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

November 24, 2016

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-Nov-24 (PDF)

L034 - Thu 24 Nov 2016 / Jeu 24 nov 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 24 November 2016 Jeudi 24 novembre 2016

Orders of the Day

Putting Consumers First Act (Consumer Protection Statute Law Amendment), 2016 / Loi de 2016 donnant la priorité aux consommateurs (modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne la protection du consommateur)

Time allocation

Putting Consumers First Act (Consumer Protection Statute Law Amendment), 2016 / Loi de 2016 donnant la priorité aux consommateurs (modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne la protection du consommateur)

Introduction of Visitors

Dolls of Hope

Oral Questions

Autism treatment

Hydro rates

By-election in Sudbury

Privatization of public assets

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Education funding

Health care funding

Mercury poisoning

Health care funding

Hydro rates

Hydro rates

Human trafficking

Hydro rates

Private members’ public business

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Durham College

Health care funding

Youth mental health services

Muslim Welfare Centre

Sexual harassment

Bread Not Stones

CJPAC Women in Politics Mentorship Program

Highway accident

Soles4Souls

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on General Government

Introduction of Bills

Putting Voters First (Election Amendment) Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 donnant la priorité aux électeurs (modification de la Loi électorale)

Visitors

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women

Adoption Awareness Month

International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women

Adoption Awareness Month

International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women

Adoption Awareness Month

Petitions

Hydro rates

Domestic violence and sexual violence

Property taxation

Highway ramps

Privatization of public assets

Consumer protection

Hydro rates

Hospital funding

GO Transit

Hydro rates

Long-term care

Time allocation

Private Members’ Public Business

Katelynn’s Principle Act (Decisions Affecting Children), 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le Principe de Katelynn (décisions concernant des enfants)

Auditor General Amendment Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant la

Loi sur le vérificateur général

Lung Health Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la santé pulmonaire

Katelynn’s Principle Act (Decisions Affecting Children), 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le Principe de Katelynn (décisions concernant des enfants)

Auditor General Amendment Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant la

Loi sur le vérificateur général

Lung Health Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la santé pulmonaire

Orders of the Day

Building Ontario Up for Everyone Act (Budget Measures), 2016 / Loi de 2016 visant à favoriser l’essor de l’Ontario pour tous (mesures budgétaires)

Consideration of bills

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Putting Consumers First Act (Consumer Protection Statute Law Amendment), 2016 / Loi de 2016 donnant la priorité aux consommateurs (modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne la protection du consommateur)

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 23, 2016, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 59,

An Act to enact a new Act with respect to home inspections and to amend various Acts with respect to financial services and consumer protection / Projet de loi 59, Loi édictant une nouvelle loi concernant les inspections immobilières et modifiant diverses lois concernant les services financiers et la protection du consommateur.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further debate. The member from Niagara Falls.

Mr. Wayne Gates: Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to rise today and speak to Bill 59, the Putting Consumers First Act. As a number of my colleagues have pointed out, this bill covers quite a bit of ground. I believe it touches on some very important issues and makes some strides in the right direction.

Let me start with the part of this bill that I hear about far too often in my constituency office. It’s actually something that really upsets me: that people would take advantage of seniors. Madam Speaker, I speak about it often in this House. Our seniors deserve respect. They built the communities we love and they put in a lifetime of work so that we can have the lifestyle that we enjoy, yet far too often I get a call about seniors in my riding who have been locked into some scam of energy contracts by some energy company that refuses to remove the charges.

Interjections.

Mr. Wayne Gates: I know everybody is interested in this and that’s why they’re listening.

Here is what happens: An energy company knocks on someone’s door and asks to inspect their furnace. They go in to inspect the furnace and they end up getting the resident to sign some form. More often than not, the seniors have no idea what they have signed.

In one of the worst examples of this, the company provided my office with a phone call tape of a senior verbally agreeing to an energy contract. Listen to this: In the audio file, the senior agrees to have an inspector come into their home and then eventually signs up with the energy contract. Madam Speaker, do you know what the problem is here? The senior has short-term memory loss. She’s almost 90 years old, and her family is trying to assist her with both her physical and mental health challenges. The family told this to the energy company and yet we still had to intervene to get her bill looking normal.

She had four separate energy companies on her bill that she was paying on what little assistance she was receiving from this government.

How can we let that happen in our communities across the province of Ontario? These door-to-door energy marketers take advantage of seniors. They take advantage for no reason other than greed. They know they’re not providing a needed service to the people they prey on. Instead, they’re just trying to make a quick buck by confusing people.

While I’m happy this bill will put some regulations on them, in my opinion, they should be banned outright. I’ll repeat that: They should be banned outright. Let me say that again: In my opinion, this legislation should ban door-to-door energy marketers outright.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: How do you really feel about that?

Mr. Wayne Gates: I will try to get to that.

Let’s protect our residents. Let’s protect our seniors. Let’s make sure that no one can walk up to their door and take advantage of them.

So what does this bill do? I think that’s a fair question. Well, it stops door-to-door salespeople from entering residents into contracts where they can put liens on people’s homes. Can you imagine that? That’s going on today. We’re seeing this with unsuspecting residents who are entering into contracts they don’t need for equipment they can barely afford. Once they stop paying for it, they find out the company has put a lien on their house.

If that isn’t terrible, I don’t know what is. They worked their entire lives to pay for that home—in this case, 90 years old. A lot of 90-year-olds don’t answer the door, but in this particular case, this 90-year-old answered her door, and look what has happened to her. It’s been a nightmare, not only for her, who has physical challenges and mental challenges; the family had to get involved. You just see how it spreads across the community, right across that family. It’s absolutely terrible.

We’ve raised many, many questions in this Legislature about this practice. Just looking at it from the outside, you can see it doesn’t make sense. I do appreciate this morning—I know it’s early—that the other two parties are listening to this, because it could happen to your mom, your dad, your grandparents. It’s not just happening in Niagara Falls. It’s happening all over communities right across the province.

I just wish this bill would go further. Don’t allow these companies to skirt the law by limiting the way they can take advantage of people. Find the companies that go door to door to take advantage of people and just ban them. Say, “You can’t do it anymore. You’re not allowed in the province of Ontario. We don’t want you here. We don’t want this in our communities.”

There are hard-working men and women out there who are outside salespeople. They earn an honest living by selling an honest product. If the product breaks, there are return policies and cancellation clauses meant to protect consumers. Those are people we would like to protect. But fly-by-night energy companies or door-to-door energy companies that refuse to cancel unfair contracts: They’re the ones that give a bad name to the others trying to make an honest living.

Madam Speaker, I get numerous calls every day in my office from concerned residents. They’re telling me that people come up to the door and they have no idea if it’s a scam or not. Sometimes they’re very pushy at the door. I have asked my colleagues here, on both sides of the House: Have you ever had any come to your door? I have had them come to my door a number of times, and they actually are pushy. They try to do their sales pitch. If you don’t listen to them or you don’t let them inside the door, they get—

Interjection.

Mr. Wayne Gates: Yes, I guess you can do that; you could slam the door shut. But they get ignorant; they get very, very pushy. And my—

Mr. Percy Hatfield: They’re Liberals.

Mr. Wayne Gates: Percy said this; I didn’t say this. I’m not going to take credit for this one: He said they’re Liberals. It wasn’t me. It wasn’t me. I just want to clear that up.

They’re telling me that people come to their door and they have no idea if it’s a scam or not. Sometimes these people at the door are very pushy. I just explained that and had a little bit of an exchange with my colleagues in the Liberal party.

We need to help residents who fear this kind of business, and we can do it by strengthening this portion of the bill. Let’s make sure, collectively, together—PCs, Liberals, it doesn’t matter. We’re talking about our families, our parents, our grandparents. Let’s make sure residents in all our ridings don’t get scammed again and that they’re not afraid of opening their door when someone comes knocking.

Madam Speaker, there’s another portion of this bill I would like to speak to, and that’s regarding payday lending institutions. I think most of us would agree that most payday lending institutions unfairly prey against those with the lowest incomes in our community and some of the biggest needs. Think about that, because that’s what’s going on. I think most of us would agree that most payday lending institutions unfairly prey against those with the lowest income in our communities. I repeated that for a reason, because that’s what’s going on in our communities. When you come from the parts of Ontario that I do, that means a lot.

This is important, because we’ve been talking about this a lot this week. We’ve been talking about manufacturing jobs and why they’re leaving the province. Some of it, we talked about hydro rates. Niagara has been hit hard over the last few decades. Manufacturing jobs which once provided tens of thousands of good lifestyles have left Niagara. They have left Oshawa. I know the representative from Oshawa is here. In my community of Niagara at one time, when I started in General Motors, we had 10,000 employees—10,000, Madam Speaker. Today, we have 1,600. That’s a big loss for Niagara. They were all good-paying jobs.

Not all union jobs—there was some management there—but there were good union jobs that paid benefits, had a pension. So they were able to have a family, they were able to raise their children, they were able to put them through school, give them a good education; that was all because of the manufacturing that was in our province.

I could talk about my good friend from Oshawa. Listen to this, it’s amazing. It all stems from—this is how this happens. In Oshawa, we used to have 22,000 employees—22,000. Today, I believe there’s somewhere around 2,500. Take a look at that job loss in that community, where those people probably got to retire, some of them—some of them got pensions. But here’s what happens when you have job loss like that, in Oshawa, Niagara—General Motors pulled out of Windsor. They had a plant there where they had 8,000 people working; they closed that plant.

What happens is, our young people lose their manufacturing jobs and then they have nowhere to go. I’ll talk a little more on that as I go through this.

This is important to hear, because this is exactly what happened. When I was younger—younger? I know you’re all thinking I’m pretty young now, but that’s not completely accurate. When I was younger, you could walk out of high school—

Interjections.

Mr. Wayne Gates: Listen to this, because this is what happened to me. When I was younger, you could walk out of high school into a lifetime job that paid benefits, had a pension and gave you a good wage. That was the reality. In Niagara you could go to General Motors, which was a good-paying place. You could have gone to TRW. You could have gone to Hayes Dana. You could have gone to Welland and worked in the steel factories. There were all kinds of opportunities when I was a young guy. And General Motors was lucky enough that they hired me.

Now, a large part of that had to do with the fact that they were good union jobs, the same type of jobs that Patrick Brown was trying to get rid of when he was federally elected—but I’ll leave that discussion for another day. Because it is early on a Thursday morning, I’m going to leave that for another day. But that’s true.

Interjection: More: What do you really think?

Mr. Wayne Gates: Well, that’s exactly what happened. He did attack us. There’s no doubt about it.

Those jobs are gone now, and that left a lot of people facing hard times. I see my colleague from Niagara is here. I know I’m not supposed to mention his name, Jim Bradley. He knows about these hard times. Sometimes they managed to find a job—and I think this is important to listen to. Sometimes they managed to find a job at a lower rate of pay, without benefits or security. It breaks my heart, but sometimes they can’t find work at all in Niagara—and not just Niagara, but right across the province of Ontario.

Madam Speaker—and I appreciate the fact that you’re paying close attention to this—these are my neighbours and the people I am proud to represent. They’re hard workers, they’re smart and they’re dedicated. They only need an opportunity to prove that. What do these people do to provide for their families? How do they pay for their hydro bill, which has skyrocketed? Sometimes to get the money, they feel they need to turn to a payday loan store. Think of how sad that is.

Some of the worst stories come out of these payday loan stores. You hear of interest rates in the triple digits. Can you imagine? You’re desperate, you’ve got to provide for your family, whether it’s your hydro bill, whether it’s food, whether it’s to put clothing on your back, and what do you do? You get tied into payday loans. Then you get tied into the interest rates, which are around 30%—some end up higher than 30%, but certainly close to 30%—with repayment plans that vulnerable workers will never be able to pay off. Think about that: You will never be able to pay off that loan you borrowed because the interest rates won’t allow it to happen.

If a bank is charging somewhere between 10% and 15% interest, that is already a lot of extra money that people have to pay back. How is it fair, then, that we have these payday loan stores charging more than 300% interest? How could a family living on one minimum wage salary ever pay that off? I ask my colleagues. Maybe, when they get up and talk for two minutes on a hit, they can give me some advice on that, because I’m having lots of people come into my office. I know your cabinet people come into your office. How could a family living on one minimum wage salary ever pay that off? It’s just terrible.

I’ll answer that for everybody here this morning: Simply put, they can’t. If there’s no chance of it being paid off, it shouldn’t be legal to give it out in the first place. I don’t know how many of my colleagues would agree with that, but that’s exactly what should happen.

The bill moves to set limits and regulate the repayment period. I want you to hear this, particularly the Liberal Party: That, I can absolutely support. It also limits the products that these places can market so someone doesn’t end up with a so-called cash card with a bunch of money they have no chance of being able to pay back.

There are two criticisms I have with this portion of the bill. First, a lot of what I’m seeing with these regulations is downloading onto municipalities, making it so our towns and our cities have the responsibility to curb this behaviour. The province can and should show real leadership on this issue. The province can and should take the lead to make sure that payday loan stores cannot make victims out of the honest, hard-working people of Ontario.

More importantly, this province needs to work to make sure we have far more opportunities for people to engage in meaningful and decent work. I think that’s fair. I think that’s reasonable. I think that’s why we’re here. I think that’s why we’re all here. We want to make sure our kids and our grandkids have the opportunity to work in their communities, be productive in their communities, volunteer in their communities. I think that’s our job, quite frankly, but we’ve got to do a better job of it.

How can we do that as MPPs? Well, how about a provincial auto strategy or investments in manufacturing? There are plans on the table this government can take advantage of today to create good jobs. Just take a project in my riding, the new Niagara Falls hospital: The plans are ready to go, the details are on the table, and the province just needs to move to get the shovels into the ground.

The province could move up the timeline on this hospital and put hundreds of local people to work in the next few years. These local workers would have a decent and steady paycheque, which they could put back into the community. When workers have a job that pays fairly and it’s long-term, guess what they don’t have to do? Does anybody know? I’ll help you with that one: Workers wouldn’t have to turn to payday loan centres if they had the opportunity for decent, honest and well-paying jobs. Now, does that make sense to everybody here?

If we could move up our hospital in Niagara—our unemployment rate is one of the highest in the province and has been for a while, even though we have the tourist sector in Niagara. Whether it’s in Niagara-on-the-Lake—we’ve got some good stuff there, like the Fort Erie Race Track. There are lots of things happening in my riding, but if we had a hospital, that would put more people back to work.

The hospital was promised during my by-election, by the way. The Premier came in and said they were going to build a hospital in Niagara. That was almost three years ago. I don’t think that’s a fair or reasonable timeline. It’s currently now at stage 1, with the papers for stage 2 being given to the government this month. But what I’m saying to the government and what I’m saying to the other elected reps from my riding is, why don’t we have a discussion and move that time frame up? Why not put skilled trades back to work? Why not take a look and say, “We’re going to use local workers.

We’re going to have local companies, local businesses, whether big or small, to do the project”? Because the project is going to take three and a half to four years to build.

What do you get from that? You get good-paying jobs. You get young people into the trades through an apprenticeship. You get local business doing extremely well. What do you do? You get that person who is going to that payday loan every Friday, because they have no money to pay their hydro bill or buy their kids clothes or put food on the table. What do you do? You give them a job. That’s what we have to do in Ontario to get people back to work.

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

Mr. Chris Ballard: I’m pleased to be able to stand and make some comments about Bill 59, following on our friend across the way’s comments. I appreciate the passion that he brings to this. Just so that he knows, we are listening, and I am listening.

Speaker, just from a high level, I wanted to say that there are three areas that Bill 59 impacts, of course: door-to-door sales, which we’ve heard a lot about; home inspectors, which we’ve heard a lot about; and payday loans, which we’ve heard a lot about. I thought I would take a bit of my time just to comment on the door-to-door sales.

But I will say that what all three of those areas—door-to-door sales, home inspectors and payday loans—have in common is that they involve vulnerable consumers. You can clearly see that when we talk about door-to-door sales. You can clearly see that when we talk about payday loans. Maybe it’s a little bit of a bigger stretch on home inspectors, but not really, because when you’re buying a house, you are not an expert in buying houses, in home construction. We don’t know what needs to be looked at, and so we are really, as new homebuyers or as homebuyers, dependent upon what a home inspector has to tell us and their expertise.

I can tell you that from my perspective, Madam Speaker, there is nothing more despicable than someone who takes advantage of a vulnerable consumer, especially a senior or someone who is having financial difficulty. This is why I was pleased to see the government bringing in the Putting Consumers First Act, Bill 59, especially around door-to-door sales. Who among us hasn’t at some point been scammed? This will go a long way to making sure that that ends.

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

Mr. Lorne Coe: This act with respect to home inspections and to amend various acts with respect to financial services and consumer protection—there are a lot of aspects to this legislation that mirror what I have been hearing in my constituency office. I commend the member from Niagara Falls for raising certain aspects that he is experiencing as well.

Particularly in the area of home inspections, I am pleased that the government has taken some of the advice onboard and begun integrating independent officer oversight. Also, they listened very carefully, in the case of my constituency, to the Durham real estate association, to move ahead with the home inspections aspect as well.

I’ve also had some experience with recently meeting with seniors’ organizations in my constituency concerning door-to-door sales. One of the aspects that we spoke about is some of the strengths of the legislation, but another area had to do with the duty to educate and reach out to consumers in the area, and the need to be more robust in that area. My hope would be that the minister and the ministry officials in this aspect of the legislation, dealing with door-to-door sales, do address that, and do that in a consultative way as well.

Last, on payday lending, I agree with some of the earlier points made by the member from Niagara Falls with respect to reducing problem consumers’ access to legal ways of obtaining the emergency cash, but also making sure, in this particular area as well, that payday lending be the last resort for consumers, particularly those who are already disadvantaged.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments? I recognize the member from Hamilton Mountain.

Miss Monique Taylor: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and good morning to you.

It’s a pleasure to stand in this House and to speak to Bill 59 and congratulate the member from Niagara Falls for his work that he put into his speaking notes today, because he raised some very valid issues, issues that I hear in my own community of Hamilton Mountain.

When we talk about payday loans and when we talk about the most vulnerable people in our society being attacked or being the focus of unscrupulous attention, these are some of the things that this bill does seek to rectify.

I do wish it went a little further, as the member from Niagara Falls had said also, because the payday loans are still at 390% interest annualization, which is completely unaffordable. It puts a person in a trap where they can’t get out because they’re always paying from their paycheque to pay the next loan date, and then they have to borrow again. Then they’re paying it back and then they’re borrowing again. They are in a hole and they are trying to dig their way out, but the dirt’s falling on their head because they just can’t possibly get out of that trap that they’re in.

Without really strong legislation and hard caps on the borrowed dollars, we’re going to continue to allow people to stay caught in that trap. It’s our most vulnerable population. People aren’t going there because it’s not necessary money that they need to be able to get through to the next payday. So, first of all, there have to be harder caps. I hope we can get that through in committee.

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

Hon. Jeff Leal: I certainly enjoyed the remarks of my colleague from Niagara Falls.

But first of all, Madam Speaker, I’ve got to give a plug: My daughter’s basketball team, grade 12, St. Peter’s from Peterborough, start their OFSAA tournament this afternoon. I want to thank my colleague Mr. Zimmer, who is going to cover my House duty this afternoon so I can be courtside at 4 p.m. to see my daughter play out in Scarborough.

Now, having given a plug for the Peterborough team, I want to get to Bill 59.

I want to thank the member. I recall vividly my last term on Peterborough city council, 2000 to 2003. Virtually every day I had seniors call me. These were seniors who had no family members in Peterborough, so they would phone their local councillor because they had these hucksters pounding on their door every day trying to get their foot in the door to sign up these seniors, particularly elderly women, that they were preying against. I think they had a list of where these people were residing. They would want them to sign up for water heaters, for air conditioners, and for this and every other thing. It was just awful, the way they played upon these individuals.

I think the member summed it up very well. You know you have a good bill when our colleague the fine member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek—whom I respect highly—had this to say: “I commend the government ... for pushing this through, because this is long overdue, and I think it’s going to save a lot of anguish for a lot of people in our province.” I couldn’t say it any better than our good friend the very articulate member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek.

My colleague, whom I have great respect for, talked about the economy. I should share with this House that GE are building a brand new plant in Welland, Ontario, because our business climate is much better in Ontario. They’re moving that plant from Wisconsin and they’re going to establish it in Welland. They’ll be hiring toolmakers and machinists, the kind of good jobs that my friend from Niagara Falls—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Thank you. I will return to the member from Niagara Falls to wrap up.

Mr. Wayne Gates: Thank you very much. I appreciate all of the comments from my colleagues, particularly the last comment about good-paying jobs in the province of Ontario. We don’t need them just in Welland; we need them in St. Catharines; we need them in Niagara Falls; we need them in Oshawa; we need them in Windsor; we need them in Timmins; we need them in Hamilton.

All I’m saying is, I’m complimenting you on the fact that GE is coming to Niagara. It’s a good thing. We need more manufacturing in the province of Ontario. In my humble opinion, the reason why we ran into the manufacturing crisis in the province of Ontario and across Canada was because of NAFTA and some of the trade agreements that were put in place that really killed the manufacturing sector in the province of Ontario. Our artificially high dollar was another reason that we ran into problems in manufacturing, when we had a dollar that was worth $1.10 when it should be around 80 cents to 84 cents.

Governments chose to make sure our dollar was artificially high through one sector of the economy, which was oil. It drove our dollar to unreasonable prices.

So what happened in the province of Ontario in particular, because we were hit the hardest—Quebec was hit hard, by the way, as well—was that manufacturers left this country. Our dollar is now back down to 74 cents or 75 cents. Manufacturers are starting to come out. What we have to do is make sure that they don’t stay out of Ontario because of high hydro rates. We’ve got to fix that. We’ve been talking about that for a long time.

I’m going to say to the government—I don’t like giving you a lot of advice, because what happens is, that’s our problem: You guys take a lot of our issues—you have to stop the sale of hydro. You sold 30%. You probably can’t get out of it. Stop it; stop it and don’t go any further.

To the Conservatives, who want to sell 100% of it: Don’t go down that road ever again. It’s an asset that is making money for infrastructure. It’s an asset that’s making money for our publicly funded education system. It’s an asset that’s making money for our hospitals.

I will talk on the bill another time. Please don’t cut debate off on this bill.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Pursuant to standing order 47(c), I’m now required to interrupt the proceedings and announce that there have been more than six and a half hours of debate on the motion for second reading of this bill. This debate will therefore be deemed adjourned unless the government House leader specifies otherwise.

I recognize the President of the Treasury Board.

Hon. Liz Sandals: We wish to continue debate. But, Madam Speaker, before we do that I believe you will find we have unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding Bills 7 and 45, which are currently in committee.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Do we agree? Agreed.

Time allocation

Hon. Liz Sandals: I move that, with respect to Bill 7,

An Act to amend or repeal various Acts with respect to housing and planning, the Standing Committee on Social Policy be authorized to meet on Monday, November 28, 2016, from 2 p.m. to 8 p.m. for the purpose of public hearings; and

That the deadline for requests to appear be Friday, November 25, 2016, at 5 p.m.; and

That the deadline for amendments to be filed with the Clerk of the Committee be Wednesday, November 30, 2016, at 5 p.m.; and

That the Standing Committee on Social Policy meet on Monday, December 5, 2016, from 2 p.m. to 8 p.m. for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 7; and

That on December 5, 2016, at 4 p.m. those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the Committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of Bill 7 and any amendments thereto. At this time, the Chair shall allow one 20-minute waiting period pursuant to standing order 129(a); and

That the committee shall report Bill 7 to the House no later than Tuesday, December 6, 2016; and

That in the event that the committee fails to report Bill 7 on that day, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and

That, upon receiving the report of the Standing Committee on Social Policy, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading, which order may be called that same day; and

That, when the order for third reading of Bill 7 is called, an afternoon or up to three hours of debate, whichever comes first, shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, apportioned equally among the recognized parties. At the end of this time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

The vote on third reading may be deferred pursuant to standing order 28(h); and

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on Bill 7, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes; and

With respect to Bill 45,

An Act to amend certain Acts with respect to provincial elections, that the Standing Committee on General Government be authorized to meet on Monday, November 28, 2016, from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. for the purpose of public hearings on the bill; and

That the deadline for amendments to be filed with the Clerk of the Committee be Wednesday, November 30, 2016, at 5 p.m.; and

That the Standing Committee on General Government be authorized to meet on Monday, December 5, 2016, from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 45; and

That at 4 p.m. on December 5, 2016, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the Committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of Bill 45 and any amendments thereto. At this time, the Chair shall allow one 20-minute waiting period pursuant to standing order 129(a);

That the committee shall report Bill 45 to the House no later than Tuesday, December 6, 2016; and

That in the event that the committee fails to report Bill 45 on that day, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and

That, upon receiving the report of the Standing Committee on General Government, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and at such time Bill 45 shall be ordered for third reading, which order may be called that same day; and

That, when the order for third reading of Bill 45 is called, an afternoon or up to three hours of debate, whichever comes first, shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, apportioned equally among the recognized parties. At the end of this time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of Bill 45 without further debate or amendment; and

The vote on third reading may be deferred pursuant to standing order 28(h); and

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on Bill 45, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Ms. Sandals has moved—

Interjection: Dispense.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Dispense? Agreed? Okay.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Motion agreed to.

Putting Consumers First Act (Consumer Protection Statute Law Amendment), 2016 / Loi de 2016 donnant la priorité aux consommateurs (modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne la protection du consommateur)

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

Mr. Han Dong: I’ll be sharing my time with the member from St. Catharines and the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

I’m very pleased to be able to speak to this bill because consumer protection, in my view, is a very important aspect of our government. I want to read to the House some of the record that we’ve accomplished since 2003.

Our government has worked hard to address consumer protection issues through legislation which includes home and condominium purchases—Tarion review and Protecting Condominium Owners Act, 2015; repairs to and purchase of cars—new regulation as of July 2016 under the Repair and Storage Liens Act and all-in pricing under the Ontario Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2010; wireless services—Wireless Services Agreements Act, 2013; door-to-door sales—Stronger Protection for Ontario Consumers Act, 2013; burial, cremation and funeral arrangements—establishment of the Bereavement Authority of Ontario; travel agents—the Ontario Travel Industry Act, 2010; and gift cards—banning the expiry of gift cards.

In 2015 alone, we took action against companies and individuals taking advantage of consumers by mediating almost $300,000 in refunds to consumers through cancellation of contracts; providing help and advice in respect of almost 30,000 complaints; conducting almost 400 inspections; and delivering 77 outreach and education presentations across Ontario.

In Ontario, we have a department called the consumer protection branch under the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services. I know they do great work. They go out there and investigate the complaints that are given to them by consumers and find out the rare incidents of violations of the Consumer Protection Act. They can go as far as prosecuting those in court. I’m very proud of the government’s achievement on that.

This bill is a very important bill. It includes three aspects: banning door-to-door sales, regulating the home inspection industry and strengthening consumer financial protections in the payday loan industry. But the one that’s of particular interest to me is the home inspection aspect of it. Our government is proposing to establish mandatory licensing for home inspectors in Ontario. A self-funded administrative authority would also be created to oversee and enforce the proposed legislation and any associated regulations. A licensing regime would assure consumers that they are hiring a qualified professional.

This is very important, not just to the consumers but actually to the industry. As you know, I put forward my private member’s bill earlier this year to speak to this matter. I’m very pleased that the majority of my private member’s bill was adopted by the government’s bill. I’ve had conversations with the Ontario Association of Certified Home Inspectors and also associations such as the Ontario Association of Home Inspectors. In fact, I’ve gone to the AGM of the Ontario Association of Certified Home Inspectors and had a chance to speak to a lot of home inspectors. They’re certified as inspectors by the association.

I want to take this opportunity to thank these two organizations and a few other organizations in the industry for holding the standard for home inspections. What I hear is that they’re competing with individuals who will call themselves home inspectors but charge maybe a quarter of what they charge in the market. They just fly by, give people a certificate and say, “You’re good to go.” What happens is, the new homeowners—who can really use that service and don’t have much experience in investigating the state of repair of their new home—will be hurt in that situation, because they don’t have the full information.

I remember when I purchased my house, I got a home inspection, because back then, not too long ago, it was the norm. When you purchase a new home, you want to go through a home inspection to find out whether the joists and the foundation are in good shape. I, along with my wife, were new homeowners. We had no experience. So we went out there and got ourselves a home inspector.

It was actually a very good experience. I learned quite a bit about the house we were about to call our home. I still remember that he gave us a walk-around and told us about the bricks and how to maintain them. It was a really valuable service.

But nowadays—I’ve seen some stats—less than 60% of transactions involve a home inspection. This is really concerning to me because we’ve seen the hype in the real estate market. We know many people are going to own a home and are going through that stage. A lot of them are newcomers to our province, and they’re not very familiar with the structure, the way the homes are built. If they waive home inspection, they’re taking a tremendous risk.

When I talked to the home inspectors in the industry, I’ve heard that they’re calling for a delegated ministry authority, a regulatory body that will establish a code of ethics. Also, it will enforce, it will license this code of ethics. They’re holding a standard in the industry, so homeowners can be assured, when they hire a home inspector, that they’re regulated and certified.

Another important aspect of it: If there is, in the future, some dispute, unfortunately, about the service they purchased, there is a place they can go to voice their complaint. There will be a regulatory body to investigate these complaints to see whether or not proper standards were followed. This is very important, and it’s more cost-effective to deal with these disputes.

A regulatory body will also act to collect data, to collect centralized information and then update the professionals in the industry periodically with renewed information. We know technology, high tech, is used in the home-building industry, and more and more new techniques are used in renovation and so on and so forth. This information must be shared with home inspectors so they can conduct a very effective inspection.

On the consumer side, now they can look at home inspectors as someone who can give them a piece of advice before major renovation projects. If you look around the province, some of the renovation projects are in upwards of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Now they can hire a home inspector to come in and tell them, “You’ve got to double up the joists, you’ve got to look into the foundation, you have a piping problem, you’ve got to properly insulate the pipes so they won’t burst in the wintertime.”

I had that incident happen to me in my home last winter. As you remember, Madam Speaker, last winter was a very cold winter. One of my water pipes was too close to the outside wall and it wasn’t properly insulated. I’d just had a renovation done a couple of years ago, and that pipe, I remember, was new. Had I had a good home inspector, who could come to my house and give me advice before these reno projects, I could have avoided that problem.

I think this is a very valuable service, something that we ought to have in Ontario—regulated so that consumers can have peace of mind when they purchase it.

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

Mr. Ted Arnott: I’m pleased to have this opportunity to respond to the remarks given this morning by the member for Trinity–Spadina on this bill, Bill 59, Putting Consumers First Act. I want to thank our whip of the day, the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka, for giving me this opportunity to respond to this speech this morning. It’s always a privilege and an honour to have the chance to speak in the Legislature.

I’m aware that this bill, of course, is intended to be a consumer protection bill. For our part as the official opposition, we’re supportive of consumer protection legislation as long as it makes sense and as long as it doesn’t make it extremely difficult for businesses to do their business and to be profitable in the province of Ontario. I think it’s important that we ensure that companies want to be here, first of all, and want to expand their businesses, and in order to do that, they have to be profitable. They have to be able to make money.

If they’re going to be able to invest in new equipment, expand their operations, hire more people or give their existing employees raises, they have to be profitable. I think that sometimes needs to be pointed out, because I think the current government sometimes forgets that.

This legislation, of course, pertains to home inspections. We know that the home inspection profession is relied upon by many consumers before making perhaps the largest purchase in their whole lives. If they buy their home, that might be their most significant investment, of course. In many cases, that is people’s most significant investment that they will ever make.

Currently, there are no province-wide professional standards for home inspectors or recourse for a consumer whose home is revealed to be in need of major work following the purchase. We are aware that the government commissioned a consultation on home inspections that recommended licensing the profession. I know the member for Trinity–Spadina talked about that in his remarks.

I think there is consensus in the Legislature that this bill needs to move forward for further discussion. We do have some concerns as an official opposition, so we would like to ensure that there are adequate public hearings to discuss those concerns. I look forward to further debate on this matter.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I recognize the member from Windsor–Tecumseh.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Good morning, Speaker. It’s always a pleasure to stand in the House and comment on my good friend from Trinity–Spadina. I complimented him in the House before, when he brought in a private member’s bill on licensing and regulating home inspectors, because I was working on a similar bill at the same time. I was talking to Mike Holmes. I wanted to bring Mike Holmes in. He beat me to the pass, he really did, so I’m really pleased that it’s in this bill.

One aspect of the bill that we really didn’t get into at this time was the payday loan. He didn’t get into the payday loan aspect of the bill. I mention that because I know so many people have to borrow money these days. One of the reasons they have to borrow money is to pay their hydro bill. Speaker, if the Liberal government, if Premier Wynne is serious about correcting some of the mistakes on the hydro file, the very next step she should take is getting rid of the peak-hour pricing. We have to get rid of peak-hour pricing in Ontario. We can no longer say to people, “Get up at 2 or 3 o’clock in the morning and do your dishes or wash your clothes.” That is unreasonable. It has to go.

I met with dairy farmers. For some reason, their cows won’t listen when they say, “We have to milk you but we can’t milk you in peak hours.” Cows want to be milked in peak time. We have got to get rid of the peak-hour pricing in hydro, or else we’ve got to get the Liberals to go talk to the cows. The cows won’t listen to them. The people in Ontario aren’t listening to them; why would the cows?

Get rid of peak-hour pricing. It shouldn’t be there. It’s like smart meters that weren’t so smart. Cows are smarter than us; they know when they have to be milked. Get rid of peak-hour pricing in Ontario.

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

Mr. James J. Bradley: This is a piece of legislation, which the member spoke to, that I have been waiting for a long period of time. My colleagues who have held the position of consumer minister in this province have been harassed by me, I have to say, for not bringing forward legislation years ago, but we recognize that there’s always a time and place for such legislation. I agree with the three components of it.

First of all, home inspections are very important for both the seller and for the buyer, but particularly the buyer—to know what you are getting when you’re purchasing a home, which is probably the major purchase that anybody is going to make in a lifetime. You want to ensure that you’re getting a home that is appropriate for your needs and you know what you’re getting.

The second is the payday loans. I’m absolutely amazed at the number of these payday loan places I see all over our communities, which indicates there must be a lot of people using them. I would like to see the banks and the credit unions—and the credit unions have moved in this direction—trying to make loans available to people so they don’t have to go to the loan sharks—sorry, loan offices—that we see around the province called payday loans, with all the attractive signs they have on them to lure people in.

The last is the door-to-door, and many people have talked about it. We’re not saying that nobody can go door to door at any time, but there have been individuals who have bullied senior citizens, particularly, who grew up in a generation when you trusted people who came to the door. Every time governments, whether it’s municipal, the provincial government or the federal government, try to do something to stop it, they manoeuvre in a different direction.

I think this is very timely legislation. I’m glad to see that there’s unanimous support in this House for this particular bill.

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

Mr. Norm Miller: I’m pleased to have a moment or two to speak to Bill 59,

An Act to enact a new Act with respect to home inspections and to amend various Acts with respect to financial services and consumer protection, and comment on the speech made by the member from Trinity–Spadina.

I was going to focus briefly on the home inspections aspect of the bill to begin with. He talked about his experience with some fly-by-night home inspectors, ones who weren’t necessarily fully qualified or were just giving a certificate for a home inspection. That certainly would be a real concern. Purchasing a home is the biggest purchase most people make. Those problems can be a real challenge for families.

My experience with home inspectors has been that in the few purchases I’ve made, buying a home has been very positive. In fact, back in 2005, when we bought a new home, the home inspector inspected it and he actually missed the fact that there was a crack in the oil furnace. When I got the mechanical people, Muskoka Mechanical, to come by and look at the furnace, they said we needed a new furnace. We advised the home inspector and he, on his own, offered to cover half the cost of the furnace. So that was a very positive experience, but not necessarily the norm.

It’s worth noting that the home inspectors are in favour of licensing home inspectors. Also, the other main focus involved in the business, the real estate salespeople and the real estate industry, is in favour of home inspection.

I hope the government draws on the knowledge of the Ontario Association of Home Inspectors, who have had experience and expertise in this field, and doesn’t create unnecessary red tape in the process of licensing home inspectors. But generally, I support this and our party supports this as well.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I return to the member from Trinity–Spadina to wrap up.

Mr. Han Dong: I want to thank the member from Wellington–Halton Hills, the member from Windsor–Tecumseh, the member from St. Catharines and the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka for their response to my earlier remarks.

Again, this is a very important bill. I heard the member from Wellington–Halton Hills mention public hearings. In fact, the government has done extensive consultation in the preparation of these bills. I remember speaking to the Ontario Association of Certified Home Inspectors. They were on the panel that was put together by the previous minister to provide a report, which the government used as the basis of a portion of this bill. There has been wide consultation with the industry, with the insurance industry, with the realtor industry, as well as the consumer protection industry.

Going forward, if passed, this bill—as you know, it will go to third reading, go to committee. There will be a public input opportunity. As well, in the regulation development stage, there will be tons of opportunities for public input. I have no doubt that this bill and the regulations, by the time it comes to enforcement, will be a very balanced bill, making sure that consumer rights will be protected.

I’m also very pleased that the definition of “home” in this bill will be defined to include vertical communities, which many condos in my riding will benefit from.

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

Mrs. Gila Martow: I’m very pleased to rise today to speak on Bill 59, the consumer protection act. We’re hearing a lot of support from all sides of the House. We’re talking today about payday loans, door-to-door sales and licensing of home inspectors, as most of us know. I think that what it comes down to, though, is how to better educate the public, how to have the public understand that, yes, there are regulations in place, but they also have to be very aware of their rights.

Be even aware of the new regulations taking place, because too often, we see that there are rules in place and the public is not even aware that they can say no to something, or that they can purchase something and in many cases they have 30 days to change their mind.

I want to start by talking about payday loans. We see them mostly in rural communities. We don’t see too many in, say, the downtown core. As we get further away where people are struggling—people are really struggling, living paycheque to paycheque. In rural communities specifically, I want to give one example, which is that people rely on their cars. If you’re in a rural community, very often there is no public transit. I think it’s very hard for people in downtown Toronto to even comprehend that. Oftentimes there is no public transit. There may not even be taxi services, certainly not Uber and things like that.

If somebody has a sudden car repair—even if it’s just a nail in a tire—if they don’t have the money in the bank to take care of that, if they don’t have a credit card to purchase the new tire and get the repair done, they’re not able to get to work. So, yes, they will go to a payday loan and borrow, even if the interest is exorbitant.

We’ve heard talk about 18% interest for a payday loan, but that’s 18% a month. That’s not 18% a year. That can be something close to 400% a year. These people just need access to what oftentimes we refer to as microloans, just a very small amount of money that they need access to. We can make it tough for people to get payday loans or we can make it difficult for payday loan institutions to operate, but the crux of the matter is that, oftentimes, people need these small loans to carry on with their lives so that they can get to work and even to go buy groceries.

I think that sometimes we’re sort of missing the point of the whole issue, which isn’t just the payday loan institutions themselves—definitely, we need to have proper regulations in place and make sure that people aren’t being unfairly taken advantage of and that they’re able to get out of this debt situation that they find themselves in. But also look at why people are in such dire straits in the first place. It could be because their hydro bills are exorbitant—that they were managing quite well until a few years ago and now they’re getting behind on their hydro bills, and perhaps are going to a payday loan just to pay their hydro bill.

What kind of example are we setting here in the Legislature? I want to remind everybody that we’re spending a billion dollars a month in interest on the provincial debt. People at home sit and understand that, and say, “Well, the province seems to keep running.” The lights are on here in the Legislature. Somehow we’re managing to carry on and have heat—well, because we’re borrowing.

People are living in municipalities that have huge debt. We have regional governments that have added debt. It’s not just about financial literacy for the masses. I think it’s also about setting an example here in the Legislature to start showing people how to manage money properly.

We have families who are struggling and have medical emergencies that they see aren’t covered, or they have to travel for some health care. They don’t have the money in the bank. They don’t have that rainy day fund. Let’s do what we can do here in the Legislature to understand the scope of why people are using these institutions.

Next on the list are door-to-door sales. We have to understand that it’s not just at people’s doors that they’re sometimes being taken advantage of. We see fraud out in workplaces, in other parts of the community and online, which is very difficult for legislators and regulators to combat.

Again, we want to ensure that people are protected. We do understand that many times people are at home and somebody could come to the door and that person really isn’t in a capacity to understand what they’re signing. The family that’s living with them knows that they’re not in fantastic shape, but they don’t want to insult them, they don’t want to fight with them and they don’t want to take away their liberties. But they do want to protect the individuals at the house. Many times, these are seniors who are being targeted, as we’ve heard today in the Legislature.

We don’t want to say to the seniors living with family members, “You know what? You don’t ever have the right to ever sign for anything.”

We do need those protections in place. It does make us all nervous to hear that people are answering the door to complete strangers, just because they have a clipboard and a vest on. I would advise people at home to consider getting—there are the little camera units that use WiFi. They’re not very expensive to install. I think they even have them now at Costco. And warn family members: If you don’t know who’s at the door, don’t answer. There are doorbells now that go to phones. That all can be great protection in our communities.

Again, we can’t protect everybody from everything. What can we do to ensure that the public is better able to take care of themselves?

Licensing home inspectors: I think most of us here have purchased a house. I know that my best home inspectors were my father and my father-in-law. My father was an engineer. My father-in-law worked with construction equipment. You can’t pay people to care, but you certainly can make sure that they’re licensed and understand the rules, and make sure that they’re doing what they need to do.

I don’t know if home inspection can start to be more of a trade, where we actually have programs that people can take to be a licensed home inspector. I’m not positive that that’s going to be part of it, but I think it should be, Madam Speaker—that there are courses that people can take to become a home inspector and have the necessary skills.

I haven’t really heard it mentioned here, but what I would like to see in home inspection is that home inspectors have to at least take pictures to show that they were in the attic, that they looked where they had to. Some insurance companies do that for homes: When they assess your home for insurance, they take pictures so that afterwards, you have sort of a booklet. I have that of my home from one company. I was kind of surprised that they came and they took actual pictures of each of the rooms so that they had the best record possible of what was in the house and the types of materials, appliances, furniture and what have you.

We have also heard a little bit this week on a different bill—but I think it relates—about points cards and things like that. Part of it is that people now have credit cards—many years ago, when we were children, you didn’t see teenagers with credit cards. But now we see kids with credit cards, and they’re racking up that credit card debt.

It’s so easy to get a credit card. There was even an

article this week where there were employees in supermarkets saying that they’re just doing a survey or signing people up for points cards, and it turned out that actually what they were doing was they were signing to order a credit card. It’s become so easy to get those credit cards, and so easy for people to see it as easy access to money that they might not have had if they didn’t have a credit card. People have multiple credit cards, and we hear stories of people getting credit cards just to pay the debt on the other credit cards. Well, we know that eventually that catches up with people and they find themselves in difficult situations.

I would advise anybody who is watching at home that if you have credit card debt and you’re struggling and you’re paying high interest, even if you’re managing to pay the minimum on your card, go to a bank, sit down with a financial planner, get a proper loan or credit line and pay off your credit card debt. A bank loan is far less interest than credit card interest. Don’t be embarrassed; a lot of people in the community sometimes find themselves in a difficult situation, and they make the situation worse just because they’re afraid to come and talk to somebody.

Even your MPP: Our constituency offices are there and we’re happy to refer you to services. There are government plans, even, to help pay for hydro bills for low-income earners and things like that.

Madam Speaker, thank you very much for giving us the time to debate this this morning.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Seeing it’s almost 10:15, I will be recessing the House until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1009 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mrs. Gila Martow: I want to welcome all the guests here today from the inaugural cohort of CJPAC, the Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee Women in Politics Mentorship Program. They’re spending the day at Queen’s Park. We’re going to have a tour and lunch, and they’re going to be here for question period and statements.

I just want to read out the names: Andrea Adler Milavsky, Brianna Ames, Georganne Burke—whom I know very well; Georganne’s here—Sarah Charrow, Julie Dabrusin, Nikki Holland, Yael Kogan, Miriam Kramer, Tamara Kronis, Melissa Lantsman, Sharon Laredo, Rachel Levy Sarfin, Adria Minsky, Dani Peters—who’s organizing it, by the way—Nicole Silverberg, Jordana Skurka, Marni Tolensky, Jaime Reich, Rachel Chertkoff and Sherry Firestone. Welcome, ladies.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I’d like to introduce Christina Doucette, up in the Speaker’s gallery this morning. She’s from the riding of Pickering–Scarborough East. She has been helping out in the constit office and she’s going on my payroll on January 1. Thank you.

Mr. Norm Miller: I’d like to welcome Randy Nickle and his wife, Laurie, who are from Kenora–Rainy River and who are down here for the Grey Cup.

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: In the members’ east gallery: my friend from Cambridge, John Holman, part of the Cambridge firefighters. Thank you, John, for joining us.

Mr. James J. Bradley: The guest of page captain Kaitlyn Spaan is her father, Allan Spaan, who is in the members’ gallery to the east. Elizabeth Spaan, her mother, was unable to be with us today but is watching and is with us in spirit.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I’m pleased to welcome Mrs. Angela Schwarz from Midhurst to the Legislature today. Mrs. Schwarz is here representing the United Church of Canada as part of their Bread Not Stones campaign to end child poverty. I look forward to meeting Angela.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: Speaker, I’ll let you do one of these introductions, but I will introduce the people who are here with that individual. I’m delighted to welcome to the Ontario Legislature three students from Wilfrid Laurier University. They are: Stephanie Bellotto, Veronica Swiech and Ernesto Smiley. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to welcome representatives from the Ontario Home Builders’ Association, including their new president, Neil Rodgers, to Queen’s Park this morning. I want to thank them for the great breakfast they served this morning.

Mr. Arthur Potts: It’s a pleasure to welcome the wonderful grade 5 students from Bowmore Public School, their teacher, Ms. Johnston, and parents Ivan Langrish and Elizabeth Grendon. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I’d like to introduce Kennisha Taylor, who is volunteering in my office. Thank you very much, Kennisha.

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my welcome to the Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee. The CJPAC Women in Politics Mentorship Program is having its launch with MPPs at Queen’s Park today. Here today with us are Jaime Reich, Brianna Ames, Sharon Laredo, Jordana Skurka, Marni Tolensky, Sarah Charrow, Miriam Kramer, Tamara Kronis and Andrea Adler Milavsky. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Chris Ballard: In recognition of National Child Day, I would like to welcome the 16 delegates from Bread Not Stones, the United Church of Canada campaign to end child poverty.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to introduce John Meinen, who is here with the Home Builders’ Association. He’ll be here shortly.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to welcome my good friend Pierre Dufresne, who’s the vice-president of Tartan Homes from Ottawa, who is visiting, along with the ever-famous Joe Vaccaro from the Ontario Home Builders’ Association. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Chris Ballard: Last but not least, I’d like to welcome Neil Rodgers, president of the Ontario Home Builders’ Association, to the House today.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Another introduction, Speaker: I also noticed a good friend of mine, Rachel Chertkoff from CJPAC, is at Queen’s Park. It’s always good to see Rachel, with other friends who are visiting. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Arthur Potts: I want to introduce a constituent of mine, Neil Rodgers, also with Tribute homes. Thank you, Neil. It’s great to see you here.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: This is a special introduction because the guests are not here right now, but I’m sure that the Ottawa Redblacks will be visiting Queen’s Park as the Grey Cup champions when they clinch the cup this Sunday, right here in Toronto, against the Calgary Stampeders. Go Redblacks, go!

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We also have a Speakers’ choice: the former member from Kitchener Centre in the 38th, 39th and 40th Parliaments, Mr. John Milloy. Welcome, John. Thank you for being here.

I also have the honour of welcoming—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m sure you want to hear this one. I also have the honour of welcoming a great Ontarian and a great Canadian to Queen’s Park this morning. In the Speaker’s gallery is the former federal member of Parliament for York West, and at the same time, a great NHL hockey legend, Mr. Leonard “Red” Kelly. With him is his wife, Andra Kelly, and their daughter Casey Kelly and her husband, James Waddell.

We welcome all of the guests to Queen’s Park. Thank you for being here.

We have a reception set up to meet and to discuss very intelligent things about hockey with Mr. Kelly in room 340 after question period. We welcome you all to this reception to chew the fat with a great Canadian.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: If it’s not too late to sneak in an introduction, Ivan Langrish is coming here. He used to work for me. He is now here as a volunteer with his daughter Charlotte’s grade 5 class from Bowmore Road public school.

Dolls of Hope

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Point of order, the Minister of Housing and poverty reduction.

Hon. Chris Ballard: I believe you’ll find that we have unanimous consent that members be permitted to display on their desks today a Doll of Hope to bring recognition to child poverty in Canada.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Before I introduce the unanimous consent, I’ve looked into the situation and I would ask members, as a courtesy, that these dolls, because of their size, not be used as props in any way, shape or form, and that they are displayed on the desk and appropriately used for their full intention. I’m hoping that members will abide by that request.

The Minister of Housing is seeking unanimous consent to display the dolls for anti-poverty. Do we agree? Agreed.

Oral Questions

Autism treatment

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Grandview Children’s Centre offers amazing programs for children in Durham region. The centre is life-changing for many children and their families. So when I heard there are 2,500 children on the wait-list, I was shocked.

Grandview is in desperate need of an upgraded facility, but this government continues to do nothing and backs away.

There are 970 children with autism who are waiting for ABA services, and the average wait time at Grandview is 521 days before beginning treatment. The government has an opportunity to make a difference. Actually, the Liberal MPPs from Durham have written the Premier pleading for investment here.

My question to the Premier is, will the Premier commit today to listen to her own members, listen to the Grandview Children’s Centre and get shovels into the ground to help these children with autism? Because it’s the right thing to do.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I want to thank the member for the question and also the members on this side who have been advocating for this facility renewal.

Applause.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Thank you.

The member opposite has brought up the issue around autism here in the province of Ontario. The member knows very well that this government has invested—will invest—half a billion dollars of additional funding to autism here in Ontario, which is the most historic investment into autism, not only here in Ontario but right across this country, and probably North America as a whole. So we’re very proud of the fact that we were able to make investments in our children in the province of Ontario. This investment is historic and it will make a huge difference in the system.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier—and hopefully I can get an answer from the Premier. It’s one thing for the minister to say that they’re making it a priority, but not to answer the question about Grandview—there are almost 1,000 kids on the wait-list waiting for ABA therapy. There is a wait-list of 521 days per child. It’s one thing to say you’re going to make this a priority, but we’re not seeing shovels in the ground. We’re not seeing commitments of actual dollars to these important projects.

It’s not just Grandview in Durham. Look at Yes I Can nursery in Don Valley West. Yes I Can is going to have to close its doors and Ontario could lose another 130 precious child care spaces. It’s not too late to save Yes I Can Nursery. This government has the opportunity to do the right thing, whether it’s in Oshawa with Grandview or whether it’s at Yes I Can in the Premier’s own riding.

I’m asking the Premier directly: Will you provide the funding for these centres so children with autism can have the help they need? Yes or no to Grandview? Yes or no to Yes I Can?

Hon. Michael Coteau: I want to talk about capital investment into our children’s treatment centres here in the province of Ontario. Since 2008-09, this government has invested over $300 million into capital investments in our children’s treatment centres. When the member opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, is talking about autism and program investment, again, we’re talking about a half-a-billion-dollar investment into autism here in the province of Ontario. This is unprecedented. No government in the history of this province has done anything like this government, and we’re very proud of our record.

In addition to that, that half-a-billion-dollar investment will create 16,000 new spaces across the province of Ontario, and we’re aiming to reduce wait times so it’s six months or less. We are going to create more diagnostic hubs across the province, and we’re going to make sure that our children here in the province of Ontario have what they need to be successful.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier—and for a third time I’m going to ask the Premier to address this. The government has taken families of children with autism to court. They’ve kicked thousands of children off the IBI treatment wait-list. They refuse to build the much-needed and desperately needed expansion at the Grandview Children’s Centre in Oshawa. Soon enough, this government will be forced to close Yes I Can Nursery in the Premier’s own riding, desperately taking away a service for those children that need it.

This government’s attack on children with autism and their families must stop. This has been continuous. This has been unrelenting. The Liberals can’t take back their lawsuits, but they have an opportunity for these two centres, with Yes I Can and Grandview, to actually offer support.

So rather than government talking points of what they might have done 10 years ago or 20 years ago, or what Premier Hepburn might have done, I’m going to ask a question to the Premier: Will you fund Grandview? Will you fund Yes I Can? Yes or no? Don’t pass the buck. Please answer the question.

Hon. Michael Coteau: We’re not talking about 10 years ago or 20 years ago; we’re talking about today. There’s a big difference between this government and what the opposition has brought forward. We’re bringing half a billion dollars of new investment into autism.

He’s talking about two separate things: On one side, he’s talking about services; and then, on the other side, he’s talking about capital investment. We’ve made over $300 million in the last several years of new investment, capital investment into those facilities—a half a billion dollars into services for autism. The member opposite knows that this government has done more for autism than any government before.

Hydro rates

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. Since I can’t get an answer on their commitment to children with autism, let’s talk about hydro.

Last weekend, the Premier acknowledged the hydro crisis was her mistake, a mistake she apparently never saw coming. But as CBC’s Robyn Urback put it, “Aside from the repeated, incessant warnings—there was no warning.” She also added, “Besides the dozens of reports, years of increasing consumer prices, dire financial warnings and protests over unaffordable hydro bills—there was no way they could have seen this coming.”

So when did the Premier realize she had made a mistake? Was it when she learned people couldn’t afford to pay for the bills to have food on the table? Was it when she realized that seniors were living in energy poverty? When did the Premier realize she made a mistake? And, for the fourth time, will the Premier answer the question?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member opposite knows that we have worked for some time to reduce costs, whether it’s taking the debt retirement charge off people’s bills, whether it’s putting the Ontario energy support program in place, whether it’s renegotiating the Samsung deal which takes billions of dollars out of the system, or whether it’s making a decision not to go ahead with new nuclear build, which they actually oppose. So we have made a number of changes.

What I have said is that the mess that we had to clean up when we came into office under the previous Premier, the mess that has been left by the previous government—the electricity system was in disarray. There had not been the investments that there needed to be made. There had not been decision-making.

As far back as the NDP government, where there could have been deals with Manitoba that actually would have bent the cost curve—those decision where not made. We had to clean up a mess. We cleaned it up, and there’s a cost associated with it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: I thought the Premier acknowledged responsibility. She admitted a mistake, and now she’s back to blaming everyone except for her government when every report, all the evidence, suggests it’s because of their mistake. Admitting a mistake is the first step.

But this admission is too little, too late. Just ask the people of Owen Sound, whose mayor calls their latest hydro bill “ridiculous.”

For 13 street light accounts, the city consumed $442 in electricity in a one-month period. However, the total bill was—hear this—over $10,000: nearly $5,000 for delivery fees and over $4,000 to pay for the Liberals’ mysterious global adjustment fee.

I agree with the mayor of Owen Sound: That is ridiculous. How can the Premier justify a bill like that—$10,000 when only $442 was used? It’s ridiculous.

Interjections.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: In my first answer I talked about the changes that we have made. I talked about the reality that we had a mess that had to be cleaned up, which we have done.

I say now, as I said on the weekend, that there is more that we need to do, and I take responsibility that we have to focus on people’s day-to-day costs. I understand that. I also understand that the changes that we have made, the cleaning up of the system and making the system reliable had a cost associated with them. We know there’s more that needs to be done.

On the issue of municipalities: I understand that there are some municipalities that may be speaking to the opposition, but the reality is that on that front as well, we have been working to undo a burden that was put on municipalities by the previous government. We have been taking costs off the property tax bills of municipalities, and we’ve been doing that because we believe that municipalities needed more room to be able to deliver services—to the tune of $3 billion that we’ve taken off those property taxes.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: How is it an apology when you continue to blame others and take no responsibility?

Global News shared a story about a Kingston, Ontario couple and their struggles paying their skyrocketing bills because of the Liberal hydro crisis. The family had been without electricity since August, when Hydro One cut off their power for not paying their bill. Then a generous donor in the neighbourhood paid off that bill. They now have their lights on for the first time in a few months. But it shouldn’t take the generosity of a donation from a kind neighbour.

Too many Ontarians are in this predicament. Sadly, the government just doesn’t seem to care. Will the Premier finally show some compassion, not allowing neighbours to take care of someone that can’t afford their hydro bill—I want not a band-aid solution, Mr. Speaker; I want a real solution. I don’t want to hear about a PST rebate that doesn’t even cover the clean energy rebate. Will we have real, meaningful changes—

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: —not band-aid solutions? People can’t—

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

Interjections.

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

To the leader: When I stand, you stop.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I understand why the Leader of the Opposition might want to deal with an issue like this in a very simplistic way. I understand that. I understand that that’s a tactic. That’s a political tactic.

The reality is that there are a number of things that are going on at the same time. The reality is that we did need to clean up the electricity mess. The solution that has come from the other side is to do nothing, to not make the changes that were made, not make those investments, and stick with coal, stick with a dirty grid, stick with air that was polluted—that’s not a solution—and to not make the investments that are necessary.

We rejected that notion. We have made the investments that are necessary. I know—I know it clearly—that there are people in this province who have to pay too much on their electricity bill. We are going to take the PST, the provincial portion of the HST, off their bills, and we know we have to do more. We’re very clear about that.

By-election in Sudbury

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Does the Premier believe it’s unethical for someone to request or accept a bribe to run for office, even if the law does not specifically address it?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Attorney General.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Absolutely, I would say on this side of the House, as all members would say, that any form of bribery is unacceptable.

If the member opposite is asking these questions in light of a case that is ongoing, as we have discussed before in this matter, that issue is before the courts. It would be highly inappropriate to discuss the facts of that case or to litigate that case before the House. There is a very clear rule of sub judice that exists in this House that warns us that we should not be discussing matters that are before a court or a tribunal. I’ll urge, again, all members of the House to respect that very important rule.

You have ruled on that as well, Speaker, as have other Speakers. Let the courts pursue the matter.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, a federal prosecutor said the Minister of Energy asked for special treatment so he would resign as an MP and run for the Ontario Liberals. While Pat Sorbara and Gerry Lougheed have been charged for offering a bribe, there’s a loophole so that the person allegedly requesting a bribe or receiving a bribe isn’t covered by the law.

Does the Premier believe bad ethics are okay if they fall through a legal loophole?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Again, this is a matter that has been subject to extensive investigation. This is a matter where allegations have been made. Charges have been laid based on the investigations done. Charges are laid against two individuals who are not members of this House. Those charges are now being prosecuted in a court of law.

The Minister of Energy has not been charged with anything whatsoever. He continues to do his job in an honourable way in that role.

It is not appropriate, as I said earlier, to be discussing this matter in this Legislature. This is an active matter, a legal matter, dealing with two individuals in the courts, and we should respect the process.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the Premier and her House leader insist that everything is okay because the Minister of Energy hasn’t been charged. At least one reason, perhaps, that he hasn’t been charged is because of a technicality, a loophole. It’s a basic of good ethics not to offer a bribe, not to ask for a bribe and not to accept a bribe. Today, the MPP for Timmins–James Bay is putting forward legislation to close that loophole and to put voters first.

My question is a pretty fundamental one: Will the Premier support putting voters first and closing that loophole?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: First of all, it’s disappointing that what the NDP is trying to do is just score some political cheap shots, when we are dealing with real matters that are before the courts and that deal with individuals who have been alleged to have done some serious things. It is only appropriate that that matter be dealt with within the courts.

If the member opposite has a bill, that bill will go through the process that is a part of this House. It will be properly debated. It will be properly consulted. I look forward to participating in that conversation. I look forward to listening to the points of view of the others. But, Speaker, you don’t just bring in provisions like this and expect that they be passed on a whim in the House when they have not gone through a serious analysis or discussion, when we have not done serious consideration and deliberation and heard from people like the Chief Electoral Officer, which is a very important part of the process.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I have to say, I don’t recall asking for unanimous consent for immediate passage of the bill—just whether the Premier actually thinks it’s a good idea.

Privatization of public assets

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

The Premier apologized to the Liberals on the weekend, although I’m not sure exactly what she thinks her mistake is because, frankly, nothing’s changed. She’s still planning to sell Hydro One, which will drive up costs even more for the people of Ontario. This is the kind of thing that makes people cynical, Speaker. The Premier’s apology gets headlines, just like in 2014, but then she goes right back to helping her friends—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: —and ignoring the people of this province.

Will the Premier show that her apology means something and stop the sell-off of Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What I said on the weekend is absolutely consistent with what we have been doing, which is to work to take costs off people’s bills. We recognize—I recognize—that the upgrades that we have made in the system, the changes that we have made in the system to make it reliable and to make the grid clean, have a cost associated with them and that people are bearing an undue burden. We are making changes, including taking the provincial portion of the HST off, which was suggested by many people—but included in those people was the NDP—and so that is happening at the beginning of January.

No matter how many times the leader of the third party conflates the issue of the broadening of the ownership of Hydro One with the issue around electricity costs, Mr. Speaker, that does not make it so, does not make it true. The reality is that the Hydro One issue is about building infrastructure in this province, and we are going to continue to make those investments that are needed for the economy of this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The people of Ontario can’t pay their hydro bills. Who would have ever thought that the people in this province cannot pay their hydro bills? Having your power cut off because your bill has doubled and you can’t afford it is the reality for far too many people in this province today. A hollow apology to a gathering of Liberals is not going to help those people. It doesn’t help anyone except perhaps Liberals who want to feel better about themselves.

Will this Premier stop making this about her and her Liberal family, and start making it about the people of this province and commit to stopping any further sell-off of Hydro One so that the privatization of our electricity system ends once and for all in this province?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that there are people in this province who are having trouble paying their electricity bills, so taking the debt retirement charge off their bills is about them. Creating the Ontario Electricity Support Program is about them. Putting off new generating projects is about the people of Ontario and the costs that they can bear. Taking 8% off people’s bills starting January 1 is about the people of Ontario, Mr. Speaker. Building infrastructure, building roads, building bridges, building transit—which a previous version of the NDP would support—is also about the people of Ontario.

We are going to continue to make those investments and, at the same time, recognize that we have to continue to take costs off people’s electricity bills. Both things are necessary.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, does this Premier know that over 80% of the people of this province do not support the sell-off of Hydro One? That’s what she should be paying attention to.

Ontarians are hurting, and everybody knows it. People have lost their jobs because hydro costs have meant that their employers have not been able to keep them on. People can’t pay their bills, and they’re having to make the choice between groceries and keeping the lights on.

Continuing the privatization of Hydro One means that insiders get richer, friends of the Liberal Party get richer and more ordinary Ontarians will be hurting. That is the reality of privatization in this province from the day that party started it in the late 1990s. Now, how can anybody, anybody at all, take this Premier’s apology seriously if she is still helping her friends and making life harder for the people of Ontario by continuing on the wrong-headed path of the sell-off of Hydro One?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Economic Development and Growth.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Mr. Speaker, if the leader of the third party wants Ontarians to take her seriously, she’s going to have to start dealing with the facts. The fact is, the broadening of the ownership of Hydro One has nothing to do with hydro rates in this province—absolutely nothing. You’ve got to be honest with the people of this province. You’ve got to be factual with them, Mr. Speaker. If you want credibility, you’ve got to deal with the facts—and those are, pure and simple, the facts.

We’re investing in public transit because we have a Premier who has the courage to make the tough decisions you need to make to build transit, to build roads, to build bridges.

Mr. Speaker, I’ve come to the conclusion that there are two kind of politicians in this place: There are those who talk a big game and those who have the courage to take action to do what they need to do to make things happen in this province and build a strong—

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

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. New question.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is for the Premier. The Liberals continue to allow a member of the Legislature who has been accused of seeking a bribe to sit as a minister of the crown. This just goes to show that integrity is a foreign concept when it comes to the Liberal Party. So I wasn’t surprised yesterday when the Premier defended her Minister of Energy. But maybe the Premier has seen the light. Maybe she’s willing to restore the integrity and trust in the Premier’s office that Ontarians expect—like it used to be. So I’m going to ask again, Mr. Speaker, is the Premier finally ready to accept the resignation of the Minister of Energy?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, Speaker, I was hoping for a moment that the member was standing up to apologize for his behaviour yesterday. Seeing as that didn’t happen, I feel like I must remind the people opposite about a particular case that they probably remember—it didn’t happen that long ago, in 2009—when the current PC member for Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock resigned her seat and accepted a paid position on the same day.

The Sudbury Star reported, “Scott Trades Seat For Head Office Job.” The Sudbury Star went on to say that, “Progressive Conservative Laurie Scott was given the job Friday of getting the opposition party ready for the next election in exchange for giving up her seat in the Ontario Legislature.”

The Peterborough Examiner: “In exchange for giving up her seat ... Scott is taking on the ‘enormous responsibility’ of election readiness chairwoman”—

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

Mr. Steve Clark: Ontarians will expect you to apologize for not asking for the minister to step aside till the court case is complete.

Speaker, since the Premier is so staunchly defending her Minister of Energy, the same way the Premier defended Pat Sorbara here in the Legislature, I hope she is willing to defend her actions in a court of law. I know she doesn’t have to attend or testify in court. And I know the Premier doesn’t always do the right thing. But here’s her chance to avoid another mistake.

Will the Premier waive her privilege and appear as a witness? Will the Premier testify in the trial of Patricia Sorbara?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, there’s a more recent example that I think raises a lot of questions when it comes to the ethical cloud the member opposite speaks about, and it relates to the Scarborough–Rouge River by-election.

I think all of us remember the very embarrassing flip-flop, flip-flop-flip of the Leader of the Opposition on the sex ed curriculum. There was a candidate who was very clear about her opposition to the sex ed curriculum. She wasn’t flip-flopping at all. Her name: Queenie Yu. She was a candidate in the Scarborough–Rouge River by-election. But then what happened, in some mysterious and secret exchange, was the PCs’ top aide sent an email to Queenie Yu, flip-flopping on sex ed the very—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. New question. The member from Timmins–James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’m not sure what that had to do with the question.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Premier.

For years, this government has been putting their interests first—bad ethics are okay as long as there’s a legal loophole to get out of it. It’s time to close those loopholes. This afternoon, I’ll be introducing a bill to put voters first and make it clear that asking for a bribe is just as big an ethical violation as offering a bribe.

Will the Premier support this bill?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Attorney General.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: The only thing I know about this bill so far is what the member opposite said in a media scrum, where I believe he wasn’t able to answer most of the questions that the media put forward to him. I look forward to reviewing the bill when he gets the chance to table the bill, I’m assuming, this afternoon.

The member opposite has been a long-standing member of this House, so I know that he knows the process of this Legislature very, very well. He knows what it takes to have a second reading debate. I’m sure he has a slot at some time where he will debate the bill.

Interjections.

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

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, I’m sure there will be a slot when he will debate the bill. I look forward to being part of that debate. Then, the matter goes to committee and you get to hear from the public. The member knows that a substantive bill like this needs serious consideration.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, Minister, you’re arguing that this is somehow complicated. It’s pretty simple—it’s illegal either to accept a bribe or to solicit a bribe. That’s all we’re trying to do here. There’s nothing complicated. It seems to me and, I think, it seems to most Ontarians that if it’s illegal to offer a bribe to somebody not to stand for office or to stand for office, the same should be true as trying to solicit.

So I ask you the question again: Will your government support this legislation when we call for the bill to be passed? Will you support it? Yes or no?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I’m not going to determine whether or not I’m going to vote on a bill without even looking at the bill. What kind of question is this?

It’s a simple bill. It’s a simple concept. Show me the bill. Let’s have a debate on the bill. I look forward to having those considerations.

You’re talking about an ongoing process. What the NDP is doing is nothing less than playing politics. There are two individuals, who are presumed innocent, who are part of the process. They have been only engaged in sullying the name of an honourable member of this House. Their whole motivation for this bill, from what I understand so far by listening to the member opposite, is to try to sully a member’s name even further.

Let’s have a debate. I look forward to your bill. I’m sure he’s got that bill drafted. Sometime soon there will be a debate. There will be deliberation. We’ll get to hear from other people like the Chief Electoral Officer on that.

Education funding

Ms. Daiene Vernile: My question is for the Minister of Education. We know our government is increasing investments in education all across Ontario, and thanks to those increased investments, graduation rates are up, test scores are up and more students are attending college and university.

We all know that the Conservatives ran on a plan to make deep cuts to our education system, and many of us remember the turmoil with teachers and the education system when they were in power. We reject that approach. We’re taking a different path by making unprecedented investments in the future of students.

Those investments are paying off, no matter where a student goes to school. Could the minister please tell this House about how the changes to the funding formula are benefiting rural Ontario schools?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I want to thank our brilliant member from Kitchener Centre for that question.

Unlike the members of the PC Party, we believe that no matter where a student goes to school, they should have all the resources they need to succeed. That’s why we’ve made changes to the funding formula to benefit rural Ontario: increased funding to support the higher cost of purchasing goods and services for small and rural school boards; increased funding for transportation, which recognizes the greater distances travelled in rural areas; we’ve invested in top-up supports to rural schools to fund the heating, lighting and maintenance costs; and provided funding for additional principals.

Even though the local PC member wanted to fire education workers in their communities, we increased—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: Speaker, even though the local PC member wanted to fire education workers in their communities, we increased our investments to these important rural schools because our party believes that, no matter where you go to school, students should have the resources they need to succeed.

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

Ms. Daiene Vernile: I’d like to thank the minister for her answer.

Our government has shown it is committed to ensuring that students in rural Ontario have an equal opportunity for an excellent education. In the 2015-16 school year alone, this government is providing $3.7 billion in funding towards rural school boards.

Again, the Conservatives have an abysmal track record when it comes to education. We’ve seen that the only policy they want to talk about is sex ed, except they can’t even seem to decide where they stand on that. When they were in power, they thought a good education policy was to run government-funded ads attacking our hard-working teachers.

Given this history, can the minister please inform this House of our long track record of increasing investments in rural school boards, even when the PC members were against it?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I want to thank again the member from Kitchener Centre. We’ve worked hard to make Ontario’s education system one of the best in the world. Our graduation rates are at 85.5%.

Your question, however, was specifically about rural school boards, so let’s look at Leeds–Grenville. For example, for Leeds–Grenville Catholic school boards, funding has increased by approximately 54.5% and per pupil funding has increased by 73% since 2003. Since 2003, we’ve also supported 16 new schools that are either open, under construction or planned, including North Grenville District High School, Thousand Islands Elementary School, St. Mark and Meadowview Public School.

Even though the member from that area ran on firing teachers in his own community—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: —we will continue to build Ontario’s education—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. As I made note of the other day, I am concerned. When you start talking about somebody else’s riding, I will start to interject. I don’t like that practice from either side, when anyone declares doing something or saying something about another member’s activity in their own riding.

Stay focused on policy. Stay focused on the concerns of what you’re supposed to be covering.

New question.

Health care funding

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. The government continues to ration health care. Yesterday, the Fraser Institute concluded that patients across the country are waiting longer than ever for care, including Ontario. Wait times are up by 10% this year. Surgeries have been cancelled across the province because the government no longer funds health care 12 months of the year.

When will the government properly fund health care and work with our front-line health care professionals to deliver top-quality care?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’m happy to answer this question with regard to the information that has come out from the PCs’ favourite institute, I think, the Fraser Institute, that specifically looks at wait times across the province. I’m pleased to say that overall, when you measure wait times, the Fraser Institute has indicated that we have the shortest wait times in all of Canada in this province. It’s really quite exciting. It shows the result of our investments in wait times specifically, nearly $100 million focused just on wait times this year alone.

The time to get from a GP, a family doctor, for example, to a specialist—we are the shortest in the entire country: 25% below the national average. When it comes to that also important time from specialist to the procedure or the surgery or the treatment that you require, we’re the second-shortest wait times in the entire country, at 20% below the national average.

So we’re making important improvements. I’m happy to continue to address this in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: It’s nice that the government picks and chooses what report to look at. But if you look at the Commonwealth report, the Commonwealth report has shown that Canada—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Please finish.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: The Commonwealth Fund report shows that Canada is 12th—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Agriculture, come to order.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: —compared to other countries in the world.

The minister is happy with being the best of the worst. This side of the House wants us to be the best in the world—and they are far from doing so.

Wait times aren’t the only problem in the health care system. The government continues to grow the bureaucracy to the detriment of front-line health care professionals. Yesterday, the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario came out against Bill 41. Last week, the OMA came out against Bill 41. He’s burning out our health care professionals, and after all this feedback, the Minister of Health calls the OMA a bunch of liars.

Interjections.

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

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Mr. Speaker, will the minister—

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

First of all, when I stand, you sit. Second of all, you will withdraw.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Health.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: We were talking about the report he referenced, the Fraser Institute report. In all of Canada, we have the shortest wait time to get a CT scan. We have the shortest wait time in all of Canada to get an ultrasound. We have the shortest wait time in all of Canada to get an MRI. Wait times for general surgery have gone down 13%—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, second time.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: —in the last year alone. Wait times for medical oncology, from 2015 to 2016, have gone down by 39%; that’s in the last year. Elective cardiovascular surgery waits have gone down by 36%. That’s all from the same report that that member happily referenced.

There is more work to be done, but I think we should all be proud of a health care system that’s delivering to Ontarians and is the shortest in terms of wait times overall in the entire country. In the indicators that I’ve demonstrated as well, those important indicators in terms of getting to a specialist and getting your treatment, we’re the best in the country.

Mercury poisoning

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, in response to our question asking the Liberal government to commit once and for all to clean the Wabigoon River of the mercury that has poisoned the people of Grassy Narrows, the Minister of the Environment said, “We will ... get the cleanup to the satisfaction of the chief and the health of the people of Grassy Narrows.”

This morning, Chief Fobister of Grassy Narrows made this statement: “I invite the Premier to put this historic commitment in writing and sign it alongside me in proper ceremony so that we can know it is real.” Will the Premier immediately contact the chief to sign the commitment for cleanup of Grassy Narrows once and for all?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I have had conversations with the chief. I have been to Grassy Narrows. We are committed to doing everything in our power, as the Minister of the Environment said. We are committed to doing everything in our power to clean up Grassy Narrows, to take that mercury out of the ecosystem, to make sure that we do everything and that we are as diligent as we can be and as we have been in other situations, like the one that the member for Nickel Belt raised yesterday. Mr. Speaker, that’s why there’s $300,000 to support water, sediment and fish sampling in the area.

But as I have said many, many times, we are not going to act in contradiction of science that would say that if we take certain actions we will make the situation worse. We’re not going to do that. One of the Japanese experts who recently made a report said, “It is possible that things get worse because of the turning of the soil and the water.” Mr. Speaker, we will do everything in our power, but we will not make the situation worse.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Again to the Premier: The minister said the Liberal government will clean up to the satisfaction of the chief and the health of the people. It couldn’t be clearer. The people of Grassy Narrows, desperate for help, heard the words of the minister. My colleagues and I heard the words of the minister. The media heard the words of the minister. Again, now that the minister has finally committed, when will the Premier sign an agreement with the chief of Grassy Narrows and when will she begin the cleanup of Grassy Narrows once and for all?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I think the member opposite would know the significance of what I’m about to say. My colleague the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation accepted a pipe during a pipe ceremony when he and I spent the day with Chief Fobister. If you understand the significance of what it means to accept a pipe from a chief—and both of us participated in the pipe ceremony—that is one of the most profound commitments I have ever seen taken on by a minister.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: How about a profound commitment on cleaning up Grassy Narrows?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Maybe you could show some respect, because this is important, and not interrupt. I listened carefully because I think this is an important issue.

When that pipe was accepted, that was a profound commitment by this government and by two ministers to see this through. As a matter of fact, the chief and the First Nation has been quite specific in tabling Dr. Rudd’s report, which is two pages of action. More specifically, we are already months into fulfilling those commitments and funding them, Mr. Speaker.

Health care funding

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. I know that health care is a top priority for our government. Providing all Ontarians with timely access to the care they need, whether at home, in their community or in one of the outstanding hospitals, is of the utmost importance to our government but also to me as the member from Barrie. I know our government increased funding for health care by $1 billion to $51.8 billion this year, and because of these continued investments in our health care system, we have seen major progress in Ontario.

Last week, in the fall economic statement, our government reaffirmed our commitment to investing in Ontario’s health care system with a brand new announcement of an additional $140 million for hospitals across Ontario.

Can the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care please tell us more about the progress Ontario has made and about the investments we continue to make to provide patients with high-quality care?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I appreciate the question from the member from Barrie.

Of course, earlier this year, in the spring budget, we announced a $345-million investment in our hospitals. In addition to that—taking the total to over $1 billion—investments in palliative care, in preventive medicine, in mental health, in a whole set of initiatives, including reducing our wait times.

I think it bears repeating: The Fraser Institute report that came out yesterday has agreed with us that we’re making significant progress in reducing wait times, where we’re the best in the country. We’re 25% below the national average and we’re first in the country—the shortest wait times for CTs, MRIs and ultrasound.

There’s more work to be done, Mr. Speaker, but it demonstrates that that focused investment in our health care system, the more than 2% increase allocated this year alone, is having an impact which is being seen and felt by patients across this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Thank you, Minister, for that response. I know that all the hospitals across Ontario will be excited to hear that our government is continuing to make important investments that will help patients and their families receive better care and quicker access to services at every hospital across Ontario.

These investments will translate to better care for Ontarians, lower wait times and, as a result, improved health outcomes.

We all know the Conservative Party has a terrible track record when it comes to health care. When they were in power, they thought good health policy was seeing how many hospitals they could close. Our government is taking a different approach, and we’re seeing the benefits of this approach throughout the province.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: Can you inform this House about the investments our government is making throughout Ontario, but especially in rural communities, to improve health care?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: We recognize that our rural and small-town communities have unique challenges when it comes to the delivery of health services. I’m proud that I’ve worked very hard, quite frankly, with all parties and with all members of this Legislature to ensure that the provision of those programs and services that Ontarians depend on are maintained.

Just to take one example, in terms of our commitment, we are working very closely with Brockville General Hospital. It’s in the riding of Leeds–Grenville. As part of that $140-million announcement that was in the fall economic statement that goes to our hospitals, an additional $3.2 million is going to Brockville General Hospital alone. When you look at that increase in addition to the funding that they received earlier this year through the budget and through the LHIN, that’s a 15% increase in the hospital funding for that one hospital alone in Brockville, which I know is very important to the member.

Hydro rates

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: My question is for the Premier.

Mike Carter operates Food Town, an independent grocery store in Milverton. Mike wanted to reduce his hydro bill. He also wanted to do his part to conserve energy, so he participated in Hydro One’s Small Business Lighting program to help install energy-efficient lighting. But he went further: He also replaced his freezers and refrigerators, a very major investment.

My question is pretty simple. Having done all the right things, having invested tens of thousands of dollars to become more efficient, does the Premier agree that Mike should expect a lower hydro bill?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Economic Development and Growth.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Mr. Speaker, I’m absolutely sure that the member would have shared with Mike, with regard to his business, that as of January 1 he’ll be getting an 8% cut in his hydro rate.

Interjections.

Hon. Brad Duguid: They mock that, Mr. Speaker, as though $600 to $800 a year isn’t much to a small business. If it’s around $4,000 in costs, which sounds about right for the kind of business he’s running, that’s $600 to $800 that will be going back in Mike’s pocket because of the very important decisions that this government has made, decisions that you obviously don’t support. So maybe the member should explain to Mike why he doesn’t think Mike’s entitled to that $600 to $800 that our discount is going to provide him.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’m glad the minister brought up the 8% reduction.

Speaker, if the Premier had any common sense, the answer would have simply been, “Yes, his bill should go down.” But in Liberal Ontario, it’s never so simple.

Milverton Food Town lowered its consumption, and because Mike now averages less than 50 kilowatts per month, how did Hydro One respond? They jacked up his delivery charge. They switched him from something called “general service demand” to “general service energy.” The result? His delivery charge more than doubled, all because he’s not using enough energy. His overall bill is up 30% and it’s not even winter.

Speaker, I would like the Premier to answer Mike’s question: “How do you even begin to justify something so stupid?”

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The Minister of Energy has taken a number of measures to reduce the cost of power in many different ways within the system—trying to improve the system, looking at more efficient ways of delivering the services, and he’s continuing to do that.

But what he’s bringing forward January 1 is something that’s really important to small businesses, to families and to organizations across this province: an 8% reduction in their energy bills, as of January. Mr. Speaker, that’s important. That’s going to help small businesses like Mike’s small business.

On top of that, for those small businesses we’ve also gotten rid of the capital tax, for Mike’s business. We’ve also harmonized the sales taxes. That’s saving businesses like Mike’s thousands of dollars in administration costs.

We’ve also got a number of issues—we’ve also reduced corporate capital taxes. Our capital taxes for businesses like Mike’s are now 13% lower than the American average. That’s a substantial amount of assistance for our small businesses, but, as the Premier said on the weekend, we’ve still got more work to do.

Hydro rates

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. In my city of Hamilton, Joe-Anne Priel, manager of emergency and community services, has sounded the alarm bells that the homelessness prevention program has run out of money, in part because of soaring electricity rates, which have created a critical need for programs that help vulnerable people with assistance for hydro bills. Vulnerable people in Hamilton and across the province are paying the price for this Premier’s mistake of selling off Hydro One.

A vague apology won’t save the homelessness prevention program or help pay the bills; stopping the sell-off of Hydro One and getting costs under control will.

What concrete steps will the Premier take to ensure that vulnerable people in my community and in communities across this province don’t fall through the cracks because of soaring hydro bills?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Housing and responsible for poverty reduction.

Hon. Chris Ballard: Thank you for that very important question. First and foremost, the manager who has raised this alarm was a very valued member of our expert panel on ending homelessness. We really valued her input and the work that she did and continues to do within the city of Hamilton. There are a lot of fantastic programs that the city is running.

Our government recognizes the moral imperative to end homelessness in Ontario. As part of our efforts to end homelessness, we launched the Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative on January 1, 2013. CHPI, as it’s called, is a 100% provincially funded investment. It aims to improve access to adequate, suitable and affordable housing and homelessness services.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Advocacy organizations around the province like Campaign 2000 are all reporting an increase in child poverty rates. In Hamilton, the connection between increasing poverty and the sell-off of Hydro One and increasing hydro rates is absolutely clear.

I’m really glad that this Premier’s minister values Ms. Priel’s opinion. I will quote her again: “We’ve basically just run out of money. We had a huge spike in October that we didn’t” expect in terms of people needing help with their hydro bills. A program aimed at preventing homelessness in the city of Hamilton has actually run out of money to help vulnerable people because of skyrocketing hydro bills.

When will this Premier do the right thing for the people of Ontario and stop any further sell-off of Hydro One and ensure that hydro bills come down for the long term and the short term?

Hon. Chris Ballard: I mentioned CHPI funding and the CHPI program in the first go-around. I can say that starting in 2017, we’ve increased funding by $15 million each year for the next three years to that fund, and that’s an awful lot of money. That will bring the total investment in that program to over $2 billion by 2019-20—significant investments that recognize that our government understands the moral imperative to end homelessness in Ontario.

Under CHPI, the city of Hamilton received in 2015-16 over $19 million. That’s going up by about $200,000 more each year incoming.

It’s also important to note that municipalities are empowered to choose how those funds are used, based on their local needs.

Human trafficking

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: My question is to the minister responsible for women’s issues. Human trafficking is a devastating crime and a human rights violation that results in serious and long-term trauma. Some of the most vulnerable, poor people in our society are at most risk of being trafficked. It overwhelmingly targets young women, girls and boys and, in particular, those in indigenous communities. It is our duty to act decisively and effectively to protect them from exploitation.

I know our government takes this issue very seriously and recognizes the devastating impact human trafficking has on victims and their families. Could the minister share with the House what our government is doing to combat human trafficking in Ontario? I know how much it means to the province.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank the member from Kingston and the Islands for this very important question.

Our government is taking strong action to end human trafficking. We’ve listened to experts, service providers and, most importantly, survivors, to develop our groundbreaking and comprehensive strategy on human trafficking. It’s a $72-million, four-year plan that imposes greater consequences for traffickers, creates stronger protections for those at greatest risk of being trafficked and provides better supports for survivors of human t