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

May 17, 2017

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2017-May-17 (PDF)

L084 - Wed 17 May 2017 / Mer 17 mai 2017

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 17 May 2017 Mercredi 17 mai 2017

Stronger, Healthier Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2017 / Loi de 2017 pour un Ontario plus fort et en meilleure santé (mesures budgétaires)

Safer School Zones Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur la sécurité accrue des zones d’école

Introduction of Visitors

Michael George Bolan

Committee sittings

Oral Questions

School safety

Government advertising

Government’s agenda

Energy policies

Ontario budget

Hospital funding

Land use planning

Service clubs

Housing policy

Land use planning

Hydro rates

Forest industry

Economic development

Highway improvement

Automobile insurance

Visitors

Reports, Integrity Commissioner

Deferred Votes

Time allocation

Time allocation

Stronger, Healthier Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2017 / Loi de 2017 pour un Ontario plus fort et en meilleure santé (mesures budgétaires)

Committee sittings

Royal assent / Sanction royale

Members’ Statements

Canadore College

Health care

Credit Valley Hospital

School closures

Forest industry

Pro Bono Ontario

Boating safety

International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia

Law Enforcement Torch Run for Special Olympics

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills

Standing Committee on General Government

Introduction of Bills

Millar Wajer Holdings Inc. Act, 2017

Budget Measures Act (Housing Price Stability and Ontario Seniors’ Public Transit Tax Credit), 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur les mesures budgétaires (stabilité des prix du logement et crédit d’impôt de l’Ontario aux personnes âgées pour le transport en commun)

Protecting Vulnerable Persons in Supportive Living Accommodation Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur la protection des personnes vulnérables dans les logements supervisés

Petitions

Health care funding

Mental health and addiction services

Nanjing Massacre

Government advertising

Missing persons

Government anti-racism programs

Dementia

Pharmacare

Water fluoridation

Ontario Northland Transportation Commission

Domestic violence and sexual violence

Long-term care

Hydro rates

Orders of the Day

Fair Hydro Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 pour des frais d’électricité équitables

Anti-Human Trafficking Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 contre la traite de personnes

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Stronger, Healthier Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2017 / Loi de 2017 pour un Ontario plus fort et en meilleure santé (mesures budgétaires)

Mr. Duguid, on behalf of Mr. Sousa, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 127,

An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact, amend and repeal various statutes / Projet de loi 127, Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre les mesures budgétaires et à édicter, à modifier ou à abroger diverses lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister Duguid.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m not supposed to get up, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I can always find time to speak about this government’s catastrophes. I look forward to the opportunity to speak for 10 minutes. If the government has nothing to say, I will.

I can begin by telling you that the 2017 budget, Speaker, is more proof that Ontario families will continue to pay more and get less. While the government has made this pronouncement of a balanced budget, as we’ve now learned from all of the authorities, it is anything but balanced. It is artificially balanced through, and only through, the one-time sale of assets and unusual one-time injection of capital.

So we can imagine that when we look back through the gas plant scandal documents, one of the documents that we read quite surprised us because it said, “We are not on the path to balance.” It was a very startling pronouncement from the Ministry of Finance to their own cabinet in what was once a confidential cabinet document that we received through the gas plant scandal hearings, and that’s what it said: “We are not on the path to balance.”

They showed, in fact, that since the current Premier became Premier, the deficit was getting worse each year, which meant, obviously, the debt in Ontario was turning into a calamity and they needed to do something. They couldn’t stop their spending spree. Revenue was still going up. Revenue has gone up every year since this government took office, except for one year, in 2008, when it was flat, but it picked up again the next year, so it’s a straight line. Revenue is up in Ontario. Of course, they helped themselves with $2.47 billion worth of service fees last year alone.

When I think just about vehicle registration and licensing fees, in the last four years alone they went up $503 million. That’s just the increase. That’s not the total collection; that’s just the increase. We now get $2.47 billion in service fees. So if you drive a car, go hunting, fishing, camping or need a special event permit for a charitable organization, all of those pay more: $2.47 billion.

We know revenues are going up, but they just can’t help themselves on the spending side of it. So they find themselves—in their own words, “We’re not on the path to balance.” What are they going to do? They scratch their heads. They look down the street, and they say: “Oh, gosh. Well, we can sell the OPG building here, the headquarters right across the street from Queen’s Park—a few hundred million. Down the street a little further, you’ve got the LCBO headquarters—a few hundred million. Man, this looks like a good plan. What else have we got?” Of course, they sold their GM shares.

That brought in about $1.1 billion. Then they really ended up still in the pickle, still billions of dollars shy every year, so they look to our crown jewel, Hydro One, and have a fire sale of the crown jewel of Ontario.

They put that money, the sale of Hydro One, right into revenue. That’s how the minister has artificially balanced the budget in Ontario. All of the experts acknowledge that. We now know that they have used what they call “asset optimization.” That’s just a very, very nice way of saying, “We’re having a desperate sale of buildings that we own.” Next year they’re going to find a couple of more buildings and a couple of more properties. There are a couple of more properties, the Seaton lands. They’re going to sell off those. As you’ve seen, they’ve sold off the last of their tranche of Hydro One assets.

That gets us through to the election. They should pretty much cover themselves in terms of artificially balancing, by the sale of assets, but they have run out of things to sell. That’s why we call it an “artificial balance,” because what’s going to happen in the subsequent years is that they have nothing to sell and no way to balance the budget. That’s why the Financial Accountability Officer told us they’re going to plunge back into deficit and have growing deficits.

Basically, if you look at the downward scale that Premier Wynne was on in terms of deficits, they’re back to that except we have this little blip of this artificial budget balance, this fake balance because of the one-time sale of assets. Actually, they’ve turned it into a couple-of-years’ sale of assets.

I know the minister continues to tell us that they overachieved. It’s only from these one-time sources of revenue that this overachievement has occurred. For instance, we’re going to get a billion-and-a-half bump this year in revenue from the feds. It’s normally about $100 million in the last few years. This year, it’s going to be $1.5 billion, so, obviously, we’re going to see this huge bump. We know that’s only temporary.

The land transfer tax was up $600 million last year. It’s going to be up another $400 million this year. Obviously, that’s another $1-billion bump that’s coming in. We’ve got $1.8 billion—$1.7 billion, actually; it looks like it’s falling—in cap-and-trade tax that’s going straight to revenue. We’ve got $500 million out of the teachers’ pension plan that they’re booking, that the Auditor General said she would not allow.

All of those sources, these one-time sources, are going to be necessary to artificially balance. This is why we’re very concerned about it. When we look at the deeper concern, when we look here, we know that they could use the revenue from the sale of Hydro One—there was that one little line in the actual bill, Bill 144, last year,

schedule 22,

section 7, paragraph 2, which states they can use that money to “reimburse the crown” for infrastructure money already spent. We know that the same thing—it worked so well for hydro that they’re going to do it with the cap-and-trade money. That’s Bill 172,

schedule 68,

section 2, item 3. It also says they can use the money to “reimburse” themselves for money already spent.

This is nothing but a charade, Speaker. It’s disturbing to see that they’re attempting to fool the people of Ontario with these one-time sales and unusual sources of revenue that they’re putting right into revenue to pay back the money they’ve already spent. It’s alarming to the people of Ontario. It’s disturbing that they continue to do that. Even though they’ve been outed on it, they still do it. They tell one thing to the people of Ontario when the complete opposite is the truth, and that I also find very alarming and very disturbing.

Speaker, we know that total program spending this year is up $6 billion. Our debt is growing by $10 billion. I don’t know why they brag about this, but we continue to be the largest subnational debtor on the planet. Instead of addressing our debt, our crippling and crushing debt, they’re adding $10 billion to our debt this year. Yet they went on a spending spree, and spending is up $6 billion this year. Interest is going to rise to $11.6 billion this year. That means almost a billion dollars a month will be spent just on interest to pay for the debt that this government has incurred.

When they took office, our debt in Ontario was $139 billion. It took this province 137 years to get that debt. It took these guys a decade to double it. Not only that, they’ve overachieved on their debt increase: They are now at $312 billion. That’s what they’re at. The Financial Accountability Officer tells us we’re on our way to a debt of $370 billion. That’s what they’ve overachieved with, Speaker. They have overachieved on making us the most indebted subnational on the planet.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: It is always an honour to stand up and talk about anything in this House. It’s an important thing. But the budget, the way this budget went down—I’m going to start with that, Speaker.

The vote for second reading is at 12 p.m., and because of time allocation, the deputations start at 1 p.m. That gives people from across the province a whole hour—a whole hour, Speaker—to first find out that the budget was actually voted on, and then to try and get down here to make a deputation. Really, you’re excluding the vast majority of the province. You’re kind of making the whole deputation process a sham.

The part about deputations—and this is how the system is supposed to work—is that you pass second reading, and any bill goes to a committee, where you ask for people to come and make suggestions, whether they have problems with the budget or they want to make it better. I don’t know if you can make this one better. Then the committee should have enough time, and the parties should have enough time, to look at those deputations and to see if they can make some amendments to improve that piece of legislation before it goes to clause-by-clause and then for the third reading.

Mr. Michael Mantha: The public has valuable contributions.

Mr. John Vanthof: That’s right. In a democracy, public opinion and public input is probably the most valuable.

The vote is held at 12 p.m., and deputations start at 1 p.m. Then, amendments have to be in by 7 o’clock that night. Realistically, that people came to make their deputations really didn’t matter at all, because there was no physical way it was possible to include them in amendments unless you knew what they were going to say before they came and said it. Now here we are, time-allocated debate again—really, this whole budget process has been like a bad movie. It really has. It’s easy for us to complain, but really, if you go back, 12 o’clock is the vote, 1 o’clock is the time for the public, and by 7 o’clock the same evening you have to have your amendments in based on what the public said.

When I brought this issue up—and the member from the PCs also brought this issue up at committee—the response from the government was “No, no, no, you are all wrong, because we did all kinds of consultation.” Pre-budget, they did do some consultation, but the people who were making the presentations then didn’t have a chance to see the budget. There’s also a big value in having consultation. That’s why you have committee hearings. The last time I checked, committee hearings are pretty important in this House. To make committee hearings valuable, you give the public time to make their deputations, but they’ve ignored that.

What really bothered me—if there’s something in the budget that you’re very interested in and you’ve got a lot of expertise, either because of your business or just because you have lived it, and you see it, 12 o’clock—first, it’s only an hour; how many normal people can give an hour’s notice to take off work? You can’t, so even people here are excluded. The only people who actually had the time are the official—and I have nothing against the official lobbyist class, but that’s the people.

Anyone who has a regular job or a regular life or kids or anything, cannot, with an hour’s notice, just hustle on down to Queen’s Park. That is a travesty in our democracy because, really, we should pride ourselves on the ability of people to actually participate in our process.

I have to give a shout-out to one person at the finance committee, Steve Mantis, who actually was there and he sat through the committee hearings, and he asked—because we had a couple of cancellations—if he could be included. Since there was an open slot, he was included. Steve Mantis is an injured worker. He lost his arm. He’s a carpenter. He’s a one-armed carpenter. He lost it, I believe, if I remember, 40 years ago. He talked about WSIB from the point of view of someone who has actually been through it, and it was one of the best presentations that I have ever had the honour to listen to, because he lived it.

He wasn’t totally critical of WSIB, but he had a very good viewpoint. He had the kind of viewpoint that actually could make legislation better. As I sat there listening to him, I’m thinking, “What about all the other people who actually have a viewpoint because they have lived through issues?” But because this government is so intent on passing this good-news budget without actually having any light of day on it, those people, those regular people who have actually had real-life experiences, who actually could make this province better with their experiences, people like Steve Mantis, never got the chance to make any deputations on this budget.

It was physically impossible for the vast majority of Ontarians. For the vast majority of Ontarians who actually wanted to make a deputation, this government made it physically impossible. This open and transparent government is busy making open and transparent walls, Plexiglas walls, so no one can make any comments except the people they want to make comments.

Despite all their efforts to stop comments, we did hear a few that were very interesting. The nurses—the RNAO, I believe—made a presentation, and they expressed some concern that, if you recall in the budget motion, there was the booster shot to health care: 3% supposedly, but 2% minimum to hospitals.

It was brought up—and this is a good question for the government—in the deputations that some hospital CEOs are concerned that their 2% actually might not be 2% because some of the top-ups they’ve had for their base funding in past years—when a hospital actually can’t make their budget, sometimes they get a top-up for their base funding. It was brought up that that could be part of the 2%. That’s not a booster shot, Speaker; that’s life support.

That’s not me saying that; that is a deputant. And that is a valid question. I see some of the members across, from the government, are vigorously shaking their heads that that’s absolutely not the truth. Great. Prove it. I’m just saying what we heard at the hearings. That is valuable information. That’s stuff that we don’t hear from the other side, and that’s one of the reasons why this government doesn’t want to hold actual hearings with enough time for people to actually prepare, because they don’t want to hear any bad news. They don’t want people to hear bad news. I’ve been here five years. I’ve never seen a budget brought down like this.

Interjection.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: I’ve never seen a budget brought down like this. There is just physically no time to talk about it, and the people who do come to talk are heckled by the members across the way. We are trying to bring issues to this House, and I am bringing the issues—if the government had actually had legitimate time for deputants to come, I would have brought up a lot more issues of deputants. That’s my job.

That’s my job, and unfortunately the governing party doesn’t believe it’s their job to make sure that the voices of people get heard, because the way this time allocation motion was set up for this budget, it was physically impossible for the vast majority of Ontarians, including those right next to Queen’s Park, because no one with a regular life can, on an hour’s notice, stop their job or find a place to drop off their kids. It’s just not possible for normal people, and that’s why this government is completely and totally out of touch with the vast majority of Ontarians who just want to live regular lives.

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

Hon. Charles Sousa: It is a privilege to stand today in the House for the third reading of Bill 127, the Stronger, Healthier Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2017. The 2017 Ontario budget is the province’s first balanced budget since the global recession. Mr. Speaker, Ontario’s balanced budget represents our strong fiscal plan. Whether it’s giving young people free prescription medicines, transforming OSAP to provide free tuition for more than 210,000 post-secondary students or helping businesses grow and create new jobs, a balanced budget means more funding for the vital programs and services people depend upon.

Our goal of balancing the budget has always been about more than just hitting the bottom-line number. It’s about finding new ways to help families across our great province. It’s about creating opportunities, providing the supports people need to succeed, and this budget is dedicated to them, to the people all across our province.

A balanced budget gives us the flexibility to invest even more in our health care system. It’s why we’re committing to making new major hospital projects across the province, with a new $9-billion investment, bringing Ontario’s total planned investments in hospitals to more than $20 billion over the next decade, including redeveloping Hamilton Health Sciences, for example, or expanding Queensway Health Centre or the Mississauga Hospital and building a new hospital to serve the people living on the James Bay coast. These are just some of the additional 34 projects that are already under way.

This extra funding will provide better access to care, help reduce wait times and help to meet the health care needs of our growing and aging population.

But we know that building a stronger, healthier Ontario takes more than just building hospitals, as crucial as they are. It also means making sure hospitals have what they need to deliver excellent care to patients, so that the people of Ontario get the care they need when and where they need it.

Mr. Speaker, our balanced budget is also allowing us to make new investments to meet the needs of our patients today and for the future. That’s why, in this budget, our government is increasing health care investments by $11.5 billion over the next three years. That includes a new $7-billion booster shot to our health care system that builds on the commitment we already made in the 2016 budget. This year’s investment will improve access to care, expand mental health and addiction services, and enhance the experience and recovery for patients.

It also includes, I may say, $1.3 billion over three years to further reduce wait times so that people can see a specialist faster, get surgery faster and receive home care and community care faster. We’ll make investments in MRIs and diagnostic equipment, in cataract and cardiovascular surgeries and in hip and knee replacements, all of which are included in this budget, which I hope the members opposite will support for the benefit of their communities.

Many of us have cared for someone who needed our help—maybe a child or a parent or, in some cases, both. Being sandwiched between caring for a young child and an aging parent is difficult. And being a caregiver to a loved one who is ill is not an easy job, but it is a job that many of us are taking on. We recognize the financial strain that caregivers can feel.

With this budget, our government intends to introduce a new Ontario Caregiver Tax Credit, replacing the current caregiver and infirm dependent tax credits with this non-refundable tax credit which would streamline and extend support for individuals caring for family members. It will be in addition to the new Canada caregiver tax credit starting in 2017.

That’s not all, Mr. Speaker. Last month, our government announced that we’re expanding universal health care to provide free prescription drug coverage for everyone aged 24 and under, starting January 1, 2018—not sometime in the near future or the late future; happening now. OHIP+: Children and Youth Pharmacare Program will completely cover the cost of all medications funded through the Ontario Drug Benefit Program, with no deductible and no copay. It is a universal system. OHIP+ will improve access to prescription medications for more than four million children and young people.

It’s something that communities require. Again, I hope the members opposite will see the value and the necessity to support our people and help many families afford the medicine their children need to stay healthy, including access to life-saving drugs to treat cancer and rare diseases at no cost—because no family should have to choose between medicine for their kids or other essentials.

OHIP+ is an important step to strengthen our health care system in Ontario. Our provincial drug funding program is already one of the country’s most generous, providing prescription medications for seniors. And, I may say, for all those most vulnerable Ontarians who cannot afford to pay the high price of drugs, we are providing that support as well. We’re the first province in Canada introducing universal pharmacare for children and youth, which we hope will stimulate greater national discussion as well.

Once again, Ontario is leading by making this historic investment in health care for our children, to enable us to have a strong and balanced Ontario. That’s what happens when you have a balanced fiscal plan and a strong Ontario.

We know that people across our province are working hard every day to build a better future for themselves and for their families. With this balanced budget, we’re also making life more affordable.

I’ve heard from many young families that finding affordable, quality child care has been a challenging task because there aren’t enough affordable options near their home or work. That’s why, with this balanced budget, we’re helping 100,000 more children across Ontario access affordable, licensed child care, to give them a great start in life and support families across our province. Our investments in 2017-18 will support access to licensed child care for 24,000 more children four and under, through new fee subsidy spaces and new licensed child care spaces in schools, and, again, meet the demands of a growing Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, with this balanced budget, we’re also helping our young people acquire the skills they need to find good jobs. We’ve heard from students throughout the province about the challenges they face in landing a good job without relevant work experience. Employers, schools and students agree that hands-on learning opportunities are key to successfully starting a career.

That’s why our government is investing $190 million over three years in Ontario’s new Career Kick-Start Strategy, creating 40,000 new work-related learning opportunities for students and recent graduates, to give them the experience they need to land good jobs. These opportunities will not only help close the job experience gap, but will give more students exposure to different career options.

Our government is investing. We’re investing in guidance and career counselling. We’re investing to better prepare students as they plan their future, to help guide the important life decisions that they will make, whether it’s choosing the right classes in high school or meeting the prerequisites for college or universities, or choosing an apprenticeship to get a certified trade.

Opening these doors for new careers is essential. It’s part of our plan to create jobs, grow our economy, and help people be more successful. I again implore the opposition to think about the people of Ontario in that support.

We’re also committed to supporting students and recent grads with a new OSAP that will provide free tuition for more than 210,000 students starting their post-secondary education this fall, helping more students make their choice to pursue a higher education and making it easier for them. It’s also about reducing their financial pressures when they graduate by delaying the payments of the provincial portion of OSAP loans until they start making $35,000 a year.

But, Mr. Speaker, it’s not all about young people. We all know that learning is a lifelong journey. For adults looking to find their next learning opportunity, land a better job or move into a new career, with this budget we’re launching Ontario’s Lifelong Learning Skills Plan, a plan that will help adults get literacy, numeracy and digital skills, helping them succeed in our changing economy.

With this balanced budget, we’re investing. We’re investing in the people of Ontario. We’re investing in their skills. We’re investing in their talents. We’re investing in their creativity and in their health, Mr. Speaker. We are building stronger, healthier communities across our great province, from north to south, from east to west, making Ontario an even better place to live, to work, to raise a family and to run a business.

So today, Mr. Speaker, I urge all of you in this chamber to join me in supporting the Stronger, Healthier Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2017, in building a more vibrant Ontario. We often hear that balancing the budget is a measure that we all attend to make it more prosperous for all of us, but we have to be as competitive as we are prosperous. We have to be as compassionate as we are fair. This budget speaks to the people of Ontario. I encourage all members of this House to think about them and their constituents, not about themselves.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Are you all done? We’re all done, are we?

Interjection: Thanks, Speaker. We’re all done.

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

Mr. Duguid has moved third reading of Bill 127,

An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact, amend and repeal various statutes. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

I believe the ayes have it.

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

Third reading vote deferred.

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

Hon. Jeff Leal: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. I know the good folks in Peterborough are tuning in at Cogeco 95, and I would like to be recognized.

Government order G65.

Safer School Zones Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur la sécurité accrue des zones d’école

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 16, 2017, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 65,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act in respect of speed limits in municipalities and other matters / Projet de loi 65, Loi modifiant le Code de la route relativement aux limites de vitesse dans les municipalités et à d’autres questions.

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

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: For those tuning in this morning, Bill 65 is all about the Safer School Zones Act. Really and truly, it should have been an important step toward increasing road safety for our children and our loved ones. Unfortunately, when you peel away the layers of the onion, it’s been reduced to just another disguise for another Liberal government revenue-generating scheme.

The Liberals claimed at third reading of this bill that road safety is one of the Ministry of Transportation’s top priorities. But to the people at home, I have to say, if that is the case, why did they refuse to amend this act to include measures that actually increase road safety? Again, the Liberals insist this bill is not a cash grab, but I am not convinced.

As I get into my debate this morning, I want to take a moment to thank Gillian Kiessling. Gillian has joined my team at Queen’s Park as an intern for the next couple of months, and she’s doing an awesome job. She actually dug down into this issue further and helped prepare the notes and my speaking points for today. Gillian, thank you, and welcome to team Thompson.

To go on, I’d like to say that the Liberals suggest that because we said no to the bill at second reading, we don’t care about the safety of Ontarians. This is not true. It’s just more Liberal spin from a desperate, old, tired government on life support that is looking for any cash that they can get to keep their sputtering engine going. It is absolutely dismal how this government is introducing scheme after scheme. They don’t even have their own house in order.

The reality of all of this is that they claim that we introduced 300 amendments, just to attempt to filibuster. That is not true either. They were serious issues, and our critic of transportation brought forward 40—40—thoughtful, researched amendments that could have made this bill so much better. These amendments were our opportunity to put forward some real initiatives to protect the safety of Ontario road users, especially with regard to school zones. They were our opportunity to clarify parts of this bill, such as the meaning of “community zone,” but instead, what did they do? They consistently voted down our amendments.

It’s interesting. Just a couple of weeks ago, Hazel McCallion was in my riding. She was praising the leader of the PC Party of Ontario, Patrick Brown, for his premise and his foundation pillar that there’s no monopoly on a good idea. I wish the Liberal government would accept that as well. Instead, they resort to their partisan ways and vote down amendments just because they’re coming from someone else.

Most importantly, this was an opportunity for the government to prove that this bill really is about improving the safety of Ontarians and not about finding a way to impose photo radar in order to increase the government’s revenue streams. Unfortunately, as we now know, the Liberals did not take this opportunity.

For example, in the original bill, the fine for exceeding the speed limit in a community safety zone would be double a normal speeding fine, but a fine in a school zone would not be. So get this: The fine for exceeding the speed limit in a community safety zone would double a normal speeding fine, but in a school zone it would not. If Bill 65 truly was about ensuring safe school zones for children, they would have done some synergy and realized the error of their way, because this makes no sense.

So guess what we did? We put forward an amendment that would have made the fine in a school zone equal to the fine in a community safety zone. Speaker, you would have to agree, that makes sense. But you know what this old, tired government did? They voted it down.

We then went on to ask the Liberals to clarify the ambiguous term “community safety zone.” This was a reasonable request, as I’m sure we all know what a school zone is—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I can’t even hear the speaker. There are nine, 10 conversations going on here.

Go ahead.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: We asked the Liberals to clarify the ambiguous term “community safety zone.” This, anyone would think, was a reasonable request. I’m sure we all know what a school safety zone is, but we needed to define a community safety zone. Again, guess what they did? The Liberals voted it down.

We then went on to ask the Liberals to implement radar speed signs, which provide immediate feedback to drivers about their speed.

Whereas photo radar tickets are mailed to the car owner, and so might not appear for another four weeks, radar speed signs are instantaneous and they have proven to have great success in municipalities across this province, including Toronto. But you know what happened, Speaker. They yet again voted down this thoughtful, good idea.

But we didn’t give up. We asked the government at least to reallocate the revenues generated by photo radar back to road safety initiatives. I think we would all agree that’s a great idea. But, of course, this old, tired government stuck to their speaking points and the directions that they got from their back room. They thumbed their nose at this great idea as well, and of course, it was voted down.

Speaker, this pattern continued for many of the amendments that we put forward, amendments that were designed to focus the bill on safety—not just speed limits—in school zones and community safety zones.

Perhaps what I find was the most disappointing, an amendment that was voted down by this Liberal government was an initiative to marry, or embed, an initiative that was created by the MPP from Chatham–Kent–Essex. He had a private member’s bill designed to reduce the number of cars blowing by stopped school buses. As I mentioned last night in debate, this is something that really touches home for me because, growing up, my sister had a friend, a neighbour of ours. She was one year older. Kathy was getting off the school bus and she was struck by a car blowing by the school bus.

It hit everybody in the neighbourhood—how dare a car not respect a school bus taking children home? We experienced it right in our own back yard.

Thankfully, Kathy, while she had trauma to her head and it impaired her vision for a short term, thankfully, she’s okay. But it drove home the point: We need to do more to ensure the safety of our children, not only in a school zone, but getting off school buses in rural Ontario as well.

Going back to that PMB that the member from Chatham–Kent–Essex introduced, the bill was straightforward. It asked that footage from school buses be admissible without a witness’s evidence in court, the same way that footage from red-light cameras is. When the bill was first introduced in 2014, it received support from all three parties and passed second reading. However, it never went any further until it was reintroduced this past February. Again, it passed second reading, but this government has held it up. It has yet to proceed any further.

And here we have members of the Liberal Party claiming to support this great initiative. The Liberal MPP from Ottawa South, John Fraser, said, “I have to say ... that I’m glad to support this bill. I congratulate the member for bringing it forward and look forward to it getting through debate.”

The member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore, Peter Milczyn, said: “I want to congratulate the member ... on a well-thought-out bill on a very important issue.... I do hope that it gets implemented.”

And yet, Speaker, they have had four opportunities to support it, and all four times they voted it down, the last two during committee for Bill 65. Clearly, somewhere along the line, the Liberal MPPs are being told not to vote for a bill that they say they supported.

Reckless drivers illegally blowing past school buses that are stopped with their red lights flashing and stop signs out are a big problem. It’s a real problem. As I shared with the House, I’ve experienced it. My neighbour was struck. This happens at an alarming rate. There are studies to support this.

In a study done in 2014 by the Independent School Bus Operators Association—which included participation of several Ontario school bus consortia, including from Bruce Grey, Huron Perth, Thunder Bay, London, Toronto, eastern Ontario, Waterloo, Renfrew county and York—they found that over a five-day period, an average of 151 incidents occurred per day. That’s over 151 children endangered every day. As I speak to you right now, cars have probably recklessly sped by school buses, and our children are at risk.

Of course, it’s fair to say that there probably is a lack of education and awareness around this issue. Drivers often don’t realize that all cars travelling in all lanes in either direction must stop. The only exception is that oncoming traffic that is separated from the bus by a median does not have to stop. Currently, the only way that violators of this law can be prosecuted is if a witness can be found to back up the footage.

Witnesses can be very difficult to come by, since school bus drivers understandably have a hard time memorizing licence plates while taking care of the children getting on and off their buses, but every day they have to watch as drivers speed by, knowing the danger the kids are in and that these drivers will not be prosecuted.

As I wind down my debate on this particular bill, I have to ask: Why is the government of the day choosing to be partisan as opposed to accepting good, thoughtful amendments? We have seen in committee the government introducing 200 amendments, 300 amendments to correct their own mistakes. For goodness’ sake, why doesn’t this government do the right thing and work with all of us to make sure that Ontario is a safer place for our students?

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’m pleased to join the debate and comment on the speech just made by our colleague from Huron–Bruce. She opened up her speech by referencing her leader Patrick Brown’s comments on good ideas, that there should not be a monopoly on good ideas. Well, we’re waiting for any idea to come out of the PC Party at this moment. Whether it be on health care or hydro or otherwise, they seem to be a vacuum of any idea.

Speaker, I’m passionate about this. I introduced a bill, very similar, that called for safety cameras in designated zones. It had the same or similar mechanics to this bill, because I know what it means to be on the highway as a construction worker and to literally play Frogger every day on the 401 trying to dance and manoeuvre around vehicles. It’s incredibly dangerous, not only in construction zones but also in school zones.

I can only surmise that throughout this debate, as I have heard the Conservatives take an impulsive approach to this, a reactionary approach, spreading negativity by calling this immediately, as soon as it was tabled, a cash grab, a money grab, and excessively punitive, they were never going to vote for this. They didn’t support it at all. They are spreading negativity around our communities without any regard for the safety of our communities; and at the same time introducing their own legislation to use similar technologies on school buses. I just don’t get it, because it’s our responsibility to look at all technologies to make our roads safer.

On one hand, their school bus safety camera idea is something that we should all support, and I do support it. I think it’s a good idea, a valid idea. But they will immediately spread negativity and dissent on safety cameras for political gain. That’s simply what it is. I can’t let it go in this House—that’s exactly what it is. Speaker, they should be called out for it.

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

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I am pleased to rise and speak to the speech given by the member from Huron–Bruce.

We hear all kinds of things about partisan politics in this House and how it is negative, and the negativity spreads through this House. But Speaker, this is a good idea, to put the cameras on the buses. It just is. I get calls from bus companies in my riding of Perth–Wellington complaining about cars driving by the signals and not stopping. This is about children’s safety. That’s what it’s about. It’s about children’s safety and I wish the members of this House could get over that. That’s exactly what it is. If we’re going to introduce this photo radar in school safety zones, why not put this on too?

Why not do it all at once? It just makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately, as we’ve seen in committee meetings, it’s not being embraced by the Liberal government.

Speaker, we have all kinds of technology in this world to use for a good purpose. That’s what we’ve got here. We have the technology. It would serve a good purpose to our children and certainly stop dangerous things happening around school buses as they stop to pick up our kids. Yet, we get into this partisan politics business. It’s too bad that kids’ safety is not paramount in this government’s mind because this is an easy thing to do. It wouldn’t take a lot to do this. School bus operators are asking for it, so why don’t we do it? Speaker, I ask, why don’t we do it?

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: I always enjoy rising on behalf of the good people of Algoma–Manitoulin. I’m very supportive of this initiative as far as anything that means our kids are going to have the ability to walk to—our teachers and anybody who is going towards the school areas needs to have the utmost protection in making sure that they can get to and from and enjoy the environment of the school.

I’m very supportive, also, of what the Conservatives, as far as their amendments, have asked for. Once again, anything that makes that environment that much safer is ultimately the goal that we want to do.

I do disagree with some of the points that were made initially by the Conservative Party in regard to this being a cash grab. Let’s be clear as far as who we’re targeting here with these cameras. We’re targeting individuals who are putting our children’s lives and our loved ones’ lives at stake.

It’s a habit that people have of either racing through or rushing. How you change that is by putting in conditions and putting in safety mechanisms so that individuals are aware that these are in place. It changes a habit. To say that this is going to be a cash grab is actually false. It’s something that is going to curb a habit. Individuals are going to become aware, after getting multiple tickets, paying multiple charges, losing multiple points and seeing an increase in insurance—listen, that’s going to change a habit.

The member from Essex had presented a similar bill in regard to, as well as our children, some of our most valuable individuals who are working on construction sites. His amendment could have been part of this bill. Unfortunately, it’s not.

We all need to work towards positive changes as far as making these changes so that our kids are actually safer while they’re entering their school zone areas.

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

Mr. Rick Nicholls: I’m pleased to rise and speak to Bill 65. I was in committee. The government is accusing the PCs of, in one way, trying to filibuster at committee with hundreds of amendments when, in fact, only 40 were brought forward.

But the one that I would like to refer to is an amendment inserted by our party which was actually from a bill that I had introduced back in February of this year, Bill 94, which pertained to putting cameras on school buses to capture vehicles that blow by school buses when the lights are flashing and the stop arm is extended. It would, in fact, capture the licence plate.

Now, the bill itself: The current legislation states that it can only be—it involves a police officer. And we gave them a gift. We gave them a gift at—

Interjection.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Well, we did. We gave them a gift at committee, saying, “Listen, this bill needs to be a part of a Bill 65.” But unfortunately—you know, we listened to the experts who said, “No, the current legislation doesn’t allow for proper identification. How do we know the lights are flashing and the stop arm is extended?” So we went back in and we actually revised that. We offered to, again, ask the committee to accept this revised amendment. They flatly refused it.

This is all about safety with our students, and unfortunately, Bill 94 now sits in the abyss somewhere.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Huron–Bruce has two minutes.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m glad to have a couple of minutes to wrap up. I’m glad to have heard from the member from Chatham–Kent–Essex, because he deserved the opportunity to talk about the essence and the heart behind his good initiative.

I appreciate the comments from the member from Algoma–Manitoulin. Thank you for understanding and recognizing the value of having cameras on our school buses in rural Ontario. Because the member from Perth–Wellington got it right: No matter how you shape this, this has to be about the safety of our students, no matter where in Ontario. We can’t forget it’s about children first. That’s why I was so disappointed by the member for Essex. I shared a personal story. When I was going to my high school bus, I saw my neighbour Kathy wrapped up in bandages as a result of getting hit by a car while getting off a school bus.

Shame on you for making this political.

Speaker, I would suggest that maybe the NDP are a little sensitive because they introduced photo radar and it was an absolute mess. Their NDP government absolutely made a mess with photo radar, and it was the PC government that had to—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): All right, stop the clock.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Okay, if you want to have a fight, take it outside.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Shame on you—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Huron–Bruce is warned. You are warned. Enough. Finish your two minutes.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Again, this is not a laughing matter. You need to be listening to other people. I have seen the outcome of children getting hit by a car, and this has to be about the—

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

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Things get a little heated in here on occasion, which is, I suppose, not surprising to many people. We’ve had a hot issue discussed here this morning with regard to the school bus. There isn’t one person in this Legislature represented by all three parties who does not have the interest and the love of safety for our children. There are teachers from the other side—regardless, we understand that and we get that.

The purpose of Bill 65—and we’ve had some issues with regard to that, simply because of the photo radar aspect of it. Someone speeding through school zones—I don’t have a problem with that; capture them. Community safety zones—well, it hasn’t been clearly defined what a community safety zone would be or could be. Apparently, there was a councillor who wanted to make parts of the Lincoln Alexander freeway in Hamilton a community safety zone. That could be a little bit much. And of course, with regard to community safety zones, where does it start and where does it stop?

It’s not clear in this legislation, and I have a serious concern about that, because many people, perhaps, on Saturdays, rushing around, trying to get things accomplished, doing their errands, whatever—next thing you know, without realizing it, they may be in a community safety zone. Suddenly, with photo radar, they’ll get a ticket or several tickets in the mail a few days later without even being warned. I’ve got a bit of an issue with that.

I would like to go back and address a component of Bill 65 which we had attempted to implement. We asked the committee—I want to give the committee credit, first of all, because they did allow us to bring forth the amendment, so kudos to the committee on that—that amendment being Bill 94, which I introduced back in February of this year. But it was sitting in the abyss. It was just sitting in PMB purgatory, you might want to call it. The government wasn’t going to call this bill into committee.

We tried to negotiate, tried to talk to the House leaders to get them to allow this bill, but unfortunately—and here we are now, we only have today, tomorrow and then one more week, four more days of sitting.

The government is forcing a lot of their bills to be discussed, and they’re putting time allocation on a lot of their bills, which, in my opinion, doesn’t allow for proper debate and discussion on the bills. People from all three parties have good ideas. They present good ideas, so I don’t want to make this a partisan discussion. We’re legislators. We look at bills that are in the best interests of Ontarians, not playing party politics.

I want to go back to Bill 94 for just a moment. Initially, I had introduced that bill several years ago, and that was introduced as Bill 50. Unfortunately, in September of last year, our Premier had prorogued the Legislature. What that meant was that any bill that was currently on the order table was then immediately wiped out, which then meant that—and I disagree with that. I truly do.

I’ll simply tell you why: because a lot of time, effort and energy from members of all three parties who introduce a private member’s bill—all that work is suddenly for naught. And then, that particular member has to wait for their turn, if they choose, to reintroduce a private member’s bill or to introduce something new. Why can’t those bills be introduced initially and leave them on the table, so it’s not a complete waste of time, effort, and energy? Because we look at things from a standpoint of dollars and cents in this Legislature as well as safety, which is what Bill 65 is about.

I introduced Bill 50. It was wiped out in September on prorogation. I had to wait to reintroduce that bill, because I believe strongly, because I was a former critic for community safety and, of course, correctional services—but community safety will always be, whether I’m the critic for it or not, first and foremost for myself, for the residents in my riding of Chatham–Kent–Essex, but also for all of Ontario. We have students, we have school boards, we have school buses throughout the entire province, and these young people need to be protected.

Having said that, I look at it, and I go, “We need to do something to further protect, in this case, our students.” We worked with an organization that conducted pilots throughout the province, pilots that were held in Ottawa and I believe it was North Bay or Thunder Bay—I always get the two mixed—Kitchener and Mississauga. It was astounding. It was actually horrifying, in some ways, as they captured video evidence of cars blowing by school buses, endangering the lives of our children.

Little children getting off of a school bus usually aren’t thinking about, “Oh, there might be a vehicle coming.” The school bus is stopped, the lights are flashing and everyone will stop—it’s not always the case. We saw horrifying video evidence, captured from these pilots, that had near misses of our children. One life lost is one too many, and every one of us in this Legislature can agree with that. Although my children are grown, I have grandchildren living in London. Little Calvin and little Nathan take the school bus. They’re thinking about everything else other than, perhaps, cars that are stopping and allowing them to safely cross the street.

I was a little disappointed when, in fact, in committee, on Bill 65 we had introduced an amendment—the amendment was really Bill 94—to be inserted, because, as far as we were concerned—and again, I mentioned earlier, I give the committee credit, because they could see value in that. Yes, we are talking about safe school zones, but safety of our children is paramount as well, so at least they allowed us to bring forth that amendment, and I’m grateful. I’m grateful.

So they had expert witnesses in at committee, and they listened to us and then we listened to them. They pointed out perhaps areas where Bill 94, or, in this case, the amendment to Bill 65—one of the amendments—could be strengthened and improved. We listened to that and we didn’t disagree. As a matter of fact, we thought, “You know what? We’re grateful for the input.” We listened. We listened to what had to be said or what was said. We went back to the drawing board and corrected the situation.

Let’s fast-forward to the closing moments of Bill 65 in committee. My colleague from Kitchener–Conestoga asked permission to reintroduce Bill 94 as an amendment because we had, we believed, got it right, due to the input we heard from all parties. Unfortunately, it was shot down. In other words, we didn’t even have an opportunity to explain to them where we had made the improvements to the bill. That was somewhat disheartening.

Here we sit now discussing Bill 65. I’m a believer in “A good idea doesn’t care who owns it.” I’ve been like that my entire career, not just here, but when I used to run my own training and development company. That’s what I used to teach management. The people doing the job on the front line are usually the people who best know how to do the job, so if there’s opportunity for improvements, listen to what they have to say, because they are the ones actually doing the job. Having said that, I looked at it and I said, “This should not be a partisan attempt to stymie or to stall a good idea.”

So now here we sit. Bill 94 is now, as I mentioned earlier, in PMB purgatory. It’s waiting to be called into committee.

One of the reasons we wanted to insert Bill 94 into Bill 65 and to get it passed—and I would hope that the government House leader is listening intently to this—is that if it would pass legislation, then we could have all summer to educate Ontarians, communities: “Listen, they’re starting in September when our children are going back to school. You need to be aware that legislation has been passed and that we will penalize drivers”—or, in this case, with the way the bill would read, we would penalize the owners of vehicles, because Mom or Dad could in fact allow their son or daughter, perhaps, to take the car to school. It would be the owner of the vehicle that would be, in fact, fined.

The good news is that we wouldn’t be taking police away from their job of policing our communities to keep our communities safe, because the video evidence captured from a camera mounted on the side of a school bus, that video evidence showing the lights flashing and a vehicle passing, would be acceptable and allowed in a court of law, therefore saving the taxpayers a lot of money and allowing our policing people and/or bus drivers to not have to go to court and testify. It saves a lot of time, a lot of effort, and a lot of money as well.

We were hoping that we could, in fact, get this passed, and if they weren’t going to call Bill 94 into committee prior to the end of this session, that’s why we chose to introduce it as an amendment to Bill 65.

I haven’t given up hope on it, whether Bill 94 will be called. I know that for many of us in here, if we don’t already have children—I know the government House leader has lovely children who might be close to taking the school bus; I’m not sure. But the point is that every one of us here wants to ensure that the safety of our children is kept intact and that when we kiss our children or our grandkids goodbye in the morning, they will return home to us safely as well.

I’m really hoping that the government will reconsider. We believe now, through Bill 94 and what we have done—having listened to the experts—that Bill 94 is a lot stronger. And I’ll give them credit. We listened to everyone. What can we do to make Bill 94 better? A good idea doesn’t care who owns it. I mentioned that’s been my philosophy for years. We need to work together in this Legislature for the betterment of Ontarians, not just for the betterment of a political party.

Having said that, I also want to point out that—I mentioned earlier we heard from experts—we had members from the Ministry of Transportation. They came to committee and they simply told us their perspective, that the technology isn’t there.

Speaker, I’ve got good news: The technology is there, now. There is that ability to mount a camera on the side of a school bus that will capture not only a stop arm extended and the lights flashing, but also capture—that technology is there, so why not take advantage of that technology? It needs to be taken advantage of.

As I mentioned before, if we could have gotten Bill 94 into committee or had that amendment included into Bill 65, then it would be legislation. Municipalities could do their own, and the government could even do advertisements as well promoting what this legislation is all about.

You know, it’s funny, as a young boy, people would say, “Rick, you must have watched a lot of TV.” It was probably black-and-white TV back then too, but I want to suggest something. There was a commercial on TV that, for some reason, has just stuck in my mind all these years. I believe the actor was a gentleman by the name of José Jiménez; some of us maybe remember him. He did a commercial back when they were first introducing seat belts. This was sponsored by the National Safety Council; it was an American one.

José is sitting on this bar stool, and he’s talking about the use of seat belts, how important they are, and how seat belts save lives. We all know they do, and I’m sure that for some of us even in this Legislature today, seat belts have saved our own lives or the lives of our loved ones as well.

So here’s José Jiménez sitting on this bar stool, and he’s talking about the importance of always buckling up your seat belt. Back then it was just across the lap; they didn’t have the shoulder one. When he was finished with his commercial, he went to stand up, and as he stood up, the bar stool moved with him. His comments were—I never forgot this. He looked down and there he had a seat belt around his lap on that bar stool and he said, “This National Safety Council, they think of everything.”

Speaker, we need to think of everything too. That’s why when it comes to safety, it’s so important that we—

Interjection.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Oh, my time is almost up. Thank you for that.

We need to keep our children’s safety first and foremost.

Am I disappointed that our amendment 94 didn’t get included into Bill 65? Yes, I am. But I have not given up hope, and I’m hoping that the government House leader will discuss it with the other House leaders and perhaps we can still get Bill 94 amended—having listened to the experts—and included soon.

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

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It being 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park today representatives from Prompt Payment Ontario. They’ll be visiting with MPPs today, and I’d like to invite all MPPs to the Prompt Payment Ontario reception between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m. in the legislative dining room. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I would like to also welcome these people, but also to say that if the government didn’t pay their bills, don’t worry, the reception is still open.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I’m going to add onto that and welcome all the members from Prompt Payment Ontario. I want to assure them that the bill is coming; we’ve been working hard along with their co-operation. I hope everybody comes to the reception tonight.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m very pleased to welcome back to the House Eric Zinn. He should be no stranger as he’s an alumnus of OLIP. He’s a proud homer from Huron county, Ashfield township.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It’s my pleasure today to make two introductions. On behalf of Cheri DiNovo, my colleague from Parkdale–High Park, guests of page captain Emma Yu: mother Siu Hing Yu; brother Jason Yu; and grandmother Wong Lai Chun. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

From the Ontario Association of Landscape Architects, Aina Budrevics, executive director; and Sarah Manteuffel, communications coordinator.

Mr. Granville Anderson: I’d like to welcome Margaret Taylor, who is from my riding of Durham. She’s here today with Prompt Payment Ontario. Welcome.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Speaker, I don’t know if you’ve heard yet that the Prompt Payment people are in the House today. I’d like to remind the House leader that he has promised the bill.

I have four introductions: Ron Johnson, Jo-Ann Gauthier, Steve Creces and Hugh Laird. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’d like to introduce my two summer students who are working this summer in my constituency office in St. Paul’s: Joseph Worndl, who is a graduate of Oxford university, and Alexa Coleman, who is at McGill.

Mr. Todd Smith: I believe the members of the Prompt Payment group are here, and I would like to welcome one especially: Ian Cunningham from the Council of Ontario Construction Associations. Welcome, Ian.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: It is my pleasure to welcome to Queen’s Park today grade 10 students from St. Marcellinus Secondary School in my great riding of Mississauga–Brampton South. I wish them an enjoyable trip, and I look forward to meeting them after question period.

Ms. Harinder Malhi: I’d like to introduce Pearl Quan, mother of page captain Peter Schneider. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Ted McMeekin: On behalf of Monte Kwinter, MPP for York Centre, I’d like to introduce the guests of page captain Sofija Bulatovic: mother, Marija Bulatovic; sister Olga Bulatovic; brother Luka Bulatovic; and grandmother Verica Randelovic.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I’m proud to introduce a friend and a constituent, Chris May, who’s here in the east members’ gallery from CPA. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Welcome.

As is the tradition of the Speaker, I’d like to introduce the former member from Brantford in the 36th Parliament, Mr. Ron Johnson.

Also in the Speaker’s gallery we have today Dr. Winston Isaac, the new honorary consul general of St. Kitts and Nevis in Toronto. Welcome. We’re glad you’re with us, Consul General.

Would the members also please join me—the family and friends of the late Michael George Bolan, MPP for Nipissing during the 31st Parliament, are seated in the Speaker’s gallery: wife, Susan; daughter Cathy and her husband, Peter Laurie; son Michael Jr.; Gordon Bolan and his wife, Jenny Young; son Bryan Bolan and partner, Sherry Persaud; daughter Christine Wood and her husband, Charlie Wood; son John Bolan and his partner, Laura; grandchildren Brianna, Justin, Emily, Stephanie, Peyton, Abigail, Henry, Jillian, David and David’s partner, Celeste.

Also joining the family are friends Charles McMulkin, Nestor Prisco and Patrick LeSage. We welcome them to the House.

Also in the Speaker’s gallery, from the former parliamentarians, is David Warner, Speaker during the 35th Parliament, and Mr. Steve Gilchrist, MPP for Scarborough East during the 36th and 37th Parliaments, and president and chair of the Ontario Association of Former Parliamentarians. Welcome, gentlemen. Thank you for being here.

I call upon the government House leader for a point of order.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent to recognize the former member of provincial Parliament from Nipissing, Mr. Michael George Bolan, with a representative from each caucus speaking for up to five minutes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The government House leader is seeking unanimous consent to pay tribute. Do we agree? Agreed.

Michael George Bolan

Mr. Victor Fedeli: It’s an honour to rise to speak about our friend Michael Bolan. Speaker, as a young boy, Mike lost his father in World War II. This event shaped a lot about who Mike became. He developed an abiding passion for the memory of his father. Mike walked the battlefield where his father died. He researched the Algonquin Regiment and traced their footsteps through Europe. He was privileged to become their honorary colonel.

This was a boy without a father, but he had a persevering mother who nurtured him with bottomless love and ensured he got an education. Mike was the first in his family to attend university, thanks to a scholarship from the Knights of Columbus.

He was a self-described “p’tit colon” from Cobalt where he was proud to work in the mines as a young man.

He was called to the bar in 1960, and set out to create his future and his family. Many of the Bolan clan are here today, as you introduced, Speaker, and we welcome them to this Legislature, including daughter Christine, who some will recognize was a page here in her grade 8 year.

Daughter Cathy told such a wonderful story when we celebrated Mike’s remarkable life. Many personal anecdotes you’ll hear came from that day. Thank you, Cathy.

And beside Mike, through each of these stories, is his wife, Susan, sometimes passenger, sometimes driver, but full-time love of his life.

Speaker, Michael George Bolan had a deep desire to serve: a trustee on two school boards, a city councillor, member of the 31st Parliament, and appointed to the bench on the District Court of Ontario and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. To Mike, there was a big difference between those who broke the law because they were disadvantaged and those who broke the law because they were greedy. He was particularly sensitive to First Nations, and strived so very hard to recruit more indigenous people into law school.

Mike disliked the designation of “Honourable” or “Your Honour,” the title he earned as a judge. When you saw him on the street, he called you “pal” and everyone called him “Mike.” His dear friend Nestor Prisco tells the story of one trial where a man sheepishly looked up from the witness box and whispered, “Allo, Mike.” Mike smiled as he acknowledged one of his former Liberal poll captains from the west end of the riding.

As a judge, Mike earned a sterling reputation. He was sensitive to people’s feelings and possessed a keen understanding of the human condition. It was for this reason he was everything that a judge should be.

But the passion was that Mike was a true artist. He loved music, always singing and whistling. He loved to perform, whether in this Legislature or in a courtroom and, as it turned out, in the kitchen. Who knew? He loved to dance. He loved theatre. He loved visual arts, painting, mixed media, sculptures, and he loved the earthy part of his beloved northern Ontario, which is why the family all know how to paddle a canoe, chop wood, fire a rifle, drive a boat and bait a fishing hook.

And you wonder if Mike’s artistry flowed into the veins of his family: Gord, an actor, writer and musician; Bryan, a videographer; John, who learned the craft of canoe-making; Michael, who learned the art of trapping; our page Christine is a gifted writer; and, Cathy, what a wonderful storyteller you are.

Susan, this is a family filled with love and joy. We can all imagine you collected around the family table, extra guests, multiple conversations, a lot of carousing, a lineup of James Bond movies, a few card games, all washed down with a selection of wine and cheeses. This is the family of Mike Bolan. These are the grandkids of Mike Bolan. They are the life of Michael Bolan.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: On behalf of my NDP colleagues, it is an honour for me to rise and pay tribute to Michael George Bolan. I never had the opportunity to meet Mr. Bolan. As I was doing the research on his life, it was obvious that I missed a great opportunity, because of all the things he’s done in his life. But there was one thing, one line, that stood out to me in one of the articles I read, which said he was a self-described “p’tit colon” from Cobalt and was proud of having worked in the mines as a young man. A defining characteristic of his political and legal career was his belief in the common good and treating everyone fairly and with respect.

I never had the opportunity to meet Mr. Bolan, but I’ve met many “petits colons” from Cobalt. One thing you have to understand about Cobalt—Cobalt went from being nothing in the bush to a mining—it was a boomtown. But it was not just boom and bust. It was boom and tragedy.

Cobalt had a stock exchange, it had a professional hockey team, but it didn’t have water and sewers. As a result, the people got typhoid fever. Then, when other mining camps opened, Cobalt busted. In the 1940s and 1950s, it rose again, and I’m sure that’s when Mr. Bolan was working there. And then it busted again.

The people in Cobalt are very proud of where they live, but they don’t suffer people with airs very much, because they realize that your life could change in a minute without you having any part of it. As a result, people from Cobalt, “les petits colons,” don’t look down on people who are having a rough go because they realize it could be them tomorrow. I think that was one of the things that helped shape Mr. Bolan’s legacy.

I’m sure that Mr. Bolan, having grown up in Cobalt, would have heard the verses of The Cobalt Song, and I think on his behalf, I’m going to read a few of them into the record. The Cobalt Song—I can’t sing, but I can read.

You can talk about your cities and all the towns you know

With trolley cars and pavement hard and theatres where you go

You can have your little autos and carriages so fine

But it’s hobnail boots and a flannel shirt in Cobalt town for mine.

Old Porcupine’s a muskeg, Elk Lake’s just a fire trap,

New Liskeard’s just a country town and Haileybury’s just come back.

You can buy the whole of Latchford for a nickel or a dime,

But it’s hobnail boots and a flannel shirt in Cobalt town for mine....

We’ve got the only Lang Street; there’s blind pigs everywhere,

Old Cobalt Lake’s a dirty old place, there’s mud all over the square,

We’ve got the darnedest railroad, that never runs on time.

But it’s hobnail boots and a flannel shirt in Cobalt town for mine.

We’ve bet all our dough on hockey and swore till the air was blue,

The Cobalt stocks have emptied our socks with the dividends cut in two,

They don’t get any of our money in darn old Porcupine,

But it’s hobnail boots and a flannel shirt in Cobalt town for mine.

For we’ll sing a little song of Cobalt,

If you don’t live there it’s your fault

Oh you Cobalt, where the big gin rickeys flow

Where all the silver comes from,

You’ll live a life and then some

Oh you Cobalt, you’re the best old town I know.

Michael Bolan, miner, lawyer, member of provincial Parliament, Ontario Supreme Court Justice, “p’tit colon de Cobalt,” you lived a life and then some, and for that we are all eternally grateful.

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

Mr. James J. Bradley: I have the disadvantage of being after the member for Nipissing and the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane, but I think each one of us can bring a different perspective about Mike Bolan and his contribution to the Legislature and, if we want to be parochial—and we all should be—to his own constituency of Nipissing.

Mike and I were both elected in 1977, at the same time—and one of us survived a little longer.

Mike was a great guy, I’ll tell you. We in the Liberal caucus always knew when he was there, because he never hesitated to make his views known. Very often, when you’re new to the Legislature, you are reticent to speak out, and in a caucus meeting you bow to those who have much more experience and perhaps some gravitas that they have accumulated over the years. That never bothered Mike very much.

Whenever there were issues that arose, particularly those which affected northern Ontario as a whole and his riding of Nipissing, he was not hesitant to suggest that those in the south, for instance, might not quite understand the special challenges that exist in the north. The two previous speakers are both representing northern constituencies, and they know exactly what I’m talking about when I say that there is a different perspective on the challenges facing our province when you happen to live in northern Ontario and face special circumstances. Mike Bolan certainly knew that.

As has been mentioned, he could walk with kings and keep the common touch. Both members have certainly suggested that. That’s very important, because he achieved, first of all—he had been on local council. His local involvement in politics is something that frequently happens for all of us who are here in the House today. You learn from that experience what is happening at the grassroots. There’s no level of government that’s closer to the people than the municipal level—but we’d like to think that we in this Legislature and the federal members are in touch with our communities. I can tell you that the local representative on a municipal council knows that.

He was involved in a number of organizations.

The member for Nipissing mentioned that he was very proud of his father and his father’s military service and he ended up growing up with his mother and other members of the family being his support. He was extremely proud of that. The fact that he would continue to be involved indirectly but very much in an important way with the military in his community spoke well of his respect for those who are in the service, and he recognized that through his father.

As well, working in the mines: Here’s a person who came to the Legislature and ended up on the bench, serving as a judge, but always had in the back of his mind what people had to confront in their daily lives. It’s sometimes difficult for those of us in elected office to remember those early experiences, but when we do have them, it resonates well, I think, with our constituents. Mike Bolan’s experience in the mines as a very young person left him with a respect for those who worked in those kinds of very challenging jobs, which are physically challenging and certainly had a good deal of danger surrounding them as well.

I like the fact that he always had respect for the law. In our society, we are a society that respects laws. Individuals don’t run our country, our province or our individual municipalities. We run them by the laws that exist. He always respected that.

The anecdote told about seeing people on the street, and calling him by his first name: That is something that speaks well of him. Sometimes, when people achieve a high position, the people they associate with are people who are of the same position. When you remember your roots, as he did, and his constituents—he recognized that each one of us in our lives has a certain station in that life, and all should be respected. His respect for fairness, no matter what walk of life a person came from, came through as a member of the Legislature, but also, of course, when he was on the bench.

The fact that he was involved in the outdoors in the north—of course, one anticipates that is going to be the case—paddling, doing some painting. I didn’t realize he was as culturally advanced as the members have mentioned, although, from time to time, he did break into song at Liberal caucus meetings. Those days, with Stuart Smith as the leader—Stuart used to leave the caucus meeting with a migraine at the end of listening to the members. Mike may have induced that from time to time as he expressed, perhaps, a dissident view.

We are very fortunate in this Legislature to have had him serving, but also on the bench. We’re always, as all members are—we do this, I think, with great sincerity to the family and friends who are here. We thank you for allowing us to have had Mike Bolan with us, to make that contribution to his constituency of Nipissing, to our province of Ontario and to our country as a whole. We thank you very much for that. We respect the role that he played. Once again, Ontario is a better place because of Mike Bolan.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank all members for their very heartfelt and kind words about former MPP Mike Bolan. I would like to tell the family and friends that, in honour of him, a DVD of the speeches and a copy of Hansard will be provided to the family as a tribute to Mike Bolan. We thank you for the gift—not only here in the House, but in the province of Ontario—of Mike Bolan. Thank you very much.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The leader of the third party on a point of order.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to move a motion without notice that would extend the spring sitting until June 8 so that the assembly has the time needed to seek public input on the government’s hydro plan, which will impact the lives of Ontarians for the next 30 years.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It is a point of order. I remind all members: You’re just seeking unanimous consent to put forward a motion. The motion itself is read afterwards.

The leader of the third party is seeking unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice. Do we agree? I heard a no.

Committee sittings

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Point of order, government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to present a motion without notice to add two extra days over the constituency week for public hearings on Bill 132.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The government House leader seeks unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice. Do we agree? Agreed.

Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I move that the Standing Committee on Justice Policy be authorized to meet on Tuesday, May 23, 2017, and Thursday, May 25, 2017, from 10 a.m. to 12 noon and from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. for the purpose of public hearings on Bill 132; and

That the Clerk of the Committee, in consultation with the committee Chair, be authorized to arrange the following with regard to these public hearings:

That the deadline for requests to appear be 4 p.m. on Wednesday, May 24, 2017, for public hearings on Thursday, May 25, 2017.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mr. Naqvi moves that the Standing Committee on Justice Policy be authorized to meet—

Interjection: Dispense.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Dispense?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Process-wise, I need to finish this and then come back to you.

I heard a “Dispense.” Do we agree? Agreed. Carried.

The member for Timmins–James Bay on a point of order.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I think there was one omission. There should be that a list be made of the people that apply and that they be divided equally amongst the parties in order to select the witnesses.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): What I’m going to do is re-read it to ensure that we understand what that is, and then I’ll allow that to take place in a quick agreement if we need to change.

Mr. Naqvi moves that the Standing Committee on Justice Policy be authorized to meet on Tuesday, May 23, 2017, and Thursday, May 25, 2017, from 10 a.m. to 12 noon and from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., for the purpose of public hearings on Bill 132; and

That the Clerk of the Committee, in consultation with the committee Chair, be authorized to arrange the following with regard to these public hearings:

That the deadline for requests to appear be 4 p.m. on Wednesday, May 24, 2017, for public hearings on Thursday, May 25, 2017; and—I believe there’s a—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Can I just add?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I will recognize the member for that clarification.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Unfortunately, we didn’t get a chance to see this UC before, so we’re having to, as they say, make sausage on the floor of the Legislature. But the point is that the witnesses for all hearings on this bill should apply to the committee, the names should be given, and then the caucuses be given a list and everybody picks their fair share for all the hearings on this bill.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Government House leader?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: If the House leaders are comfortable, I’m more than happy to withdraw this motion now and to work with them to finalize those minor details and bring that back for your attention.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Shall we withdraw? Agreed? Agreed. The motion is withdrawn.

Oral Questions

School safety

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. Last night, Global’s Tom Hayes asked an important question for parents and teachers. He asked about violence in our schools and specifically what this government is going to do about it.

Just look at some of the stories we’ve heard: A Halton region mother who recently moved from Durham said, “My kids are now out in Halton region, and guess what? The same problems exist here, too.” A teacher from Niagara said this: “This seems like an epidemic in the Ontario school system,” all across the province.

Clearly the system is broken, Mr. Speaker. How long will parents have to worry about their children and how long will teachers have to fear for their safety before this government finally acts?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Minister of Education will want to speak to the specifics, but I know, having met with representatives of our education partners, that we are working with them and that there is a particular request to work together to set up a process whereby we can ensure there are the resources that are needed in our schools, particularly on issues of workplace safety. So that speaks to our commitment to not just workplace safety for teachers and support workers, but also safety for everyone who goes to our schools, parents who come into the school, and everyone who works in the school.

We are working with our partners, and we will ensure that we put new supports in place if those are required.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: When there’s violence in the classroom, the government has a duty and an obligation to act to protect the safety of our teachers. But, of course, the Minister of Education passes the buck again and again. She leaves this epidemic up to the local school boards, saying it has nothing to do with the government. She tells everyone not to worry because local school boards have policies, but this is not a local issue. This is across the province. As the Niagara teacher told us, this is an Ontario-wide epidemic.

What has to happen? What tragic event has to happen before the government realizes it’s their responsibility and they can’t pass the buck any longer? Mr. Speaker, how bad does this epidemic have to get until we can get a commitment from the province and from the Premier directly that they’re going to take this issue seriously?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, Mr. Speaker, you have that commitment. The people of Ontario have that commitment. Our education partners have that commitment. The parents in our schools and, most importantly, the students in our schools have that commitment. That’s exactly why we continue—and we take responsibility. We continue to increase the resources in our schools, including the Special Education Grant, which is projected to be approximately $2.8 billion in 2017-18. That grant is important because that is the grant that allows school boards to hire the support staff, to hire the resources that they need in the classroom.

We understand that there needs to be vigilant and ongoing discussion about what resources need to be in schools as education evolves, Mr. Speaker, but we have inclusive schools in this province. We continue to increase funding and we are working with our partners to make sure that the supports are in place.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: The Premier’s position seems to be that everything is fine, the government is doing their job, and they’ll continue to leave this to the local school boards. But the reality is, everything isn’t fine. It isn’t rosy. The exposé—I’d encourage the Premier to watch Tom Hayes’s interviews highlighting the real challenges that students and teachers are facing. The reality is, this is not the teachers’ fault. We know teachers don’t have adequate support and training to deal with this violence in the classrooms. We know this is an epidemic that has gotten atrociously bad.

This is not an appropriate work environment for anyone. It’s not acceptable. I want the Premier, I want the government to understand that they can’t pass this off.

My question to the Premier is this: Does the liability and responsibility for the safety of our teachers not belong to the Minister of Education, or are they again going to pass it off to the school boards?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, let me be clear once again. We understand that we are absolutely responsible for the supports that are in our schools. We take this very seriously. Of course, if there are incidents of violence, then those are unacceptable for all of the people in the classroom or in a school, which is exactly why, in my previous answer, I talked about the increased resources that we are putting in our schools.

We will continue to work with our education partners. As I said, I have met with representatives of teachers’ federations who have said to us that they think that as the classroom and the population evolves, as the classroom changes, we need to make sure that we have the resources and the training in place for everyone who works in our schools. We will work with our partners. The Minister of Education is doing that as we continue to increase funding in our schools. Both of those things go together, Mr. Speaker.

Government advertising

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. Surprise, surprise: Recent hydro bills across the province were stuffed with what appears to be partisan advertising. It appears that there’s no line this Liberal government will not cross.

Mr. Speaker, what I’d like to know specifically from the Premier is, how much did this partisan Liberal advertising that you’ve stuffed in hydro bills cost?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Minister of Energy is going to want to speak to the supplementary, but let me just say that what is happening across the province is that people are seeing their electricity bills go down, Mr. Speaker. They’re seeing reductions of their electricity bills. That’s what our fair hydro plan is about.

I understand that the Leader of the Opposition wants to talk about anything but the fact that he doesn’t have a plan and did not ever have a plan to reduce people’s electricity bills. We are doing that. People are seeing those reductions on their bills and that’s exactly as it should be as people struggle to manage their finances on a day-to-day basis, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: It’s amazing that the Premier can defend this propaganda with a straight face. It’s wrong. She knows it’s wrong. The member for Prince Edward–Hastings wrote to the Auditor General about these Liberal ads stuffed in hydro bills. In her response, she essentially said that this is not the first time the Liberals have used hydro bills for partisan purposes. They jammed election-style ads in hydro bills just before the 2011 election. Now, we know the government has no shame. They will continue to cross lines to try to pitch this alternate reality of their farce of a hydro plan.

As usual, the Liberals will do anything to look out for the Liberal Party, not for ratepayers in Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Ancaster.

Mr. Patrick Brown: I ask this: When and where does a Liberal cross an ethical line? When do they realize that they have to stop using Ontario taxpayer resources to push their own partisan agenda? It’s getting worse and worse. If you’re not going to listen to us, will you listen to the Auditor General and do the right thing?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: One of the things that we continue to do as a government is bring forward a plan that will reduce rates by 25% by July 1, of course if this legislation passes. That’s a 25% reduction for small businesses. That’s a 25% reduction for farms and a 25% reduction—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Leeds–Grenville.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: —for all families right across the province. When it comes to making sure people in this province know that there is a plan out there, it’s this government that brought forward that plan. It’s this government that is making sure that those 800,000 families in this province that live in the rural or northern—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Renfrew.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: —actually will see a 40% to 50% reduction. What they also know is that the opposition have no plan, and when they have no plan for electricity, that just means they have no plan for Ontario.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: Partisan, false propaganda, that’s what this is. The Auditor General had this to say. She said that the government’s most recent advertising on its fair hydro plan would not have passed review. That’s the Auditor General. Further, the Auditor General said they found that advertising to be “misleading” and “self-congratulatory.” It’s not just opposition, it’s not just the media saying this hydro plan is a farce, it is the independent legislative oversight saying that it’s misleading and self-congratulatory in terms of these ads. Clearly, the Liberals are abusing taxpayer money for their own partisan gain. That’s not acceptable.

Will the Liberals pull their hydro election ads and stop campaigning on the taxpayers’ dime? It’s a pretty simple request. Will you simply do the right thing and stop abusing taxpayers for your own partisan gain?

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville, second time.

Minister.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I know the PCs don’t want the people of Ontario to know there’s going to be a 25% reduction coming by summer. I know that the PCs don’t want people to be able to plan and look at their budgets, especially with the utilities. We have about 68 utilities in this province that need to plan to ensure that they can inform their customers so they understand that. I know they don’t like telling the people of Ontario what’s actually happening, because they have no plan when it comes to electricity. When it comes to their approach, their approach doesn’t lower bills for families, it doesn’t lower bills for small businesses—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Dufferin-Caledon.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: —it doesn’t lower bills for farms, it doesn’t lower bills for long-term-care homes—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: —it doesn’t cut bills for greenhouses and it doesn’t do anything to address Ontario’s indigenous communities. Why is that? Because they have no plan. When they don’t have a plan for electricity, they have no plan on what to do in Ontario. We have brought forward a plan that is going to reduce bills by 25% and that will help everyone in this province.

Government’s agenda

Ms. Andrea Horwath: In less than an hour, the Liberal government is going to force through a time allocation motion that severely limits debate on their hydro financing scheme—a borrowing scheme, really, is what it is. When that happens, this Legislature will have had about seven hours of debate on this bill—seven hours, Speaker—seven hours for legislation that will impact people’s lives for the next 30 years. It’s ludicrous. Why does this Premier insist upon ramming this legislation through the House?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the government House leader is going to want to speak to the procedural mechanisms. But I want to just make it clear that what we are doing is working to help people in their lives. Whether it is the fair hydro plan or whether it’s OHIP+ pharmacare, which will give all children across the province from zero to their 25th birthday free medication, those are initiatives that we believe are critical.

It is outrageous to me, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Paul Miller: How about 26-year-olds? From 25 to 65—nothing.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It is actually very surprising that the NDP has indicated that they will vote against both those measures. They would rather focus on procedural mechanisms and games than actually deal with the substance.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What is outrageous is the plan that the Liberals are trying to ram through this Legislature that will cost people more money in a couple of years’ time when it comes to their electricity bills.

In addition to the limited debate that they’re allowing here, they’re also going to limit where the people of Ontario will have an opportunity to have their say. All of the public hearings that they’ve just had a change of heart on this morning are going to be happening here in Toronto.

Why won’t the people in London be able to have their say? Or the people in Windsor, in Ottawa, in Thunder Bay or anywhere else outside of Toronto? Why will those Ontarians not have a chance to have their say on this legislation?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I can tell you, on this side of the House, we are extremely proud to bring forward Bill 132. That is going to provide for immediate relief for all Ontarians by cutting their hydro bills by 25%. In fact, the bill does not just stop there. For Ontarians who live in rural and northern communities, they will see a cut of 40% to 50% on their hydro rates. It is—

Interjections.

Hon. Brad Duguid: How dumb do you think we are?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Economic Development will come to order.

Finish, please.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: It is beyond comprehension why the NDP is against giving Ontarians significant relief on their hydro bills. The NDP say that they haven’t had enough time to debate this bill. Yet, they announced their opposition to this bill within the first hour of introduction of this bill. Clearly, their minds are made up. They don’t want to help Ontarians.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What the NDP is against is giving the people of Ontario the shaft on their hydro bills. That’s what this government is about to do.

This morning we did call on this government to have a change of heart and to provide an opportunity for more public hearings. Of course, the Liberals said no, and then they had a sudden change of heart.

But, not surprisingly, the government has decided to have all of the public hearings here in Toronto. That is not giving the people of Ontario a say; that’s giving some people an opportunity to have a say.

So here we have an extremely important piece of legislation that’s going to impact people’s hydro bills in a very negative way in short order, and this government is not prepared to seek input from people across the province. Why?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: All of the bluster we’re seeing from the NDP is because they really don’t have a plan. What they have is an aspirational document, which: “Someday, perhaps, maybe, if we’re elected”—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Their plan is an aspirational plan. Our plan is a real plan that is going to result in real cuts in hydro rates for the people of Ontario. The bill clearly says that the cut will come into place after 15 days from receiving royal assent. We don’t want to delay the people of Ontario getting a cut. Our government wants to have that 25% cut in place right away, while the NDP just wants to debate the issue.

Energy policies

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. In 2013, the Premier said this about her party’s cancellation of the Oakville and Mississauga gas plants: “I have never said this wasn’t a political decision. It was a political decision.”

Will the Premier admit right now, so that her successor won’t have to, that her hydro borrowing scheme is just a political decision designed to try to help her party hold onto power in the next election?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. I’m getting a sense that somebody is requesting warnings.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, our decision to reduce people’s electricity bills by 25% has everything to do with people’s ability to pay their electricity bills and to manage their budgets. That’s what our plan is about.

We recognize that the $50 billion of investment that has been made in the electricity system to make it clean, renewable and reliable—investment that was necessary because previous governments had not made those investments and we were dealing with a degraded electricity system in 2003: We recognize that the cost associated with that needs to be spread over a longer period of time. That’s what we’re doing, and in doing that, we are able to give people immediate relief—a 25% reduction this summer. In rural and northern communities, some people will see a 40% to 50% reduction. That is in response to people’s need in this province. That’s what the fair hydro plan is about.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Last fall, the Premier also admitted that soaring hydro bills were her mistake in the first place. She said, “I take responsibility as leader for not paying close enough attention to some of the daily stresses in Ontarians’ lives. Electricity prices are the prime example.”

Why is the Premier pushing forward with a hydro borrowing scheme when documents show and she knows that it will cause hydro bills to go up even further and cause even more stress for the families and businesses that she just apologized to six months ago?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’ve been very clear that we were working on a number of initiatives. We removed 8% from people’s bills. We renegotiated the Samsung contract. We’ve been working, not for months but for years, to remove costs from the system because we recognized that those investments to upgrade the system were costly and had a cost associated with them.

In removing 25% from people’s bills, we have said that that means that the cost will be shared over a longer period of time. In the short term, that 25% reduction will help people immediately. In the mid-term, we will hold those bills down to the rate of inflation. In the long term, the long-term energy plan is being developed, and we will continue to take costs out of the system.

This is immediate relief, but we recognize that there is a longer-term plan that is needed. That plan is being developed.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This Premier and this government are plagued by scandal: the Sudbury by-election bribery charges, the broken promise not to sell Hydro One, the gas plant decision and now ramming an ill-thought-out hydro borrowing scheme through the House with no FAO assessment, with just six sitting days left and very, very little time for the people of Ontario to review it, and, most importantly, when she knows that it will end up costing people in this province more on their hydro bills.

When will the Premier put an end to Liberal scandals and just admit that she has no real plan to lower people’s hydro bills, only another political decision?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: People across this province are going to see a 25% reduction, on average—between a 23% and 28% reduction on average on their electricity bills by summer. In northern and rural communities, many will see up to a 40% to 50% reduction.

On January 1, 2018, children across this province will have access to free medication. This September students will be going to college without having to pay tuition. Kids from low-income families will go—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ll wait until you’re finished.

Finish.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Kids will be going to university and college and taking training programs without having to pay tuition.

My job as Premier is to put in place plans that are real, that give people real relief and that work and have real timelines. That’s what we’re doing.

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Children and Youth Services.

New question.

Ontario budget

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. Later this morning we’ll be voting on the government’s budget measures bill. This includes giving the availability to municipalities to implement a new hotel tax. On this new tax, the Liberal MPP from Mississauga–Streetsville stated, “This is a bad idea, and I do not support it.” He went on to say, “To attempt to tax out-of-town residents is taxation without representation.” Even the Premier’s own members have serious objections to this bill.

I ask the Premier: Is that why debate was cut off? Did the Premier not want the member from Mississauga–Streetsville and others to share these objections with the Legislature?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: The member opposite was correct on one point: We are passing a bill this afternoon to pass the first balanced budget since the depths of the recession—a balanced budget that’s going to meet the needs of the people of Ontario, a budget that’s going to support all our children under the age of 25 with free medication, a budget that’s going to provide supports for education and health care with record investments, a budget that’s going to provide for more roads and bridges and public transit. And yes, we are going to provide the city of Toronto and other municipalities with more powers, at their request.

But what’s important here is that we’re providing for the people of Ontario, and that member opposite should be supporting that as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from Oxford.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: My question is back to the Premier. Premier, the member from Mississauga–Streetsville isn’t the only one of your members who disagrees with your policies. The Liberal member from Beaches–East York said, “The rent controls that were brought in by the previous NDP government under Bob Rae decimated the affordable housing market in Toronto and other communities in Ontario because it didn’t allow the private sector to continue to build.” He went on to say, “I would resist, tremendously, any amendment to this legislation which would bring back rent control.”

Premier, did you cut off debate on Bill 124 so that your members couldn’t raise these objections in the Legislature?

Hon. Charles Sousa: The member opposite has just made reference—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville is warned.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Beaches–East York, come to order.

Minister.

Hon. Charles Sousa: The member opposite just made reference to 16 comprehensive measures to try to cool the market, to address demand and supply in our housing sector, and to support the people of Ontario and homeowners who are trying to get into the market. The member opposite is suggesting otherwise. Again, they’re voting against the people of Ontario. They’re not supporting the very families that are trying to get into the marketplace, as we’ve addressed in those measures going forward.

I ask the member opposite from the first question: What will they cut as we proceed forward with these measures? Will they cut pharmacare for the children of our communities? Will they cut hospitals and education and schools in their respective communities? That’s what they’re voting for. They’re voting against the people of Ontario.

Hospital funding

M me France Gélinas: My question is for the Premier. Families in Brampton know that their hospital is dangerously overcrowded. The emergency room sees about 160% more people each and every day than they were designed to care for. People like Jamie-Lee Ball have suffered for days on end on stretchers in hallways, and 87-year-old Roelfina Dillerop passed away after spending five long days in the hallways of the ER.

The Premier could do something to fix the overcrowding at Brampton Civic, but she refuses to act. How much longer do the good people of Brampton have to wait before this Premier actually does something to fix the overcrowding at Brampton Civic Hospital?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: The people of Ontario don’t have to wait much longer at all. In fact, just a few short minutes from now, we’ll be voting on a budget, which I hope the member opposite will support, that contains more than $500 million of new investment added to the base of hospitals across this province. Every single hospital will get a minimum of a 2% increase to their budget.

In addition to that, we have reserved significant funds specifically for hospitals like Brampton Civic. We’re adding an additional $10 million to Brampton Civic this year, subject to the approval of the budget, which I hope the member opposite and her party will support for that very reason.

I have to remind Ontarians as well of how proud I was to be standing beside the Premier just a few short weeks ago when we opened the brand new Peel Memorial Centre for Integrated Health and Wellness, which is providing extraordinary service to the people of Brampton.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: The Premier was at Osler health this morning, and she could have announced that her government will stop the overcrowding at Brampton hospital, but she failed to do that. Brampton Civic needs at least 200 more beds in the short term and more like 600 more beds in the long term.

The Premier’s failure to step up and fix the overcrowding crisis means that patients like Jamie-Lee and Roelfina will continue to suffer from hallway medicine. People will continue to wait for days in hallways without a proper hospital bed and hospital care. Why does the Premier think that hallway medicine is good enough for the people of Brampton?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Well, of course, that’s an unfair characterization of the position of this party, Mr. Speaker. But that’s precisely why we invested approximately half a billion new dollars last year, an additional more than $500 million this year in this budget, and, in just a few minutes, the member opposite has the opportunity to support those investments. Those investments include a multi-billion-dollar investment in a brand new hospital that will benefit Mississauga and Etobicoke, the new hospital in Mississauga, the Trillium network.

It’s part of capital investments of $20 billion over the next 10 years for new hospitals, for redevelopments, for expansions—I would hope precisely to address the kind of issue the member opposite has raised today.

Land use planning

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn: My question is to the Attorney General. Last fall, our government undertook to fix the Ontario Municipal Board and land use planning system. The government held a series of town halls and stakeholder meetings across the province to hear from Ontarians directly. I held two town halls in my own riding of Etobicoke–Lakeshore.

Speaker, I can tell you, from listening to my own constituents’ concerns and from my 17 years’ experience on city council, that the status quo is not working. Substantial changes to the land use planning system need to put people and communities first.

I was extremely pleased today to hear the news that our government is taking action to overhaul the province’s land use planning appeals system, more importantly, giving communities a stronger voice and ensuring people have access to faster, fairer and more affordable hearings.

Can the Attorney General tell us how community consultations helped inform the government’s proposed actions?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Mr. Speaker, I want to truly, really thank the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore first for his guidance both to myself and the Minister of Municipal Affairs on this very important issue. Being a planner himself, having served on Toronto city council, of course he brought forward a lot of practical experience that was very helpful to us. So thanks to the member for his hard work on behalf of his community and for his advice to us.

Speaker, we did some extensive consultation on this issue, as you know. We held town halls with over 700 attendees from Windsor to Ottawa. Virtually every sector we heard from had ideas for improving the Ontario Municipal Board, or OMB, and the hearing process. At the end of the day, people want more community involvement and more local control over planning decisions.

In the coming weeks, we will introduce legislation to transform Ontario’s land use planning appeals system, including creating the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, which would, if passed, replace the Ontario Municipal Board and eliminate—

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

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn: I want to thank the Attorney General for his answer. I’m very proud today that our government is committed to giving communities a stronger voice and creating a more level playing field. I know my constituents are extremely pleased by this commitment to overhaul the planning system.

Mr. Speaker, the chief planner of the city of Toronto, Jennifer Keesmaat, has called our government’s reforms a “generational change.” Toronto city councillor Josh Matlow has said, “Government should be commended for finally tipping the balance of power away from developers ... and towards residents and municipal governments. This is how we plan communities.”

Speaker, the government has committed, as part of its proposed legislation, to establish a support centre to help citizens participate in the tribunal process. Could the Attorney General tell us more about the Local Planning Appeal Support Centre?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, as I was saying, we will be creating a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal that will replace the OMB. We also will be eliminating lengthy and costly de novo hearings, and we’ll be establishing an independent support centre called the Local Planning Appeal Support Centre to provide free legal support for citizens participating in the tribunal processes. This will support more clear and timely decision-making.

At the end of the day, the result is going to be fewer, shorter, less costly hearings and a more efficient decision-making process, giving communities a stronger voice and fostering a more level playing field. That is why mayors across this province and residents across this province are supporting our proposal. It has been described as a bold step that the province is taking. Speaker, I’m hoping that we’ll bring in this legislation and that it will be approved by this Legislature.

Service clubs

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Government and Consumer Services. Speaker, in February 2015, my private member’s resolution concerning service clubs received all-party support in this House. It called on the government to strike a committee to investigate the legislative and regulatory barriers and burdens facing service clubs, such as the costs of audits, red tape when applying for lottery and liquor licences, increased regulations, taxes and fees, to name just a few.

The government sent my request to the Standing Committee on Social Policy for a mere one half day of hearings. The committee issued a

summary of recommendations, and since then we have heard nothing, despite my repeated requests for action on the issues raised by service clubs.

Mr. Speaker, my question is simple: What has the government done to remove the regulatory barriers facing service clubs in all our communities?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank the member for the question. I think we all agree that service clubs play a very important role in our communities, and I congratulate the member for bringing the bill forward.

Our government is very committed to looking at reducing regulatory burdens and red tape that affect the role that groups like this play in our communities. I haven’t heard from the member on this recently. I would be pleased to discuss with him the next steps.

As I say, I am a strong advocate for making things easier, especially for our not-for-profit sector. The member will know that the not-for-profit corporation has received royal assent, and these kinds of files are very important to me and to our communities.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from Parry Sound–Muskoka.

Mr. Norm Miller: Again to the Minister of Government and Consumer Services: The Rotary Club of Bracebridge has told me this government’s ridiculous rules are creating unnecessary obstacles to fundraising. The Rotary Club of Bracebridge raises money for local events and causes, and to support local families in need. Every year they raffle off a car. This year, they added a duck race. But they are unable to get a licence to start selling raffle tickets for the car until the duck race is over. That means they will lose two months of time for selling the raffle tickets for the car.

Speaker, the committee heard about these issues more than six months ago. As life gets harder in Ontario under this government, communities and families rely more and more on service clubs for help. Why has the minister not made the recommended changes to help these volunteers who are trying to raise money for such worthy causes?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: The members opposite are highlighting a very important point. All of us are concerned about our service clubs to do the job they need in raising money and providing for gaming and bingo as well. It’s something I’m working on with the OLG and the AGCO to determine how to best provide those services and enable them to have more accommodations.

I know working with some of the cities is also part of the issue, where they have the wherewithal to advance some of those causes. But, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concerns. We share them with you. We want to make it easier for our service clubs to provide the service that they do so essentially in our communities.

Housing policy

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday we learned that a brokerage in Hong Kong is advertising condo units with the promise to pay the non-resident speculation tax on the investors’ behalf. This completely defeats the purpose of the tax, but the Minister of Finance says it’s fine because the government is still getting paid.

Is the Premier interested in cracking down on speculation and keeping homes affordable or, like her minister said, is she only interested in filling government coffers?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m sure he didn’t say that. Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, let’s make no mistake. There’s no loophole here. Should this legislation pass, by the way, then there will be a 15% speculation tax that will be applied to all non-resident Canadian buyers who provide and purchase residential homes in the greater Golden Horseshoe. No matter how it’s being advertised as some independent, all-in price by some other agency in another part of the world outside of Canada, the buyers will be paying the tax if they’re a non-resident Canadian, and that’s just the point that we’re making.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Vanthof: Again to the Premier: A media report over the weekend revealed that the Premier avoided taking action against housing speculation even as Toronto home prices skyrocketed by over 33% in just one year.

The

article said, “Premier Kathleen Wynne and Mr. Sousa told government officials that they needed the approval of the major banks to pursue the speculation tax....” Is the Premier unwilling to stop speculation and make homes affordable because she cares more about her banker friends than Ontario families who need affordable homes?

Hon. Charles Sousa: There’s a 16-point measure in our Fair Housing Plan. We hope the members opposite will support them. They include rent controls, Mr. Speaker. They include protections for tenants. They also include protection to provide for more supply into the mix and they apply a non-resident Canadian speculation tax on those that do not live in Canada and are crowding out families that are trying to buy homes. We’re providing for this and I hope the members opposite will support the very thing for the very same practices and measures that we’re putting out.

It’s important to cool the market and enable our families and young people to get into the market if they wish. The members opposite—I believe they support that, but I’m not really certain at this point, Mr. Speaker, what they’re getting at.

Land use planning

Mr. Han Dong: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Like the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore, I too had a consultation town hall and OMB review with the member from Davenport. The Ontario Municipal Board is an independent adjudicative tribunal. When people disagree over how the community should grow, often OMB hears the case and makes a decision. These are important decisions and the Ontario we build today will determine how we live, work and play tomorrow. We want a healthy and sustainable, livable community.

Many of my constituents have expressed concern that the OMB doesn’t always give enough weight to the local perspective when it makes a decision. Yesterday the minister, along with the Attorney General, announced that ou