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

April 21, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Apr-21 (PDF)

L071 - Tue 21 Apr 2015 / Mar 21 avr 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 21 April 2015 Mardi 21 avril 2015

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 pour une croissance intelligente de nos collectivités

Introduction of Visitors

Ministers’ attendance

Government announcements

Oral Questions

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Teachers’ labour dispute

Privatization of public assets

Infrastructure program funding

Privatization of public assets

Education funding

Services for the developmentally disabled / Services aux personnes ayant une déficience intellectuelle

Fish and wildlife management

Automobile insurance

Northern economy

Petitions

GO Transit

Deferred Votes

Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur les régimes de pension agréés collectifs

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Electoral reform

Labour dispute

Milton Transitional Housing

Renewable energy

Leading Women, Leading Girls, Building Communities

Baha’i community

Jason Pettapiece

Polish community

Show Choir Canada Championships

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Introduction of Bills

Election Amendment Act (MPPs’ Recall), 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant la Loi électorale (révocation des député

s) Motions

Private members’ public business

Petitions

Curriculum

Ontario Northland Transportation Commission

Student safety

Ontario Disability Support Program

Off-road vehicles

School transportation

Wind turbines

Hospital services

Environmental protection

Dog ownership

Diagnostic services

Legal aid

Lyme disease

Hydro rates

Student safety

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Ending Coal for Cleaner Air Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’abandon du charbon pour un air plus propre

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 pour une croissance intelligente de nos collectivités

Mr. McMeekin moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 73,

An Act to amend the Development Charges Act, 1997 and the Planning Act / Projet de loi 73, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur les redevances d’aménagement et la

Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire.

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

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I’ll be sharing my time with my parliamentary assistant—the member from Northumberland–Quinte West—and the member from Scarborough–Agincourt. What a team, I’ll tell you. Before I turn the floor over to my parliamentary assistant and the member from Scarborough–Agincourt, I’m pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the proposed Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, known as Bill 73.

Bill 73, if passed, would better ensure that as Ontario communities grow we are smart about managing that growth. To manage growth, we had to put the pieces together and build the framework—which reminds me, Speaker, that when my daughters were young we would spend many hours together at the summer cottage putting together a jigsaw puzzle. As a prank, one of my girls would often hide one of the pieces, giggling as Dad searched frantically around the house for that part that would finally complete our masterpiece.

They would all deny they snatched the piece and then Dad would find it on the floor under the puzzle, and the work would be done. Obviously we couldn’t get very far without all the pieces. But then, having decided as a family on our puzzle strategy, we’d start another puzzle by establishing the outside frame. Then we would fill it in towards the middle. In many ways that’s a great analogy to describe what we’re doing for land use planning here in Ontario.

It started with a landmark piece of legislation, the Greenbelt Act—the largest greenbelt in the world, Mr. Speaker. The Greenbelt Act went far beyond any previous effort to protect environmentally sensitive lands. It signalled our government’s desire to change the way we think about growth in Ontario. The greenbelt isn’t just about protecting green spaces, as important as that is; it’s also about creating a vision for the way Ontario’s cities and towns realize their full potential.

Well-planned communities offer citizens a high quality of life, opportunities for a healthy lifestyle and a great place to live, work, and raise a family. They attract industry and innovation and create jobs, all the while preserving our green spaces and protecting our agricultural sector.

Speaker, we want to grow Ontario communities in a way that curbs sprawl and creates vibrant urban centres. With the creation of the greenbelt we started building the outside frame of a very complex puzzle. That frame contains other pieces as well. We issued a provincial policy statement to guide municipalities in their planning process, one which, by the way, was really preferential to the agricultural community and some of the subsidiary uses of agricultural lands. Last year, we provided a clear, province-wide policy direction, in fact, through that 2014 provincial policy statement.

These policies help to promote strong communities, a strong economy and a healthy environment. In February, Minister Mauro and I launched a review of the four provincial land use plans, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Niagara Escarpment Plan, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the Greenbelt Plan. We were fortunate enough to have the Honourable David Crombie agree to lead that plan, which was really fortunate for us. He’s a good person.

Bill 73, if passed, would be another important piece of our puzzle. It would help Ontario communities grow and thrive. During the consultation period for this legislation, we heard many perspectives. People told us about planning rules that are sometimes too complex and costly delays in appeals processes. Many were frustrated that more disagreements couldn’t be resolved at the local level.

Speaker, Ontarians told us we needed to make thoughtful changes that promote accountability and sustainability. And that’s what we did: changes to give the public greater say in just how their neighbourhoods will grow. That’s why we’re setting out clearer rules for land use planning. We are wanting municipalities to become more independent in making local decisions, including resolving disputes.

Some of our cities and towns are growing very rapidly. They’ve got booming populations and record levels of development. That also means more demands are being made on existing infrastructure, housing, highways, water and transit. But with change comes opportunity. I remember my mom saying to me growing up, “Teddy, what’s a giant obstacle except a brilliant opportunity cleverly disguised?”

By creating the outer frame of our puzzle, we can ensure a higher quality of life now and for future generations. That means planning for more compact growth, and a more efficient and innovative use of infrastructure. That in turn creates jobs and helps build more vital and vibrant communities.

Bill 73 lays the foundation for how we start to fill in the inside pieces of our complex puzzle.

Interruption.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Bless you, before the devil gets up your nose. Wasn’t that what you said the other day?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Yes, that’s the devil.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: That would give Ontarians a greater voice in how their communities grow, a substantive voice; for example, by including citizen representatives in municipal planning advisory committees.

Bill 73, if passed, would allow for more continuity and predictability and—dare I say it?—stability in our planning system. The proposed reforms would encourage an innovative way to plan and address local needs, involving community members in the process. Once established by a municipality, the community planning permit system would not be subject to any appeals of private applications for a period of five years. That means municipalities will be the only ones able to amend their plans during this timeout period.

Bill 73 would also make the planning and appeals process more predictable by increasing the number of matters that get determined locally. We would do this by providing an option for an additional 90 days to resolve issues involving official plans and amendments. Municipalities would be allowed more time to engage in alternative dispute resolution. The ability to appeal some items would be removed. These measures would reduce the number of issues that make their way to the Ontario Municipal Board.

Now, I know there are questions about the Ontario Municipal Board itself and whether we’re planning to change its role. It’s another important piece of our puzzle. The Ontario Municipal Board’s operations, practices and procedures were not part of this first-stage review. To really complete our puzzle, however, I will work with my colleague the Attorney General in a review of the OMB’s scope and effectiveness. In the end, Speaker, we all want to see planning disputes resolved, wherever possible, locally.

We’re also going to be proposing changes to the Development Charges Act and address the costs of development. Increasing accountability and transparency in the development charges system is another big piece of our puzzle. We’ve had stakeholders right across the province indicate a desire for that. We would create more transparent reporting requirements for municipalities collecting money under

section 37 of the Planning Act related to density bonusing and related to parkland dedications, which would detail how funds are spent. Development charges would be payable at the time the building permit was issued so the developers and homeowners would now be more certain of the costs.

Growth is vital, but we also understand the importance of well-located parkland and green spaces. The greenbelt simply shouldn’t circle cities; it should run through cities as well. Our proposed changes would require more municipalities to put in place a parks plan to inform where resources are in fact directed. The plan would involve input from school boards and would be another opportunity for residents to have their say in how their communities grow.

At the same time, the proposed changes would help communities recover capital costs—funds that were spent on important infrastructure like transit projects and waste diversion. Municipalities need to be able to plan ahead for their growing needs, particularly for much-needed transit priorities.

Speaking of infrastructure, the last piece of our puzzle, and perhaps the most important piece, involves the discussion around affordable housing. I’ve always believed that a truly complete land use planning picture—the whole puzzle—must indeed include affordable housing. Last week, we kicked off a public consultation to update our historic Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy. We all need to understand that planning and housing are linked, and that we can’t complete this puzzle without making sure we have a healthy supply of affordable housing in Ontario.

We will look at the whole puzzle—every single piece—and create a complete picture of how Ontario will grow. All Ontarians need accessible, transparent and responsive tools to manage and pay for growth. All Ontarians should be able to count on a planning system that is predictable. All Ontarians should have a say on what is built in their neighbourhoods. This proposed legislation responds to the real and evolving needs of our Ontario citizens. I’m confident this piece of legislation is vital to complete the complex puzzle of land use planning in Ontario.

Getting it right means building strong communities across Ontario. We have more work to do, obviously, and we’re going to keep at it. But I urge all members to vote for the passing of this bill; it’s important.

Thank you, Speaker. Now I’d like to turn the floor over to Mr. Rinaldi, my parliamentary assistant.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Continuing on with the debate, I’d like to recognize the member from Northumberland–Quinte West.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Thank you, Speaker, and good morning. And thanks to Minister McMeekin for giving me the opportunity to speak today.

Over the past nine months I’ve had the pleasure of working alongside Minister McMeekin. I have recently joined him in launching the review of our provincial land use plans to help shape communities in central Ontario.

Part of my responsibilities as parliamentary assistant is to ensure that we maintain a rural and agricultural focus on the coordinated review of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and the Greenbelt Plan. Agriculture represents over $34 billion in revenue for our province. It also accounts for one in nine jobs across Ontario. Preserving our lands and building on rural and agricultural successes is vital to our province’s continuous growth.

The proposed Smart Growth for Our Communities Act has been designed to help our small communities and rural municipalities grow and thrive, just as it aims at helping our urban centres. It would provide greater flexibility to meet the local circumstances. For example, northern municipalities will continue to have planning advisory committees at their discretion. This gives them the right to establish planning advisory committees depending on local circumstances.

During our review, we heard that flexibility was important to our diverse municipalities. With Bill 73, if passed, municipalities would have the flexibility to tailor their public engagement policies to meet their local needs. It would allow municipalities to expand their ability to tailor the form and delivery of public notices so that they are effective in each individual community.

This flexibility would also ensure that residents have a greater and more meaningful say in how their communities are growing. It would involve them early in the planning and development process. Municipalities would need to set out in their official plans how and when the public would be consulted, and explain how public input affected their planning decisions.

We want to help municipalities of all sizes engage Ontarians to ensure a more predictable planning system. That also means more control at the local level over official plans. Changes would provide more control and stability over planning documents for our local partners.

We know that official plan reviews take time and resources. This can be particularly challenging for smaller communities and rural municipalities. Less time on the farm or being away from a small business is just not economically viable, Speaker.

The fact is that things don’t always change so quickly in smaller communities as they do in larger and more urban centres. That’s why flexibility as to when to conduct reviews is particularly important in smaller communities. Under the proposed amendments, new official plans would now be reviewed on a 10-year basis, instead of the current five-year cycle. Once a municipality establishes a new official plan, it would not be subject to new appeals for two years, unless changes are initiated by the municipality itself.

The act will also allow for things to be worked out locally before being sent to the Ontario Municipal Board. That local control is particularly important to smaller communities.

We also know that streamlining the planning and development process just makes sense.

The changes we are proposing will give municipalities an enhanced tool that we would call the community planning system. Some communities have been using a permit planning system for years, and it works. For example, the township of Lake of Bays was the first municipality to put in place a permit system. The township uses the system to better regulate development and protect water quality in environmentally sensitive shoreline areas.

Hundreds of kilometres away, in the town of Carleton Place, the permit system is used to maintain small-town character. They also use the permit system to improve commercial areas and provide for a mix of employment and recreational activities. We are committed to establishing a stakeholder working group to provide advice on implementing the community planning permit system.

The group would also provide recommendations on minor variances. A minor variance is a small change from a zoning bylaw. It would further consider when local appeal bodies could be used for land use planning issues, because we know that streamlining the planning and development process attracts investment and creates jobs.

As Minister McMeekin pointed out, there are still pieces of the puzzle that we need to assess; however, I’m confident that if we pass the Smart Growth for Our Communities Act we would be well on our way to having a solid framework to better help our communities grow. Being smart about how we manage growth is the best way we can ensure that Ontario communities of all sizes, from all regions, are sustainable.

Mr. Speaker, I join Minister McMeekin in supporting Bill 73, and I urge all members to vote for the passing of this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I thank the member from Northumberland–Quinte West.

Continuing along with the debate, I’d like to recognize the member from Scarborough–Agincourt.

Ms. Soo Wong: I’m pleased to rise this morning in support of Bill 73. Before I begin my remarks this morning, Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of individuals who were here earlier from the Ontario Home Builders’ Association: Joe Vaccaro and Vince Molinaro—they just left. And I believe there is another group, Neptis. Marcy Burchfield and Martha Shuttleworth are here today to observe the debate on Bill 73.

As I begin my remarks in support of Bill 73—you just heard from my colleague from a rural area of Ontario, Northumberland–Quinte West, about the importance of the proposed legislation in supporting rural communities. I’m from the city of Toronto—my riding is Scarborough–Agincourt—but I think this particular bill is good for all of Ontario. The proposed legislation, if passed—it was in 1997 when the Planning Act and the Development Charges Act were passed in legislation; now, almost 20 years later, we’re looking at this particular legislation.

There are a number of amendments being proposed by this piece of legislation. I’m going to focus specifically on enhancement of transparency and accountability by all municipalities.

If the legislation is passed, it will require municipalities like the city of Toronto to reflect the capital projects funded through development charges in more detail. I hear criticism all the time from residents and local businesses, saying, “They levy these developmental charges, but we don’t know what they are.” So they will require some transparency.

It also will require, if the legislation is passed, them to link the development charges to municipal asset management planning.

Furthermore, it will require developmental charges to be set as of the date an initial building permit is issued for buildings requiring multiple permits—because oftentimes there are multiple projects attached to a development.

More importantly, it will also restrict the payments outside the development charges regime for the capital costs associated with servicing new development and require municipal treasurers to certify that no payments have been received that are in contravention of this restriction. So there will be no surprises. Oftentimes you hear that halfway through the development you get these surprises. We hear that through the local paper oftentimes.

The other piece here is that it will give authority to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to investigate a municipality in relation to the compliance of the legislation. So through the creation of this authority it also means that the municipality will have to cover the cost of this investigation. There is a responsibility on the municipality that if the minister is asking for the investigation, the municipality will have to absorb the cost. I think that’s the right thing.

The other thing here about increasing municipal transparency is a concern. I hear a lot because of the urban aspect of the city of Toronto—but we often hear that we’re taking away good land for development, as opposed to protecting the farms.

I know the minister spoke earlier about the greenbelt and how important the greenbelt is for Ontario. Increasing transparency will mean that the municipality has to report municipal collection of density bonuses under

section 37, as well as parkland fees.

Furthermore, the change in the alternative parkland dedication rate for cash-in-lieu payments to incent the acquisition of the physical parkland—I think most members in this House hear how passionate our Minister of the Environment and Climate Change is, and his advocacy work when it comes to protecting green space, especially in his riding in downtown Toronto. So it is the right thing to do.

Furthermore, the increase in transparency will require municipalities to prepare parks plans, in consultation with local school boards and the public, in order to facilitate planning for parkland/green space and park facilities.

I’m sure during this second reading debate my numerous colleagues who are members from the city of Toronto will be participating in this debate. At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, when we are making significant changes to legislation going back to 1997, we need to make sure it’s not just good for urban cities like my riding of Scarborough–Agincourt, but across the province.

The last part of my comments that I want to remind the members—in the beginning part of the proposed bill, Bill 73, the minister clearly stated in the explanatory note which regulations will be changed, which amendments. I think the piece that really interests my riding of Scarborough–Agincourt is the new

section 59.1. It imposes a restriction on the use of charges related to development. When you have a very detailed, lengthy bill, these explanatory notes—and for those watching at home right now, you need to take the time to review this particular proposed legislation. But more importantly, this particular bill is about the future of Ontario. We have often heard the Premier, the Minister of Finance and different ministers across the province talking about building Ontario up. At the same time, building Ontario up means we have to protect those natural resources and make sure that development reflects the people’s needs and also make sure that the lands are being protected.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to speak on Bill 73.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I thank the member from Scarborough–Agincourt.

Questions and comments?

Mr. Todd Smith: Thank you and good morning, Mr. Speaker. It was a pleasure to listen to the minister and his parliamentary assistants this morning on Bill 73, Smart Growth for Our Communities Act. We do have a lot of issues in planning in our local municipalities. No one will question that. There are reviews that are currently under way. Yet we have this new piece of legislation coming forward from the provincial government.

We heard some platitudes from the minister. One of them: Planning disputes should be dealt with locally wherever possible. The member from Northumberland–Quinte West said we need to have more control at the local level. Let me tell you a little story about what happened yesterday at the appeal court of Ontario.

There was a decision that came down from the appeal court on a Prince Edward county industrial wind turbine project, a proposal for an IWT on the south shore of Prince Edward county. This government has been brushing aside the wishes of residents in Prince Edward county; they’ve been brushing aside that input from the municipal council. The court of appeal yesterday ruled in favour of local people in Prince Edward county.

They ruled in favour of the municipality when it comes to this industrial wind turbine development, a project they don’t want in their community, a project that the government’s own Environmental Review Tribunal said was going to cause serious and irreversible harm to the habitat and the environment in Prince Edward county. But what is this government continuing to do? What is the Ministry of the Environment continuing to do? Continuing to force this project on this unwilling host municipality. It’s going to cause serious harm to the environment, according to the appeals court, according to experts.

But what is this government doing? The Ministry of the Environment is continuing to support a project that everyone, including the experts, is saying is going to cause environmental damage. Does that not seem hypocritical to you, Mr. Speaker?

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I would like to contribute to this part of the debate in questions and comments because the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing talked about transparency and accountability and he talked about policy with some clear direction.

There’s an actual issue in my riding that is begging for clarity on a policy. They are the Forked River Brewing Company. They’re entrepreneurs that started a couple of years ago and they’ve been very successful. They want to expand their business into a retail store on a parcel of land on the same site.

In that case, what had happened is that they went ahead and did the renovations and thought they were following the guidelines in this policy. It turns out that even though it’s the same parcel of land where they’re expanding into the retail store, because it’s not the same address, they’re going to have barriers or possibly even be denied.

I’m writing the Premier and giving her the letter today. What we’re asking is for clarity on this. We’re asking for more transparency so that when this craft beer brewery is actually going to start this initiative, they know what they are getting into. It was quite vague.

We know that we promote small business in communities. It’s a healthy way to make a city grow. They support the community; they occupy storefronts and promote jobs. I know the government across the way wants to support local business and local agriculture.

I’m just bringing this to light because it was just interesting to hear about how we need clear direction on policies. I think this policy begs clear direction with regard to the Forked River brewery in my riding of London–Fanshawe.

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

Hon. Helena Jaczek: It’s a pleasure to rise in support of Bill 73, Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, which amends certain parts of the Planning Act and the Development Charges Act, and to make a few comments in relation to the minister’s leadoff.

This is particularly important for the area I represent. Oak Ridges–Markham is in fact the largest riding by population in Canada, with some 250,000 individuals. Obviously we’re facing huge growth—we have in York region.

When I first became the medical officer of health in York region in 1988, the population of York region was some 450,000; it’s now 1.2 million. Through the years that I was the commissioner of health services, many discussions around the department head table were on this very topic: How to plan for growth? The infrastructure that is needed in a region like York is essential to the needs of my constituents and to the other people in York region.

I see many parts of this bill that are going to directly reference those types of concerns—development charges now available for transit infrastructure. Knocking on doors some 10 months or so ago, transit, transportation and congestion were huge issues for the residents. This bill will allow municipalities to have a lot more say and allow for citizen engagement, which is, I think, absolutely crucial as well.

I think it’s very timely, given that consultation is being engaged in by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on the Greenbelt Act, because that is another very important piece of legislation that has been absolutely embraced by the people of York region. So I’m in full support of Bill 73.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s my pleasure to enter into debate today on Bill 73, the Smart Growth for Our Communities Act.

Earlier today, I flew in from the nation’s capital, where I represent one of the fastest-growing ridings not just in Ontario, but in all of Canada. We have a high birth rate; we have a high rate of development in my community. In fact, a decade ago, when I first started out in politics, a great part of my riding had not been developed. Each time I fly into or out of the city of Ottawa, I look down and I see the vast growth that’s happening in my own constituency.

That brings me to this piece of legislation. I don’t think anyone here denies the fact that in order for growth to happen, growth must pay for growth. I had some time and experience working at the city of Ottawa for a councillor named Jan Harder, who is now the chair of planning and development for the city of Ottawa. When I was a young staffer for her, obviously, planning, growth and development were key issues. So I’m happy to say here that I have some experience in this.

That said, I want to say to this assembly today I am disappointed in this bill for two reasons. First, there was inadequate consultation; therefore, I don’t think the members of the city of Ottawa council or municipalities across the province had adequate input into this piece of legislation, which will impact their communities. Second, the minister will admit here that his own mandate letter would require changes to the Municipal Act and a review of the Ontario Municipal Board. That said, this bill, in its tabling, actually talks more about some of these changes before that review has even taken place. I think that’s incredibly important.

I would like, with the last few seconds that I have, to commend my colleague from Belleville. He talked about the industrial wind turbines and the fact that they’re overriding municipal planning with respect to those. I applaud him for bringing that up. It is a very important point and it does indeed make the government hypocritical on this piece of legislation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I would ask the member from Nepean–Carleton to withdraw.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I would happily withdraw.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I take that as a yes.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Sure. I’m happy to withdraw.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I’d like to thank my parliamentary assistant; the member from Scarborough–Agincourt; the member from Prince Edward–Hastings; the member from London–Fanshawe; the Minister of Community and Social Services; and the member from Nepean–Carleton.

Speaker, the best political advice I ever got was from the late, great Sterling Hunt, a farmer up in Lynden, who said to me, “Ted, do you want to get elected? Tell the people what’s broke and how you’re going to fix it.” I’ve always taken that as pretty good advice.

We did an extensive—over a year long—consultation. We met with AMO and a number of other stakeholders about some of the changes before we introduced this bill. This bill doesn’t try to boil the ocean. We’re not trying to build Rome in a day; we’re trying to build Ontario in a prudent and practical way, and that’s different. The bill is seeking to provide some clarity, perhaps on the very kinds of issues that certain members on the other side mentioned. If we could get a handle on some of that, that would be great.

The appeal of the bill, I think, has to do with its desire to engage citizens in substantive, meaningful input—get them from perhaps a cynical frame to a more participatory frame, because that participation will mean something—to empower municipalities to be more innovative, creative and thoughtful in terms of how they work with their stakeholders; and finally to ensure that as much as can be resolved locally is in fact resolved locally. It’s very expensive to go to the OMB and very wasteful in many cases.

We want to make sure that citizens have good input, that good planning is done and that municipalities can resolve their difficulties locally.

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

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 73, the Smart Growth for Our Communities Act.

First of all, I want to thank the minister and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for the briefing on this bill and the need for it that they provided for me, our caucus and our staff. I want to say there’s a lot in the bill, and there’s a lot to be supported. But at the same time, as we go through it—and even with the briefing, and I’m sure the minister was advised—there are a number of things that cause some concern that I want to address today.

The member from Scarborough–Agincourt mentioned the fact that the last time this bill was reviewed was in 1997. From 1995 to 1999, I was parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. In the first two years at the ministry, my responsibility was to do the review and the consultation for the changes we made to the Planning Act—two years of consultation, and then we introduced the bill, and we finally got it passed in 1997.

So I not only have some understanding of it, but some insight as to the things that were the way they are and why they were that way and why some of the things that are presently being done didn’t make sense at that time. I’m afraid they don’t make much sense today either, so I think we want to deal with that.

I also appreciate that the government waited some time before they brought this bill forward for debate. As you know, this is a complex bill that will impact municipalities across the province. It will impact where people live and the type of neighbourhoods they live in, so we need to take the time to get it right. In fact, it seems that we’re still debating this bill too soon.

When this debate was scheduled, we followed up with a number of our stakeholders to hear their concerns about the bill and found out that many of them have not yet completed their review and analysis. The minister mentioned that one of the major stakeholders that he consulted with was AMO. We consulted AMO on what they thought of this bill in the last three or four days, and we find out that they haven’t completed their review yet to be able to tell us what’s right and what they believe corresponds with what they said or whether they think it will help or hinder the municipalities.

So I think it’s fair to say that we may still be a little premature with the debate on this until we have all the facts coming in from all the stakeholders.

There were other stakeholders that, in fact, were also consulted that weren’t finished. One pointed out that the deadline to comment on the bill on the Environmental Registry is June 4. That is the date that they have been working towards. It seems that people expected the government would consult before pushing ahead and debating this bill. Again, June 4—all the comments to the Environmental Registry. They would have hoped that the government would have waited for that before we have this debate. Obviously, it would have helped my presentation today if I’d known what the stakeholders believe needs to be corrected in the bill, which I could bring forward to the government.

Mr. Speaker, there’s another reason that this debate is premature. According to his mandate letter, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Attorney General are to work together with stakeholders to “recommend possible reforms that would improve the OMB’s role within the broader land use planning system.” That review hasn’t even started, but the minister has introduced legislation to amend the appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board.

If the minister is planning to hold a real review, and if he’s planning to actually listen to stakeholders, then shouldn’t that review take place before he introduces legislation? Shouldn’t he take the time to hear from the stakeholders about what change is needed? I think we all agree that the system could work better, but we need a proper review to ensure that we make the right changes, not just change for change’s sake.

Mr. Speaker, in anticipation of the review last fall, I filed a written question to the Attorney General, who is responsible for the operation of the Ontario Municipal Board. I asked in what percentage of cases the Ontario Municipal Board approved a development that the municipalities had previously denied; in other words, how many times did they tell the municipalities they disagreed with them and approved it anyway? The response that I received from the ministry said that neither they nor the Ontario Municipal Board actually tracks that information.

That means that not only are we making changes before we hear about the problems with the current system, but we are making changes without knowing the results of the current system and how well it is balanced for both sides.

Mr. Speaker, municipal planning and the Planning Act is about balance. It’s about ensuring that individuals, community groups and businesses have input into the future of their communities. It’s about responding to concerns while ensuring that the good projects can move forward. It’s about ensuring that families can have a new home and new businesses can be built and create jobs, while controlling sprawl, protecting our environment and preserving agricultural land.

As I said earlier, the minister mentioned the issue of extending timelines for appeals and so forth. Again, I think the system is really predicated on trying to make sure that everything can be completed in a reasonable amount of time, because—what do they say?—time’s a-wasting, time is money and time is what stops productivity. We want to move things through properly.

Right now, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is conducting a review of the greenbelt, the Niagara Escarpment, the Oak Ridges moraine, and the growth plan, and those reviews are another reason the debate on this bill is premature. The ministry has actually named it the coordinated land use planning review. Wouldn’t you think that you should complete that review before you change the Planning Act to incorporate all the things that we find out in this review? I suppose we could hope or suggest that maybe they want to review this on an annual basis, to review it and change it this year and then, when the other reviews are done, come back and do it another year.

In fact, one of the sections of this bill impacts both the greenbelt and the Oak Ridges moraine, because it removes the right to appeal these boundaries in the official plan. It also removes the rights of properties included in the source water protection areas, the properties restricted under the Lake Simcoe Protection Act and the growth plan.

We recognize that the official plan is not the most effective way to appeal, but right now people don’t feel that they have an opportunity to appeal at all. I recently met with an individual who has a property that already has municipal services and is surrounded by developmental area. During the first greenbelt consultation, this property was always shown in the settlement area where growth could occur, but when the final boundaries came out, his property was suddenly in the greenbelt and he could no longer build a house on it.

He questioned this decision, and apparently someone from municipal affairs and housing came out to visit the property. When they arrived, they discovered the mistake: Someone in Toronto had read the map wrong and thought that there was a river on his property that should be protected. The river actually wasn’t on his property; it was on the neighbour’s property.

The property owner tried and tried to get his property back out of the greenbelt, but he hasn’t been able to get his concerns addressed. He told me that when he talked to a previous Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, he said he couldn’t make the change for this property owner, or he’d have to make it for everyone who asked, to which the property owner replied, “Minister, if they were all mistakes like mine, you should make the changes for everyone.”

I’ve heard from people who believe that there were mistakes both ways: municipalities that have land adjacent to a development area—where they’ve already spent the money to install services—which was included in the greenbelt, while environmentally sensitive land was excluded and could be developed. For example, we’ve heard from a community group in Belfountain that believes that the settlement area around their village is too large and includes environmentally sensitive land.

The problem is that currently there isn’t a real appeal mechanism for these lands’ land use designation, so it appears that some property owners, in frustration, are appealing their designation in the official plan to the Ontario Municipal Board. That is problematic for a few reasons. First, it puts the municipalities in a difficult position of being forced to defend decisions that they didn’t make and that were given to them by the province. Secondly, the Ontario Municipal Board is restricted in the decisions that they can make, because they must conform with or have regard to provincial policy.

In many cases, this means that the property owner would go through an expensive appeal process without the OMB having the ability to change their designation.

Removing the appeal of the official plan isn’t the solution to the problem. It’s like the house has a leaky roof, and the government looked at the buckets collecting water in the kitchen and said, “We’ll solve the problem by taking away the buckets.” The solution is to create a real appeal mechanism, Mr. Speaker, one that doesn’t depend on the minister’s political will and one that doesn’t involve appealing to the same group that made the initial decision; an appeal process that gives property owners, municipalities and communities the opportunity to present their case to an objective third party and have a real objective decision, one that will correct mistakes if mistakes were made.

I hope that the individual problems I’ve mentioned will be addressed through the land use review, but I also hope that as a result of that review property owners will have a real system that will allow them to appeal future mistakes.

When the coordinated land use planning review began, I wrote the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to outline a number of items that we felt were essential in the review. One of those was that there should be an appeal process. Another was that the review should be public, open and transparent, and that members of the public must be able to participate.

The member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock recently raised concerns that people in her riding who are directly impacted by the Oak Ridges moraine act and the greenbelt aren’t being given an opportunity to participate in the public hearings. As the mayor of Brock township said in a recent article, “It’s difficult to understand why all of these meetings are south of the (Oak Ridges) moraine.... We should have an opportunity to discuss what I call the unintended consequences of the greenbelt.” Minister, these are people who want to have a say in planning decisions that directly impact their community. I ask you to give them that opportunity by holding a review meeting in north Durham.

One of the other points that I raised in the letter to the minister was that every person whose property is going to be included in the expanded greenbelt should be consulted. When the greenbelt was established, the government held consultations on draft boundaries. I think many of us remember that there were a number of changes following a $10,000-a-plate Liberal fundraiser. But what wasn’t as high-profile is that when the final version was released there were a number of changes, such as new properties being included, that weren’t proposed to be in the greenbelt previously.

That means that those people, like the one that I mentioned earlier, had no opportunity to voice their concerns or to explain why their property shouldn’t be included.

I just want to explain that a little bit, Mr. Speaker. I remember that when the process was there they had the tentative lines drawn for the greenbelt and they went out to public consultation, sent a group out to do that. When they came back they came back with a report to put the final lines on. I remember being here at Queen’s Park, at a committee meeting, and one of the reporters asked me what I thought of the final draft. I said, “I haven’t seen it yet.” She said, “There’s a great area that was not in the previous study area that is now part of the greenbelt.” I said, “Well, that’s rather strange.

We used to have a program like that at the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and if you wanted to build a building on your farm, you could actually go to the ministry and you could ask them to do a study on where, wind-wise and from snow loads and so forth, would be the ideal place to put that building on your farm. This sounds like one of those cases where the ministry comes back with the wonderful solution that says, ‘We found the perfect place to build your new barn.’ The farmer says to him, ‘Where is that?’ and he says, ‘It’s on your neighbour’s farm.’”

I think that’s what happened here. These people that were put in when they weren’t in the study area never had a say at all as to what they thought of it and what impact that would have on them. I think it’s very important that that is done.

As I said, we believe that people who are being impacted by the planning process should have the ability to participate in that process and have their views heard. I think the minister alluded to that in his comments, that this bill is to do that to get people the opportunity to be heard to help plan their communities. I really believe that the bill doesn’t go far enough in that area.

In this bill the government is proposing to change the rules around community consultation. The example that the government gives is that the distance for notice requirements would be altered for rural municipalities. Now, the problem is, why is it for rural municipalities? Why is the distance not consistent for everyone?

Now, of course, in rural municipalities, the distances where the impact would be are much further apart, but the properties are not; the properties run side by side. I think what we need to do is we need to make sure that everyone gets notice when changes are being made.

However, this amendment also exempts municipalities from

section 19, subsection (2), which states, “Every person who attends a public meeting required under clause 15(

d) shall be given an opportunity to make representations in respect of the current proposed plan.” Removing the requirement of this

section weakens the public’s ability to participate in the planning communities.

Again, we get to a certain point where they’re going to be notified but they’re not going to be allowed to speak to the application.

Mr. Speaker, I’m sure that you have worked with community groups who have concerns about the planning and development, just as I have. Many of them are volunteers. They have very busy lives working and raising families, but they make time to raise concerns about the issues because they believe that it will have a significant impact on the future of their communities.

I want to give you two examples from my riding. The first is a group of citizens who are opposing a proposed landfill site in Beachville. The proposal would locate a landfill on fractured bedrock in an old quarry near the Thames River. We’re all concerned that this location would put our drinking water at risk. These citizens are working hard to make their concerns heard. They are sending postcards, letters and emails. They’re signing petitions, which I’ve read—many of them frequently, and sometimes even more frequently than the Speaker would like—in this Legislature. They have come to Queen’s Park.

If there is a public meeting that impacts them, shouldn’t we make sure that they have a right to be heard? Shouldn’t we make sure that they have a right to voice their concerns about the safety of their drinking water?

The other group that I want to mention is one which has been working hard to oppose wind turbines in the Gunn’s Hill area. They too have worked hard to make their concerns known. They have written and emailed. They did all their research and spent countless hours trying to make everyone understand their concerns about wind turbines, from the impact on their health and the community to the danger they pose to planes flying into a nearby airport. Again, I believe that all the members of this group have a right to be heard at public meetings which impact them.

I know that the government had good intentions in reforming that

section to allow consultation to be tailored to the individual municipalities, but I think we need to ensure that we maintain some minimum standards that ensure the public has the ability to voice their concerns.

The government is also proposing to create new planning committees through this legislation. It’s another case of where we’re trying to improve public participation but totally missing the mark. The proposal is to create a new planning advisory committee which would have at least one member that is not a municipal employee or a municipal counselor.

The flaw in the proposal is that many municipalities, such as those in Oxford, currently have planning discussions and make planning decisions at open council meetings which are regularly attended by the media and members of the public. Concerned citizens have the ability to see the agendas, attend the meetings and make presentations, and the local media is there to report those decisions.

This proposal would move these discussions to a separate planning committee that would likely have less public attending and less media attention. Since the majority of the committee would still be members of council, it is less likely that they will feel the need to repeat the entire debate and discussion when the issues come back to council for their final approval. The result would be that one member of the public would be involved in the committee and the rest of the public will have less information and input into the planning. For many municipalities it would also result in a new committee that simply duplicates what council is presently doing.

Sometimes government has a tendency to look at each idea individually without stepping back and looking at the impact as a whole. This legislation would require municipalities to produce a report on the use of money obtained through

section 37 to create and make public a parks plan and it will require a more detailed report on development charge reserve funds, including an asset plan. It will also require the creation of the new planning advisory committee.

All of these things individually may be positive, but they also add up to an increased burden to our municipalities, many of whom are already struggling. Our municipalities have limited resources. Many of them are performing a significant amount of work with very little staff.

In his 2014 speech to the Rural Ontario Municipal Association, the member for Niagara West–Glanbrook talked about the challenges faced by people like the mayor of Bancroft, Bernice Jenkins. Bancroft has a population of 3,500, less than 2,000 households, but they are required to complete over 270 financial reports to the government a year.

The government designs legislation for Toronto, Mississauga and Ottawa without looking at the impact on many of our smaller municipalities. Many of our rural and northern municipalities operate with very limited staff.

Today, I want to issue a challenge to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I’m going to ask him to review the paperwork and reporting requirements for our municipalities. For each new report the government requires, such as those in this bill, I’m hoping that he can find an unnecessary report or form to eliminate. It’s something to do with a program of the government called Open for Business. I think we should apply it to this bill and make sure we remove as many unnecessary regulations and reports in that process as we’re adding with this bill.

As I just mentioned, one of the changes in this bill is to require detailed assessment management plans for infrastructure and services that are funded through development charges. The Ontario Good Roads Association has been a huge advocate of asset management plans, but they have pointed out multiple times that consistent standards need to be developed for these plans.

While we should allow flexibility or phasing in for those municipalities that already have a system in place, I want to point out that the best time to create those standards is now, before the government expands the system. Once municipalities have set up a reporting system, changing the methods will be far more costly and time-consuming.

Again, we want the government to take the time to get it right. It seems that in many ways, they have rushed to introduce this legislation without having all the details ready.

This bill proposes a number of changes to the Development Charges Act. These are the fees that builders pay to municipalities to fund infrastructure such as sewers, water and roads. This is another area where the government doesn’t appear to be ready. When they announced this legislation, they also announced that they would be forming a working group to look at “more complex land use planning and development charges issues, and propose solutions.” We’ve set up people to look at how we should fix the problem, and here we are legislating the problem to be fixed, without having those answers.

To me, the best time to introduce legislation is after you’ve figured out the solutions, not before, especially when the changes you are proposing will increase development charges and, therefore, the cost of building a business or a new home.

Currently in the Development Charges Act, there is a

section that lists the number of items that municipalities cannot charge development fees for. This includes cultural or entertainment facilities, including museums, theatres and art galleries. It includes tourism facilities, such as convention centres, and it includes city halls. The government is proposing instead to move all of these excluded items into regulation. That means we don’t know what new businesses and homeowners could be charged for. This

section is in the Development Charges Act for their protection, to ensure that the development charges they pay are for services that are required to service their property and not for other services beyond what the community presently has. Removing these sections would allow massive increases in development charges, which would be a hidden tax on new homeowners and businesses.

This bill allows development charges to increase by allowing them to be calculated based on planned level of service rather than a historical average of what level of service they had been delivering. Mr.

Speaker, I think that’s a very important point to make, that with the change there, in fact, the municipality can look at where you have a fair amount of new development coming on stream—so we’re going to add a number of items in the bylaw that we’re going to charge for—services we don’t presently provide, but we can ask new housing to pay for a higher level of service, so when that’s built and we have all those development charges—in fact, a certain part of our community paid for services that everyone is going to use.

That’s why it was in the bill the other way, in the Development Charges Act, that they have to stay on the level of the services that they presently have, and then, as we increase the level of services, everyone pays their equal share of that, and new homeowners aren’t paying it all.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ensure that the people, particularly those at home, understand the levels of development charges that we’re discussing here. This isn’t, as it used to be, the price of a building permit is $100 and the development charge is $1,000, to provide all those services.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing reported that municipalities collected over $1.8 billion in development charges in 2013 alone. They pay for sewers, roads, water and other infrastructure.

A 2009 Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. study found that government-imposed charges, including development charges, represented up to 19% of the median price of a single detached home.

The Residential and Civil Construction Alliance of Ontario commissioned a report called Alternatives to Development Charges for Growth-Related Capital Costs. It found that development charges are now $30,000 to $50,000 per single-family home in high-growth municipalities surrounding Toronto. By comparison, it found that development fees in Calgary and Edmonton are less than $8,000 per unit.

The Residential and Civil Construction Alliance of Ontario reported that a 2009 survey calculated that the average development charge or fee for single-family homes in the United States was $8,328. Referring back to the other one: In the Toronto area, they’re from $30,000 to $50,000. The average in the United States is $8,328.

The state with the highest average fee is California, at $21,648—half of the highest rate in the Toronto area—followed by Florida, with an average of $8,000—again, from $21,000 down to $8,000. Florida is the next one down, at $8,974.

In the report we also found this quote: “Upward pressure on development charge revenue is a result of fiscal pressure that municipalities face due to reduction in funding from senior levels of government.”

Maybe we know now why it is that this government is putting this in the bill to encourage higher development charges. It’s because reduced funding from the province has forced the municipalities to do that.

When the government introduced this legislation, the Ontario Home Builders’ Association said, “The Ontario Home Builders’ Association is concerned that new transit taxes on development will disproportionately increase housing costs for residents and the cost of setting up new businesses.”

We need to recognize that those development charges are a cost that is passed on from the builder to the new homeowner. It is an added cost into building the home, but it is passed directly on to new people moving into the community.

There was a lot of media coverage recently when it was announced that the average cost of a detached house in Toronto is now over a million dollars. That puts a house out of reach for most young couples and families. In fact, many young people are struggling to buy a small condo, and this bill will only increase the cost of a new house.

Housing has become a real challenge for our province. There are 165,000 families on a waiting list for social housing—Mr. Speaker, 165,000. The minister mentioned in his presentation that this was going to help that, but I disagree. If we assume an average of even two people per family in the 165,000, that’s more people than in the entire population of Kitchener or Windsor, and it’s twice the size of Oshawa and Sudbury. Imagine that: As many people as the whole city of Windsor are waiting for housing.

In fact, Acorn, a community group that advocates for housing, said, “The new proposed Smart Growth for Our Communities Act (Bill 73) does”—and it emphasizes it—“nothing to solve the housing crisis in Ontario. We believe affordable housing is smart!”

Mr. Speaker, there are steps that we need to take to address this problem.

Last week the Legislature gave my bill, the Housing Services Corporation Accountability Act, second reading, and it was referred to the Standing Committee on Social Policy. I want to ask all members of this House to work with me to ensure that we move it through the committee and bring it back here for third reading quickly.

My bill would bring accountability and transparency to the rogue agency that has been diverting money intended to build, repair, and maintain social housing. Instead, the Housing Services Corp. has spent the money on world travel and questionable investments, such as putting money into a company in Manchester, England, that only existed on paper and whose corporate address is a lawyer’s office.

Taking action to address the wasting of social housing dollars is only part of the solution; we also need to address the cost of living for all Ontarians. Part of that is ensuring balance on development charges and ensuring they can’t be used to pay for building things like a new city hall. I think that’s the important part; that’s why I emphasized it when I mentioned the items before. I think things like the city hall should not be put on the backs of new people coming in—they should be paid equally by everyone in the municipality at the time that it’s being built. I think that would help keep the cost of housing down.

Part of that is looking at other factors in the cost of living, such as hydro. When I hear from people in my riding or across the province who can’t afford to stay in their home the most frequent reason is the spiralling cost of hydro. Those costs aren’t just impacting homeowners, they’re impacting businesses as well, Mr. Speaker. I recently conducted an annual survey of Oxford businesses. The common theme was that respondents were worried about the increasing cost of doing business in Ontario; 94% of businesses said they had been impacted by the spiralling cost of hydro.

When new businesses are looking at which jurisdiction to locate in, costs are a significant factor. We heard that from many of the businesses that have chosen to leave Ontario. Businesses are already worried about the new costs that this government is proposing. In my survey, 90% of Oxford businesses said they would be impacted by the proposed pension plan and most of these said the impact would be significant; 86% of the respondents said they would be impacted by a carbon tax.

All of these costs, including development charges, are factors that businesses consider when they choose where they are going to build and create jobs. Increasing development charges has an impact that needs to be considered. A Metrolinx investment strategy found that increasing development charges “include the potential for increased housing and commercial development prices that may reduce housing affordability and increase business costs.”

The charges on new businesses have a direct impact on our economic development. But there’s an indirect impact from the development charges on new homes. Builders are willing to pay their fair share for roads, water and sewers, but if these are allowed to increase too much it will slow the building industry.

A recent Maclean’s

article pointed out that the real estate sector makes up 13% of Canada’s GDP and is a bigger employer than the mining, oil and gas sectors. It said, “The economy certainly relies more on what gets built above ground than what lies beneath” it.

Earlier I explained this bill would remove the

section that prevents development charges from being increased to pay for city halls, art galleries and convention centres. That may be the worst way that it increases development charges, but it’s not the only one. Currently, development charges are discounted by 10% for a number of items, including transit, and this bill would remove that discount. It will add millions to the amount that the builders pay in development fees.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the time has almost expired. With that, I will leave this and hopefully we can come back to it the next time we meet to debate Bill 73.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I’d like to thank the member from Oxford.

Seeing that it is now 10:15, this Legislature is recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I’m very excited today to welcome a mentor and a great friend of mine, somebody who I’m honoured to serve in my great community of Ottawa Centre. I ask members to please welcome Penny Collenette to Queen’s Park. Penny, welcome and thank you for all your support.

Mr. John Vanthof: On behalf of the member from Essex, I would like to congratulate our page captain for the day, Chloe Mastronardi, and introduce her mother, Sheila Mastronardi; her father, Terry Mastronardi; and her cousin Sylvana Mastronardi. They’re joining us in the public gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Reza Moridi: Today is the first day of the Ridvan festival of the Baha’i faith. I have two distinguished guests from my riding of Richmond Hill visiting the House: Mr. and Mrs. Missaghie. Please join me in welcoming them.

Ministers’ attendance

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The House leaders for the official opposition—

Interjections.

Mr. John Yakabuski: The Speaker is standing.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you, member from Renfrew.

The House leaders for the official opposition and the third party have each provided me with a written notice of intent to raise a point of privilege, as required by standing order 21(c). The government House leader also provided me with a written submission on this matter. The notices relate to a decision by several ministers to attend an April 15, 2015, lock-up and press conference dealing with the report of the Premier’s Advisory Council on Government Assets in a government building located outside the precincts. These events apparently overlapped with the timing of question period and therefore meant that those ministers would not be available to answer oral questions on that day.

I would like to thank the members for giving me sufficient time to carefully review the issues raised in their notices. Given the thrust of our precedents on the issues, together with Speaker Carr’s April 23, 2001, decision to rule on the matter of ministerial attendance at question period without hearing further from the member who raised it, I too will be ruling without hearing further from the members, as standing order 21(

d) permits the Speaker to do.

Ministerial attendance at question period has been the subject of many previous points of order, but no Speaker has ever held that a member is required to be in this chamber at any specific time, let alone during question period. As Speaker Carr noted in his 2001 ruling, “The many and varied duties of being an elected member of this House often legitimately demand our attendance elsewhere. Honourable members are assumed by their honourable colleagues to have valid, defensible and justifiable reasons for being absent from the House when it is meeting.

This is one of the principal reasons why it is prohibited by our traditions and practices to draw the attention of the House to the absence of another member.”

With respect specifically to ministerial attendance at question period, as far back as April 19, 1977, Speaker Rowe stated the following: “It is surely the duty of the executive council to see that there are sufficient members of the council in the House during the question period to make it meaningful. Certainly, the Speaker cannot be expected to take on this obligation.”

For similar approaches taken by other Speakers, I refer members to Speaker Turner’s November 5, 1984, ruling; Speaker Edighoffer’s April 24, 1990, ruling; Speaker Warner’s May 13, 1992, ruling; Speaker Stockwell’s April 21, 1997, ruling; and Speaker Peters’s February 22, 2010, ruling. In short, it is well established that ministers cannot be compelled to attend question period on any given day, nor is the Speaker in any position to enforce such attendance.

Parenthetically, I will reference here the assertion made by the member from Leeds–Grenville in his written notice that there was no need for those absent ministers to attend the lock-up. I am not sure any member of this House really wants to be in the business of second-guessing the priorities of another honourable member, if they think carefully about the implications of doing so.

On the issue of policy announcements, previous Speakers have indicated that it is preferable for the government of the day to make them in the House before doing so outside the House. I agree with that position. In fact, past Speakers have indicated that members who object to policy announcements being made outside the House before being made inside the House have a legitimate grievance.

That being said, those same Speakers have also indicated there is no authority in the standing orders that would allow the Speaker to require the government to make such announcements in the House before doing so by other means.

Turning to the privilege arguments in the notices, the member from Leeds–Grenville contends that the absence of several ministers meant that members were deprived of the ability to hold the government to account for its policies and were therefore obstructed and impeded in the discharge of their functions. Accordingly, the member asserts that the absence of those ministers was a contempt of the Legislature.

As previous Speakers have indicated, question period is an important part of the parliamentary day because it facilitates the assembly’s accountability function. I accept that it can be frustrating for an opposition member who has an oral question for a specific minister to find that that minister will not be available on a given day. However, nothing prevents the oral question from being placed and answered because the principle of collective cabinet responsibility means that another minister can either answer the question or undertake to get one.

That member’s frustration does not equate to an inability to fulfill his or her parliamentary responsibilities, and it does not rise to a contempt of the House.

As noted on page 509 of the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice:

“Questions, although customarily addressed to specific ministers, are directed to the ministry as a whole. It is the prerogative of the government to designate which minister responds to which question.... The Prime Minister (or the Deputy Prime Minister or any other minister acting on behalf of the Prime Minister) may respond to any or all questions posed during question period. Only one minister may respond to a question, and it need not be the one to whom the question is addressed who actually answers it. A different minister may, under certain circumstances, reply to a supplementary question.

“The Speaker has no authority to compel a particular minister to respond” to a question.

There is no authority for the proposition that a minister’s absence from this chamber in order to attend to other responsibilities amounts to obstruction of the House or its members in the exercise of their parliamentary functions.

For his part, the member for Timmins–James Bay suggests that last Thursday’s government announcement equates to a situation that happened in 2003, when the government of the day presented a budget-type speech outside the House at a time when the Legislature was prorogued. In that case, Speaker Carr had found that a prima facie case of contempt had been established because the government of the day might have been purposely circumventing parliamentary processes when it expressly indicated that the presentation was motivated by its desire to have a “direct conversation with the people of Ontario.”

Unlike what happened in 2003, there has been no similarly explicit indication by the government relating to the intention of last Thursday’s lock-up and press conference. In addition,

whereas there is a tradition of making budget presentations in the House, no such tradition attaches to the tabling of a report or an announcement in respect of such.

In this instance, then, the government’s policy announcement outside the House was rather similar to the announcements that previous governments have often made outside the House.

With respect to the argument that restrictions were placed on the number of members who could attend the lock-up, the lock-up is not a proceeding in Parliament, and in fact did not even take place in the parliamentary precinct, so it is not a matter for the Speaker. The important point is that nothing prevented members from being in the House, if they so chose, to exercise their privilege of freedom of speech.

For the foregoing reasons, I find that the member from Leeds–Grenville and the member from Timmins–James Bay have not made a prima facie case of privilege or contempt.

In closing, I thank all parties for providing me with their submissions on this matter.

Mr. Steve Clark: Speaker, a point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): One moment, please.

Government announcements

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Yesterday, the member from Leeds–Grenville provided me with an additional written notice of intent to raise a point of privilege, as required by standing order 21(c). The notice refers to the release last week of the report of the Premier’s Advisory Council on Government Assets, and principally about the fact the announcement took place outside the Legislative Assembly and at a time that conflicted with the day’s question period.

I have to advise the member that I cannot accept his notice. A point of privilege must be raised at the earliest opportunity after the alleged breach has occurred. Having received the member’s notice only late last night, which relates to events that occurred four days previous, I do not believe the member has met the timeline’s requirement.

However, I think the member will also see in the ruling I just delivered that the matter he sought to raise was fully addressed in my response to the notice provided by his colleague the member from Timmins–James Bay.

Point of order from the member from Leeds–Grenville.

Mr. Steve Clark: Thank you for your ruling, Speaker. We’re going to continue to hold this government to account.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank the members for their attention.

It is now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Privatization of public assets

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Premier. The electricity system in Ontario is in a mess. You’ve wasted $2 billion on smart meters, $1.1 billion on cancelled gas plants, and rates have skyrocketed by more than $1,000 a year for the average homeowner since you took office. The people are fed up with your hydro mismanagement.

Now you’re planning to sell a majority stake in Hydro One—60%, in fact—to raise money you can’t come up with otherwise.

But don’t worry, Mr. Speaker. The Premier says that rates might not go up because the Ontario Energy Board is there to protect consumers, the same energy board that just approved a rate increase of over $68 a year.

Premier, why should ratepayers believe your line that the OEB will limit rate increases, when yesterday they did the exact opposite?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, Mr. Speaker, let me just address part of this question. I know that we will speak to the rates in the supplementary.

Let me just be clear that the reason we have undertaken the review of assets in this province, the reason that Ed Clark and his panel were asked to look at the assets that were built by and owned by the people of Ontario, and have served the people of Ontario very well, is that we need to build new assets. We need to build new infrastructure that will serve us in the current environment and in the future.

If we don’t do that, if we don’t make those investments, then we actually hobble the ability of this province to be able to grow, we hobble the ability of communities to be able to thrive, and we restrict the attraction of Ontario to businesses from other places. So we must make these investments in infrastructure.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Back to the Premier: I don’t think I’m the only Ontarian who’s skeptical of your plan. After all, you never campaigned on it and you never held public consultations. You just did it. There’s not even a cost-benefit analysis of the majority sale. Yet you and your trusted adviser Ed Clark assured Ontarians that rates won’t go up with confident phrases like “We don’t think so” and “I can’t guarantee they won’t.”

Premier, you and I both know you don’t care about what the ratepayer pays, just as long as you get your money.

A simple question, Premier: Would you still have sold the majority stake in Hydro One if you had balanced the budget?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I have said repeatedly, and I will continue to say because it is the truth, what I care about is absolutely that we have an affordable and a reliable supply of energy. Quite frankly, when we came into office in 2003, the hydro system—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. I’m absolutely ready to bring people to order and I’ll do so quickly. Very little interruption for question, and lots of interruption for answer.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: There was absolutely no reliability in the electricity system when we came into office. There were blackouts and brownouts. I can remember knocking on doors in 2003, and the number one issue was people not knowing whether their power supply was—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. The member from Nepean–Carleton will come to order. Thank you.

Carry on, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: There was no confidence in the electricity system. There were brownouts and blackouts across the province. It was absolutely imperative, when we came into office, that we rebuild the system, that we do the upgrading that was necessary.

We’ve done that upgrading. As the member opposite knows, there is a cost associated with that. He also knows that the Ontario Energy Board sets rates and will set rates—

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Premier, it’s obvious that what has happened here is you promised a lot more than you can deliver. You drove the province into the ground for 12 years, and now the only way out is on the backs of ratepayers.

You continue to say that the OEB will regulate prices and that they won’t go up, but every bit of evidence confirms the complete opposite. Ontarians have your word on one hand and the energy board’s latest increase on the other.

Premier, as the PC caucus’s fifth and final ask, will you commit to reducing energy prices so that all ratepayers and businesses no longer have to pay some of the highest energy costs in North America?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, let’s be clear about the Ontario Energy Board. Rate applications go before the Ontario Energy Board.

Some of the history is, in 2010, Hydro One asked for a rate increase for distribution and received a 9% reduction. In 2012, Hydro One asked for a rate increase for transmission and received a 3% reduction. When Ontario Power Generation applied for a 6.2% rate increase in 2011, the OEB denied this request and lowered rates by 0.8%.

There is a history of the OEB refusing requests for rate increases, because they can—

Mr. John Yakabuski: The rates are going down, Bob. People are so happy that the rates are going down.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke will come to order.

Stop the clock, please.

Now I will also remind you that I am not impressed when I hear people use anything else other than their riding or their title, when speaking—at all.

New question.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Jim Wilson: Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Ed Clark’s report on the sale of Hydro One offers a handful of recommendations, the first being, “The province should proceed immediately with a sale or merger of its interests in Hydro One Brampton ... to or with Enersource Corp., PowerStream ... and Horizon....”

The report simply speculates that the government would receive $607 million for the sale. It offers no evidence on how the sale price was calculated. We are simply being asked to take the Premier’s and Mr. Clark’s word for it.

Premier, will you call for the Auditor General to help to review the Hydro One Brampton deal so Ontarians will have some assurance that they’re receiving the best value?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Energy is going to want to comment on the specifics.

But let me again remind the party opposite and their interim leader that what we are doing here is, we have made a decision and we ran on this decision—it was in our budget—to invest in infrastructure and, as part of that, to review the assets that were owned by the people of this province, to make sure that we were optimizing the value of those assets so that we could invest in the roads and bridges—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton—second time.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —in every riding across this province, because there is not a community, there is not a region of this province that doesn’t need investment in roads, in bridges, in public transit.

Because of the neglect of government after government—because of the work that was not done before 2003—we need to continue to make those investments if we are going to be competitive in the 21st century. That’s the commitment I made, and that’s the commitment that we’re following through on.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: That’s not a very good answer for one of biggest asset sales in the history of the province.

This government’s financial mismanagement has been embarrassing: billions of taxpayers’ dollars wasted every time you take a turn.

For a Premier who came in preaching openness and transparency, something about this Hydro One Brampton sale simply does not add up. Why should the people of Ontario believe that a pre-arranged sale, organized in secret by the Premier’s backroom, is the best deal for an asset that they own?

Premier, if you intend on selling Hydro One Brampton, will you put it on the open market to ensure Ontarians get fair value for the company that they own?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The Premier set up the asset council with very experienced people, a mixture of people from different backgrounds, different parties, different philosophies, but headed up by Mr. Ed Clark. They created a revolving door of advisers and consultants coming in to explore all of the elements of the recommendations that they were making. At the end of the day, the selling price was close to twice as much as Hydro One had paid for it, a very significant uplift in value, which represents a very good investment of a previous government to do that.

The reality is we had seven municipalities, seven mayors and seven councils, we expect, who have supported this, because it improves it for the ratepayer and improves the revenue for all of those cities, including Markham and Barrie and many others.

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: Back to the Premier: We simply don’t accept that your backroom political dealings and pre-arranged sale is the best value for this public asset.

You were wrong when you said the cost of cancelling gas plants was $40 million when it really was $1.1 billion. You were wrong when you said the Green Energy Act would cost hydro customers about the price of a cup of coffee when the real cost is $1,100 per year.

With the last 12 years of fiscal mismanagement in this province, no one—no one—accepts that your deal is the best deal for this public asset. Why should they accept your word for it? Your word simply is no good when it comes to these transactions.

Premier, the people of Ontario deserve all the information respecting the value and sale of Hydro One Brampton, again, an asset that they own. Why won’t you allow the Auditor General to review the sale before it goes through?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Energy?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The merger we’re looking at is not a 407 deal. It’s not a deal where we sell off to somebody and let them make profit out of it, and let them hold 100% control. That’s what they did with 407.

We have created here—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It could be with you.

Finish, please.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: We have created here a utility of one million customers which rivals Toronto Hydro, the second-largest in the province. There were seven municipalities involved, seven utilities, which came together to create this consolidation. It’s good for the ratepayer. It’s good for the shareholders, all of the councils, and every single mayor of seven cities endorsed it.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. The Premier is planning to privatize Hydro One. She said she was going to govern from something she called the activist centre. It turns out that the activist centre is so far to the right that even the Tories are saying that the Premier’s privatization plan for Ontario is bad. It’s a bit rich for the Premier to insist she’s leading a progressive government when she’s right of the Conservatives.

Can the Premier explain exactly how it is that she lost her way so terribly?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport, come to order.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I said, I understand why the leader of the third party wants to go through a recalibrating exercise for herself to relocate herself on the political continuum, because who knows where she was in the election? Who knows what she stands for?

What we stand for is making practical decisions that are in the best interests of this province. Right now, across this province, we need to invest in infrastructure. There is no doubt. I have sat with groups of mayors after groups of mayors, whether it’s in the north, whether it’s in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area, whether it’s large urban mayors or rural mayors, and they have said to me unanimously that they need investment in infrastructure. That is a necessity, so that’s what we’re doing. We ran on that. We said that we were going to invest in roads, bridges and transit, and that’s what we’re going to do.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier is creating a brand new beer ombudsman, so that people can complain if their beer is flat, but she’s pushing the Ontario Ombudsman out of Hydro One. The Premier has a pretty serious problem with her priorities here. Why does she think that the people of Ontario deserve less oversight with their electricity system?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I have been very clear, it was very much a concern of mine and ours that there be oversight, that there be control, that the province have a 40% share and have the controls in terms of regulation and price control that are in place right now, and that we continue those.

But let me just speak to the ideological bent that the leader of the third party is on right now, and just give her some feedback from some of the people who actually think this is a good idea. First of all, let me quote from the Power Workers’ Union. This is Don MacKinnon, the president of the Power Workers’ Union: “The Power Workers’ Union welcomes and supports the decision by government to keep Hydro One whole in an IPO process that would, in partnership with government, broaden the ownership structure in Hydro One. This will position the company to grow and provide further high-skill quality jobs for Ontarians.”

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier is spending months and months, exhaustive amounts of time, to study whether she wants to sell 12-packs of beer in the LCBO—in 10 stores. On the other hand, she doesn’t need any time at all—no time whatsoever—to decide to sell off Hydro One to Bay Street, a plan that will mean higher electricity bills for every single Ontarian. That’s on top of the $70, of course, that was announced as an increase yesterday by the Ontario Energy Board.

This plan is wrong. The Premier’s priorities are wrong. The Premier has lost her way. My question is, will she pull the plug on this wrong-headed privatization plan?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I understand that the leader of the third party is trying to find her way. I would suggest that supporting a plan that would invest in transit infrastructure, roads and bridges across the province might be a way to help her back to her way.

I will also remind her that the Ontario Energy Board, which sets prices now, will set prices after this deal is in place.

I want to just again remind the member opposite that this is also about creating jobs. Joseph Mancinelli, who is the vice-president and central and eastern Canada regional manager of LIUNA, the building trades, says, “The Wynne Liberal government is to be commended for today’s announcement implementing sweeping changes in our province which will greatly benefit all Ontarians. The $4 billion these changes will introduce for investment in infrastructure projects, the largest infrastructure investment in Ontario’s history, is welcome news to LIUNA and our members.

Job creation is one of the key components of this initiative and we welcome the much-needed infrastructure and the thousands of jobs that will be created for our members for years to come.”

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I hope that the Premier told Joe that $4 billion won’t even get half of the downtown relief line built.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. The Premier says that a privatized Hydro One won’t be under the Ombudsman’s—

Interjections.

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

Question, please.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier says that a privatized Hydro One won’t be under the Ombudsman’s oversight. Can the Premier guarantee Ontarians that the CEO of the new private hydro company will still be appearing on the sunshine list?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that the member opposite might have been interested in the transit that can be built, as a result of these announcements, in Hamilton for example, and in the GTA writ large. I would have thought that she would have been quite interested in the needs of the constituents around the greater Toronto and Hamilton area, but apparently not.

Mr. Speaker, we are building. The NDP basically is saying, “Don’t build. Don’t build this province up. Don’t invest in the infrastructure that’s needed. Don’t create 20,000 jobs a year. Don’t do that. Stay stuck in ideology. Don’t look at practical solutions.”

When I talk about the activist centre, that’s what I mean: looking for the answers to the problems that are presenting themselves today, not looking back a hundred years and deciding today what we should do, based on a hundred years ago. That’s not what we’re doing.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs will come to order, and is very close to being asked to withdraw. I’m not amused.

Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the Premier says that a privatized Hydro One won’t be under the scrutiny of the Ombudsman, under Ombudsman oversight. She’s not telling us whether or not the CEO and other executives are going to be subject to the sunshine list.

Can the Premier guarantee Ontarians that the freedom-of-information act will still apply to the new privatized hydro company?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Just a couple of facts that I’m sure the leader of the third party is aware of but has neglected to mention: There will be a new Hydro One ombudsman. She knows that, I think. She also knows that there is a different set of accountability measures for publicly traded companies. The CEO’s salary will be disclosed according to OSC rules. She knows that.

But I think the bottom line here is that the leader of the third party has no faith in the private sector. In fact, she made a statement to that effect. She said that she has no faith in the private sector. That is a fundamental difference between us.

I believe, and we believe, that it’s important that government partner with the private sector, that the private sector has done an enormous amount of good.

I was at an event just on the weekend that was a prime example of a private-public partnership, where a community centre is going to be built in conjunction—the city of Toronto working with the private sector. The NDP was there, and they were—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: We have a watchdog at Hydro One: the Ombudsman, who looks after the interests of the public. But the Premier wants to pull his teeth.

We currently have transparency, through the sunshine list, at Hydro One. But the Premier wants to pull the shades on that.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Economic Development, come to order—second time.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: We currently have accountability through freedom-of-information at Hydro One. But the Premier wants to slam the door on that accountability.

The Premier’s plan will limit access to information. It will limit transparency. It will limit accountability.

Interjection.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It will drive rates sky-high. The Premier’s plan is wrong, Speaker. Why can’t she see that? When did she lose her way?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just say again that I made a commitment to the people of Ontario that we would invest in them, that we would invest in the infrastructure that is needed in their communities, that we would work with them to create the conditions to bring business to this province and create jobs. That’s what this is about.

What the NDP is saying is that we shouldn’t make those investments, we shouldn’t create those jobs and we shouldn’t look for solutions.

The leader of the NDP said on April 16, “I don’t have any faith whatsoever in the ... private sector.” That’s quite a statement, given that we, as a government and as a people, rely on the private sector. We rely on the private sector to create jobs, to innovate, to draw investment to the province. She chooses not to have any desire—or any understanding that we need to work with the private sector if we’re going to thrive.

Teachers’ labour dispute

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: My question today is for the Minister of Education. Minister, today is the second day that 24,000 students in Durham don’t have classes to attend. Yesterday, you said that you were mystified, you were perplexed and you weren’t sure why the board was striking. Well, you can be perplexed and mystified no longer: The reason the board is striking and the reason that for a second day 24,000 students are out of the classroom is 12 years of Liberal fiscal mismanagement.

OSSTF in Sudbury could strike on April 27, and we just found out that OSSTF Peel announced they may strike on May 4. This isn’t a local issue anymore. The buck stops with the Liberal government and with you, Minister. How many more boards need to strike before you realize why they walked away from negotiations?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Obviously, we’re very concerned about the students who are missing classes. We understand that students and parents want the teachers back in the classroom. The kids want to get back in the classroom—which is actually great, that students are telling us that they want to get back into their studies.

But I think it is quite important to understand that the way the collective bargaining act is structured, some issues are discussed at a provincial level. The central table includes the crown—so yes, I am responsible for being at that table—the trustee association and the provincial union. That central table continues to have talks. Talks are going on at the central table. Unfortunately, it’s at some of the local tables where talks have broken down.

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

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Back to the minister: You said yesterday that you hadn’t heard a coherent explanation as to why Durham was striking. Mr. Speaker, the member from Guelph is the Minister of Education. If she hasn’t heard a coherent explanation or been given a proper briefing, I hope she spends time today interviewing new staff.

But I suppose I can save her the trouble. The strike in Durham is because of your 12 years of Liberal fiscal mismanagement. You can’t negotiate fairly and you’re backtracking on election promises.

Minister, will you stop blaming—

Interjections.

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

Please finish.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Minister, will you stop blaming the local boards and take responsibility before more boards strike in this province?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I—I would quibble a little bit with the wording—

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Liz Sandals: —because I think it’s important that we don’t get into a situation of assigning blame here or blame there or blame there. What’s important is that we have talks at both levels—we do have talks going on—because the only way to reach an agreement is if we’re talking. We are negotiating at the central table, where I do have responsibility, and we understand that we must arrive at a negotiated agreement. But we also know that at the local level we need the local parties.

I point out that these are the people whose last platform—

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

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Peter Tabuns: To the Premier: Yesterday, Ontarians learned that they will be paying another $70 a year on their hydro bill to pay for Liberal waste and mismanagement of the hydro system. But instead of trying to make things better and using our strategic energy assets like Hydro One to help people conserve, to help them get their bills under control, the Liberals are privatizing Hydro One and handing control over to Bay Street.

Privatization is going to drive up hydro bills, just like it’s always done. The OEB just approved another rate increase starting May 1. Can the Premier tell Ontarians how much more she expects rates to go up under her privatization plan?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: In December 2013 we issued a long-term energy plan, Mr. Speaker. There was one page in that that had particular attention from the opposition and others: That was our projected rate increases over the next four or five years.

The reality is, we’ve been reducing the costs in the sector. The announcement of a rate increase yesterday is less than what was predicted, because we’re getting a better handle on the sector. We’re reducing our costs in the sector and we’re making efforts towards the ratepayer in many other ways as well. I’ll deal with that in supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Again, back to the Premier: Ontarians have bills almost twice as high as people get in Manitoba and Quebec, where their public utilities are owned by the people. We are watching our rates go up faster, and what you put in place will only make it worse. The Premier hasn’t learned the lesson that public hydro is more affordable. Her privatization plan is going to be bad for conservation, bad for innovation, bad for jobs, bad for business and bad for the people of Ontario.

Premier, this is a lousy plan. When are you going to pull the plug on privatization?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, we can expect a lot of rhetoric coming from the opposition parties. The reality is that the electricity prices in Ontario are lower than in three other provinces—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Carry on, please.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: They’re lower than in three other provinces. Yes, Manitoba and Quebec are lower than us because they have legacy hydro projects that enable that. In Canada, we’re in the middle of the pack.

We hear them also say that we’ve got the highest rates in North America. They should look at Detroit, they should look at New York, and they should look at Boston where it’s 18, 19, 20 cents per kilowatt hour. We are lowering the pressures on price; we are lowering that, as well, by doing what we’re doing with Hydro One. It’ll be more efficient in the long run; the ratepayers will be protected. Our plan is working.

Infrastructure program funding

Mr. Grant Crack: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. It’s always a privilege for me to bring to this House issues that are of interest to my constituents in Glengarry–Prescott–Russell, and one of those issues that I regularly hear about, whether it’s through meetings of talking to the mayors and councillors, is connecting links.

There are two connecting links in my riding of Glengarry–Prescott–Russell: There’s one in the township of Champlain and one in the town of Hawkesbury. Since the Connecting Links program ended in 2012, many in my community have felt the financial pressure of keeping these roads in good working order and condition.

Speaker, through you: Could the minister please tell the members of this House what our government is doing to help municipalities with their connecting links?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I want to begin by thanking the member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell for the question, but also for his incredibly strong advocacy for his community.

The member is 100% correct, Speaker. We have continued to hear from Ontario municipalities about the need for additional funding for their connecting links. Municipalities have told us that making connecting links projects eligible under the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund has not been sufficient. So we listened—the Premier listened, our government listened—and we have been committed to working with municipalities to address this issue. That’s why I was extremely happy to be in Sault Ste.

Marie yesterday, with the Minister of Government Services and the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, to formally announce that the province is committing $15 million annually to a new Connecting Links program.

This announcement is only one part of our government’s plan to unlock the value of certain public assets which will provide approximately $4 billion to build new transit and other priority infrastructure projects—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Grant Crack: Thank you, Minister, for that very comprehensive response and the great announcement that you did make yesterday.

Speaker, there are 352 connecting links in Ontario and 70 bridges in 77 municipalities across the province. As I indicated earlier, two of these connecting links are found in my community, in my riding of Glengarry–Prescott–Russell. But I’ve also heard other members in this House talk about connecting links within their riding, often discussing the difficulties their local municipalities are having keeping these roads in good shape. I know those living in my community will be very pleased to hear more about the funding being offered through the new Connecting Links program.

Speaker, through you: Can the minister tell the members of this House when Ontario municipalities can expect to start receiving funding from the new Connecting Links program?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Again, I thank that member for his question.

As I mentioned previously, this new program is only one part of our government’s plan to unlock the value of certain public assets, making more funding available for transit and transportation projects like Connecting Links through our Moving Ontario Forward plan. This means that what was announced in April 2014 as a nearly $29-billion investment in Moving Ontario Forward is now a $31.5-billion commitment over the next 10 years.

Through the Moving Ontario Forward plan, Connecting Links funding is expected to begin in the spring of 2016. But we want to make sure that we get this program right, which is why we’ll continue to consult with municipalities to ensure the new program meets their needs. We look forward to continuing to work with our municipal partners on this incredibly important project.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is for the Premier. Premier, Ontario’s Ombudsman’s ongoing probe into Hydro One’s billing fiasco is now the largest ever undertaken by his office, with more than 10,500 public complaints and an average of 10 new complaints each day still.

Residents of my riding have experienced this first-hand, with hundreds of customers, including small businesses, who have gone months without a bill only to be advised that they owe thousands and will be disconnected if they don’t pay in full. Now, with your plan to sell off a majority stake in Hydro One, it will leave its customers without access to the Ontario Ombudsman’s oversight.

Premier, is your government trying to run away from the accountability of the Ombudsman’s oversight and another critical report on the energy file?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Energy will want to speak to the specifics, but let me just say that in fact we believe that Hydro One can be a much better run company. In the work that Ed Clark and his group did, they came to that conclusion and they believe that broadening the ownership in Hydro One and realizing the benefit of that—reinvesting in infrastructure—will be good for the people of Ontario on a number of fronts, including having a more efficient company.

But I also want to say that the announcement that was just referenced in terms of Connecting Links is part of this. I know that members opposite, particularly in the opposition, claim to have the concerns of people in small and rural communities at heart. They should be very, very supportive of a Connecting Links program because the members who come to the Good Roads conference and to ROMA talk about, over and over again, the need for infrastructure investment and connecting links. That’s exactly what we’re doing.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Laurie Scott: Premier, you have increased the Ontario Ombudsman oversight with Bill 8, only to turn around and take it away from Hydro One.

Just last week, you announced that a beer ombudsman would be created to watch over beer sales. Premier, families in Ontario are more concerned with their lights being on than their Bud Light being cold, even though one can’t really happen without the other.

We have seen this before with other scandals like Ornge and the gas plants, where oversight has been created after the fact.

Premier, will you help protect the customers of Ontario’s largest electricity provider by allowing proper oversight by the Ontario Ombudsman?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The Hydro One transformation is going to take a number of months. In the meantime, there’s plenty of time for the Ombudsman to report.

With respect to the work that the Ombudsman has been doing: Yes, he has received over 10,000 complaints. They’re generated out of the new billing system. There are about 3,300 complaints that have been referred to Hydro One for resolution. To date, Hydro One has successfully resolved 99% of the billing complaints it received from the Ombudsman. Refunds and credits are being given and accommodation is being given to all those who have been impacted.

Right now the level of complaint is less than what has normally happened over the course of the last five, seven or 10 years.

Education funding

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday the Minister of Education stated that she was perplexed about the current labour dispute in Ontario’s education sector. What I find truly perplexing is that the Liberal government, the Premier, is considering removing a limit on class sizes—the signature education policy of her predecessor, Dalton McGuinty—and forcing students and teachers into larger classes.

Speaker, can the Premier please explain to Ontarians why the Liberal government is flip-flopping on class sizes and throwing our schools into chaos?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: Yes, thank you very much. Let me just repeat what I said previously. The legislation is very clear: When you have central negotiations—we’re talking about money issues that have to do with money, with finances, with provincial policy. Those are the issues that are being negotiated at the central table, and there could theoretically be a central strike on central issues.

When you have a local strike—and this is clearly a local strike in Durham—it is, by definition under the law, a strike on local issues. Those would be issues like transfer and surplus.

We believe that the only way you solve this problem is to negotiate, and that’s exactly what we’re doing at the centre table, where we sit.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: I thank the Minister of Education for that lesson. What she clearly doesn’t know is that negotiations are a give-and-take, not just taking.

Again, to the Premier: Just yesterday the Minister of Education claimed that she hadn’t heard a coherent explanation of what local issues prompted education workers to walk out in Durham, and that she is mystified by their actions.

Maybe if the Premier and minister actually consulted Ontario families and education workers before slashing education funding and forcing the closure of neighbourhood schools, they wouldn’t be so mystified as to why Ontarians are so upset.

Speaker, when will this government finally admit that their policies of education cuts and forced school closures are failing Ontarians?

Hon. Liz Sandals: As I said, the only way to solve a labour issue—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek.

Hon. Liz Sandals: The only way to solve a labour problem is to negotiate. We are committed to negotiating a collective agreement, and that’s why, as we speak, people are sitting, negotiating, to arrive at a central agreement. That is the role that we will continue to play, because we are committed to achieving a central negotiated collective agreement.

With respect to funding, I’m sorry that the NDP doesn’t think that a 56% increase in funding qualifies as an increase. They seem to think a 56% increase is a cut. I’m afraid I don’t understand NDP math.

Services for the developmentally disabled / Services aux personnes ayant une déficience intellectuelle

M me Marie-France Lalonde: Ma question est pour la ministre des Services sociaux et communautaires. Minister, in the 2014 budget, this government announced a significant investment in the developmental services sector and those individuals living with developmental disabilities. However, as you are aware, il existe des pressions considérables concernant les options disponibles en matière résidentielle pour les individus vivant avec une déficience comportementale et leurs besoins résidentiels à l’extérieur de leur maison familiale.

As identified by this Legislature’s select committee on developmental disabilities, there are some well-known concerns regarding the access to residential services. Moreover, the Auditor General released a report last year that noted the number of people waiting for residential supports.

Monsieur le Président, est-ce que la ministre peut nous expliquer ce que le gouvernement fait pour répondre à ces préoccupations?

L’hon. Helena Jaczek: Merci, la députée d’Ottawa–Orléans, pour la question. Le secteur des services aux personnes ayant une déficience intellectuelle fait face à des pressions importantes en Ontario, en particulier les services en établissement.

As I announced last month, 525 adults have received new residential supports since budget 2014, moving toward our commitment of 1,400 new urgent residential supports over four years.

We are working with community partners in order to create a broader set of housing options for individuals with developmental disabilities. I had the opportunity to meet with my ministry’s developmental services housing task force last week and discussed their progress so far. Last month, the task force launched a call for proposals on innovative housing solutions.

I very much appreciate the work done by the housing task force and look forward to continuing to work with them.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Merci, madame la Ministre. I know that organizations in my riding of Ottawa–Orléans appreciate that this government wants community partners to play an active

part in finding the best solutions.

Minister, in the 2014 budget your ministry committed to timelines to eliminate existing wait-lists for people waiting for direct funding assistance. As you know, direct funding through Special Services at Home, for children until 18, and Passport, for adults, provides funding for individuals and families that can be used towards particular programming at agencies of their choice. Through these direct funding programs, this government is helping to support individual choice and encourage independence for those with developmental disabilities and their families.

Monsieur le Président, est-ce que la ministre peut partager avec cette Chambre le progrès qui est fait en ce qui a trait au financement pour répondre aux listes d’attente?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: I’m pleased to report that 14,000 people now have new direct funding to purchase supports and services; that is, 8,000 more children and 6,000 more adults since the 2014 budget.

I have visited many places across the province, including Ottawa, and have witnessed first-hand the need of those with developmental disabilities and the support that our front-line workers and agencies are providing.

Comme la députée d’Ottawa–Orléans l’a fait remarquer, pour les personnes ayant une déficience intellectuelle, ce financement direct fournit des soutiens qui les aident à vivre de façon plus indépendante, à participer à la vie de leur collectivité et à continuer de vivre avec leur famille. Notre gouvernement ne ménage pas ses efforts pour faire de l’Ontario un endroit plus inclusif pour les personnes ayant une déficience intellectuelle. Merci, monsieur le Président.

Fish and wildlife management

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. Minister, I’ve been asking for the release of the special purpose account for over three years now. Legislation in this House would state that it must be tabled yearly. The SPA is generated from the fees collected from the hunters and anglers of this province, supposedly to be reinvested in resource management.

Your government insists that the SPA fund is decreasing. However, we cannot verify that assertion because you refuse to table the document. Hunters and anglers are facing increased fees and new service fees, and seniors may now have to purchase a fishing licence.

Minister, will you show some transparency and table the documents today?

Hon. Bill Mauro: I thank the member for the question. I do believe at least two of the reports that the particular member is referencing have been tabled. I’ll double-check, but I’m pretty sure two have been tabled. There is one yet to come. I’ve been happy to make that offer of information that he’s been looking for for some time available to him.

Speaker, in regard to the fees that the member continues to raise in this House, there was a significant consultation that was undertaken one or two years ago. Through that process, there were a variety of suggestions that came in through the consultation on what we needed to do to continue to keep the SPA whole. Many of those recommendations were dismissed.

The member keeps flying the attitude about a seniors’ licence fee coming in. I’ve very publicly stated on a number of occasions that that was suggested through the consultation. It’s not something that I have ever contemplated doing. I’ve said that in here before and I say it in here again, so the member perhaps, in his next supplementary or in the future, won’t feel the need to reference a seniors’ licencing issue on the SPA in this Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Back to the minister: I will continually talk about that because we don’t believe you on this side of the House.

Minister, you’re increasing new fees, you’re increasing the price of licences in this province and you’re still behind in tabling the documents to this Legislature. I find it really interesting that the Out of Doors magazine is able to have information on this current SPA fund—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): There are a few on the edge, here.

Please finish.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Thank you, Speaker.

I find it interesting the Out of Doors magazine has information on the SPA fund that has yet to be tabled in this Legislature. Minister, I find that quite disrespectful to this chamber as a whole. Are you trying to manipulate the public by releasing snippets of incomplete information? You obviously do have the reports prepared. Why won’t you release them in totality? What are you hiding from the people of Ontario?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport, come to order.

Minister.

Hon. Bill Mauro: Speaker, the SPA has approximately $100 million a year in it; $66 million of that comes from the licensing and fees that come into the ministry. It’s a dedicated account that goes towards fish and wildlife management in the province of Ontario.

By way of example, in the MNRF’s Aylmer district, which I think is the member’s riding, planned spending is $873,000 on fish and wildlife management projects and $520,000 on enforcement in the 2014-15 year, all from the SPA.

As well, out of the SPA, we have been flying moose aerial inventories in the province of Ontario—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It goes both ways. The member from Elgin–Middlesex–London, you asked. Listen.

Carry on.

Hon. Bill Mauro: Almost every wildlife management unit in the province of Ontario has now been flown over the course of the last two or three years, to determine what the moose population numbers are.

We’re taking the SPA money and we’re using it f