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

February 21, 2017

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2017-Feb-21 (PDF)

L043 - Tue 21 Feb 2017 / Mar 21 fév 2017

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 21 February 2017 Mardi 21 février 2017

Committee membership

Private members’ public business

Consideration of Bill 27

Orders of the Day

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

Quebec mosque shooting

Introduction of Visitors

Appointment of House officers

Member for York–Simcoe

Visitors

Resignation of member for Sault Ste. Marie

Tabling of sessional papers

Oral Questions

Hydro rates

Energy policies

Energy policies

Energy policies

Health care funding

Energy policies

Research and innovation

Manufacturing jobs

Public transit

TVOntario

School closures

Executive compensation

International trade

Hydro rates

Employment equity

Visitors

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Visit to Israel

Daughters of the Vote

Black History Month

Chinese New Year

Hydro rates

Bangladeshi community

School closures

Royal Canadian Legion Scarborough Centennial Branch 614

Grant Howes

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Introduction of Bills

Stopping Electricity Disconnections in the Winter Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 visant à arrêter les débranchements en hiver de l’approvisionnement en électricité

School Boards Collective Bargaining Amendment Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 modifiant la

Loi sur la négociation collective dans les conseils scolaires

Gasoline Tax Fairness for All Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur l’équité pour tous à l’égard de la taxe sur l’essence

1049491 Ontario Inc. Act, 2017

2053266 Ontario Inc. Act, 2017

Prosper Legal Management Inc. Act, 2017

Highway Traffic Amendment Act (School Bus Camera Systems), 2017 / Loi de 2017 modifiant le Code de la route (systèmes photographiques reliés aux autobus scolaires)

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

International Decade for People of African Descent

International Mother Language Day

International Mother Language Day

International Decade for People of African Descent

International Decade for People of African Descent

Remarks in other languages

Petitions

Hydro rates

Long-term care

Inclusiveness

Hydro rates

Employment standards

Nanjing Massacre

Hydro rates

Energy conservation

Consumer protection

Hydro rates

Long-term care

Ice machines

Orders of the Day

Medical Assistance in Dying Statute Law Amendment Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne l’aide médicale à mourir

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Committee membership

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: A point of order, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The government House leader on a point of order.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Good morning, Speaker. I believe we have unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding changes to the memberships of standing committees.

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

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, I move that the following changes be made to the membership of the following committees:

That on the Standing Committee on Estimates, Mr. Milczyn replaces Mr. Dong, and Mr. Mantha replaces Miss Taylor;

That on the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, Ms. Malhi replaces Mr. Rinaldi;

That on the Standing Committee on General Government, Mr. Anderson replaces Mr. Rinaldi, Madame Des Rosiers replaces Ms. Malhi, and Mrs. Munro replaces Mr. McDonell;

That on the Standing Committee on Justice Policy, Madame Des Rosiers replaces Mr. Potts, Mr. McDonell replaces Ms. Scott, and Mr. Walker replaces Mr. Hillier;

That on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, Mr. Dhillon replaces Ms. Malhi, Mr. Dong replaces Mr. Milczyn, and Mr. Hillier replaces Mrs. Munro;

That on the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly, Ms. Malhi replaces Mr. Anderson, Mr. Dickson replaces Mr. Dhillon, and Ms. Scott replaces Mr. Clark;

That on the Standing Committee on Social Policy, Mr. Rinaldi replaces Mr. Anderson;

That on the Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills, Mr. Rinaldi replaces Mr. Dickson, and Mr. MacLaren replaces Mr. Walker; and

That on the Standing Committee on Government Agencies, Mr. Anderson replaces Mr. Kwinter, and Mr. Oosterhoff replaces Mr. Cho.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Dispense.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ve got to start it. The government House leader moves that the following changes be—

Interjection: Dispense.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Dispense? Dispense.

Do we agree? Carried.

Motion agreed to.

Private members’ public business

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Government House leader on a point of order.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding private members’ public business.

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

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, I move that, notwithstanding standing order 98(b), the following changes be made to the ballot list: Ms. Hoggarth and Madame Des Rosiers exchange places in order of precedence such that Ms. Hoggarth assumes ballot item number 75 and Madame Des Rosiers assumes ballot item number 31; and

That notwithstanding standing order 98(g), notice for ballot item 34 be waived.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The government House leader moves that, notwithstanding standing order—

Interjection: Dispense.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Dispense? Dispense.

Agreed? Carried.

Motion agreed to.

Consideration of Bill 27

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Point of order, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Again?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice to fast-track Bill 27 in committee.

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

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I move that, notwithstanding any standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 27,

An Act to reduce the regulatory burden on business, to enact various new Acts and to make other amendments and repeals, that the Standing Committee on General Government be authorized to meet on Wednesday, February 22, from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., and on Thursday, February 23, from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. for the purpose of public hearings on the bill; and

That the Clerk of the committee, in consultation with the committee Chair, be authorized to arrange the following with regard to Bill 27:

—Notice of public hearings on the Ontario parliamentary channel, the Legislative Assembly’s website and Canada NewsWire; and

—That witnesses be scheduled to appear before the committee on a first-come, first-served basis; and

—That the deadline for written submissions be 6 p.m. on Thursday, February 23; and

—That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the committee shall be 9 a.m. on Friday, February 24; and

That the committee be authorized to meet on Monday, February 27, from 2 p.m. to 8 p.m., for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

On February 27, at 5 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 the bill 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 the bill to the House no later than Tuesday, February 28. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill 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 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 the bill is called, one hour of debate 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 the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The government House leader moves that notwithstanding any standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 27,

An Act to reduce the regulatory burden on business, to enact various new Acts—

Interjection: Dispense.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Dispense? Dispense.

Carried? Carried.

Motion agreed to.

Orders of the Day

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

Mr. Del Duca moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 65,

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

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

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I’m delighted to have the opportunity to discuss this particular piece of legislation. I’m also delighted to know that I’ll be sharing my time with the member from Kitchener Centre, who we all on this side of the House have the privilege of working closely with. In particular, she serves as the parliamentary assistant at the Ministry of Transportation.

I was giving some thought this morning to the remarks that I’ll be providing on this legislation, and I think it’s entirely fitting that we are debating this today, on a day that follows Family Day. There is a lot in this legislation that is so important to families right across the province.

Before I delve into the legislation itself, I do want to mention that we are joined in the gallery today by some individuals who are here on behalf of organizations that work very closely with the Ministry of Transportation and have done so for quite some time. We are joined by Elliott Silverstein, the manager of government relations at CAA, and Scott Watson, manager of government relations at Parachute Canada. I want to thank them both for being here.

I understand we’re also going to be joined by Brian Patterson, who is the president and CEO at the Ontario Safety League. I believe Brian is on his way here.

Interjection.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: As is being pointed out perhaps ironically, he’s stuck in traffic, but I’m sure Brian will be here just as soon as he can possibly get here.

As I was mentioning just a second ago, we are here today to talk about Bill 65. There’s a lot that’s captured by this bill. There are three main elements to the legislation itself. As many in the House will recall, a number of weeks ago I joined with the Premier here in Toronto, in a community known as Leaside, to make the formal announcement relating to our government’s decision to move forward with the elements in this legislation.

Just to point them out off the top of debate this morning—first of all, this legislation, which is known as the Safer School Zones Act, would, if passed, provide municipalities with the option to use three particular road safety tools. I’ll highlight those quickly, Speaker.

The first one is something we call automated speed enforcement. It is also known, of course, as photo radar. This would provide municipalities across the province with the power and the authority, should they choose, to proceed with implementing automated speed enforcement, using technology to deal with some of the challenges around drivers who still, notwithstanding all of the great efforts made by our government and others, including our road safety partners—to encourage people to drive more responsibly through two critical areas of communities: school zones and community safety zones.

Speaker, I want to stress that through this legislation, automated speed enforcement or photo radar will not be implemented on provincial highways. This is unique in that it will provide power to the municipalities, should they choose to deploy this technology, to help deal with challenging road safety issues in school zones and community safety zones.

The second element is reducing default speed limits, regarding what municipalities will have the power to deal with. Again, this is all about empowering municipalities, enabling them, giving them the tools to make decisions for themselves and their residents when it comes to the default speed limits.

Many in this House will know that the default speed limit in the province of Ontario in urban settings is 50 kilometres an hour. But there is very clear recognition from our Premier and our government that our municipal partners, our municipal leaders, will often—in fact, in almost all cases—know better than we will here at Queen’s Park what the unique requirements are in their neighbourhoods and in their communities. Again, this is about empowering them to make decisions as it relates to that particular point.

The third element deals with the red light camera program, a program that has existed for some time in the province of Ontario. It provides municipalities with the opportunity to gain access or entry to the program. It smooths out the transition, or it smooths out the efficiency, making it easier for them to gain entry into the program. The red light camera program, as I mentioned, has existed in the province for some time. This simply strengthens it and makes it easier for municipalities to participate.

Speaker, there are a couple of things I should mention now that I have laid out what the key points are in the legislation. First of all, we have heard from a number of municipalities across the province over the last couple of years. Literally since the first few weeks that I was on the job as Minister of Transportation starting back in June 2014, not only have we heard from municipalities, but a number of members on the government side have been talking about some of these issues for a number of years.

I don’t want to limit it to just this individual, though he is a good friend and a seatmate, but—I’m talking about the Attorney General, the member from Ottawa Centre, who has been talking not only to me, but also been talking with his community, with neighbourhoods, with parents and with other community groups in Ottawa Centre about the importance of making sure that we provide municipalities with those powers, those tools, to make decisions for themselves.

I know that in the case of Ottawa Centre and in communities right across the province of Ontario, we have heard from municipal leaders who say, “We understand that there needs to be an overarching requirement to set the rules of the game, to set the table, as it were.” But very often, when you’re sitting in Queen’s Park, despite your best intentions, despite wanting to make sure you build on the phenomenal track record that the Ministry of Transportation has and has had historically as it relates to road safety, we often confront challenges, particularly in school zones and community safety zones, particularly as it relates to default speed limits that need to be sculpted and need to be nimble, because of the challenges we’re facing.

Whether we’re talking about Ottawa Centre, or whether we’re talking about communities like Leaside that have unfortunately witnessed their own tragedies historically as it relates to these issues, or about communities right across the province of Ontario, the notion is that we can work closely with our municipal partners and provide them with the tools so that they can go through a process to determine at a grassroots level, at a neighbourhood-by-neighbourhood level, what makes the most sense for them.

Again, I want to acknowledge the contribution and the relentless pursuit, the relentless advocacy, of the Attorney General on behalf of his community, and all others on this side of the House who recognized very early on that this was the right way for our government to move, or the right way for our government to go.

I talked off the top about the fact that there are a number of communities for which this is extremely important. I should say that there are a number of communities very specifically—and I think it’s important for us to recognize which communities.

Whether we’re talking about the automated speed enforcement piece or we’re talking about the requests regarding reducing, amending or sculpting the default speed limit, literally the list of communities that asked us for this power, this support, this authority, would include the cities of Ottawa, Toronto, Hamilton; Oxford county; Chatham-Kent; Oshawa; York region, which, of course, has a number of communities that are part of York region, including Markham, Richmond Hill, Georgina, East Gwillimbury, my own home city of Vaughan, Nottawasaga; and the region of Waterloo.

Those are the communities that made the request regarding automated speed enforcement. On the default speed limits, in addition to that list I just gave, Ottawa, Toronto, Kingston and Smith-Ennismore-Lakefield are some of the communities that talked to us about the importance of moving forward on default speed limits.

Many times in this Legislature over the last two years, in response to questions and in debate, I have talked at length about the very proud track record that we have here in the province of Ontario as it relates to road safety. One of the lines that I know members on all sides of the House have heard me say repeatedly is that for the last 13 years, as it relates to road or highway safety, Ontario ranks first or second across all North American jurisdictions. You don’t have a track record like that by accident.

In fact, in one of those years, the only jurisdiction that was better off in some respects than the province of Ontario was the District of Columbia, which goes to show that when you compare Ontario, with its road network and with its population, we are only in that particular area beaten out by a much smaller jurisdiction, the District of Columbia.

By and large, as I said, you don’t amass a record like that by accident. Regardless of partisan strife, regardless of which particular provincial government we’re talking about, you do it when your Ministry of Transportation, working very closely with all of our road safety partners, including those who are represented in the gallery today—when you are focused exclusively on those outcomes, and, when you recognize that there are significant challenges within the system, that you work together, that you partner and collaborate together, so that you can produce positive outcomes.

Of course, one of the first—in fact, the first piece of legislation that I introduced in this House was Bill 31, the Making Ontario’s Roads Safer Act, which, when you look at the component parts of that legislation, pulls together much of what had previously been contained in two other pieces of legislation brought forward by predecessors of mine in this ministry. We consolidated those elements into one bill. We added some other pieces, particularly around dealing with sanctions for drug-impaired driving for the first time ever. We consolidated all of those elements and brought forward Bill 31.

We had significant debate here in this Legislature, and certainly at committee and elsewhere, on Bill 31. I would say that perhaps my proudest moment over the last two and a half years as Minister of Transportation was the day that that legislation passed in this House and did so unanimously. Members from all three caucuses stood in their places to support Bill 31. I think that was a very clear recognition on the part of members on all sides that when it comes to not only maintaining but enhancing and improving upon our road safety record, there’s a requirement to consistently do more.

From my perspective, it’s an evolutionary process. It’s an evolutionary process that means, among other things, that we have to continue to listen to our municipal partners, who, as I said at the outset of debate this morning, understand in many respects more clearly than we might here in this Legislature what is needed in some of the neighbourhoods that we’re talking about.

That would be true whether we’re here in the city of Toronto or, for example, we’re in Waterloo region, which, we have heard, is one of the communities that made the request to the province for more authority to make some of the decisions that are germane to its neighbourhoods and its communities. It’s one of the reasons that we’ve been responsive.

At the same time, Speaker, we’ve also decided to move forward because we’ve heard loudly and clearly from law enforcement and from our road safety partners about the importance of that evolutionary process, of never resting on our laurels. It’s one thing for a Minister of Transportation to talk about the last 13 years, but we have to consistently look for new and creative and innovative ways to make sure we are ahead of the next challenge. We know—I think everyone here in this House knows, and I’ve certainly heard it in the course of debate over the last number of months—what a significant challenge we face, for example, as it relates to the ongoing struggle against alcohol-impaired driving.

I mentioned that Bill 31 contains provisions, for the first time ever, introducing sanctions for drug-impaired driving, which is not necessarily a new phenomenon but a growing phenomenon, unfortunately, that we are experiencing here in the province of Ontario.

Speaker, of course, everyone here will know very clearly about the significant challenge that we face as it relates to distracted driving.

That’s one of the reasons that we not only toughened the penalties for distracted driving in Bill 31, as I mentioned, but a number of months ago, the Ministry of Transportation also deployed perhaps the hardest-hitting public relations campaign in the province’s history, a campaign known as Put Down the Phone, to try to drive home, in a compelling way, the message very clearly to our motorists, and I would say, particularly our youngest motorists: When you get behind the wheel of a car or the wheel of any vehicle on our roads and highways in the province or elsewhere, you need to be very focused on the task at hand, which is to keep your hands on the wheel and to keep your eyes on the road, and to not be distracted by hand-helds or other distractions or devices.

The consequences, unfortunately, Speaker, are potentially far too great.

I mention these elements, and there are others that I’ll probably touch upon, to help illustrate how the fight to constantly improve road safety is literally an evolutionary process, because we know that the challenge continues to persist. I think here, with this particular legislation, we see very clearly that we are taking the next important step forward in that evolutionary process.

I did mention this at the outset: To me, it is fitting that we are debating this particular legislation the day after Family Day. That day that the Premier and I stood along with Mayor Tory, members of law enforcement and representatives from our road safety partners—we actually did the announcement at an elementary school in Leaside. I have to say that Leaside is a community, as I mentioned, that was particularly touched by an extraordinary tragedy as it relates to speeding on quiet residential streets near schools, adjacent to schools.

The level of awareness on the part of the parents and the school kids of the importance of making sure that we work with our municipal partners to put in place these kinds of initiatives to help make their own travel from home to school and back again—safer for them, safer for their friends at school and safer for the other parents in the neighbourhood—is something that was truly compelling to them. You could actually see that sort of visceral feedback coming from the community to the Premier, to myself, to the mayor, and to members of law enforcement.

There was recognition that these steps, perhaps overdue, were at least steps going in the right direction.

I should also point out that another colleague of ours on the government side, the member from Eglinton–Lawrence, is someone who has not only served in this Legislature with distinction for a number of years, but on road safety issues, he is someone who has literally been at the leading edge himself, who has consistently spoken to me about the importance of making sure that we hold our own feet to the fire, that we push that envelope a little bit and look at creative ways.

I know in the past, and currently, this particular member from Eglinton–Lawrence has brought forward private members’ legislation proposed specifically because he shares that passion that I do, as minister, that we do at the Ministry of Transportation. He shares that passion to make sure that we are striking that right balance and getting it right.

I know I’ve mentioned the member from Ottawa Centre, the Attorney General, and the member from Eglinton–Lawrence, but there are a number on this side of the House. Frankly, even members of the opposition, both the Conservative and NDP opposition, have spoken to me about the importance of making sure that we get these critical elements right. I know that we’re going to have debate over the course of the day today, and over the course of the coming weeks, on this particular legislation, Speaker. I can’t imagine there being stiff opposition. I don’t want to presuppose the outcome of debate.

Obviously, this is legislation that we aspire to and hope to pass, and I suspect that it will, because it’s so important for it to land, and it’s so important for us to provide these powers to enable our municipal partners to make these decisions that are mostly relevant to the challenges they are facing in their own communities. So I do look forward to hearing from members of both the Conservative and NDP opposition—and frankly, members from the government caucus—about their feelings with respect to this legislation.

I would hope, as I mentioned, that with Bill 31, when we had some vigorous debate, as should be the case in this chamber, that at the end of the day, members on all sides of the House saw the importance of that evolutionary process as it relates to road safety, saw that we had positive outcomes top of mind in Bill 31, and were therefore able to put partisanship aside and support that legislation.

I would hope, Speaker, number one, when you consider the requests that came from municipalities, and number two, when you would consider that nothing in this legislation compels any of Ontario’s 444 municipalities to do any of what is included in this bill that simply empowers them to make decisions locally that matter most to their neighbourhoods—because, again, in some respects I would argue that being closest to their neighbourhoods, they would understand the needs of individual neighbourhoods better than we would here at Queen’s Park.

Again, I want to stress, for the purposes of debate here, that nothing in this legislation compels a municipality to move in a particular direction, and that we take into account that there is a lot of new technology out there.

In this case, we’re talking about photo radar, or automated speed enforcement, that helps make it easier for us to make sure that in terms of providing a penalty for those who would continue to speed through a school zone or a community safety zone despite signage—despite it being, I would argue, second nature to know that when you’re in a school zone, you should not be speeding—in addition to the penalties that would be levied, there is also a deterrent factor, because people would know over the course of time that they were entering a school zone or a community safety zone where there would be automated speed enforcement like what currently exists for our red light camera program.

There would be that impediment, and there would be that notion, that public awareness.

When you combine that with what I would argue should be an innate or inherent understanding, when you’re entering a school zone, of all things—whether we’re talking about school-age children, elementary school-age children, or their parents or grandparents who are walking them to school—that at all times somebody would want to drive through one of those zones at or below the speed limit is second nature, I think, to all of us in this House. But it’s evident from what we hear from law enforcement, from tragic examples that we’ve seen in a number of communities, that we need to do more.

When you take that into account, combined with what I’ll call the effective or the efficiency measures we’re dealing with on the red light camera program, and the notion that we’re empowering municipalities to make decisions for themselves as it relates to their default speed limit, I would be hard pressed to understand exactly what an opposition—well, not a critique, Speaker, because I understand that this is exactly the place for opposition parties and opposition members to lend their voices to debate and to come forward with questions or concerns they might have.

So it’s not criticism, particularly of a constructive nature, that I would be surprised by, but any strident opposition to this particular bill would be a surprise to me, and I think it would be a surprise to our partners in law enforcement. I think it would be a surprise to our road safety partners, like CAA and Parachute and the Ontario Safety League and many others.

I think it would be a shock to our municipal partners, who would look at this particular legislation and understand that at its core, there are two objectives in this legislation. One is moving the yardsticks forward and demonstrating significant progress in terms of achieving the very important road safety outcomes that we collectively want to achieve and, at the same time, based on that very collaborative and constructive partnership that we have with our municipalities across the province, providing them with the power and the authority to move forward with any or all of these initiatives, should they choose to do so.

Whether we’re talking about the importance of a constructive, collaborative relationship and providing more support and more enabling power to our municipalities, or we’re talking about those really critical road safety objectives and outcomes that I know everyone here shares—and I know it, Speaker, because there was unanimous support for Bill 31, as I mentioned, and frankly, there have been calls from opposition with respect to pushing the envelope further and looking for more creative ways to drive road safety outcomes. I would be surprised if we didn’t have broad-based support at the same time as vigorous discussion around this particular bill.

Of course, I would certainly use this opportunity at this particular moment of this debate to encourage members on the other side of the House to engage in that vigorous debate that I expect of them, that we expect of them, but at the end of the day, understanding those crucial twin objectives, to be supportive of these initiatives.

If they see ways for us to improve the legislation—of course, Speaker, I always want to keep an open mind and have that discussion, as I know we will over the course of the legislative process.

I think understanding, at the end of the day, that those twin objectives, particularly the objective of making sure that even though statistically we have done well over the last 13 years—we can’t afford to rest on our laurels. We have to keep pushing the envelope forward. The ministry is absolutely determined to consistently look for ways to drive home that message, and also make sure that we have a legislative and regulatory framework in place, working with our municipal partners to make sure that we can produce those outcomes.

Again, I would sincerely hope that the debate, as it always is in this place, would be rigorous, would be exciting, but at the end of the day, that we would all see a way to be supportive of this particular legislation. As I mentioned earlier, I have heard, not only from colleagues on this side of the House, but from members of both the Conservative and NDP caucuses, about the importance.

It’s interesting, because when you’re in a large city like Toronto or Ottawa, you hear a certain perspective on many of the issues that we confront in this chamber. When you move to some of our medium-sized and smaller and more remote communities—and I’m not talking about this bill necessarily; I’m talking about generally—you often hear very different perspectives. That’s something that helps all of us do our job better. It’s a fascinating by-product of all of us being in this chamber to debate legislation.

On road safety initiatives, I would say, it’s interesting to me that the perspective—because something that might work in the city of Toronto may not work in a particular other part of the province—while there is nuance, at its core, the fundamental objectives that we try to pursue when it comes to road safety initiatives are felt in many respects equally across the province.

I think that goes right to the heart of this particular bill, to Bill 65. We are not in this legislation requiring any particular municipality to do what we are demanding needs to be done. I know often there’s a concern in different parts of the province that there are directives coming from Queen’s Park. People say, “Hey, look, down here on the ground in neighbourhood X or community Y, maybe you didn’t contemplate what that outcome would be.” I understand that tension. I understand that dynamic.

Here, with this legislation, what we are particularly doing is saying to municipalities, “We understand there is a challenge.” There is a challenge in communities like Ottawa, like Toronto, like York region, like Oxford county, like Chatham-Kent, like Oshawa, like Nottawasaga and a number of other communities that have taken the time to write in to the government to say, “Provide us with these powers.”

At AMO conferences and at ROMA/OGRA conferences in the past, I’ve heard directly from many of these municipalities that confront these challenges. They say, “We love the work that MTO is doing as it relates to road safety. We respect that you passed Bill 31, but there are additional tools in the tool kit that are available to you, but we are hampered. We can’t do them without your support, without you enabling us, without you providing us with the authority to proceed.” We have some examples that are embedded in this particular legislation. It’s why, after considerable consultation on a number of these initiatives, we’ve decided to move forward with this legislation.

I know I’ve said this before in debate this morning, but I think it bears repeating that it really is important for us to understand that this legislation has two philosophical underpinnings:

(1) Moving forward with initiatives that will, at the end of the day, when municipalities—I am going to say “when” because I know a number of municipalities very strongly desire having the power to move forward and implement some of these initiatives. When municipalities have, should this legislation pass, taken the tools that would be provided, they will actually experience road safety outcomes in their communities that will benefit the population at large. That’s one, and as the Minister of Transportation, that is my most fundamental goal with this legislation.

(2) There is a very clear recognition here that one level of government working alone, one level of government saying, “We know what is best for you as it relates to matters that impact your own neighbourhoods in this road safety respect,” is not always the best way for us to proceed. Taking that into account, and taking into account the significant and profound input that we have received—from a number of organizations, from law enforcement, from our road safety partners, from mothers and fathers and grandparents across the province, who have spoken to us both informally and formally and said:

“When I leave my house in the morning in whatever community I reside in in this wonderful province of Ontario and I’m walking my son or my daughter or my grandchild to school, and I’m doing it in a neighbourhood where it’s apparent—the school is right there.

I’m in a school zone or we’re in a community safety zone and I am literally the dictionary definition of a vulnerable road user, or my child or my grandchild is, and there is somebody out there driving—maybe they’re late to get to work, maybe they have a delivery that they’re dropping off somewhere in the city and they’ve decided to cut through our neighbourhood; maybe, frankly, they live in the neighbourhood, but they’re late, they’re behind schedule, and they decided on this particular day of all days that they’re going to gun it, that they’re going to exceed the speed limit and they’re going to put themselves and passengers in their vehicle and, worst of all, other users of our roads, including those vulnerable road users, at risk, that’s not acceptable.

“We have an expectation that our political leaders, whether they’re provincial or municipal or, best of all, working together, will come up with creative solutions that recognize that technology has evolved, that we have a clear need in our particular neighbourhood or our community that we have to move forward with initiatives like this.”

That’s a message that we can’t ignore, that we won’t ignore. It’s a message that’s right at the heart of Bill 65. It’s why, after this consultation, after listening to those voices, working closely with our municipalities and working closely our road safety partners, we have come together, we have created this legislation and we have brought it forward.

I have certainly heard from community representatives in every corner of the province that they are happy to see we are moving forward. I think each of our road safety partners would say very clearly that this is an important step forward in that evolutionary process that I referenced a second ago. I fully expect that this will not be the last time that I’m on my feet in this Legislature to talk about how we continue to move that evolutionary process forward.

I know there are other challenges that we still face on road safety. I know there will be, I expect there will be other initiatives that we’ll bring forward. But at this particular point in time, dealing with these particular elements that are contained in Bill 65, and given that we’ve had historic support externally from law enforcement, municipal partners and road safety partners and, frankly, internally in this chamber from members of the opposition as it relates again to the passage of Bill 31, which passed unanimously, I think we’ve struck the right balance. I think we are moving forward in the right direction.

I do look forward to the rest of the debate that will occur today and beyond on this bill, but I would close off, before handing it off to the member from Kitchener Centre—I would strongly urge every member in this House to think of our vulnerable road users, to think of the requests that have come in from municipalities and to understand that we’ve struck the right balance, that with Bill 65, we have gotten it right. I would call on them to support this legislation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you very much, Minister. Since you are sharing your time, I now turn continuation of the debate over to the member from Kitchener Centre.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: Thank you, Speaker, and good morning and welcome back.

I’d like to thank the minister for the leadership that he is showing on this very important issue and also say that as a parent of two young children, I know that Bill 65 is of personal interest to him.

While many of you have heard the minister and me say that people in Ontario deserve to have safer roads, this government is fully committed to making sure that our roads continue to be among the safest in North America. This proposed legislation, the Safer School Zones Act, if passed, is going to ensure that we do maintain safe roads in Ontario. This legislation is going to protect children and other vulnerable road users, and it’s going to reduce collisions and fatalities in urban and rural areas, making our communities safer.

We know that many municipalities have asked for more tools to improve road safety so that they can be active road safety partners. When I assisted the minister a few weeks ago at the ROMA conference—and for people who are watching at home right now, ROMA is the Rural Ontario Municipal Association; we meet every year and they tell us what their concerns are—I heard from a number of mayors, reeves and councillors from across Ontario who were advocating on ways to slow down drivers who speed through their towns.

In fact, one mayor, Margaret Lupton—she’s the mayor of Zorra township— told me, and this is an exact quote and she gave me permission to use this: “Daiene, we are frustrated beyond belief with speeders.” I called her up on Friday to let her know that we would be discussing Bill 65 and she told me something that was very distressing. She said that she was in a coffee shop and this man came up to her and started mocking the speed bumps that they had put in in the town in order to slow down speeders.

He said to her, “You know, I can still take these speed bumps at 110 kilometres per hour in my truck.” So clearly, the speed bumps are not working.

Mayor Lupton and other municipal leaders in Ontario are looking to us for ways to help them make the roads safer. They’re looking for more effective measures. The legislation that we have introduced will, if passed, give municipalities more tools to improve road safety. We are giving them the exact tools that many have asked for. This means that we’re empowering municipalities to implement measures that will work best in their communities.

We’re very enthusiastic about the support that we’re hearing from municipal leaders across Ontario. That includes support from Waterloo region, my home community. Our police services wrote to our government to request automated speed enforcement, and they’ve shown support for the action that we’re taking through this piece of legislation.

We recognize that no two municipalities are alike, Speaker; that’s why this legislation is all about giving towns and cities across Ontario lots of different options.

If passed, the Safer School Zones Act will remove the regulatory approvals process currently in place for the red light camera program to make it easier for municipalities to opt in. This means if they want to do this, they can. They don’t have to come and ask us for permission. This is going to help municipalities enforce red light laws in their communities.

The Safer School Zones Act will also help municipalities reduce speeds in high-risk areas. Municipalities can create their own safety zones, with lower default speed limits. That’s going to make it easier for them to reduce speeds, thereby making it safer in their communities for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers alike.

Finally, the Safer School Zones Act will allow municipalities to use automated speed enforcement technology in school zones and community safety zones if they choose to do so. This technology has been around for years. It’s proven to reduce speeding and improve road safety, and it’s going to help keep vulnerable road users safe in these high-risk areas. That’s one of our mandates, to ensure road safety for all road users, particularly in high-risk areas. That includes places where there are high numbers of children and seniors.

Bill 65 is the latest step our government is taking to provide road safety options to protect those communities as well as vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists.

As we saw in Bill 31, road safety is not a partisan issue. That is why we hope to see support for the Safer School Zones Act on both sides of the House. This is about making communities safer. It’s about protecting our children and our families from dangerous driving behaviours, where they play and where they walk to and from school.

For many years, our family lived in a neighbourhood just down the street from a school, five doors down, and it used to infuriate me as a mother when my kids were walking home from school—or really at any other time—when I’d see cars speeding up and down the street. We were so close to a school, and I was always concerned about the children in the neighbourhood.

It’s simply unacceptable that we have drivers speeding in these areas. Drivers should always be proceeding with care. An extra degree of care can be the difference between life and death, especially in high-risk areas that are frequented by young children or seniors.

Speaker, in 2013 alone there were nine pedestrians under the age of 18 who were killed in collisions in Ontario—nine children killed by drivers while they were walking in their communities. Clearly, more needs to be done to make certain that people can get to and from home safely. This legislation, if passed, is going to give municipalities the tools that they need to make their journey safer.

Seniors are another vulnerable group. The number of seniors who are being injured and even killed while walking is quite alarming. In 2013, 45 pedestrians over the age of 64 were killed in Ontario. That is a distressing number. This is a vulnerable segment of our population, and one that we know is quickly growing. Soon many of us are going to be in that age bracket; right? Seniors deserve to feel safe on our streets. They deserve to be able to walk in their communities without fear. I urge everyone to support this legislation to make that happen.

In my home community of Waterloo region, in 2013, we saw four pedestrians struck and killed by motorists. Municipalities and police boards, including Waterloo region police, have reached out to us for help. They want the tools that they need to best address the road safety concerns that they are seeing and feeling in their communities.

We understand that these issues may not be the same everywhere, and that’s why these measures proposed in this piece of legislation would not be implemented province-wide. I’ll say that again: It’s not going to be implemented province-wide. We’re not proposing that red light cameras be installed at every intersection, or that automated speed enforcement be on every municipal road, and we are not putting automated speed enforcement technology on Ontario highways or changing the default speed limits in Ontario.

Instead, what we are proposing is to give municipalities greater autonomy to use these measures at a local level only if they choose. It is entirely up to them as to whether or not they want to use these measures, and believe me, they are telling us that they want this.

Municipalities know what road safety concerns need to be addressed, and they know the areas in their communities that are of the highest risk, so why shouldn’t they have the ability and the power to address this? They’ve asked us to put in a framework so that they can make necessary changes based on their respective needs. This means that we’re empowering municipalities to make their communities safer in the way that they see fit.

Speaker, we know that there is a direct correlation between speed and death on municipal roads. Three out of four collisions on local roads occur because of speed. It has been proven that lowering speed limits and implementing other measures which deter speeding do improve road safety. Bill 65 includes two measures that will help municipalities reduce and enforce speed limits on their roads. The first is to reduce default speed limits. It’s going to give municipalities the ability to create special zones in urban areas where the speed limits are lower than the standard default of 50 kilometres per hour.

There is a significant amount of research which shows that lowering speed limits even by 10 kilometres per hour can lead to significantly fewer collisions, injuries and deaths. It gives drivers more time to react to emergency situations such as children running onto the streets. Have you ever been driving down the street and suddenly you see a ball bouncing onto the road, and quickly a child follows behind that ball to retrieve it? Well, if you’re going at a slower speed, the chances of you stopping in time are going to be better.

Not only do lower speed limits help prevent collisions; they also reduce the severity of injuries that happen when collisions do occur. Lower speeds in urban areas can save lives. We know that. Municipalities have asked us to make it easier for them to do this, to save lives, and that is exactly what we’re looking at doing with this legislation. It’s going to help them make their communities more walkable and more user-friendly.

Lowering speed limits is one way to make communities safer. Another is finding ways to deter people from speeding, and that’s where automated speed enforcement comes in. With automated speed enforcement technology, cameras can take a picture of a licence plate of someone who is speeding, and then that person is issued a ticket. That’s how it works. The technology is used in a number of jurisdictions already, and it is proving to be very effective. We did have this in Ontario back in the early 1990s for a few years on our highways; we don’t anymore.

However, at the municipal level, leaders in communities are asking for a return in order to calm speeding. People are less likely to exceed the speed limit in areas where there is this technology, and less speeding means safer streets.

Since this proposed legislation would give municipalities the ability to use this technology in school zones and community safety areas, it also means more protection for children and other vulnerable users. The technology also means more efficient enforcement by freeing up police resources to address other local safety concerns while at the same time making sure that road safety is never disregarded.

This is something that we heard about at ROMA from many municipal leaders: that they would rather take their well-trained, well-skilled policing force and address them to issues within the community where there could be crime or other matters, and leave the business of issuing tickets to speeders up to automation.

It’s a similar technology for the red light cameras that’s proposed for the legislation. Both technologies use cameras to target dangerous driving habits. For automated speed enforcement, we’re proposing to allow municipalities to use this technology in specific high-risk zones on municipal roads. For the red light cameras, we’re making the approvals process easier and eliminating the red tape to make it simpler for municipalities to opt in if they wish to.

Speaker, all three parts of this proposed legislation will help make our roads safer, and that alone should be enough reason for everyone to support it, like they’ve supported similar road safety measures in the past. I think that everyone in this Legislature would say that they’re in favour of safer roads.

We have a great track record in Ontario when it comes to improving road safety. We’ve done a lot, but we still have more to do. Keeping communities safe requires everyone to do their part. It’s not just about one group using our roads; whether it’s drivers, cyclists or pedestrians, everyone needs to be safe and play an active role in promoting road safety.

When it comes to road safety, our goal is always a balance of measures and actions which encourage everyone to stay safe, from penalties to increased awareness. When you look at recent road safety legislation, that’s clearly evident. In the Making Ontario’s Roads Safer Act, which passed in 2015, there were a number of measures that focused on improving road safety—including school bus safety, distracted driving, cycling safety, tow truck safety, school crossings, pedestrian crossovers and impaired driving.

That legislation was a major step forward for road safety in Ontario, and it has helped to make our province a safer place. It, like other road safety legislation passed before it, is one of the reasons why we have the road safety record that we do in this province.

Again, it’s extremely important that we don’t stop working toward improving safety. Someone is killed on our roads every 17 hours in Ontario. With the Safer School Zones Act, we’re continuing to push Ontario’s road safety forward, we’re helping to make our communities safer, and we’re sending a message to municipalities that we are listening and we’re committed to being their road safety partners—partners such as Mayor Margaret Lupton of Zorra township, who is looking for ways to reduce speeding in her community. I promised her that I would stand and advocate for her and ensure that she will see changes in her community.

That’s why it’s so important that everyone support this legislation. It is a crucial step forward. I know that keeping our roads safer for our children is something upon which we can all agree.

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

Mr. Michael Harris: Thank you, Speaker. Welcome back.

I want to also quickly acknowledge our road safety partners. I see Elliott from CAA over in the corner. I know Brian Patterson from the Ontario Safety League is now here. He fought traffic in. Of course, there’s a gentleman from Parachute, whom I have not had a chance to meet. Welcome to the Legislature.

Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity to rise. I welcome everybody back after a long winter break, perhaps. I know there were lots of happenings in your constituencies. Of course, things don’t just stop over the course of the winter.

Hopefully, everyone had a great Family Day weekend. I know I did.

Being back, I miss the opportunity to take my son to the school bus sometimes in the mornings and pick him up in the afternoon. We live off a busier street, and I did have the experience of taking him out to the bus and witnessing, unfortunately, a few close calls in the last little while. So I think it’s important that we’re talking about safety in our school areas.

I was hoping that the minister would have—he did miss that opportunity to speak to the toll bill. I know we had a lot of discussion over the break on tolls. Hopefully, we’ll save that for another time. I know there’s a speech that he wasn’t able to give previously, but I hope we’ll be able to hear that down the road.

I’m going to have an hour here. I’m going to focus a little bit, right off the bat, on our concerns related to what we will call the photo radar act, a more appropriate title than the Safer School Zones Act, given that this bill, while indeed impacting school safety, is really more about photo radar, a technology with a long—and, as we will discuss, not so favourable—history in the province of Ontario. For those of us who have trouble recalling its history, when the divisive issue of photo radar was addressed in this House, a short two decades ago—I’ll take a few minutes to take you down memory lane.

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Thank you, Speaker, and welcome back to all the members of the Legislature. Today, of course, we’re talking about Bill 65, which is going to allow municipalities to have the discretion over speeding limits in their towns, cities and urban centres.

Speaker, that is something that I hear about all the time, about the speeding limits in school zones. We had a very serious accident a few years ago where a child in a neighbourhood was walking on the sidewalk and the vehicle actually came up on the sidewalk. It was a tragic situation. The child was injured, with very serious life-long injuries. In that case, Speaker, that person was impaired. There were all kinds of other factors that contributed to that.

Regardless, when I was campaigning back in 2014, everywhere you would hear people complaining about speeding. It wasn’t just in school zones; it was people averting other traffic-congested areas coming down side streets. So it is very important that we look and address those concerns for speeding. Children’s lives are at risk.

We know that today many kids are transported from their neighbourhoods in school buses to other neighbouring schools, and it becomes a heightened issue with school buses and kids walking to school as well.

In London, I know there was a council that brought forward a bylaw that wanted to address speeding zones, specifically in school areas. I think this will help, of course, but we also need to make sure that distracted driving and other issues are also part of these contributing factors when there are accidents and unsafe drivers. Speeding is probably one of the main concerns and it is a good idea to allow and empower municipalities to set their own guidelines around the unique characteristics of their city.

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

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It’s a pleasure to be back and a pleasure to see you in the chair. I understand I have a new critic as Minister of Labour, the member from—what is it, Renfrew? I’ve got to learn this now. Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke is my critic.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Oh, you’ll learn it.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I look forward to the time that he and I will spend much more closely together.

Getting to Bill 65, Speaker, I think this is certainly a bill that is worthy of support of the entire House. I think a lot of us who serve here, before coming here, served at the local level of government, either on a town council or a regional council.

Despite what you might read in the Star, the Globe, the Sun or wherever, the number one phone call you get as a local elected official is about speeding, traffic, safety and school zones. It’s about all those things that matter to people in the areas where they live, in the neighbourhoods where they come from. They often find out when they go in to investigate who is doing all the speeding in these neighbourhoods—I think the people in the neighbourhood think it’s people coming from outside and doing the speeding.

Every time they do any licence plate checks or that type of thing, they find out that the vast majority of speeding comes from right within the neighbourhood itself. A lot of the culprits don’t understand that, I think.

What we’re doing here is we’re providing municipalities in the province of Ontario with tools to ensure that their communities can be made safer. We are doing it in a way that allows the municipalities themselves to implement this in a way that is customized to their own community, to their own neighbourhood, to the areas which they know a lot better than anybody in this chamber. These people are on the ground. They have the traffic experts that know their communities better than everybody.

What this does is to provide them with the tools and the options, and quite frankly, Speaker, at the end of the day, this is going to make our communities safer. It’s going to save lives. It’s going to prevent injuries. Why anybody would be opposed to that is beyond me. I hope it enjoys the support of the whole House, because it really is a bill that is aimed at the heart of public safety in the province of Ontario.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: I want to thank the Minister of Labour for recognizing my new critic responsibilities. I’m sure he’ll get to know my riding really well over the next several weeks. In fact, you’re probably going to be repeating my name in your sleep.

Anyway, on the issue of the bill: Look, what could be more important than the safety of our children and our grandchildren? I’m not going to look into the talk about the attributes of the bill right here and now because we might have another opportunity, and I’m sure our critic is going to be speaking about it at length. But I did want to talk about how important that is to all of us.

Just a couple of weeks ago, my wife and I had the opportunity to be down in Orlando, at Disney World. We had five of our grandchildren with us.

Interjection.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Oh, we had their parents too; we’re not quite that crazy.

What a wonderful time it was. To spend some time with the little ones—I think you understand even more just how important they are and what a priority they must be for all of us. So if there are ways that we can keep our children and our grandchildren, depending upon our personal circumstances, safer, we’re always going to be looking at that and we’re always going to be supportive of those ways.

I know there are parts of the bill that we want to make sure we understand better, about its limitations, but keeping our children safe in school zones is something that I personally support, obviously. If this is something that the communities are supportive of—and I believe they are—it’s something that I would personally be very much in favour of. We want to make sure that this doesn’t become a political football that gets kicked around.

Also, the challenges that municipalities have: I know that my municipality is concerned that they would have to lower the speed limit beyond where they want to go, if it’s established, and they want some clarification on that.

Interjection.

Mr. John Yakabuski: The minister is shaking his head saying no, that won’t be necessary. We’ll be looking for that clarification when it comes to what municipalities do and do not have to do with regard to this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the minister for final comments.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I want to thank members, of course, starting with the member from Kitchener Centre, who followed me in debate; the member from Kitchener–Conestoga, my critic; the member from London–Fanshawe; the Minister of Labour; and the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke for their contribution to the debate this afternoon.

I know that much additional debate will take place. I’m looking forward in particular to the contribution of my critic from the Conservative caucus to the discussion. I think it’s entirely fitting that both he and his colleague from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke chose to start off their questions and comments back to me with very clear recognition from both of them about the importance of making sure that we do place a significant emphasis on producing those additional safety outcomes. I think that’s encouraging.

Certainly, to have heard the member from London–Fanshawe talk about experiences that have taken place in her community—tragedies—is also something that I think would resonate because it has happened in communities right across the province.

To the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, I would say: I know we will have discussions regarding what this legislation requires or doesn’t require of municipalities. I just want to stress really quickly that there is nothing in this legislation that requires the municipality to do anything. So if it’s one of the communities in his riding or it’s my community of Vaughan or York region or Waterloo region—nothing in this bill requires a municipality to touch their default speed limit if they choose not to. Nothing in this bill requires them to deploy automated speed enforcement if they choose not to.

Nothing requires them to enter the red light camera program if they choose not to. We are certainly enabling municipalities.

On that note, Speaker, I’ll finish off by saying that I think we also have to be very careful in this debate to not, for what might be considered partisan reasons, try to confuse the issues of the history of photo radar with what we’re actually discussing in this particular debate.

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

Mr. Michael Harris: Getting back into the routine here—I forgot about the questions and comments cycle—now I’ve got an hour and two minutes. We’ve got a lot to cover, of course. My colleague talked about his trip away with his grandkids. Of course, I think of my little guys. I know my guy is safe at school this morning. My other little guy was not feeling too well last night. He’s just at home, hopefully watching SpongeBob or something and not the legislative channel. If he is, good morning, and welcome.

I do think it’s important, as I have an hour here to go through the bill in its entirety— we’ll compliment the government, obviously, on addressing some issues that I think we all have heard in our communities, but there will be opportunities to question the details of the particular bill.

I do think it’s important, when I have this opportunity, to go back and perhaps give a little history lesson. I think it’s important for all of those, whether you’re here or at home—a history lesson—because it was back in August 1994 that the then NDP Premier and soon-to-be eventual Liberal MP, Bob Rae, flush with his excitement at forming the first and, to this point, last NDP government in the province, introduced us to the concept of photo radar, a new safety tool that motorists soon came to know as a government “cash grab.”

Now, to be clear, Speaker, the photo radar program introduced in August 1994 by the then NDPer, Mr. Rae, was much larger in scope than what we hear government discussing today, and I think that’s an important distinction to note. The initial program was introduced on the 400-series highways across the province, as opposed to the school zones, as is the stated focus of today’s bill.

As my colleague has made mention here, I want to again acknowledge our road safety partners. Brian Patterson is here, Elliott Silverstein is here from CAA and, of course, the gentleman from Parachute. Welcome again to the debate.

As I had said, the initial program was introduced on 400-series highways across the province, as opposed to the school zones, which we’re talking about. That said, there have been many who have noted that today’s bill may open the door to questions that could take us back to the future.

Within three months of the 1994 project launch, the provincial program was churning out around 12,000 or close to 13,000 tickets a month, leading the forefathers of today’s Ontario Liberals criticizing the NDP photo radar pilot as “nothing but a cash cow.”

As ticket fines surpassed $2 million in November of that first year, with the OPP confirming some people were getting dinged for driving less than 10 kilometres an hour over the speed limit, many shared the Ontario Liberals’ concerns.

That said, Speaker, while the Liberals were criticizing the cash grab, we got to work to eliminate it. Former Premier Mike Harris both promised to put the brakes on the controversial program and then immediately acted to eliminate it, following the 1995 election.

In the words of our former colleague and then-Solicitor General Bob Runciman as to the concerns for the NDP’s photo radar program: “We believe having officers on the front lines is much more effective in terms of curtailing this form of activity than photo radar”— calling it “a cash cow for the NDP.” Without a doubt, those are the two main concerns or questions when it comes to photo radar programs: Is it having an effect on improved road safety, and at what cost?

The fact is, at the time, there were varying reports on the amount of safety improvements, but there was a pretty clear consensus on what this was costing motorists. For instance, photo radar advocates cited a January 1995 MTO preliminary four-month study showing photo radar had reduced speeding on highways. On the other hand, that same year, there was an overall drop in speeding drivers across Canada, when those other areas did not have photo radar. Still others cited the fact that photo radar did nothing to catch other dangerous driving behaviours, such as distracted driving.

We have that problem still on our roads today. In fact, one of the leading causes of fatalities on our highways, of course—unfortunately, we still have drunk driving or driving while impaired, both with substance and with alcohol.

I know we had a consensus in this House on Bill 31 recently that improved the fines and penalties for driving while impaired. It’s an important mechanism to stop people from doing that. Unfortunately, we’ve still had instances across the province where we have seen fatalities, just tragic fatalities, for the senseless use of a substance while operating a motor vehicle.

Of course, there’s operating a vehicle without a licence or even insurance. Dangerous driving: I think I heard on the radio just this morning that there was a young gentleman—24, I believe—nabbed for speeding over 200 kilometres an hour in a 60 zone. That’s a significant charge. We still have all of these behaviours happening on our roads.

Many questioned then, and continue to question today, the impact on driver behaviour when ticketing through photo radar is assigned to the vehicle’s owner and not necessarily the driver.

I had an experience only a few months ago in my community. I was picking my son up from the bus. He got off, the bus pulled away, and there was a speeding car going down our street at probably at least double the speed limit. I was so upset by that. It was a young driver, of course. Ideally, I would have loved to have had a police officer there to deal with that behaviour. Of course, who knows? The vehicle may have been owned by his parents, and if this were the case, he would have received a ticket a few months down the road—or not even actually himself.

These things are happening, and as a parent, it’s upsetting, knowing this. It’s that behaviour change that needs to happen. We do question whether that behavioural change will come with ticketing at the moment of the alleged infraction, and that is, of course, through the use of front-line officers, which we feel are still so important, especially in these school zones in the morning hours and afternoon hours when the kids are getting off the bus and walking home from school etc.

The fact is that while we see the Liberal government introducing a return to photo radar today, there has also been long acknowledgment on that side of the House of the list of concerns that accompany photo radar, and I think it’s important to bring these up. I’m going to have an hour, so we’re going to get through the bill in its entirety. But I wanted to bring a few of these up, because when I read some of these quotes, I just couldn’t not share them with my colleagues today.

Former McGuinty government Finance Minister Greg Sorbara, in this very House, called photo radar “the most arbitrary, objectionable, obnoxious... one of the most repulsive pieces of legislation that the government has brought in”—that being the NDP—“because it just completely abrogates our very long-standing tradition in this province of being innocent until you’re proven guilty in a court of law.” That was Greg Sorbara in, I believe, the seat now occupied by the now Minister of Transportation, who would know Greg well.

He further noted, “If you set the precedent with photo radar, then, the precedent having been set, you arbitrarily move into a whole bunch of other areas, without due process, without the normal procedures for identifying and apprehending and charging the person who committed the offence.”

Or how about former Liberal Minister of Natural Resources and Aboriginal Affairs David Ramsay, who told the House, “I think that’s what the problem is: The government sees this type of thing, this type of apparatus as policing and that’s the last type of thing I consider to be policing.” That was David Ramsay, a former Liberal minister.

A former energy minister, Liberal Gerry Phillips, said that “it is a revenue-grab; it is a tax grab. It heads down a very dangerous route. I don’t know where the government is going to draw the line, because if you do it with speeding, you can do it with all sorts of other things, and we won’t have that debate.” That was Gerry Phillips, then-energy minister under the Liberals.

What about the former Premier himself, who, after much back-and-forth, said in 2006, “We looked at it in our first year and we have rejected it so it is not part of our plans.” That was back in November 2006, from Premier McGuinty himself.

Those plans, or lack thereof, made headlines the following year, in 2007, in a report: Ontario Premier Says No to Photo Radar. Quoting Mr. McGuinty, “There seems to be a stronger consensus around making sure that there are tougher penalties associated with speeding.”

Further, “More needs to be done to crack down on speeding, but photo radar is not the answer.” He said that in 2007.

I will say, because I know I only have a few seconds left—one minute—that we will have an opportunity to get back into this, and I look forward to doing so.

I want to thank the minister for bringing today’s bill forward, and thank him for allowing us to go over the rich history of photo radar here in the province of Ontario. I’ll have more to say about that as we continue our debate.

But I think it’s important that we keep in mind the pitfalls of the past and the concerns that remain today, as outlined by my colleagues, as we look forward to further debate focusing on the application of photo radar in school zones specifically as well as the extended community safety zones that this bill will target, to ensure that Ontarians remain safe in the province of Ontario.

Thank you, Speaker, for the time.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you very much—

Mr. Michael Harris: By the way, I want to just acknowledge—you’re going to shut me off now—that I’ll continue on—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I’ll get that. I want to thank the member. You will have opportunity. There is lots of time left on the clock. When this bill is called again, you will have the opportunity to continue debate.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): But since it is now 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Quebec mosque shooting

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Point of order, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The government House leader on a point of order.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent to observe a moment of silence before question period in remembrance of those who lost their lives in the Quebec mosque shooting on January 29, 2017.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The government House leader is seeking unanimous consent to observe a moment of silence before question period in remembrance of those who lost their lives in the Quebec mosque shooting on January 29, 2017. Do we agree?

I would ask all members in the House to please rise for a moment of silence.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Point of order, the leader of the third party.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to move a motion that would sever

schedule 10 from Bill 27 and introduce it as a separate bill to be considered by the House.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The leader of the third party is seeking unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice. Do we agree?

I heard a no.

Mr. Todd Smith: Point of order, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Point of order, the member from Prince Edward–Hastings.

Mr. Todd Smith: Thank you, Speaker. Winter disconnections in the electricity system are becoming a critical issue. Therefore, I seek unanimous consent that, notwithstanding standing order 30(a), I be permitted to introduce a bill at this time.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings is seeking unanimous consent to put forward a bill. Do we agree? I heard a no.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’m really honoured to have a good friend of mine, who is participating in Daughters of the Vote, here at Queen’s Park today. Kayla Tiller, welcome to Queen’s Park.

I also would like to welcome a new page from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex, Anellah Orosz. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: I would like to introduce my new legislative intern, joining us from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound: Stephanie Lowe.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I’d like to welcome Jillian Hawley from my riding of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, who is here with Daughters of the Vote. We’re thrilled to host them today at Queen’s Park.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I’d like to welcome Hillary Scanlon from Peterborough, here today as the Peterborough–Kawartha delegate for Equal Voice and Daughters of the Vote.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I would like to welcome Karley George. She’s the delegate for Daughters of the Vote from the riding of Kitchener–Waterloo.

Hon. Reza Moridi: Please join me in welcoming the students from the McMaster University Iranian association. Pardis Balari, Seyed Aryan Ghaffarizadeh, Pouya Tayyari and Maryam Vaseghi-Shanjani are sitting in the members’ gallery. Please join me in welcoming them.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I want to mention that Leslie St. Amour is here for the—hopefully we’re going to be taking a picture, all of us, at 11:45 with Daughters of the Vote—as well as my constituent Elliott Silverstein from CAA.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Good morning. I am delighted to welcome Blake Weber, a student at Fanshawe College, here today to watch question period. Welcome, Blake.

Hon. Michael Coteau: It is my distinct honour to welcome Bruce Davis here to the Ontario Legislature, a good friend of many members in the Legislature and also the former chair of the Toronto District School Board.

Mr. Steve Clark: Speaker, I want to introduce to you, and through you, to members of the Legislative Assembly, a constituent from my riding who is here with Daughters of the Vote. I would like to welcome Michaela Rutherford-Blouin, who is representing the new name for my riding, Leeds–Grenville–Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

Mr. Arthur Potts: I’m delighted to see an old friend, Brian Patterson, in the House from the Ontario Safety League. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: On our first day back I’m very pleased to introduce somebody who is proud to call Huron home: Regan Preszcator. She’s here with Daughters of the Vote.

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I would like to welcome a group of young women from across the province to Queen’s Park today. Equal Voice is here and so is the Ontario delegation for the Daughters of the Vote initiative. Welcome to Queen’s Park. We hope you enjoy your day.

For my colleagues, there will be a reception this evening in rooms 228 and 230. I invite you all to stop by and meet these amazing young women.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I would like to welcome Luca DiPietro from St. John Catholic Elementary School, who is the legislative page here from my riding.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I would like to welcome Leslie Anne St. Amour from Kingston and the Islands, who’s here for Daughters of the Vote.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Speaker, it’s great to be back. I want to welcome all members.

I would like to introduce Nancy Peckford, the executive director of Equal Voice, and Denise Siele, who has been incredibly important to the Daughters of the Vote initiative, as well as all the young ladies here who are going to not only change the Ontario Legislature but certainly the federal House of Commons in March.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: The first day of the Legislature also means the kickoff to Kindness Week in Ontario. I’ll just remind all members to join the members from Dufferin–Caledon and Nickel Belt for some Kindness Week cookies right outside the chamber after question period.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Welcome back, Speaker.

I want to welcome a guest, here today on behalf of Equal Voice and Daughters of the Vote. It’s Floranda Agroam.

Hon. Eleanor McMahon: Speaker, welcome back. Please join me in welcoming, from Burlington to Queen’s Park today, Marilyn and Murray Heintz and Gloria Reszler. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Appointment of House officers

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I do have some housekeeping. I’m happy to advise the House of an appointment of two House officers. Trevor Day has been appointed Deputy Clerk. He has also absorbed the responsibility of executive director of legislative services.

Also in the House, Jacquelyn Gordon has been appointed Sergeant-at-Arms and executive director of Precinct Properties. I would respectfully remind the members and suggest to the members that you won’t mess with her any more than you would have messed with Dennis.

Member for York–Simcoe

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Another important announcement: I also want to let the House know that late last month the member from York–Simcoe, Mrs. Munro, became the longest-serving female MPP in the history of the Ontario Legislature. And, yes, she kind of snuck that one in. First elected in June 1995, the member now has served a period of 21 years, eight months and 16 days, and we will be announcing every day you’re here that you’re the longest serving. What an accomplishment.

On behalf of the entire House, we want to thank you for your stellar service to the assembly, to your riding and to the people of Ontario. Please welcome her.

Applause.

Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Also in the Speaker’s gallery, we have the Sergeant-at-Arms’ family: her husband, Don Gordon; her daughter Holly Gordon; her sister Leslee Remigis; her brother-in-law Marty Remigis; and her friends Patty Hayman, Cheryl Linger, Darlene Fisher, Lina Crawford, Kim Duncan, Mackenzie Viviani and Robert Viviani.

Congratulations, and thank you for joining us here in support of our Sergeant-at-Arms.

Applause.

Resignation of member for Sault Ste. Marie

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I beg to inform the House that, during the adjournment, a vacancy has occurred in the membership of the House by reason of the resignation of David Orazietti, the member from the electoral district of Sault Ste. Marie, effective December 31, 2016.

Accordingly, I’ve issued my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for a by-election.

Tabling of sessional papers

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I also beg to inform the House that, during the adjournment, the following reports were tabled: the 2016 annual report of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth and a report from the Financial Accountability Officer.

Therefore, it is now time for question period.

Mr. Todd Smith: Speaker, point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Point of order; the member from Prince Edward–Hastings.

Mr. Todd Smith: Now that everybody’s settled in and we’re warmed up after our long winter break, I was wondering if I could seek unanimous consent to bring forward, notwithstanding standing order 30(a), a bill at this time to deal with winter disconnections in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member is seeking unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding the passing of a bill. Do we agree? I heard a no.

It is now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Hydro rates

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. I want the Liberals to be aware of the F.J. Davey Home, a long-term-care home with 374 beds, in Sault Ste. Marie. Their hydro bill has gone up 39%, and that’s an additional $165,000—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I have—

Interjection: Disrespectful.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Well, quite frankly, I’m hearing the member’s comment, and it seems to be going around from everybody nicely. It reminds me of something I used to have to do to start something.

Please put your question.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, the government may laugh and heckle, but this is a seniors’ home. This is a long-term-care home where their hydro bill has gone up 39%, $165,000 in a year. It is not a laughing matter.

Seniors in Sault Ste. Marie are having critical services cut. The home said they had no choice; it’s hydro or cut services for seniors. So rather than heckle, I would like an answer from the Premier: How can you allow this to continue to seniors in our province?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to just welcome everyone back, and I want to say that it is no laughing matter. It’s absolutely essential that the Leader of the Opposition and the people of Ontario understand that we understand that there are issues around the cost of electricity in this province. I don’t know the specific instance that the Leader of the Opposition is talking about at that particular home, but I certainly would be happy to get more information from him.

I have made a commitment that the affordability of electricity in this province is of paramount concern. We have made a number of changes, including the most recent 8% reduction across the board. But I have committed, Mr. Speaker—and our Minister of Energy is working to bring forward a proposal before our budget that would further reduce electricity costs across the province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: The F.J. Davey Home is just one example of how electricity is hurting even more than family households.

Katherine Craine, executive director of the Huntsville Hospital Foundation, told the Huntsville Forester about a returned fundraising email card that she received. I’ll quote what the card said: “Sorry, no donation this year. The money went to paying my Hydro One bill.”

Mr. Speaker, it’s unbelievable. How can the Premier justify the fact that families have gone from being able to donate to charity to now needing charity simply to pay their hydro bill? It is unacceptable.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, Mr. Speaker, the reality is that I have been talking to people across the province, I have made a commitment that we will be bringing forward further decreases to electricity costs. The reality is that over the last number of years, we have made billions of dollars of investments into our electricity system. We inherited an electricity system that was degraded, that had not been invested in, that had not been kept up, and electricity in this province was unreliable.

We’ve made those investments, and now we’re confronting the reality that people have across the board seen unacceptable increases. We’ve made reductions. We know that there’s more to be done, particularly for people living on fixed incomes and low incomes and people who are dealing with delivery charges that are out of whack, people in rural and northern communities. We know that there’s more that has to be done.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: These rehearsed talking points are getting tired, and the people of Ontario aren’t believing them.

The Premier said she gets what ratepayers are struggling with in rural Ontario. Let me share an example. Matt recently tweeted a picture of his hydro bill from Lanark Highlands to the Premier, so I’m sure you’ve seen it. It was tweeted to you. His bill listed $4 worth of hydro used and a shocking $110 used for delivery.

How can the Premier justify that an individual here has a hydro bill where only $4 is for electricity and $110 in delivery charges? It’s out of whack.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition quoting me, because I just said that. I just said that delivery charges that were out of whack, that were disproportionate, that that’s one thing that I have heard about repeatedly, as has the Leader of the Opposition and as has the leader of the third party and—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That brings me to my comment that I am going to tighten things up a little if I have to, and I will.

Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —as has every member in this House. We recognize that the investments that have been made to make sure that this electricity system is clean and that it’s reliable, that there’s a cost associated with those investments—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: So we know that there’s more that needs to be done across the board to help people with their electricity bills, to deal with the disproportionate costs of distribution in particular parts of the province and to help people living on low incomes to deal with their electricity prices.

Those affordability issues are what are driving the changes that we have already made and that we will bring forward before the budget.

Energy policies

Mr. Patrick Brown: The Premier said that they’re going to get to delivery charges. They’ve been in office for almost 14 years. What’s their new line? “Just give us another 14 years and we’ll try to get to it”? People are tired of waiting.

But since I can’t get an answer on delivery charges, let’s talk about winter disconnections. I am disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that a motion was put forward to the House today and the government said no. They could have ended it today. I don’t want to delay a week. I don’t want to delay another day. We need action on winter disconnects today.

So my question is—we’ll put this motion forward right again after question period—rather than partisan games, will you support the motion? Yes or no? Yes or no?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Let me just say that for a good portion of the time that this government has been in office, we’ve been fixing the electricity mess that was left by the previous government.

Let me just say, on disconnection, there are two things that have happened this morning. As one of the first orders of business today, the government House leader actually introduced a motion that fast-tracked Bill 27. So I appreciate the support.

But on top of that—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, second time.

Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: On top of that, the Minister of Energy has actually been reaching out to send letters to all of the local distribution companies in the province. The vast majority of them are already in compliance with “no winter disconnections.” But what we have said is if there are any out of compliance, then—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I’m moving to warnings.

Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: If there are any that are still out of compliance by midnight tonight, then we will bring forward a piece of legislation that we hope would get support, and we’ll move to get those disconnections stopped.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier. The Premier says she has been fixing hydro bills for 14 years. Let me say: Please stop trying to fix it. You’ve taken competitive energy bills to among the highest in North America.

Back to winter disconnects: A source at the Ontario Energy Board told Global’s Alan Carter that the minister could issue a directive to stop winter disconnections—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The deputy House leader is warned.

Finish, please.

Mr. Patrick Brown: We know from Alan Carter that the minister could have issued a directive to stop winter disconnections, according to the Ontario Energy Board. Rather than actually act immediately, he doesn’t seem to realize he has a majority; he doesn’t realize he has this power; he doesn’t want to support the motion put forward today.

What I’m asking is, no more games. Will you support the motion today? We can’t afford to wait another day. Will you do the right thing and support the motion today—not tomorrow, not in a week, not in six months—

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

Be seated, please.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’m very pleased to be able to rise and welcome everyone back to the House. As the Leader of the Opposition should know, I can actually send tasks to the OEB, but I can’t give them directives. He should actually—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound is warned.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I wouldn’t tempt it.

Finish.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: So maybe the Leader of the Opposition could talk to the new Clerk and find out the information about the process that we can do in this House, because he does not have the information.

Talking about playing games—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The member from Nepean–Carleton is warned.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Talking about playing games: The Leader of the Opposition is doing just that. We had a bill in front of this House that could have stopped winter disconnections in June, but they didn’t support it in June, Mr. Speaker. They didn’t support it in September—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m sorry. Stop the clock. The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke is warned.

How many more before you realize I’m going to get this stopped?

Go.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: They didn’t support it in October, November or December. We now have our motion brought forward by the House leader that actually will see Bill 27 come to fruition by next week. If we get everyone’s support, we can have it passed by then and ensure that we’ll have the law of the land taking care of our winter disconnections.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Directly to the Premier: We don’t want to wait another week. We’ve been hearing that same tune for a year now. This needs to be addressed. Seniors are hurting. Families are hurting in Ontario.

Let me share the story. On Friday, a 76-year-old man told listeners on Andrew Lawton’s radio program that he’d been without power for four months. The Minister of Energy is saying to wait another week. How many other seniors is the Premier going to let freeze in the dark before we do the right thing? Mr. Speaker, directly to the Premier—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Municipal Affairs is warned.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Directly to the Premier: I don’t want to hear the Minister of Energy blame the opposition, blame seniors for not understanding their hydro bills, or blame Alan Carter for getting it wrong.

My question is directly for the Premier: Will you support the motion in an hour when it’s before us? You can end this in an hour. You can end winter disconnects in an hour if you do the right thing. No more games, Premier. No more games.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Be seated, please. As a reminder: to the Chair, please.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: No, it’s to the Minister of Energy.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m sorry. Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The only one I’m blaming is the Leader of the Opposition for not actually passing this in June. We have a bill ready to go; we have by the end of the day today. I asked all LDCs to voluntarily comply. We have a significant number of them doing so, and if they choose not to do that we will make sure that the law of the land will be brought forward tomorrow and there will be no more winter disconnects.

The only party that has been playing games with this issue is the Leader of the Opposition and his party. Rather than talking up programs that are available or talking about ways that we can actually help people avoid disconnects, he just stands up and shakes his fist and offers no plan.

We have plans. We’re bringing forward issues that will address winter disconnects. We’re going to make sure that this is taken care of by tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

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

New question?

Energy policies

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. I met a woman named Charlene who lives in Sault Ste. Marie and she has three kids. Charlene has two jobs, a full-time job and a part-time job, and her husband has a full-time job. They try to do the laundry and cooking during off-peak hours but their work schedules and their kids make it pretty hard to have that happen. Every month they end up with a $400 hydro bill and a disconnection notice. They’re living off their overdraft. When I met Charlene, she was almost in tears.

Can the Premier tell Charlene, and people like her all across Ontario, what she thinks she should be doing about it?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: There are two issues in that question that the leader of the third party raised, the first being that electricity prices are very burdensome for many people across the province. I recognize that. I have spoken with people like Charlene, the person the leader of the third party references, and I recognize that on top of what we have already done—the latest thing is the 8% reduction that is on all bills now—we need to do more. I have committed that we will bring forward a plan to further reduce electricity bills before the budget.

On the disconnection issue, I’ve been very clear: It’s unacceptable. We’ve had a piece of legislation before the House. The Minister of Energy has been reaching out to local distribution companies. Most LDCs have already got the message; there are no disconnections in the majority of them. If there are any outstanding by midnight tonight, we will bring forward a stand-alone piece of legislation to ban that practice.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, I’ve talked with people who get to the end of the month and have to decide between buying the groceries and paying the hydro bill to keep the lights on. This is 2017 and we live in a province with huge potential. Nobody should be faced with that sort of choice.

What does the Premier expect people to do?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I’ve said, I know that there are people in Ontario who are struggling with their electricity bills. I know that. We have been working very hard, and by that I mean we’ve been meeting with organizations, with individuals, whether it’s the Minister of Energy or me or my staff.

We’ve been looking for solutions that can make real changes in the electricity system that are sustainable, that over time will continue to reduce electricity costs and in the immediate term will give relief across the board, because we know that the investments that we have made in the system to make it clean, to make it reliable, to make it a system that everyone can count on across the province—there was a cost associated with those changes. We need to take more costs out of the system, we need to reduce those bills, and that’s exactly the proposal that we will bring forward before the budget.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, people are hurting and the Liberal government still doesn’t seem to get it. They won’t stop the sell-off of Hydro One which is going to make things even worse here in Ontario. The Premier, in fact, said that the only way to build transit was with money, so she sold off Hydro One to get that money, the hydro money. Now we’re hearing that she’s going to take money from schools, from hospitals and from transit to subsidize hydro. No wonder people are cynical, Speaker.

When is the Premier going to start fixing the problems that people face rather than the problems that the Liberal Party faces, stop the sell-off of Hydro One and begin fixing our electricity system?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the leader of the third party knows that there is absolutely no relationship between the broadening of the ownership of Hydro One and electricity prices. I know she knows that. What she’s trying to do is conflate those issues and make it sound as though somehow there is a connection.

Then she’s setting up the next piece of her strategy, which is that anything we do is going to be to the detriment of something else in government—not true, Mr. Speaker. The reality is that we are investing in transit. We must invest in transit in order to foster economic growth in this province. At the same time, we need to deal with electricity prices, which have increased across the board because of the investments that we have made over the last number of years to make sure that our grid is clean and that it’s reliable.

We’re going to continue to reduce electricity costs.

Energy policies

Ms. Andrea Horwath: To the Premier, Speaker: If the Premier wanted to stop people from having their hydro cut off, she could do that. I already said that to the Premier. Instead, she won’t do it unless she also gets her way on a 158-page omnibus bill, or the latest political grandstanding by her Minister of Energy.

Can the Premier explain why political credit is more important than stopping people from having their hydro cut off?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. It’s extremely important to me that we have action on this. That’s why it was included in the bill that was before the House in June.

We’ve said very clearly that if all of the LDCs—the local distribution companies—in the province have not moved to stop winter disconnections by midnight tonight, then we will bring forward a stand-alone piece of legislation, which I hope would get expeditious passage in this House. That would then be the rule: that there will be no winter disconnections across the province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier had an opportunity just a few minutes ago to pull that

section out of Bill 27 and pass it today, not tomorrow. She had that opportunity a few minutes ago, but because it was coming from the opposition, not from the government, she refused to do it. It appears that the Premier will only agree to keeping people’s power on if she and her Liberal Party get the political win. Shame on her.

Can this Premier explain to someone facing a disconnection notice in the province of Ontario why she’s putting the interests of her political party—the Liberal Party—before the interests of Ontarians?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The point is a procedural one. The reality is that it amounts to exactly the same thing: that people across the province will no longer be subjected to disconnection orders. My expectation, actually, would be that by midnight tonight, all of the LDCs would have agreed to stop this practice, so that neither piece of legislation is actually necessary because they will already be in compliance.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It should not be about the whim or the good nature of the utilities. It should be the law in the province of Ontario that people’s electricity does not get cut off. That is her job; that is her responsibility. It’s not up to the companies.

Last year, 60,000 people had their hydro cut off. Suddenly today, facing immense political pressure, the Premier has apparently seen the light—well, not the light today; maybe the light tomorrow.

Once again, this is politics at its worst. That’s what this Liberal Premier dishes up regularly in this province. That’s why the people of Ontario are so disappointed and so fed up with the Liberal Party and this Premier. When is she going to start making decisions that are based on the best interests of the people of Ontario and not the best interests of her Liberal Party?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the leader of the third party that this issue was before the House in June. The leader of the third party did not make an issue of this in June, nor did she work to expedite the piece of legislation. This is of great concern to us, which is why the Minister of Energy has communicated with all of the local distribution companies in the province and has said that winter disconnections are unacceptable. My expectation is that they will be in compliance by midnight. If that’s not the case, we will bring a piece of legislation tomorrow to make that the case if we get expeditious approval by the House.

Health care funding

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question’s to the Premier. Speaker, three-year-old Madison Ambos’s family has to raise over $140,000 to receive life-changing surgery out-of-country. This government has created a rationed health care system through their scandals and mismanagement, and Madison and many other children are unable to access the health care they need. Instead, families are left on their own to rely on the generosity of others to raise the much-needed funds to travel out-of-country.

The Premier and Minister of Health already know the results of the recommendations from their expert panel regarding this surgery. Families cannot wait any longer on OHIP’s dithering. Will the Premier direct her minister to fund Madison’s surgery today?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: First of all, let me just say that I can imagine no more trying and tragic situation than a family that has an ill child looking for support and looking for procedures that will alleviate that child’s suffering. There just is no worse situation I can imagine.

The reality is that in Ontario we have a health care system that is based on evidence, that looks at the scientific evidence behind procedures. I don’t know the specifics of the case of Madison, but I will certainly make sure that any information the member gives me will be passed on to the Minister of Health. But in situations where there is not a surgery available here in Ontario, and it is available elsewhere, if it’s something that is supported by evidence, then there is support for that surgery out of country. But the decisions we make in Ontario have to be based on medical evidence.

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

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Back to the Premier. This isn’t an experimental surgery. This is actually a surgery that’s covered by the ministry website. However, the ministry does not fund it in Ontario. The red tape and the layers of management they have created in the health care system have made it an impossible nightmare for Madison’s family to actually apply for the financial assistance the Premier is just referring to.

This surgery, again, is not experimental, and it is an approved surgery on the ministry’s website. Her minister is unwilling to fund the surgery in Ontario. Will the Premier make a commitment today to fund the surgery when Madison goes to St. Louis?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, what I’d like to do is to get the information from the member opposite. I will say that in my own constituency office, I can remember situations where there was a need to connect a family with the ministry and with the minister’s office to have a further conversation. I’m quite happy to do that for the member opposite, and I would like to have the information. I just don’t have enough information.

It’s interesting to me that it is something that is covered, but is not being funded. I’m not sure how that is happening, and what the questions or concerns are around this particular situation. I’ll need more information. I’ll certainly take it up with the Ministry of Health, and I appreciate the member opposite raising it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. New question. The member from—the member from—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: You know this, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You’re going to make me do this, aren’t you?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: After 28 years, you’ve got to get it right. Sorry, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I am sorry to the member from Timmins–James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: All right. It was just bad humour on my part.

Energy policies

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The serious question is to the Premier. Every party in this House has expressed support for legislation to stop winter disconnects, but the Premier refused to support Andrea Horwath’s motion this morning that would have dealt with it first thing today. Instead, she would rather hold those vulnerable people hostage, refusing to help people and, rather, help the Liberal Party.

My question is this: Why is it that you always choose to do what’s good for the Liberal Party and not necessarily what’s good for the people of Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: We brought forward this issue back in June. We wanted to address this issue in the spring. Now we’re getting close to that again, but unfortunately the opposition parties didn’t want to play nice on this one. We could have had this passed by then.

But we’ve now acted. I’ve written a letter to all the LDCs asking them to comply with no more winter disconnects. We sent that letter out last week and we have a majority of those LDCs acting on that and respecting that right now.

However, if a few LDCs don’t act by midnight tonight, we are more than happy to bring forward legislation that will end this winter disconnection program as soon as this legislation is passed, and we expect we would get support from the opposition on this.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Mr. Speaker, back to the Premier: This House couldn’t deal with it in June, why? Because you prorogued the House in June. Who are you trying to kid?

The issue here is very simple. We’ve been pointing out since last November that people are being disconnected. We’ve asked for legislation that was introduced—a motion this morning by my leader, to fast-track legislation—so we can deal with it today. Instead, what do you do? You say, “Oh, no, no. I don’t want to do it and give anybody else credit. I’ve got to do it so I can help the Liberal Party get some good press tomorrow. So we’re going to wait for another day and we’re going to do what’s good for the Liberal Party.”

I’m going to ask you once again: Why does it always come down to what’s good for the Liberal Party and not good for the people of Ontario?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I need to remind the honourable member that the prorogation happened on a Thursday and we were back on the Monday in September. They could have easily passed this bill then. But again, I know there are alternative facts on the other side. On this side of the House, we recognized that this was an issue for the people of Ontario in June. Why didn’t they, Mr. Speaker? They need to ask themselves why they didn’t see that back in June when we did as a government. We made sure that this bill was brought forward, making sure that we can end winter disconnects. Unfortunately they played political games with it, not this side of the House.

We’ve now made sure that there will be no more disconnects by all LDCs complying with the letter that I sent. We will know by midnight tonight, and if there are a few that don’t comply, we will make sure the law of the land will make them comply.

Research and innovation

Mr. Arthur Potts: My question is to the Minister of Research, Innovation and Science. A key promise of our government’s mandate was to create high-quality and high-paying jobs for Ontarians. To do that, the Minister of Research, Innovation and Science has made a number of very strategic investments to grow the innovation economy.

At a time when the term “bailout” was being used frivolously by members of the opposition, this government made the strategic decision to loan MaRS the capital they needed to finish their innovative research hub.

If the opposition had their way, MaRS would be a gigantic sinkhole at the corner of University and College, or maybe have been sold off to the private sector at an incredible loss. This government showed an immense amount of leadership in the face of very ardent criticism, and that leadership has paid off, Speaker.

I would like to ask, would the minister please inform this House on the very great successes of the MaRS Discovery District?

Hon. Reza Moridi: I want to thank the member from Beaches–East York for that very important question.

It is my distinct pleasure to inform the members of this House that the decision to bridge-finance MaRS has been an incredible success. The MaRS Discovery District loan will be paid three years ahead of time at zero cost to the people of Ontario—paid off with interest.

Thanks to our investment, MaRS has created over 6,000 jobs and is responsible for an increase in our annual GDP of $1 billion. It has attracted leading technology firms that are opening innovation labs right here in the city of Toronto.

I want to take a moment and thank the Premier for her extraordinary leadership in investing in the future of the economy of this province. Its impact will be seen for years and decades to come in this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from Trinity–Spadina.

Mr. Han Dong: Minister, this is great news for our government’s efforts to build a globally competitive innovation hub here in Trinity–Spadina. I’m pleased to hear that MaRS is not only paying off its loan but has also become a commercial success.

As I recall, the opposition were quite short-sighted in their criticism of this project. I was very glad that our government didn’t take their advice on this matter and made this investment happen despite the political risk involved.

Minister, can you advise this House as to why this investment and others like it are important to Ontario’s efforts in becoming a world leader in innovation?

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: The member is absolutely correct. The Leader of the Opposition once blatantly called MaRS a money pit and a bad fiscal decision. Today we see, Mr. Speaker, just how ill-informed and misguided he was. Ontario is emerging as a global strength, as an innovation leader, and key to those efforts to transform Ontario to a new global economy is a strong and healthy MaRS. MaRS is a true success story that is helping to establish Ontario as a force to be reckoned with in the global innovation economy.

Our decision to boldly press ahead to build the MaRS tower in the face of unrelenting political opposition has proven today to be the right decision. I want to thank our Premier and my colleagues for having the courage to step up in the face of political risk and opposition rhetoric. We place building a strong economy and creating new jobs ahead of partisan politics.

Manufacturing jobs

Mr. Todd Smith: My question this morning is for the Premier. On Friday last week, Bacardi announced that it was closing its Brampton location due to the changing business environment and to ensure the company’s future competitiveness.

My question, Speaker, is this: How many more jobs have to leave Ontario before this Premier does something about the electricity crisis that she and her government have created in Ontario?

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: Mr. Speaker, any time a job is lost in this province, we are concerned for the workers that are involved, and we will continue to reach out to those workers to ensure that we do everything we can to help them find alternative employment.

But the member has got to deal with the facts. We’ve created almost 700,000 net new jobs here in this province since the recession. The unemployment rate in Ontario is at the lowest level it’s been in eight years. We are outpacing the G7 in growth. That means we’re growing faster than the US, faster than Italy, faster than the UK, faster than France, faster than Germany, faster than Japan. Mr. Speaker, we’re leading this country in growth. We will continue to do that to ensure any of those workers impacted will have alternative employment for them to be able to pick up where they’ve left off.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Todd Smith: Speaker, we’ve lost 350,000 manufacturing jobs in the province of Ontario since this government took office. Electricity is a crisis situation here in Ontario, and this minister, this Premier and this government don’t seem to get it. They are the reason that the business climate is where it’s at in Ontario. There is a smattering of applause over there, because I don’t think the Liberal caucus even believes the numbers that the minister just put out there.

This company, Bacardi, had operated in Brampton for almost 50 years: an international business. They said the business environment and competitiveness has challenges in Ontario—this after the government just gave them $350,000 last year so they could keep the lights on. If the Premier doesn’t want to blame her electricity costs, which we all know is a problem, which of her government’s other policies does she believe is responsible for the uncompetitive business environment in Ontario?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Mr. Speaker, how dare the member opposite talk down our manufacturing sector when we’re up 5,700 net new jobs since last year alone? We’re proud that we’ve invested $1.9 billion in support for Ontario manufacturers. That has leveraged $18 billion in private sector support. It has helped to create or retain over 80,000 jobs.

Where was the member opposite when we made those investments? He was on the exact other side, opposing every cent that we invested in this sector.

We’re going to keep investing in our manufacturing sector. We’re going to ensure we have one of the most competitive manufacturing sectors in North America, and we’re going to keep growing jobs in that sector, Mr. Speaker.

Public transit

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier. Under the transit funding formula that was put in place by Bill Davis, the province paid 50% of the TTC’s operating costs. The Davis funding formula helped make the TTC the envy of the world.

The Progressive Conservative government cut that funding in 1998, and the funding has stayed cut under the Liberal government. Instead, the government has offered indirect funding with the gas tax, at a fraction of the previous funding.

Will the Premier help make the TTC the envy of the world again? Will she restore the TTC operating funding, as proposed by the NDP?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I thank the member from Toronto–Danforth for the question. I think that member will know that at the current time,