiculous.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I can stand for an hour.

Minister?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: We are not banning natural gas. As a matter of fact, you’ll continue to see more natural-gas-efficient heating/cooling systems that the Deputy Premier just outlined.

It’s interesting, the lack of understanding—

Mr. John Yakabuski: You specifically said in this House that you shouldn’t be heating your home with natural gas.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Just in case he didn’t hear—and he’s now doing it again—the member from Renfrew, come to order.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Oh, I thought it was general.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That will get you another one, if it continues.

Finish, please.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: We will be expanding natural gases in areas like trucking as well, where it’s a lower-carbon fuel relative to that.

But one of the other things that we’ll be doing—in the Leader of the Opposition’s own constituency, there is a company called Royalpark Homes, who are building net-zero buildings that cost almost nothing.

This talk about increased cost is absolutely nonsense. As a matter of fact, they have—

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Acting Premier: It’s bad enough that the Acting Premier hasn’t read the government’s climate change plan, but it appears like the Minister of the Environment has forgotten about his own speeches and hasn’t read his own plan, because the government’s plan to phase out natural gas is foolish.

This government has spent billions building and moving natural gas power plants. They’ve spent millions expanding natural gas to rural municipalities and have promised to spend millions more. The Liberals want bus fleets to switch to natural gas, and then they come up with a plan to take natural gas out of homes. As the Minister of Energy would say, the Liberals are all over the map.

Mr. Speaker, why are they taking the choice away from households? Why won’t houses be able to heat with natural gas, when this Liberal government has spent years investing millions and millions into the natural gas infrastructure?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Leeds–Grenville, come to order.

Carry on.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I would like to invite the Leader of the Opposition, and maybe he can join me and the member for Barrie and we will take him to Royalpark Homes. We’ll go to London and we’ll introduce him to Sifton homes. Right here in Toronto, we can go out to Mimico on the GO, and you can see what the other technologies are that we’re going to help incent that lower—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We’re getting close to warnings, and I’ll convert to warnings. If I sit down and I hear a peep, we’re going to warnings.

Finish, please.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: The member doesn’t seem to be aware that in his own constituency and in his neighbours’ constituency, we have some of the leading low-carbon—some of them are cogen. There is a whole range of technologies, as there are in the auto sector.

We’re not taking natural gas heating away from anyone. When people come to replace their old systems, they’ll be able to—

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

New question.

Government deficits

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Finance. This morning, the Financial Accountability Officer confirmed what we here have been saying for months: This government is using one-time money from the sale of assets, contingency funds and tax increases to try to balance their budget. Yet the FAO says they’ll still come up short in 2017-18, and he forecasts a $600-million deficit. He says this will grow as large as $3.5 billion by 2020 if economic growth changes even slightly.

When asked about whether this government is properly balancing the risks, the FAO said, “We don’t believe this fiscal plan does.”

Speaker, will the minister finally admit there’s a structural deficit in Ontario?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I’d like to begin by thanking the Financial Accountability Officer for his report. We collaborated with the Financial Accountability Officer. His forecast and recommendations and the risks that he highlights are appropriate and we’re mindful of them. It’s why we take the actions and the prudent measures that we’ve achieved. He says that the government has the ability and is able to balance its deficit, and the government is doing just that in 2017-18 and the year after that.

On this side of the House, we’re committed to balancing the books and ensuring that we grow the economy and create more jobs. He goes on to say Ontario’s economy will “outperform the rest of Canada in 2016.” He says, “Over the next several years, most economic forecasters, including the FAO, expect the Ontario economy will grow at a solid pace, supported by gains in international exports and business investments.”

We’re taking the necessary actions. We are growing the economy. We’re balancing the budget next year and the year after that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the minister: I’m surprised he suggested they collaborated. The FAO says they were blocked with “cabinet confidentiality” at every turn. The FAO was clear that this fiscal plan is not evenly balanced and most risk is on the “downside.” He also said he has “serial disappointment” in the government’s projections. Their forecasts have missed the targets in each of the past five years.

That means that without selling assets, they won’t meet revenue targets. After 2018-19, the FAO projects a deterioration in the province’s budget balance with a deficit of $1.7 billion by 2020. That’s in his report. He also forecasted net debt will continue to skyrocket with $54 billion added. My question is, will the minister admit the government waste, scandal and mismanagement is hurting Ontario?

Hon. Charles Sousa: In addition to the FAO, who used outside, external support to establish his forecast, I also note that the credibility of the 2016 budget is on fiscal plan. In fact, Moody’s recently upgraded Ontario’s credit rating outlook based on our government’s economic and fiscal plan, and the Conference Board of Canada indicated that a balanced budget in 2017-18 is in reach.

Furthermore, the very proposals being put forward by the FAO are appropriate in terms of providing some sensitivity around those potential risks, which we as a government have always been addressing. It is why, for the seventh year in a row, we’re outperforming, achieving better results than previously anticipated, even with low revenues. The appropriate prudence that the member opposite talks about in regard to contingencies is appropriate and the FAO made that very clear today.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the minister: Yes, the FAO confirmed again that they’ll only balance by selling assets. He also reported that the government is on track to continue starving our health care system while we’re seeing nurses fired regularly. The FAO says cost factors mean they should be increasing health care spending by a 5.2% average per year, yet they’re capping it at 1.8%. He told us that that is not realistic.

This government was told how their waste, mismanagement and scandal would crowd out critical spending, and now the FAO this morning confirmed that indeed has happened. Just how many more nurses will this government have to fire? How many more hospital rooms will this government have to close to balance their budget?

Hon. Charles Sousa: The member opposite has just reinforced the very nature of the transformations that are necessary to be included in our plan without sacrificing those very essential services in health care and education. It is why we are increasing health care by an additional $1 billion. It is why we are supporting more education, including free tuition for our most vulnerable students. It’s why we’re investing $12 billion more in capital for creating new hospitals, and it is why the FAO has stated that those are prudent measures, measures that are offsetting and mitigating the risks.

The FAO highlights the fact that prudence is included in our budget. The member opposite knows that fully well, and if he doesn’t that’s because he doesn’t understand.

Health care funding

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Deputy Premier. The Liberal government has spent the last week insisting that overcrowded hospitals aren’t a problem, and apparently that’s why Liberals think they don’t need any standards with respect to occupancy. Even though Liberals won’t admit it, their own numbers prove that hospitals across Ontario are stretched beyond their limits. It’s not just acute beds that are being affected; it’s mental health beds as well.

Will the Deputy Premier admit that Liberal cuts mean that mental health beds across Ontario are filled to over 100% capacity, month after month, year after year, across this province?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I do want to make it clear that we are very much aware of the challenges our hospitals are facing. The difference, though, between the position of the NDP and the position of the government is that the solution in their case, they argue, is building more hospital beds. Our solution is to build more beds where they are necessary, but wherever possible, when people are ready to leave the hospital, provide the supports for them outside the hospital, in the community or in their home.

That is the focus of the transformation that is under way in our health care system across the province. It’s what patients want. It’s what’s right for the health care system. I do not understand why the third party is fixated on a model of care that does not meet the needs of patients.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Mr. Speaker, far too many families in this province know how hard it is, how difficult it is, to get mental health support services when you really need them. And now the government’s own record proves that mental health beds are stretched beyond their limit across this province. London Health Sciences has been running at over 100% capacity for more than two and a half years, Thunder Bay Regional has spent the last two years filled beyond capacity and Sault Area Hospital has also most recently reached more than 107% capacity.

How can the Acting Premier defend even more Liberal cuts when mental health beds are stretched to such capacity, are over capacity, and are so massively overcrowded across the province?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, once again I have to clarify that there are no cuts to health care. In fact, we are increasing spending by $1 billion in the budget that we passed, that they voted against.

Mental health care is a significant part of the increase in health care spending because we are all very acutely aware of the importance of investing in appropriate mental health services, Speaker. We have actually put our money where our mouth is. We know that one in five Ontarians is going to experience a mental health illness, and we have a strong record of investing in mental health services and addictions.

Since 2003, the funding has gone up by half a billion dollars, and every year we’re spending $3 billion on mental health and addiction services.

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

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: It isn’t just London, Thunder Bay or Sault Ste. Marie that are facing this mental health crisis. Mental health beds in Ottawa, St. Catharines and Burlington are all filled beyond capacity, Mr. Speaker. Hospitals in Kitchener, Oshawa, Whitby and North Bay have also reached their limits. When hospitals are overcrowded, it takes even longer for folks who need mental health supports to get the care that they so desperately need, Mr. Speaker. That’s what happens when you freeze hospital budgets, when you lay off front-line care providers and when you close beds in hospitals. When will this government stop cutting hospital services?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, once again, it’s not just about hospitals. They are a very important part of our health care system, but when people are ready to leave hospitals, there has to be a place for them to go that is safe and that will keep them well, which is why we’re focusing on increasing the number of supportive housing units. We have committed to building a thousand more supportive housing units, 248 of them in this year alone.

So we are focusing on getting people the care they need in the right place. That is what our position on health care is: Understand the needs of patients, build the capacity where the need is the greatest, and don’t keep people in hospital longer than they need to be in hospital.

Health care funding

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is again to the Deputy Premier. The Premier has tweeted, “We can’t ignore mental health.” But the trouble is, Mr. Speaker, that’s exactly what this Premier and this government are doing. Liberal cuts mean that mental health beds across Ontario are overcrowded. This Liberal government just keeps on cutting services, laying off workers, and making it harder for families to access the mental health supports that they need. It begs the question, why does this government have no standards or policy with respect to overcrowding so that patients who need mental health services can actually access those mental health services?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, we have listened over and over and over again to allegations that we are cutting health care. That is patently false. I urge the third party to really think long and hard about whether they want to stand up day after day and make a statement that simply is not true. We are investing more in health care. We are investing more. Mental health is a priority area for our new investments in health care.

I think the people of this province actually expect people from all sides of this House to base their arguments on the facts. When they talk about cuts, they are simply not reflecting the accurate situation in this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Mr. Speaker, fixing mental health services means funding hospitals properly. It means ensuring that when someone needs care, they can actually access the care. That should be a policy the government should implement.

The crisis of overcrowding in hospitals won’t be fixed by a handful of feel-good tweets or Liberal talking points. It certainly won’t be fixed with another year of cuts to hospital services in this provinceand cuts to front-line health care workers. Will the Deputy Premier look at the government’s own numbers and realize and admit there is a crisis in Ontario’s mental health services and stop cutting hospital services in the province?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We on this side of the House have really focused on improving the system of mental health care. I think all of us would agree that the system that we inherited was a pretty disjointed system that did not serve the people of this province very well. That’s why we created a comprehensive addictions and mental health strategy: to support Ontarians from childhood into old age with the right supports at the right time and in the right place, Speaker. The first phase of the plan is to increase funding to our mental health and addiction agencies by $220 million over three years. That is not a cut; that’s $220 million more.

The first three years of the strategy focused on children, and I’m very happy to report that an additional 50,000 children have received supports—addiction and mental health services—as a result of our increased investments in mental health.

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

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: There is a silent crisis in health care in this province. Patients know it, families know it, and New Democrats are determined to fix it. Liberal cuts have overcrowded our mental health beds in this province and the Liberal government literally has no plan to deal with it. Instead, their plan is to implement more cuts, to lay off more front-line care providers and to close more beds.

People deserve mental health services when and where they need them. Ontarians deserve a government that shares this priority. When will the government stop ignoring the facts, stop ignoring the overcrowding in mental health hospital beds across this province and stop the cuts to Ontario hospitals?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I don’t know how many times I have to say it. Maybe we should send a copy of the budget over so that the third party actually understands that we’re increasing investments in our health care system—in stark contrast, I might say, to the 300 mental health beds that they closed when they were in office.

What I can tell you is that our investments in community mental health are making a difference. We see that in our communities, and I urge members from all parties to actually understand what’s happening in their communities to improve access to services for mental health challenges and addictions.

Education funding

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the Minister of Education. Earlier this morning, the Auditor General confirmed that the Liberal government paid over $90 million in secret payouts to education stakeholders above and beyond contract negotiation transfer payments, even the $600,000 at the Sheraton hotel, and $22 million of that was undocumented. The Liberals took this money intended for students out of classrooms.

I want to quote from the Auditor General: “We found very little evidence of governments paying education sector unions for significant bargaining costs elsewhere in Canada. Accordingly, Ontario is an outlier with respect to this use of taxpayer funds.”

Mr. Speaker, this practice only stopped when the government got caught. They have admitted that this was wrong and that the money came from kids in classrooms. How does the Minister of Education justify taking $90 million out of the classrooms that was intended for students?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: First of all, I absolutely reject the issue that it was taken out of classrooms. It was not taken out of classroom money. It was taken out of what’s called Education Program–Other, which is used for funding professional development, so it was not taken out of classrooms. That is just a totally incorrect

interpretation.

What I will say is that we have a long-standing practice in Ontario of working with all our partners. We actually believe that when it comes to professional development, it’s most effective if everybody is part of it. We fund school boards for professional development. We fund the directors’ organization. We fund teacher organizations. We fund subject organizations, faculties of education and, yes, teachers’ unions.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Perhaps the minister would like to read the report, as I did, and she would understand that her

interpretation of the auditor’s report is wrong. It came directly from the elementary and secondary school education development fund, meaning it came from grants for needs of students. That’s exactly where that came from.

Liberals are now closing provincial and demonstration schools. They’re kicking kids off the autism wait-list, as we saw yesterday. They’re closing rural schools—and urban schools, because my daughter’s school might be on the chopping block. Thirty-eight school boards had to cut their student special education funding to the tune of—guess what?—$22 million. Parents are forced to fundraise in Windsor for basic needs, including school repairs.

So I’ll go back to generously ask the education minister for a second chance at responding to me: Why is this government forcing kids to sit in portables with their jackets on all winter, at the same time as they are spending $90 million, almost undocumented—

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

Interjections.

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

A reminder for everyone: You speak to the Chair.

Minister?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Thank you. Of course, the money did not come from the Grant for Student Needs. The Grant for Student Needs is a regulation which very clearly lays out the calculation for money to go to school boards, and we follow that regulation always.

But let me tell you, Speaker, what the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, had to say about professional development in Ontario. It said, “The Ontario experience suggests instead that by treating teachers as professionals, and including them at the table, they were able”—Ontario was able—“to build considerable goodwill—a critical resource for long-term and sustainable”—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer, please.

Hon. Liz Sandals: The Ontario “government was able to direct that energy towards win-win issues like providing more professional development time. Ultimately, the Ontario government created a sustainable”—

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

New question.

Autism treatment

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Yesterday, member after member from the opposition benches got up and told heartbreaking stories of the impact of this government’s plan to kick children over the age of five out of IBI therapy. Parents sat in the chamber sobbing while Liberal members sat with their BlackBerrys, smiling, turning their backs to debate, and laughing with their colleagues.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Put your question, please.

Miss Monique Taylor: This government continues to be truly disrespectful to the parents of this province. You can’t claim to care deeply about the stories parents are telling you if you don’t even have the respect to listen to them.

How many parents have to leave this Legislature in tears before this government starts to listen?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Well, Speaker, where to start with this? First of all, I admire and respect all the members who were here in the Legislature yesterday when the families and groups were here, whether that was question period or whether it was the three hours in the afternoon for the opposition debate. I think all members paid attention and listened to the debate with interest. We’re very mindful of the families who were here.

I worry about this critic talking in a way that’s not factual, saying that we’re taking kids out of therapy. We’re not. We’re not.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. You have a one-sentence wrap-up.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Thank you. I ask all members of the House to stick to the facts. I ask them not to use language like “kicking kids out of therapy.” That is not what we’re doing, Speaker. We’re investing in kids. We’re creating a better—

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

Interjections.

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

Before I start the clock, I would make a comment to the members of this chamber. If at any time this assembly decides that they have a lack of confidence in the Chair, then put a motion forward and have a non-confidence vote in the Chair.

Supplementary?

Miss Monique Taylor: Speaker, yesterday in debate, the minister tried to make it seem like these changes wouldn’t have devastating impacts by saying, “The transition, though difficult, will not affect most families.”

That’s an unacceptable argument. No child should be left behind. Every child matters. You can’t deny full IBI funding to a specific group of kids who were already deemed eligible for IBI, simply because they’ve turned five. It’s unjust, it’s inequitable and it’s not fair.

Why does this government think that children of a certain age with autism are only worth $8,000 and a place on yet another wait-list?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: If you put my remarks from yesterday in context, what I was trying to focus on is that there is a group of the 40,000 children with autism in this process who are going to be experiencing the biggest changes through this new program. It’s important that we support them individually on a case-by-case basis, and that’s what I was talking about yesterday.

We agree that autism doesn’t end at five, and in the new program, all children with a diagnosis, including those children five and over, will get better service. They’ll get it sooner and it will be customized to meet their individual needs, including those children who need more intensive therapies and support.

This is a continuum of care we’re moving toward. We want to make sure that all children get the right support at the right age, based on clinical advice and assessment. That’s exactly what we’re going to do.

Energy policies

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Minister, there have been questions raised about the future of natural gas in the province, following discussions about the upcoming climate change action plan. Consumers and businesses are hearing from media reports and the opposition that they will be forced off natural gas into heating their homes with electricity.

The 2016 provincial budget committed to expanding natural gas to communities across Ontario, including communities in rural Ontario. Not only has natural gas traditionally been a very cost-effective option for home heating, it is very important to rural Ontarians and is used for many industrial and commercial agricultural activities.

Minister, can you please clarify for the members of this House and all Ontarians what this government’s plan for natural gas is?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank the member for Northumberland–Quinte West for this important question. He is a champion for concerns right across all of rural Ontario.

Let me be clear: Our government knows how much of a priority natural gas is for rural Ontario. Despite what the opposition or anybody else is saying, we’re not forcing anyone off natural gas. There will not be a climate change police in the province of Ontario seizing natural gas furnaces or fireplaces. That’s a false statement that people on that side are making. It is wrong, Mr. Speaker. We are not abandoning or reducing our investments in this area.

In fact, as the member knows, he mentioned our government’s commitment to expanding natural gas, including our $200-million natural gas access loan program to be launched this year, and another $30 million—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Wrap up, please.

Hon. Jeff Leal: Another $30 million will go towards the Natural Gas Economic Development Grant to extend natural gas to rural communities. This government is committed to expanding natural—

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I appreciate the minister providing clarification on this issue.

On this side of the House, our government has taken positive steps to combat climate change by curbing our greenhouse gas emissions and investing in renewable energy. Now, as we look to the future and envision what is next, we have to think critically at what the major sources of greenhouse gas emissions are in this province.

Buildings in Ontario accounted for 19% of our province’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2013, our third largest source of emissions. The good news is that the building sector also holds the most potential for delivering significant and cost-effective greenhouse gas emission reductions and will play a key role in providing transformation to a low-carbon economy.

Can the minister please inform the House on the specific role that natural gas will play in helping in the transition?

Hon. Jeff Leal: To my colleague, the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I also want to thank my colleague from Northumberland–Quinte West. I am not going to be able to match the eloquence of the minister of agricultural affairs and food.

We continue to see a critical role in the energy mix for natural gas, including in trucking and other areas. That’s why, this past February, Mr. Speaker, as you would know, our government announced a $100-million partnership with Enbridge and Union Gas as part of the down payment on cap-and-trade. We will be presenting a plan—that will benefit customers and lower costs for households and businesses to reach our emissions targets.

Finally, I can say with confidence that natural gas will have an important role in that process. We will also continue to invest in fossil-free technologies that consumers choose to purchase as well. This is a good-news story.

Autism treatment

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. The minister and her colleagues ignored experts and thousands of parents when they voted down our motion to restore IBI therapy for children over the age of five.

The Raptors weren’t the only thing lighting up Twitter last night: There were hundreds of tweets by parents and individuals who are disappointed—no, disgusted—with yesterday’s vote.

One individual wrote to the minister stating, “Explain to me how your side’s empty when it’s time to listen and full when it’s time to vote.” Another wrote, “Disgusted with the Ontario Liberals tonight. They had an opportunity to do the right thing and voted not to.”

These people won’t give up. We won’t give up. I ask again, will the minister reverse her decision and allow children over the age of five access to IBI therapy?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I don’t think I have to tell my other critic here what I think she already knows. Members of this Legislature participate on committees and have other responsibilities, so not everybody from any party is in the House at all times. If that’s what she’s suggesting, I think that’s outrageous.

But we do listen to parents; we do listen to families. And do you know what? When all members of this Legislature were speaking yesterday, I was listening. I was taking notes, particularly of the stories of families, because it helps inform the direction we’re going. It helps inform the implementation of the new program. So I appreciated the participation of all members in the House yesterday.

I’ll say once again, this is a historic investment of $333 million on top of $190 million a year and 16,000 new spaces. We want this to work for all children who require autism support services at the right time, at the right—

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: The minister doesn’t seem to understand the impact this decision is having on families. Here are some facts for you: It means Kelly McDowell’s daughter—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Come to order.

Supplementary.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: These are not my stories. These are stories from families. Kelly McDowell’s daughter, who has benefited from IBI therapy to where she can now tell her parents that she loves them, will never be able to complete her therapy. It means Meghan Stevens’s son, who has been told he is a perfect candidate for IBI therapy, will never experience that impact this life-changing therapy has.

It’s time for the minister to do the right thing and reverse her decision so each child in our province can become the best they can be.

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I’m worried about comments like children “will never” get a certain therapy. It sounds like the case the member is talking about is a child who is in IBI therapy. They will continue to get IBI therapy and they will be assessed by a clinician, and then the plan of action for that child will be determined going forward.

Let’s not forget that it’s her party and her leader that voted against this new investment in autism.

Interjections.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Absolutely. And their motion, as we discussed yesterday, would keep kids on wait-lists longer. That’s unacceptable. We cannot have kids on wait-lists for the length of time they have been there now, growing to five years.

The new program recognizes that there is no age cut-off for services going forward, that there’s a continuum of care required, that children will get the right support—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: —at the right time, based on clinical assessments, not by saying absolute—

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

New question.

Government deficits

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Acting Premier. Today’s FAO report is unequivocal in its findings. The government plan to reduce program spending is happening across most areas. Planned spending growth in health and education, for example, is at about half the rate it should be in order to keep up with population growth and other cost pressures.

According to the report, this means that program expenses would need to be $4 billion higher by 2018-19 compared to what was written in the 2016 budget. Mind you, this is only if the status quo remains, and Ontarians know that the quality of public services under this Liberal government only continues to decline.

My question: How long are Ontarians expected to go without?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I appreciate the question. I also appreciate, as I’ve mentioned, the work done by the FAO in this regard, recognizing how important it is for us to take note of the fact that the structures in place, the status quo, must be amended without sacrificing the very services that are important to Ontarians, like health care and education.

It’s one of the reasons we’re investing much more in health care: $1 billion alone this year, as well as $12 billion over the next 10 years to support new hospitals, new hospice care and new services for the people of Ontario when it comes to health care.

The FAO also makes reference to the fact that we are coming into balance. He also notes some of the risks that are involved that we must address. We are doing just that. It’s also why we’ve built quite a bit of prudence into the system.

But the member opposite is asking a very important question: Can we stay the way we are or must we make the appropriate changes to improve our services while being mindful of the taxpayers as we proceed forward, balancing the books at the same time?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: Mr. Speaker, this government likes to congratulate itself on having the lowest program spending per person in the country, but Ontarians know what that means. They are living a painful Liberal reality in Ontario. They know it means less money for health care. Our hospitals are already overcrowded, as we’ve heard. It means less money for education. Kids with special needs are already not getting the supports they need. And more money is spent cleaning up Liberal mistakes. All in all, it simply means less money for the things that Ontarians depend on, the people whom we’re supposed to be working for, the people whom we are elected to serve.

My question is simple: When will this Liberal government put the needs of Ontarians first?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, I’m very proud on this side of the House that we have been putting Ontarians’ needs first in every budget that we’ve presented and that I’ve had the pleasure of doing.

I must admit, I have to ask the member opposite this very question. On page 9 of her platform, they promised to make $600 million in unspecified cuts every year. This member opposite stood and said that the way to find the savings, the way to make those cuts, is in health care, by her own admission.

We’re not doing that on this side of the House. We’re investing more in health care. We’re providing for the people of Ontario.

Aboriginal affairs

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. I understand that last week the minister was invited to be part of the Canadian delegation to the 15th session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. I know that our government is committed to working with the federal government on issues of shared priority and concern. It’s great to see that Ontario was asked to stand with Canada on the world stage at this important forum.

Can the minister please tell us more about his participation in the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues?

Hon. David Zimmer: Thank you for that question.

It was a great honour to join my federal counterpart, Minister Carolyn Bennett; Ontario First Nation leadership, Métis leadership and Inuit leaders; and more than 1,000 other indigenous participants from across the world at the United Nations for this forum.

The overarching theme of this year’s session was “Conflict, Peace and Resolution,” leading to a very productive discussion on issues related to lands, territories, resources, rights and distinct identities.

It was a pleasure to have the opportunity to further join Minister Bennett in a forum discussion entitled Empowering Indigenous Women, with various delegations from Australia and New Zealand. Speaker, it was clear that Canada now has a voice on the world stage when it comes to indigenous issues.

I am proud that Ontario was able to be a part of that delegation. I am proud that Canada is back on the international stage.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Fraser: Thank you very much to the minister for the update on his participation at the United Nations.

It was also good to hear that he was invited to take

part in the panel on empowering indigenous women. His exposure to the experiences of indigenous women in other countries and governments will be important in our own long-term strategy to end violence against indigenous women.

I also understand that, while at the UN, the minister’s federal counterpart also announced that Canada will be removing its permanent objector status from the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Speaker, through you to the minister, could he please tell us more about the lessons learned from his trip that will benefit the work of our government?

Hon. David Zimmer: As Ontario moves forward on the implementation of our long-term strategy and our response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, it is important to consider the lessons we can learn from the experience and successes of other countries.

It was an honour, again, to join Canada for the Empowering Indigenous Women round table to hear the perspectives of other countries in addressing this very important issue. I thank Minister Bennett for this opportunity. It was great to hear a very good-news story that the federal government is reversing its stance on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Our government is committed to working with our indigenous partners as we follow the federal government’s leadership in developing a national plan for the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Energy policies

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: My question is for the Minister of Energy. It concerns the future of natural gas, which this government seems intent to eliminate.

My question is why isn’t the minister speaking up for affordable energy? Whose side is he taking? Is it the Minister of Economic Development, who wrote, “My ministry heard of the importance of natural gas.... In particular, we heard that remote communities face large expansion costs to access the resource”? Or is it the Minister of the Environment, who said that “home heating in the future is going to have to come from sources other than natural gas”?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I’m happy to speak to the member, particularly in view of the fact that he has rural constituents. He will know that we have taken some very significant steps to mitigate the costs in the rural areas. We do that by having a policy of expanding natural gas into rural communities. We’re doing it through the Ontario Energy Board.

We’ve changed the regulations to allow a longer period of time to recoup the capital. We have the loan program for rural natural gas expansion. We have a loan program and a grant program for rural areas. We are taking all kind of steps. Hydro One has a new program for heat pumps which can be installed in rural residences and will take between $800 and $1,500 off their electricity bills every year.

We are working for the rural community when it comes to the prices of electricity.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Back in February, I wrote to the government about the need for natural gas access in Milverton, which I represent. I’ve seen responses from the Premier, the Minister of Economic Development and the OEB, but not the Minister of Energy.

Now we know the Liberals are planning a $7-billion climate plan which threatens to throw up new barriers to natural gas in rural Ontario. Unbelievably, it proposes to ban natural gas from all homes and small buildings built in 2030 or later. It’s yet another Liberal policy dreamed up with zero thought to rural Ontario.

Will the minister stand with the people of Perth East and support the township’s position on natural gas, or will he stand with his out-of-control colleague, the Minister of the Environment?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. I was trying to listen to the question when the member from Renfrew took me off my listening.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I would invite the member to inform himself as to what’s happening at the Ontario Energy Board. He may not be aware of the fact that Union Gas has an application before the Ontario Energy Board. The hearings are in process to expand natural gas to five—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Huron–Bruce.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: —rural communities. Union Gas is also working with 18 or 19 other rural communities to make similar applications before rural communities.

They don’t want to admit, in the Conservative Party, that we are paying attention to rural customers. We’re taking steps to mitigate their rates and we will continue to do so.

M. Gilles Bisson: Ma question est pour la vice-première ministre.

Est-ce que la vice-première ministre pense que c’est bien qu’un francophone en Ontario peut se faire refuser le droit d’écrire un test avec the Technical Standards and Safety Authority? Est-ce que c’est une bonne affaire? Moi, je dis non.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The minister responsible for francophone affairs.

L’hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Premièrement, je veux remercier le député de Timmins–James Bay pour sa question.

Je n’étais pas au courant que ce processus-là était en place et qu’on n’avait pas le droit d’écrire les examens. Alors, je vais m’assurer de parler au ministre responsable pour corriger cette situation-là.

Le Président (L’hon. Dave Levac): Merci. Supplementary?

La deuxième

partie de ma question : oui, aidez la personne à Hearst qui a besoin d’avoir son examen, mais on a besoin de corriger ce fléau et de s’assurer que cette organisation, comme les autres, se trouve sous la Loi 8 dans les régions désignées.

L’hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Le ministre des services corporatifs.

Hon. David Orazietti: I appreciate the question from the member from Timmins–James Bay.

First of all, the TSSA is responsible for regulating fuel safety and other areas of safety standards. It is certainly my expectation of all of the delegated administrative authorities and agencies in the province that they conduct business in both official languages.

Affordable housing

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. From my experience as a municipal councillor, I had a front-row view of the difficulties facing municipalities in delivering affordable housing. As this House will know, I have been a strong proponent of a planning tool called inclusionary zoning.

In many communities across the province, increasing housing prices and rent costs are making it difficult for people to find housing that they can afford to rent or buy. A few months ago, our government took actions to address this by releasing an updated Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy. If passed, this would introduce legislation that would make inclusionary zoning a reality in communities across this province.

Will the minister provide this House with an update on the development of a proposed inclusionary zoning framework?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I thank the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore and also the member from High Park, who both have a long history of advocating for inclusionary zoning. It’s important.

Today, later this afternoon, I will be introducing the Promoting Affordable Housing Act, which would, if passed, help to ensure that the people of Ontario have better access to affordable and adequate housing. These changes will enable municipalities to offer incentives and use other planning measures, such as height and density, to support the creation of affordable units in partnership with the development sector.

Speaker, our neighbourhoods are stronger and more vital when they include a mix of people who are able to choose where they live from a range of housing. That will be the intent of the legislation. I’m sure all members of the House will be delighted to see it this afternoon.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn: Thank you to the minister for his answer and for his leadership on this issue.

My community of Toronto has long sought the ability to have inclusionary zoning. Toronto’s chief planner, Jennifer Keesmaat, has said that a lack of access to this planning tool has resulted in the loss of the opportunity to create tens of thousands of units that would be affordable. Inclusionary zoning has also been requested by York region, Peel region, the region of Waterloo, the city of Hamilton and other municipalities.

We recognize that inclusionary zoning is not a magic wand or a silver bullet that will do away with housing challenges, but what’s important to note is that the proposed Promoting Affordable Housing Act will put forward other suggested measures to increase the supply of affordable housing in Ontario and continue the transformation of the social housing system.

Through you, will the minister highlight some of these other proposals in the bill?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: The honourable member is correct. In addition to the ground-breaking proposals associated with inclusionary zoning, there will be some other tools that will be made available which will allow our municipal partners who operate social housing more flexibility in administering and delivering social housing in their communities, helping to reduce wait-lists and, frankly, just making it easier for Ontarians to embrace a bunch of options.

Further changes would make secondary suites in new homes—a potential source of affordable rental units for low- to moderate-income renters—less costly to build by exempting them from development charges.

Speaker, with our proposed package of changes, we are taking meaningful actions to transform Ontario’s housing system and end chronic homelessness within the next decade.

Energy policies

Mr. Rick Nicholls: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. My constituents are furious after the premature release of the minister’s plan to abandon natural gas in Ontario. Mark called it a “lunatic plan.” Mary said, “This had better be some sort of—“

Interjections.

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

Finish, please.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Mary said, “This had better be some sort of delayed April Fool’s prank.”

“I am beyond furious with this ridiculous plan,” wrote Joan.

Many have wondered how they will pay their bills, while others are worried about their jobs.

“There is basically one industry that provides economic safety in this county”—that’s the county of Chatham-Kent—“and it is Union Gas,” said Sharon.

Union Gas employs 850 people in Chatham-Kent and thousands throughout Ontario. We need these jobs.

Speaker, to the minister: Can the minister please let my constituents know—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Sit down. I stand, you sit.

Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: As my colleague the Minister of Children and Youth Services said, it’s important to stick to the facts in these conversations. Fact number one, if I haven’t said it enough: We are not banning or removing natural gas heating or cooling. I don’t know how many times I have to say that. You’ll see it when the plan comes out.

But maybe the member could talk to my colleague—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Glen R. Murray: —could talk to my friend from London North Centre. She’ll introduce him, in his neighbourhood, to Sifton homes, which is building net-zero, very low-cost “prosumer” homes, as they are called, where these people have the lowest heating and cooling bills, almost, in Ontario. They’re being built all around him.

When Ontarians choose those net-zero homes with very low costs, they should get help from this government too, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Back to the minister: The agricultural and greenhouse industry in my ridingwould also like clarification about the environment minister’s plan to abandon natural gas.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture has been asking for an expansion of natural gas for years. This government was patting itself on the back for promising an investment in gas lines only a few months ago. Recently, the minister sent a letter to the OEB saying that the provincial government was committed to expanding natural gas service in rural Ontario. But now the industry is shocked after hearing that these plans may be abandoned.

Minister, you need to reconsider and ensure the need for natural gas expansion in Ontario.

Speaker, to the minister: Will promises made to expand natural gas lines in rural Ontario be honoured?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: The investments we are making in more efficient natural gas, in cogen, in geothermal, in battery and a whole range of Ontario companies’ amazing technologies will give Ontarians more choice in home heating and cooling, lower costs and will reduce GHGs.

In fact, I’m working almost monthly with the greenhouse industry because part of the challenge with the changing climate is that we’re likely going to have to grow more food in protected environments. They’re co-authoring the plan with us. That will be a big boon in the ag sector. Don McCabe is on our working group. He knows. Maybe the member could talk to Mr. McCabe from the OFA to get his facts corrected, because Mr. McCabe certainly understands them.

Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Finance on a point of order.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I’d like to introduce our interns at the Ministry of Finance this summer: Marie Visca, Julia McArthur and Eduardo Rodriguez. They’re in our members’ gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton Mountain on a point of order.

Miss Monique Taylor: I had some guests join us after introductions this morning, so I’d like to welcome to the House my brother, David Taylor, as well as a family friend, Ken Hadal. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Davenport.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: I’d like to introduce a constituent of mine from the riding of Davenport: Samantha Tome, who attends St. Joseph’s College School and was recently selected as a recipient of the Herbert H. Carnegie Future Aces National Citizenship Award and Scholarship. She is here today with her guidance counsellor, Aida Costa. Welcome.

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

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I would like to introduce the team that worked on Bill 172 in our ministry: Myra Hewitt, Laura Nemchin, David Harth, Heather Pearson, Sheri Beaton, Lisa Blackwell, Steve Borg, Kaj Thiru, David Mullock and Iain Myrans. They’re a great team who work for us every day.

Deferred Votes

Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur l’atténuation du changement climatique et une économie sobre en carbone

Deferred vote on the motion that the question now be put on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 172,

An Act respecting greenhouse gas / Projet de loi 172, Loi concernant les gaz à effet de serre.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We have a deferred vote on the motion for closure on the motion for third reading of Bill 172,

An Act respecting greenhouse gas.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1142 to 1147.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On May 10, 2016, Mr. Murray moved third reading of Bill 172,

An Act respecting greenhouse gas.

Mr. Colle has moved that the question be now put.

All those in favour of Mr. Colle’s motion, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Albanese, Laura

Anderson, Granville

Baker, Yvan

Ballard, Chris

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bradley, James J.

Chan, Michael

Chiarelli, Bob

Colle, Mike

Coteau, Michael

Crack, Grant

Damerla, Dipika

Del Duca, Steven

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Dickson, Joe

Dong, Han

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fraser, John

Hoggarth, Ann

Hunter, Mitzie

Jaczek, Helena

Kiwala, Sophie

Lalonde, Marie-France

Leal, Jeff

MacCharles, Tracy

Malhi, Harinder

Mangat, Amrit

Martins, Cristina

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGarry, Kathryn

McMahon, Eleanor

McMeekin, Ted

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milczyn, Peter Z.

Murray, Glen R.

Naidoo-Harris, Indira

Naqvi, Yasir

Orazietti, David

Potts, Arthur

Qaadri, Shafiq

Rinaldi, Lou

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Sousa, Charles

Takhar, Harinder S.

Thibeault, Glenn

Vernile, Daiene

Wong, Soo

Zimmer, David

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

Nays

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Arnott, Ted

Bailey, Robert

Clark, Steve

Coe, Lorne

DiNovo, Cheri

Fedeli, Victor

Fife, Catherine

French, Jennifer K.

Gates, Wayne

Gretzky, Lisa

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael

Hatfield, Percy

Hillier, Randy

Jones, Sylvia

MacLeod, Lisa

Martow, Gila

McDonell, Jim

McNaughton, Monte

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Nicholls, Rick

Pettapiece, Randy

Sattler, Peggy

Scott, Laurie

Singh, Jagmeet

Smith, Todd

Tabuns, Peter

Taylor, Monique

Thompson, Lisa M.

Walker, Bill

Wilson, Jim

Yakabuski, John

Yurek, Jeff

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 51; the nays are 35.

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

Mr. Murray has moved third reading of Bill 172,

An Act respecting greenhouse gas.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1150 to 1153.

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

Ayes

Albanese, Laura

Anderson, Granville

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Baker, Yvan

Ballard, Chris

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bradley, James J.

Chan, Michael

Chiarelli, Bob

Colle, Mike

Coteau, Michael

Crack, Grant

Damerla, Dipika

Del Duca, Steven

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Dickson, Joe

DiNovo, Cheri

Dong, Han

Fife, Catherine

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fraser, John

French, Jennifer K.

Gates, Wayne

Gretzky, Lisa

Hatfield, Percy

Hoggarth, Ann

Hunter, Mitzie

Jaczek, Helena

Kiwala, Sophie

Lalonde, Marie-France

Leal, Jeff

MacCharles, Tracy

Malhi, Harinder

Mangat, Amrit

Martins, Cristina

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGarry, Kathryn

McMahon, Eleanor

McMeekin, Ted

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milczyn, Peter Z.

Miller, Paul

Murray, Glen R.

Naidoo-Harris, Indira

Naqvi, Yasir

Orazietti, David

Potts, Arthur

Qaadri, Shafiq

Rinaldi, Lou

Sandals, Liz

Sattler, Peggy

Sergio, Mario

Singh, Jagmeet

Sousa, Charles

Tabuns, Peter

Takhar, Harinder S.

Taylor, Monique

Thibeault, Glenn

Vernile, Daiene

Wong, Soo

Zimmer, David

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

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Bailey, Robert

Clark, Steve

Coe, Lorne

Fedeli, Victor

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael

Hillier, Randy

Jones, Sylvia

MacLeod, Lisa

Martow, Gila

McDonell, Jim

McNaughton, Monte

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Nicholls, Rick

Pettapiece, Randy

Scott, Laurie

Smith, Todd

Thompson, Lisa M.

Walker, Bill

Wilson, Jim

Yakabuski, John

Yurek, Jeff

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

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

Third reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): There are no further deferred votes. This House stands recessed until 3 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1156 to 1500.

Introduction of Visitors

Mrs. Gila Martow: I want to welcome some visitors who are here today for Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome Awareness Month. We have my son Mitch Martow, James Eubanks, Liza Butcher, Bettina Share, Kathleen Eubanks, Lindsey Czitron, Christina Butt, Taz Goddard, Holy Clayton, Alexandra Howell, Peter Balasis, Terry Howell, Ashley McKay and Elizabeth Butcher—they’re all in the front row. As well, high up in the gallery we have Sylvia Stamou and Charlotte Lawrence Moody. Welcome, and thank you for coming.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I have three guests today: Hieronim Teresinski, national president of the Association of Polish Engineers in Canada, and as well, from my riding of Windsor–Tecumseh, Ewa Barycka and Jerzy Barycki, president of the Polish Canadian Business and Professional Association of Windsor.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further introductions? The member for Elgin–Middlesex–London.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I get laughed at, I guess. I don’t know.

Mr. Speaker, I’d love to also welcome members from the Polonia community, especially the youth group Harnasie, from the Polish Highlanders Association of Canada, who are wearing beautiful Polish traditional costumes. Stand up and say hello. Welcome. I would also like to welcome Jerry Barycki, who is here today. Also here today is Teresa Berezowski, from the Canadian Polish Congress—I don’t see her in the House yet—and Grzegorz Morawski, consul general of the Republic of Poland.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member would know that I would never laugh at him. I was actually laughing at myself, because you were standing and I was looking right at you and saying, “Who else is standing?” So I apologize. My vision is going. What can I say?

Further introductions?

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I would like to introduce Joe Vaccaro, from the Ontario Home Builders’ Association, who is here. Welcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We welcome all our guests and thank you for being here.

Members’ Statements

Pope John Paul II

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I’m proud to rise today to recognize the birthday of Karol Jozef Wojtyła, who was born on May 18, 1920, in Wadowice, Poland. He was the man who became known as the Pope.

St. John Paul II was elected by the second papal conclave of 1978 and adopted his predecessor’s name in tribute to him.

He served as Pope of the Roman Catholic church from 1978 until his death on April 2, 2005. It’s one of those dates that I’m sure we all remember what we were doing when we heard the sad news.

St. John Paul II was a widely admired figure, respected by Roman Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

As Pope, he travelled to every corner of the Earth.

We were very fortunate to host him in Ontario on two occasions, in 1984 and again in 2002, when he celebrated World Youth Day together with 800,000 young people.

He dedicated his life and papacy to international understanding, peace and the defence of equality and human rights.

St. John Paul II significantly improved the Catholic church’s relations with Judaism, Islam, the Eastern Orthodox church and the Anglican Communion.

His message of hope, embodied in the phrase, “Be not afraid,” inspired millions around the world, and his canonization ensures that it will endure into the future.

I was pleased to participate in the celebration of St. John Paul II’s birthday today at Queen’s Park, representing our leader, Patrick Brown.

I’d especially like to thank the youth present here today from the Polish Highlanders Association for enriching the celebration not only with their costumes, but also with their music and singing, bringing Polish tradition to Queen’s Park and showing how diverse Ontario is.

Mr. Speaker, as a Polish descendant myself, I am proud to rise in honour of Pope St. John Paul II. His life and legacy will always be remembered.

General Motors in Oshawa

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Ten years ago, the General Motors car assembly plant in Oshawa was one of the most productive auto plants in the world. It topped the J.D. Power list for quality, and year in and year out, the workers at GM kept it that way. Oshawa was the crown jewel of General Motors. GM workers were promised that keeping Oshawa a high-quality, high-productivity producer would ensure the survival of the plant.

They also made money for General Motors, lots of it. In 1996, General Motors Canada was the first Canadian company to register a $1-billion profit. At the time, 40% of GM’s North American profits were coming from the 10% of their workforce that was running the Oshawa plant.

The workers at GM Oshawa have invested millions of dollars through payroll deductions back into our community. They’ve helped to expand the hospital; build a cancer centre, the YMCA and UOIT; stock the food bank; and generated millions more for the United Way. Their efforts have contributed billions of dollars to the Canadian economy, and the jobs at the Oshawa plant matter not only to our community but to Ontario and Canada as a whole.

Following the 2008 financial crisis, GM has returned to profitability after shedding its debt, thanks to the investment of the people of Ontario and Canada, as well as sacrifices made by the workers and retirees. While record profits should have resulted in reinvestment into the Oshawa plant, they have not. We have never felt more uncertainty about the future of General Motors in Oshawa than we do now. It is time for GM to commit and bring new product to Oshawa. Our community has earned it.

Burlington’s Best Awards

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: I rise today in the House to recognize the proud achievements of outstanding citizens in my riding of Burlington who were recently honoured at the annual Burlington’s Best Awards on May 11. Burlington has been recognized by MoneySense magazine as the best mid-sized city for three years in a row and the third-best city in Canada. These accomplishments wouldn’t be possible without the selfless contributions of our citizens. The Burlington’s Best Awards provide an opportunity to thank those residents whose dedication contributes to making Burlington such a wonderful place to live, work and play.

This year’s awards featured seven award winners from among 22 nominees. Award categories included the Senior Person of Year, the Junior Citizen of the Year, Arts Person of the Year, the Environmental Award, the Community Service Award, the Heritage Award and Citizen of the Year.

This year’s winner of Citizen of the Year was Brenda Hunter. Brenda’s leadership and dedication to the health care needs of the residents of Burlington and beyond, through her work with the Joseph Brant Hospital Foundation, continue to transform and inspire our community. As a leader of our hospital’s Our New Era campaign, she played a major role in raising over $48 million of Joseph Brant’s $60-million donor campaign. She also successfully led the One Room at a Time campaign, which raised $400,000 in support of the new palliative care unit.

I’d like to congratulate and thank Brenda and all the winners and nominees of this year’s Burlington’s Best Awards for their continued selfless service to our community.

Financial services sector

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Financial advisers play a vital role in helping people retire with security and reach their financial goals. The financial services sector is a pillar of strength for Ontario’s economy and contributes $8.4 billion in direct GDP and over 84,000 jobs. Ontario needs a competitive market for financial services that offer consumers a range of choices and protection, including access to small business financial advisers.

However, the industry is concerned with the potential adoption of policies that have failed in other jurisdictions, policies that have made financial advice unaffordable. Ontario needs to be a leader in this regard, not a follower. We need policies to make financial advice more available to Ontarians, not less.

Speaker, I urge the government to end its pursuit of policies that will make financial advice unaffordable in Ontario. Instead, reforms should focus on strengthening the sector, including professional title protection for financial advisers, less red tape and greater accountability for clients.

Prompt payment

Mr. Wayne Gates: Prompt Payment Ontario: Payment delays are the most significant limit on efficiency in Ontario’s construction sector and the nearly 450,000 Ontarians who work in it. The delays create serious cash flow problems for subcontractors and for our hard-working tradespeople.

Families in Ontario are currently waiting up to four months for their loved ones to get paid for construction work already completed and certified. This withheld money is taking billions of dollars out of our economy and severely impacting Ontarians. They cannot wait months or years for prompt payment to become a reality, because if they do, they face job loss and even bankruptcy.

Payment delays mean lower employment, that benefit coverage for workers is reduced, that apprenticeship opportunities are fewer and that the pool of bidders is reduced as trade contractors must limit their expenses due to the restriction in cash flow.

In March 2014, the government recognized these issues. In fact, the current Minister of Transportation introduced a PMB to address this issue. Unfortunately, it was scrapped just before an election, and since then, all we’ve had is a review of the Construction Lien Act.

Earlier this month, that report was submitted to the government, and I rise today to urge the government to immediately release the findings of the review to those that are most drastically affected by its outcome. We cannot wait any longer. Those directly affected must be made aware of the findings immediately.

Nurses at SickKids

Mr. Han Dong: I’m pleased to rise today to recognize and thank the nurses of SickKids Hospital in my riding of Trinity–Spadina. Last week, I was honoured to accompany the nurses of SickKids Hospital on their annual Take Your MPP to Work Day.

Between visiting the dialysis unit, where I met a family of Syrian refugees receiving treatment and services, to the cardiology floor, where a team of nurses worked 24 hours around the clock, rotating jobs, charts and working together to ensure the best care is given to their patients, the teamwork and the passion I saw from the nurses at SickKids was very moving. I’m proud to have them practising in my riding. They’re truly the highlight of our exceptional health care system.

Thank you to all the nurses of SickKids Hospital for showing me the ropes, and thank you to all nurses across the province for the critical care you provide to Ontarians.

Ehlers-Danlos syndrome

Mrs. Gila Martow: I just want to wish congratulations to everybody who’s here with Ehlers-Danlos and those who are supporting their friends and relatives with Ehlers-Danlos. I’m going to read the proclamation that I presented to them. We took a wonderful picture and we had a nice lunch.

Congratulations to EDS Canada on the recognition of May as Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome Awareness Month. Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, EDS, is a genetic disorder involving mutations in connective tissue, characterized by instability and dislocations of the joints; skin that bruises, scars and tears easily; and arterial and organ rupture causing internal bleeding, shock, stroke and premature death.

There is neither routine screening nor a cure for EDS. Early and accurate diagnosis can provide opportunities for life-saving emergency medical plans and proper monitoring and can improve quality of life. EDS is frequently misdiagnosed or undiagnosed. Improved knowledge can prevent generations of premature deaths, allow for effective management, improve quality of life, and reduce disability and pain.

I am pleased to congratulate EDS Canada for their advocacy work on behalf of all Canadians and their friends and relatives who face challenges due to this genetic condition. We celebrate May 2016 as Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome Awareness Month in Ontario, while eagerly looking forward to celebrating the opening of the first EDS clinic.

I want to say that the member from Kitchener–Conestoga is eagerly awaiting news, as am I, on when this clinic is going to open, as has been repeatedly promised by the Minister of Health. Unfortunately, the letters from his office are very inconclusive.

Rotary Club of Toronto-Don Mills

Ms. Soo Wong: This year marks the 60th anniversary of the Rotary Club of Toronto-Don Mills. I rise today to recognize the contributions of this Rotary Club to the province and to the world.

For the past 16 years, this Rotary Club has been promoting oral health and awareness among young children from junior kindergarten to grade 6 through the Brush-a-mania program, first in the city of Toronto and then across the province. To date, the program has reached over half a million elementary students across the province.

Brush-a-mania is one of two big projects that this Rotary Club is involved in locally and provincially. In 2008, the club expanded this program to Armenia, where two mobile dental clinics were created to better serve the children there.

I want to thank three Rotarian members, Dr. Raffy Chouljian, Jennifer Boyd and Ryan Fogarty, who will be starting a six-day hike up Mount Kilimanjaro next month to raise funds for a polio-free world.

I want to also congratulate this club for their 60th anniversary and for their service above self. I look forward to celebrating with them this evening as they celebrate their 60th anniversary.

Homelessness

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn: Unfortunately, homelessness occurs in too many communities in our province. In Etobicoke–Lakeshore, we do have two excellent Out of the Cold programs, run by All Saints Kingsway Anglican Church and by St. Margaret’s church.

This winter, my constituency staff were happy to assist the volunteers and parishioners at St. Margaret’s by cooking and serving a hot breakfast for their overnight guests. The program provides dinner, overnight accommodations, a full hot breakfast and a bag lunch to those who are homeless or hungry from November through April. St. Margaret’s also offers its guests various forms of clothing and laundry services. A nurse comes in weekly to check out such problems as frostbitten hands and feet, as guests have many challenges to face when out on the street.

St. Margaret’s volunteers and parishioners recently turned the tables when the program wound down in April, by inviting the various Etobicoke–Lakeshore groups who volunteered to assist with this year’s program, including my staff, to a delicious evening of great food and conviviality at the church. Many thanks to Cara Wigle, Terry Greer, Tanya Imola, and so many more people who so generously give of their time to support others through this wonderful program.

Volunteering is a very rewarding experience in a friendly environment, where your time means so much to our community’s most vulnerable when you participate in an Out of the Cold program.

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I beg leave to present a report from the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly and move its adoption.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Mr. William Short): Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 100,

An Act to enact the Ontario Trails Act, 2016 and to amend various Acts / Projet de loi 100, Loi édictant la Loi de 2016 sur les sentiers de l’Ontario et modifiant diverses lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed? Carried.

Report adopted.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

Introduction of Bills

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

Mr. McMeekin moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 204,

An Act to amend or repeal various Acts with respect to housing and planning / Projet de loi 204, Loi modifiant ou abrogeant diverses lois en ce qui concerne le logement et l’aménagement du territoire.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The minister for a short statement.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: The Promoting Affordable Housing Act would amend the Planning Act, the Development Charges Act, the Housing Services Act and the Residential Tenancies Act. Our package of reforms would, if passed, help to ensure the people of Ontario have better access to affordable and adequate housing. It would increase the supply of affordable housing through such tools as inclusionary zoning and modernize social housing by giving local service managers more flexibility in administrating and delivering programs.

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Act (Double-Crested Cormorants), 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant la

Loi sur la protection du poisson et de la faune (cormorans à aigrettes)

Mr. Bailey moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 205,

An Act to amend the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 / Projet de loi 205, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur la protection du poisson et de la faune.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for a short statement.

Mr. Robert Bailey: This is the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Act, (Double-Crested Cormorants), 2016. The bill amends the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997, to permit the hunting and trapping of double-crested cormorants.

Motions

Private members’ public business

Hon. David Orazietti: I believe we have unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding private members’ public business.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The minister is seeking unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice. Do we agree? Agreed.

Minister.

Hon. David Orazietti: I move that notwithstanding standing order 98(g), notice for ballot items 47, 48, 50, 51, 52 and 53 be waived.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mr. Orazietti moves that notwithstanding standing order 98(g), notice for ballot items 47, 48, 50, 51, 52 and 53 be waived. Do we agree? Carried.

Motion agreed to.

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

South Asian Heritage Month

Hon. Michael Chan: May is South Asian Heritage Month. There are more than one million people of South Asian descent living in Ontario today, in the GTA, Hamilton, Ottawa, London and Windsor. They come from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, as well as parts of Africa and the Caribbean. The South Asian community is greatly diverse and it has strengthened Ontario. Festivities to celebrate South Asian Heritage Month will be held all across Ontario, giving us all a chance to learn about and celebrate the many contributions that this community has made to our economy, our culture and our neighbourhoods.

Since South Asian Heritage Month was proclaimed in the House in 2001, it has become our tradition to use this month to recognize and thank the South Asian community for contributing to the growth and quality of life in our province.

The first South Asian migrants to Canada arrived in Vancouver in 1903. But this is not a happy story. In 1914, under the immigration laws of the day, the federal government turned back a vessel off Vancouver carrying hundreds of Sikh immigrants. That vessel, the Komagata Maru, rerouted to Calcutta, where 19 of its passengers were killed in a skirmish with British authorities.

Speaker, I note with satisfaction that the Prime Minister has delivered a full apology in the House of Commons for this incident more than a century ago. The incident is a reminder that Canada has not always lived up to the ideals we hold dear now. Fortunately, we know better today. We know the value of immigration to our economy and our culture. The Prime Minister’s apology is a way of helping us remember this value.

Today, Ontario’s South Asian community is extremely diverse in culture, religion, language, heritage and tradition. Ontarians are fortunate to have this diverse community in our midst. We admire the work ethic and strong sense of family and community in the South Asian community.

Ontario has always welcomed immigration and celebrated the diversity it creates. We know this diversity makes us stronger and more attractive for further immigration.

Speaker, as Ontario’s Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade, I also value the economic connections our South Asian Canadians retain with their former homelands.

Each and every newcomer to Ontario is a trade bridge we can use to increase the goods and services we export and make Ontario stronger. But most of all, South Asians are our neighbours and friends. They are our co-workers and community leaders. They are fellow Ontarians.

As we mark South Asian Heritage Month, let us celebrate the many achievements and success of South Asian newcomers to Ontario in the fields of education, health care, the arts, business, sciences and public service.

Festivities are being held across the province this month to celebrate the rich South Asian culture. I urge all Ontarians to join in.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It’s time for responses.

Mr. Todd Smith: It’s an honour to rise and honour May as South Asian Heritage Month in the province of Ontario.

The history of the South Asian community in Canada has some of our greatest moments as a nation, but it also has some of our darkest. Today, on Parliament Hill, the Prime Minister is going to be apologizing for the actions of the Canadian government 102 years ago, when the Komagata Maru steamed into Vancouver harbour.

Canada, which had previously opened its doors to immigrants for decades and even centuries, unfortunately closed them to South Asian immigrants in 1908 with the continuous journey regulation, a policy for which the Komagata Maru remains the most powerful and regrettable symbol. A land that had become home for Scots fleeing clearings, Irish fleeing famine, African Americans fleeing slavery and Jews fleeing pogroms, had closed the door on people seeking a better life, an action we’re now ashamed of, which says a lot about our history.

However, in an example of generosity that we would all recognize and proudly proclaim to be Canadian, the Sikh community in Canada at the time raised a considerable amount of money to help the voyagers on board that ship. Generosity and a characteristic helping hand knows no country of origin, but is apparently the most natural Canadian impulse. Even if it isn’t expressed by our government, it’s alive in parts of our citizenry.

Unfortunately, many of these laws and regulations would remain on the books in this country until after the Second World War and would prevent South Asian soldiers who had served alongside Canadians in Hong Kong and the Pacific from immigrating to Canada. Thousands of South Asians served alongside Canadians in both world wars. Sikhs and Pakistanis bled with Canadians in the trenches in World War I. Nepalese members of the Gurkha regiments and Canadian soldiers withstood German machine gunfire at Monte Cassino.

At the Battle of Hong Kong, which Canadian kids are taught in history class to this day, the Winnipeg Grenadiers and the Queen’s Own Rifles manned Allied lines along with members of the 14th Punjab Regiment and 7th Rajput Regiment. In fact, if a Canadian soldier found themselves in a foxhole in the 20th century, there’s a very good chance the soldier next to them in that foxhole was of South Asian descent. It has been my great honour to visit the homes of several friends in Brampton and Mississauga, in particular, to see the medals their fathers won at these battles.

But our immigration laws wouldn’t reflect that reality until the 1960s. Over the course of that decade, the South Asian community in Canada increased tenfold. Since then, Canada has been what it was during its first era of open immigration: It has been a refuge.

When Sikhs were persecuted in India in 1984, Canada provided a refuge from the violence. With the outbreak of the Sri Lankan Civil War, Canada provided a refuge from the violence. This country is at its best, at its strongest and at its most defiant in the face of oppression and violence when it’s a home for the people fleeing oppression and violence.

It took a hundred years longer than it should have for Sikhs fleeing violence to find a refuge here. It took a hundred years longer than it should have for Sri Lankans and Tamils fleeing civil war to find refuge here. Our treatment of South Asians in the past has been deplorable, but now their story is our story.

As you may know, I’m a huge sports fans, particularly a baseball fan. Mr. Speaker, there’s a moment at the end of Moneyball where Billy Beane watches a kid hit a home run and fall on his way to second base, thinking he’s only hit a double. The other team applauds when he finally crosses home plate. He says, “How can you not be romantic about baseball?”

Well, for Sikhs, the turban is now a part of the uniform of this country for Mounties and military officers. We recognize genocides in South Asian communities that brought so many people to this great country. My kids can celebrate and have celebrated Vaisakhi and Diwali. Indian Canadians have made major contributions to Canadian art and literature. Pakistani Canadians serve in this chamber, and they’ve played in the NHL. You can even watch Hockey Night in Canada in Punjabi. When you think about it like that, Mr. Speaker, how can you not be romantic about Canada?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I also am proud to join in, adding my voice, on behalf of all New Democrats and our leader, Andrea Horwath, in celebrating South Asian Heritage Month.

One of the things that’s so beautiful about South Asia, and that I think needs to be highlighted, is that South Asia is actually very, very diverse. It’s comprised of a multitude of languages, religions, cuisines and cultures. I want to pay homage to those various diverse cultures by doing a little run-through on some of the greetings.

Before I begin, there’s a number of religions and I want to just acknowledge some of them. There’s Hinduism, there’s Islam and, obviously, Sikhism. There’s Jain, the foundation of Buddhism and was in India. Christianity: Some of the oldest elements of Christianity can be found in South Asia. There’s Parsi Zoroastrian, Animism, the Mool Nivasi spirituality, the aboriginal folks of South Asia. These comprise monistic beliefs as well as monotheistic and polytheistic.

Some of the greetings include: Remarks in foreign languages.

Some of the greetings in terms of languages—they are such a diverse land. I’m going to go through some of them.

Remarks in foreign languages.

There are so many languages; there’s so much diversity. One of the things I think is so important for us to do in South Asian Heritage Month is to celebrate that diversity, to really provide an ability to look at all those different cultures and give them a space to celebrate that diversity so that we can come closer together. Often, we think there’s so many things that separate us, so many things that divide us. The more we celebrate our uniqueness, our diversity, we actually come to realize we have so much in common.

One of the things that I think is particularly phenomenal about this month is the idea of celebrating those who have trail-blazed, those who have done so much to make the past easier for people like myself and future generations. When we think about what difficulty our forefathers and foremothers, or the generation before us, faced when they first came to Canada—the barriers they faced and how they overcame those barriers, how they surmounted those obstacles—I think it’s particularly powerful to pay some respect to that.

CASS