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

November 15, 2016

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-Nov-15 (PDF)

L028 - Tue 15 Nov 2016 / Mar 15 nov 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 15 November 2016 Mardi 15 novembre 2016

Aggregate Resources and Mining Modernization Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la modernisation des secteurs des ressources en agrégats et des mines

Introduction of Visitors

Legislative pages

Appointment of French Language Services Commissioner

Oral Questions

Hydro rates

Health care

By-election in Sudbury

Privatization of public assets

Government fiscal policies

Government fiscal policies

Home ownership

Hydro rates

Water quality

Child care

By-election in Sudbury

Nurse practitioners

Health care

School trip

Deferred Votes

Protecting Students Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 protégeant les élèves

Aggregate Resources and Mining Modernization Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la modernisation des secteurs des ressources en agrégats et des mines

Members’ Statements

Anti-bullying initiatives

Brian Brown

Innovative Automation Inc.

Mervyn Denney

Organ and tissue donation

St. Paul’s Church, L’Amoreaux

Electoral system

Women’s House

Racial discrimination

Private members’ public business

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Introduction of Bills

Nurse Practitioner Week Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la Semaine des infirmières praticiennes et infirmiers praticiens

Safer School Zones Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la sécurité accrue des zones d’école

Family Caregiver Day Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur les aidants naturel

Motions

Format of printed bills

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Treaties recognition

Treaties recognition

Treaties recognition

Committee sittings

Petitions

Dental care

Shingles vaccine

Hospital funding

Long-term care

Hydro rates

Hospital funding

Hydro rates

Privatisation des biens publics

Hydro rates

Hydro rates

Hydro rates

Orders of the Day

Burden Reduction Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur l’allègement du fardeau réglementaire

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Aggregate Resources and Mining Modernization Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la modernisation des secteurs des ressources en agrégats et des mines

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 14, 2016, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 39,

An Act to amend the Aggregate Resources Act and the Mining Act / Projet de loi 39, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les ressources en agrégats et la

Loi sur les mines.

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

Hon. David Zimmer: Speaker, we’ve been debating this piece of legislation now for some time, so I just want to go over it once more. I pose the question to the viewing audience: What are the proposed mining amendments all about? Well, it’s a part of Ontario’s ongoing efforts to modernize the Mining Act. Mining is a crucial commercial and economic activity of this province. It is important that all aspects of the mining business in Ontario, if you will, be as modern as we can possibly make them.

If passed, the bill would make some technical amendments that the Mining Act needs to implement on mining claim registration, which is the newest way to register mining claims. That, of course, entails a new mining lands administration system. We are going from the old style of staking mining claims to a new online approach to make this jurisdiction here in Ontario at the leading edge of how the mining business is conducted.

There are a number of other aspects of mining that have already been modernized, so these will complement those that are already in place. Other aspects have included new rules and tools to help provide clarity and certainty to industry to help build positive relationships with surface rights owners and ensure ongoing engagement by industry with affected indigenous communities.

I want to just speak for a second about the relationship of indigenous communities to the mining industry. As the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, I can tell you that First Nations’ relationship to the land and to all that the land encompasses—that is, the rich minerals in the land—is of huge importance to First Nations. It’s important that First Nations’ opinions be taken into account and respected, and that there be an open dialogue about how these amendments are going to interact with First Nations’ cultural attitudes towards the land.

Let me give a couple of comments about why the amendments to the Aggregate Resources Act and Mining Act will be put together into one bill. As a part of the government’s continued efforts to modernize the Aggregate Resources Act and Mining Act, these amendments with both the aggregate piece and the mining piece have been combined into one single act. So much of aggregate is a by-product of the mining industry that it makes sense to treat them as a common entity, if you will.

The proposed Mining Act amendments were introduced in December 2015. That was a part of the ongoing process of modernizing Ontario’s Mining Act, as I’ve said. That process, interestingly, began in 2009 with the passage of Bill 173. While this is the first time that the proposed Aggregate Resources Act amendments have been introduced, the proposed changes represent the first step in a very phased approach to modernize and strengthen the aggregate resources policy framework.

The current bill will enable the Legislature to consider proposed changes to two of Ontario’s natural resource statutes at the same time. There’s an economy there, there’s an efficiency there, there are policy links there that make it proper to include these amendments and changes to roll this legislation affecting both aggregates and mining into one piece of legislation.

Another question comes up, and I’ve been asked: “Why does the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry have the lead on this bill?” The Ministry of Northern Development and Mines is working in close collaboration with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry to put forth important legislation in Ontario’s provincial Parliament. I am particularly looking forward to working with my colleague Minister McGarry, who is the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, as this legislation is presented to the House.

I’ve also been asked if this combined bill will change the process of the Mining Act amendments to be passed. I can assure you, Speaker, and members of the House, that the combined bill will work its way through the usual legislative process for government-proposed bills.

I want to say some additional comments, then, about modernizing the Mining Act and what’s involved in these proposed amendments. Ontario is proposing some necessary technical updates to the Mining Act to implement around-the-clock mining claim registration and an entirely new administration system for managing mining lands.

If the amendments are passed by this Legislature, licensed prospectors would select cells on a grid overlying a map of the province, and that would be done through an online client claim registration portal instead of the old style of walking through the bush or across the land, staking claims with a small sledgehammer and claim sticks. That’s the sort of idea we have of staking claims from the movies. Perhaps some of us have actually been in the north and observed that being done. So it’s a very, very modern approach.

Again, I want to stress that if Ontario is going to continue to be, as it has been for generations, a leader in the mining business, it is important that Ontario have the latest technology, the most modern tools to do mining. That will attract investment. That will make people want to come to Ontario to avail themselves of the most efficient way, the very best possible way and the fairest way of staking claims. That’s why Ontario is moving to an online claim registration system.

What other jurisdictions—and that’s an interesting question to ask ourselves: What other jurisdictions have online staking experience and what has been their experience? I can tell you, Speaker, that while Ontario is continuing to modernize the Mining Act to ensure it remains one of the top jurisdictions in how exploration and development are carried out, there are other jurisdictions that have implemented these processes themselves. We’re keeping pace with these jurisdictions.

Online registration of mining claims is already in place in British Columbia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and Quebec. Manitoba and Nunavut are in the process of implementation of this new approach to the staking of mining claims.

So you see, Speaker, and members of this Legislature, it is important that Ontario maintain its leading place in the technique and the practice of staking mining claims. We do not want to fall behind, given the rich, rich possibilities that await us in the mining industry here in Ontario.

I have been asked, that being the case, why we have not moved sooner with these implementations. I’ve also been asked how much it is going to cost. Well, Ontario is a huge province, as you know, Speaker, a huge province, much larger than any of the other provinces that I have referenced, with the possible exception of Quebec. So a significant amount of work is required to complete the initiative that we’ve taken. Ontario has decided to do it in a phased-implementation manner so that we get all of these technical online pieces in place in an orderly fashion, so there is a phased transition to the new system.

Phase 1 of the modernizing of the act was implemented in 2011, phase 2 in 2012 and 2013, and we have committed to phase 3 in the 2014 budget. So, Speaker, at the end of the exercise, Ontario will continue to be the leader in mining and exploration.

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

Ms. Laurie Scott: I’m pleased to join in this morning on Bill 39,

An Act to amend the Aggregate Resources Act and the Mining Act.

I want to speak primarily to some of the comments in regard to aggregates. I was part of the Standing Committee on General Government, which, for over 18 months, went around the province to discuss the update that could be made to the ARA act. There were several members who are still here and a lot of members who aren’t here in the Legislature anymore, enabled by our great researcher Jerry Richmond. We would say Jerry rocks. Jerry is retired now also, but he kept us all together, because it did go over a lot of months, to keep track of all the issues. I think we’re happy to finally see legislation.

We’ve been begging for it since the report was tabled over two years ago. Different ministers have been in the portfolio. But there really needs to be an update.

Geography determines where aggregates are. I live in Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock. There are aggregates all over my riding. In fact, there are the top aggregate producers, municipal producers of Ontario. Kawartha Lakes, the largest municipality in my riding, is in that category of the top 10 producers in the province of Ontario.

We tried to make recommendations that strike a balance between the aggregate functions and living with the neighbours, the municipalities, the environment. We see that many recommendations we made are not in this bill, so I’m hoping that when the bill comes to committee we can make some.

One is haul routes, H-A-U-L, haul routes. For example, I can have an aggregate facility in Trent Lakes in my riding, but the roads they haul the aggregates on, to where they’re providing the aggregates, are actually through another municipality. Therefore, the money does not go to the municipality where there’s the most wear and tear on their roads. So we want to see the increased levy, but we want it to go to the municipality, especially in this case, that has the most wear and tear due to the aggregates.

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: It’s always a pleasure to stand in my place on behalf of the good people of Algoma–Manitoulin.

I want to address some of the comments the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation made this morning. He’s absolutely correct, particularly on the Mining Modernization Act perspective of this particular bill. There is some updating, and there are some

definitions that are going to be changed, something that I described in my one-hour lead that I believe I had just a couple of weeks ago. All of this is under the Aggregate Resources and Mining Modernization Act, and a lot of it is enabling legislation.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of suggestions and recommendations that came under the Blueprint for Change that we don’t see in this legislation. And I remember welcoming the member who just spoke, from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, to Manitoulin Island when she did come on behalf of the committee. I was happy to see those new faces from her area and other areas of the province coming to my riding.

Some of the things that are not contained in this bill are that there are no clear solutions to those seeking greater restrictions on the large quarry operations in sensitive areas like the Niagara Escarpment. That’s not in this bill.

It does not require a needs assessment to help balance interests when land use decisions are being made about quarry applications. That is not in this bill.

The bill is silent on maximizing the use of recycling aggregate, something that I talked on extensively during my one-hour lead last week.

The bill offers no clear solutions for those seeking remedies for excessive noise, truck traffic or other impacts of aggregates operations. That is not in this bill.

There are no clear solutions to the growing communities that are suddenly surprised with the reappearance of long-dormant quarries. That is not within this bill, as well.

So the government can stand and say that this is a great bill, but a lot is left to, “Well, let’s hope they do the right thing;” and if we look at the track record of this Liberal government, they’ve been failing with an F for a very long time.

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

Hon. Laura Albanese: I think that we’re discussing a very important bill and we’re trying, as the minister said in his speech, to modernize Ontario. I know that the other members are bringing forward some interesting suggestions, and I’m sure that those could be looked at during the committee process. As we know, every bill goes through the committee process and that’s the most important part, really, where real changes can be made.

I represent an urban riding, so if anything, we get part of the recycling in some of the industrial parts of my riding, but not much else. But at the same time, I want to say that it has always been important to me, because when I was growing up, actually, my father had a company in Italy, not here, and that’s what he did. He had quarries. So I’m familiar with the industry because I recall when I was a child visiting some of these quarries and how significant they were for the benefit of the economy at the time. They were used to make roads and to make bridges and we know how important infrastructure is for any society. So we have that aspect that brings it back home in many ways.

Today, we have the ability to recycle aggregates and to reuse a non-renewable resource, if you will, in a much better way. This has become critical to sustainment management.

Speaker, thank you very much for allowing me to add just a bit to this bill.

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

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m pleased to add my voice to this debate this morning, as the aggregate industry in the riding of Huron–Bruce is very significant and we have numerous pits and businesses that reflect the successful aspect of the aggregate industry.

I, too, though, echo the comments made by my colleague, my seatmate here from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, in the sense that we have to make sure that as that valuable resource is hauled from point A to point B, the municipalities in between have an opportunity to recover and be recognized for the damage—the wear and tear—that happens on their local roads. This particular act is remiss on that part.

Another thing that concerns me about this particular act is that yet again we see this Liberal government pulling control back to individuals. In particular—the realities with this act—the minister wants to allocate herself with powers to enforce decisions without a tribunal. Speaker, we’ve been down this path before.

Mr. Steve Clark: We’ve seen this movie before.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Yes, as my colleague from Leeds–Grenville said, “We’ve seen this movie before.” Look what happened with the Green Energy Act when local autonomy was stripped away, purposefully. We’ve also seen, in the Great Lakes act, the development of a guardian council and the appropriation of powers to the minister to make unilateral decisions. Bill 151 is another example of where the power to make decisions is being removed from the democratic arena and is being hauled back, literally, to an individual in the minister’s office. That’s concerning based on the record of this government’s actions. We have to do better, and we want to see this corrected in amendments.

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

Hon. David Zimmer: I wanted to say something about how this legislation will impact on indigenous communities. If indigenous communities are notified that a claim has been staked, how will that notification occur? Well, to encourage our early engagement and relationship building with claim holders and indigenous communities, the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines some years ago put in place a notification process where information is provided about newly recorded mining claims in the vicinity of a First Nation community, including contact information for the claim holder.

Currently, when a new mining claim is staked and recorded, the claim holder is sent a letter encouraging early engagement and relationship building with indigenous communities, including a list of indigenous communities in the vicinity to the mining claim. Should the proposed bill be enacted—this piece of legislation—the new mining lands administration system would enhance that existing notification process by providing for automatic, real-time notification to indigenous communities following a claim registration.

This will give First Nation or indigenous communities in the area of a mining claim that has been staked instantaneous notice. They’ll get the same in-time notice that everyone else gets the moment that that claim is filed through the computer.

I should add this important point also: First Nation reserves are not open for mining claim staking under provincial legislation. Reserve lands are federally administered and within the federal legislative jurisdiction process.

I want to say something about how governments will ensure that large areas cannot be easily tied up by a few companies. The online registration system in other jurisdictions has not, in fact, resulted in large areas of land being tied up.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I’d like to thank the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

Further debate?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Speaker, I’ll be sharing my time with my colleague from Kawartha Lakes-Haliburton-Brock—that combination.

Interjection.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Somewhere in there.

In Bill 39, the Aggregate Resources Act—I’ll have to focus my comments to just a few areas, although there’s much to be said about this. I believe anybody who represents a rural area will have significant experience and interaction with their constituents over aggregate extraction in our ridings. I have had significant interactions as well.

I want to first start off—this act provides an undue and significant broadening of the powers of the minister, which is not what people are looking for. I’ll draw attention to a couple of places.

Section 37: “Upon issuing an aggregate permit, the minister may attach such conditions to the permit as he or she considers necessary.” At any time, the minister may also “add a condition to an aggregate permit, rescind or vary a condition of an aggregate permit or amend an aggregate permit in any other way.”

Speaker, we need and we expect that we live under the rule of law, not under the rule of ministerial edict. This bill provides all-encompassing authority to the minister, often without any right of appeal. I find it quite odd, knowing what the select committee recommended to this House on improvements to the Aggregate Resources Act, why the government would now come out with such broad, arbitrary powers vested into the minister.

Once somebody has a permit, has met all the criteria, has met all the functions and thresholds to extract, to then give the minister the authority to just arbitrarily change the conditions of the permit is absolutely, fundamentally wrong. That’s just one element of this bill that I would like people to look at.

I think this bill also misses the mark on a distribution formula for funding between municipalities with aggregates and those municipalities that use aggregates. I think it’s important for us to recognize—and I believe why aggregates can be so contentious—I think they’re symbolic of that urban/rural divide that many people speak about. Aggregates, by and large, are located in rural Ontario, but they’re utilized disproportionately in urban Ontario. We see all these requirements placed on the extraction of aggregates, often either by the ministry or by different urban groups.

But they’re the beneficiaries of it, and the rural municipalities do not get much of a share in the wealth created from aggregates. This bill is silent on that aspect.

Something else that I want to just draw people’s attention to—and I found the number astonishing. A number of years ago—it was during the select committee—I found out that over 90% of our aggregates in Ontario are already off limits. They cannot be extracted either due to site conditions or, more often, regulatory restrictions. Over 90% of our aggregates cannot ever be taken out of the ground in this province. That’s an astonishing number.

Of course, the other element behind our aggregates that we need to understand is that we’re having fewer and fewer people engaged in the extraction of aggregates. Competition has been reduced. Small pit and quarry operators have not been able to keep pace with the regulatory environment and the cost of doing business in this province. We’ve lost many family owned and operated pits and quarries in my riding and throughout the province, and that has led to an increased cost and a reduction of competition.

I’d like to turn it over to my colleague.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): The member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I appreciate my colleague sharing some time with me. As we first came in this morning, we were scared that they were going to limit debate, so I wanted to get a few more things on the record for my municipalities and on the work we did for that committee.

In 2011, after the election—the ARA review was basically an election issue in some of the ridings, so thus we started. It was a really great committee as we travelled the province. We made 38 recommendations. One that I mentioned earlier, that I just highlighted, is the fact that I have aggregate producers and then I have haul routes. If there’s a pit or a quarry in one municipality, it can be right on the edge of that municipality, but the wear and tear on the roads—because I have fewer provincial highways, they’re actually over municipal roads.

The remuneration is very low. I have to go back in my memory quickly; I think it’s 11 and a half cents, and maybe six cents go to the municipality. The municipalities in my area are actually losing money because the pittance they get from the fees does not compensate for the roads they have to build. You can imagine these big trucks on culverts and bridges. The wear and tear is excessive.

The ministry, in this bill, is recommending an increase, and I’m more than happy that that is finally coming, five years later. It’s the distribution, and the fact that we don’t really know how much it’s going to increase and how it’s going to be distributed. When we were in committee, we heard a lot about a fund that it goes into, like a separate trust, a dedicated fund into which the dollars go. I must say that the aggregate association worked well with a lot of municipalities. They were ahead of the mark and made recommendations even before our committee started.

They were with us at committee, the Ontario Stone, Sand and Gravel Association and many municipalities. They had already looked ahead to see what they could do.

What we see here are not specifics—I always worry when it’s all left up to regulation; I know some things have to be—of how this increase per tonne is actually going to be distributed. I want to say that in Trent Lakes, where half of the quarries are actually on crown land, that is actually not addressed. If you have extraction from crown land, you actually don’t get any money from the per-tonne extraction, yet they use the municipal roads. That was definitely recommended, in our view—and the minister is nodding her head, so I appreciate that—but it’s not really clarified here.

Northern Ontario could be a different issue; I understand that. That’s what we heard when we travelled. That’s why it’s good to travel on committee to other parts of the province. But in southern Ontario, when we have a small municipality like Trent Lakes and they don’t have any remuneration and 50% of their pits and quarries are on crown land, it’s very impactful. Their roads are in desperate need of repair, yet their budget, because of low population in the township, is not there. I’m hoping the minister looks at that.

From Trent Lakes, most of the haul route on several quarries goes through the municipality of the city of Kawartha Lakes and actually through several villages. Again, they’re not getting any money, and yet they have the most wear and tear from certain pits and quarries on their roads. When TAPMO, which is the Top Aggregate Producing Municipalities of Ontario, saw this as an issue, they said we should have dedicated funds on the use of roads for aggregates and then divide them up fairly.

I know that the member from Caledon mentioned recycling. Certainly, we’d like to see recycling a little stronger in the bill. We don’t need to extract as much from pits and quarries if we use more recycled materials. We see some municipalities—and even the government did actually, I think, 30% use of recycled aggregate, yet a lot of municipalities, when they put to tender, they say “no recycled,” which is something that should be looked at, and I think it’s in all our best interests.

I have very limited time, but one more is about mapping. The town of Caledon did mapping so that people coming in could actually see where deposits were that may be future-developed, and I think that should be across the province of Ontario.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that leniency.

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

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I want to just echo some of the concerns that were raised. I think it’s important to acknowledge that the communities where the aggregates or the materials or natural resources are—the municipalities should receive some remuneration. I think that’s an important point in fairness, so I want to acknowledge that comment being raised by both members who just spoke.

When we’re talking about the aggregate issue, an area that’s been very unclear and an area where there has been significant problems is with respect to gravel truck drivers. These are the drivers who go into the pits and have their trucks loaded up. There’s a massive lack of clarity with respect to this issue. The drivers have had numerous complaints. They’ve done strikes, and it’s really because of a lack of leadership with respect to the ministry. What’s happening is that you have drivers who are coming to a pit. They’re driving in a gravel truck, and their beds are being filled up by the loaders.

What happens is that these are tonnes and tonnes of material that are being put into a truck. The driver cannot control where the material is being loaded. What happens is, when they’re pulled over, the ministry then charges not because they’re carrying over the capacity—they’re carrying well within the capacity of their truck—but then there’s axle-weight capacity. So if the material, if the aggregate is a little bit too much on one axle, then they’re charged with an offence, and these offences are quite expensive.

It’s not a criminal offence, it’s a highway traffic offence, but even for a provincial offence, the fines are so high that it actually costs them more to pay the fine than what they earn in a day.

This is an issue where the government needs to provide some more clarity. A driver can’t control where loaders put the materials. They can look at the overall weight, but they can’t control the aggregates being on a particular axle or not. That’s an area where the government needs to provide some more leadership.

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

Mr. Mike Colle: I listened intently to the members from Lanark and Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock. We were on the committee that travelled the province with the member from Haliburton, and I think it was a very productive exercise, because we went all the way up to Manitoulin and saw how they ship aggregates to Cleveland and everything. I think we learned that this is a very complex issue dealing with many competing interests. That’s why you can’t have one-off comments about this bill.

We do know that this bill is certainly long overdue, but it is not a silver bullet because there are very difficult issues. For instance—I think the member from Haliburton mentioned this—the most perplexing thing I found was that all the local municipalities were complaining about the aggregate industry and the damage to the roads, yet we found out that the local municipalities do not use recycled aggregates. They refuse to. Their engineers say, “Recycled aggregates are not up to our standard,” yet the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario uses recycled aggregates; 30% of the aggregates used by the MTO are recycled.

We asked many municipal leaders—I remember Mr. Seiling and others came—“Why don’t you use recycled aggregates? You would reduce the impact on your municipalities, you would reduce costs, yet your engineers don’t allow the use of recycled aggregates.” It was just mind-boggling to see this. It is one of the perplexing aspects of this bill.

Anyway, it is something that needs oversight, it is a good bill that blends together a lot of interests, and it’s overdue.

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

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I really appreciated the fact that our member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock had an opportunity to share the time with our colleague from eastern Ontario, because as a member of the standing committee that went across the province—there were a lot of learnings that happened over the 18 months that the standing committee worked on this particular report. Again, as has been pointed out, 38 recommendations came forward for consideration, and we’ve been waiting five years for action on those recommendations.

I’m really glad the member from Eglinton–Lawrence mentioned the recycling aspect. That is so, so important. This is 2016. We should be thinking about how those infamous “Rs” can be applied to the aggregate sector. We, too, support the notion of doing better in that regard and improving and recognizing greater opportunities to do just that: recycle our aggregates as we move forward with our road development and rehabilitation.

Another thing I’d like to touch on is the fact that mapping is very, very important. I commend my colleague from Dufferin–Caledon on the work that she did along with the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock. The town of Caledon is leading by example. They’ve gone out on their own initiative and mapped out the future development of aggregate resources.

I think this is imperative as we go forward as a province, so that when they’re looking at relocating or opportunities for development in our local municipalities, people are able to recognize very quickly the future development of aggregates, because it will make a difference.

Just to close my two minutes in terms of comments, I want to say that members in this House spent a lot of time on the report that came out of the Standing Committee on General Government. I know this minister will take those recommendations to heart and do the best she can.

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Good morning, Speaker. I’m glad to offer my comments on Bill 39, Aggregate Resources and Mining Modernization Act. It’s actually a very educational bill for many of us because, as members have said, geographically, it really dictates where this bill will be particularly important.

This is an almost entirely enabling legislation, with very few details. The blueprint report that was done, A Blueprint for Change, has many, many recommendations that weren’t adapted into this bill, and the changes that are happening from the blueprint are left to regulation.

This all kind of came about because of the example that Melancthon went through, where a developer, or a corporation, purchased farmland in quantities, in acreages—500 acres—in quite a substantial amount. The community was left thinking that they were going to use it for farmland. It turned out that Melancthon didn’t have the intention of using it for farmland and food production but, indeed, for aggregate purposes. In a lot of ways, that was the case that drove this legislation.

Leaving a lot of these things to regulation isn’t really something that people can put a lot of faith in. We need to have legislation that actually will work for the companies and for the communities that they’re going to use their resources from. We talked about that with regard to the environmental piece. That’s very important to communities. We don’t want to have those things dumped back into our environment. We want to make sure that we recycle those aggregates appropriately. I think helping the communities will make a big difference when it comes to the environment.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock for final comments.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A lot has been brought up by members. I appreciate the member from Eglinton–Lawrence; we were on that committee a lot, and learned a lot. Some of the recommendations—I’m hoping he’s going to come into committee when we have maybe a potential to put some amendments forward.

I had left off about mapping. Municipalities could map where deposits are. We all can see where the quarries are now. But we also wanted to have a process that was simplified—digitalized. We said to digitalize it, so people could go online. They can go on now and see where sites are. Digitalize the whole permitting, to see if there’s a pit and quarry operated that hasn’t acted in good faith.

I’m a little concerned with some of the bill, where it says every licensee shall pay an annual fee in the prescribed amount within the prescribed timeline. But it says “shall,” and in the current legislation—it was “shall” and now it’s “may.” We have to have a responsibility that the people who are taking out the licence for these pits and quarries have a responsibility to pay licence fees, but also that the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry can go in and make sure things are working properly and there are reports that are tabled annually.

Enforcement needs to occur. The Ontario Stone, Sand and Gravel Association would like the resources for enforcement, right? Not themselves, but for enforcement to occur, so that this keeps this liveability that we have to have with the neighbours to pits and quarries, with municipalities and with the environment all above board. It’s a transparency that occurs. I think that we can do better, modernizing that and being more transparent with everyone involved.

There is a part of the bill that gives the minister some more powers. We’re a little concerned about that.

But as always, Mr. Speaker, I’m running out of time on this topic. Thank you.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: As always, it is my privilege to rise in this chamber to speak on behalf of my constituents in Oshawa. Though we’re not a big mining town, my community is brimming with passionate advocates for a number of important issues such as safety, the environment and transparency, all of which are areas of concern within this bill.

I will remind the Speaker that in Oshawa, we also have an international deep-water shipping port that connects to cross-country rail and the 400 series. We know a lot about industry and heavy road use and also finding that balance when it comes to protecting our sensitive environmental areas and our wetlands. So we do have thoughts on this bill. Let’s get to it.

Today, we’re debating Bill 39, the Aggregate Resources and Mining Modernization Act. Coming in at 73 pages, it isn’t a light bill, but magically the government found a way to skim over a number of important details, still. As we know, this bill has two schedules which seek so amend the Aggregate Resources Act and the Mining Act—and, of course, we must applaud the government for another wonderful Liberal title by sticking the word “modernization” in there.

I should also note that the government first proposed changes to the Aggregate Resources Act around five years ago; we’re just seeing this legislation now. That means that not only is it missing some important details, but it’s also coming five years late.

These are some of the broad concerns we have about this bill, but as the bill amends two separate pieces of legislation, I would like to address each

schedule separately as well.

Starting with

schedule 1, which pertains to the Aggregate Resources Act, once again, the government is asking the Legislature to trust it with vague enabling legislation that leaves almost all the crucial details to regulation. Again, this is after a long delay. The government has very little to show for over five long years of reviewing the Aggregate Resources Act, and we’re still waiting for details. Personally, I would assume that you could fill in some of those details after a five-year period, especially with so many weighing in on the bill, making recommendations which, by the way, we don’t see reflected in this piece of legislation. But anyway, perhaps I assumed too much.

Back to what is missing: There aren’t any guidelines, purposes, statements of value or provincial interests in this policy framework. The bill enables certain powers, but doesn’t explain how these powers may or must be used. In short, the government can do pretty much anything it wants. The government could impose huge new regulatory burdens on the industry and make aggregate operations impossible, or it could allow every acre of wetland and prime farmland to become a gravel pit, operated without needing a licence or permit.

That’s not good enough for stakeholders, environmentalists or the people of Ontario. They want and deserve proper details, just like they deserve with every piece of legislation that the government introduces and every decision they make that affects the general public.

Speaker, a side note: The largest user of aggregates is the government, so you would think that they would be the leaders, that we would be leading, taking the lead, when it comes to recycling. But unfortunately, we’re not.

This bill does not prevent the destruction of wetlands by aggregate extraction. It does not protect the Niagara Escarpment. As I said, in Oshawa, we have Second Marsh and we have McLaughlin Bay. They’re pretty close to our international deep-water shipping port and the industry that comes and goes through there. Locally, we appreciate the need for balance in preserving nearby wetlands and encouraging industry in supporting our roads. We do have thoughts on this, as do all people across Ontario.

There are no interpretive guidelines or tools for approval authorities to help them balance the need for aggregate operations with other public interests.

There is still no clear obligation to screen out pit or quarry applications that conflict with the government’s own protections for natural heritage or source water, as the Environmental Commissioner recommended a decade ago. If the government is sincere about modernizing the ARA to provide better environmental safeguards, then it should demonstrate this in the legislation.

In short, there’s a lot that is missing. There’s a lot that hasn’t been addressed and a number of questions up in the air. I will be the first to admit that I am not an expert in this field and, as my colleague mentioned, this bill has been an opportunity for many of us to learn more about this field and this topic; but I am pretty sure that the Environmental Commissioner is indeed an expert in this field, as are the industry stakeholders that recognize what’s missing from this bill.

During consultations—people have been asking for things. Why aren’t those recommendations seen in this piece of legislation? That’s another question. Apparently, the government knows best.

What this bill does do is provide the minister and the Lieutenant Governor in Council the authority to do a number of different things. Some of them are important changes, such as allowing the minister to protect some of Ontario’s natural heritage; other changes are redundant or require further clarification, which we hope to hear soon. We look forward to hammering out some of those issues and details, filling in the blanks during committee.

On to

schedule 2 of the bill, which makes amendments to the Mining Act: Same as with

schedule 1, the government has left the details in the amendments to the Mining Act almost entirely to further regulations after its passage.

Again, the people of Ontario deserve more than this. The government has had plenty of time to iron out the details of this legislation in advance of its introduction, but they’ve chosen the Liberal approach of passing the legislation and then introducing the details in the dark. That’s a shame and a missed opportunity.

These amendments have long been promised by the government. We should note that they were originally contained in Bill 155, the Mining Amendment Act. As we know, that bill died on the order paper, Speaker, when the government prorogued the Legislature, you might recall, for that one day in the fall—another example of when the government has put their interests ahead of the interests of Ontarians, but I digress.

Back to the bill: The majority of the amendments are meant to streamline the antiquated claims process in the province, consistent with the government’s mineral development strategy. New Democrats have long championed the development of the mining resource industry in the province as a jobs and infrastructure creator, particularly in the northeast and northwest of the province.

As my colleague from Algoma–Manitoulin had spoken at length about northern issues—this is a government that pretends to care about infrastructure, but it’s been dragging its feet on facilitating multi-billion-dollar infrastructure and job creation, which is affectionately being called the ring of smoke now. Here we have another example of where we could be seeing more.

That’s why we support the government finally making amendments to the Mining Act, but that doesn’t excuse the manner that they’ve introduced them in or, again, what’s missing.

This bill leaves the majority of details to regulation. The changes have moved at an almost glacial pace, and there is a continued lack of engagement on being party to necessary agreements between First Nations and industry.

We have concerns about the lack of details. We wish to express our disappointment in the amount of time it has taken the government to finally address some of these problems. Ultimately, we are indeed supporting the legislation, but the government should be providing greater clarity to the bill. It should strengthen environmental considerations, especially protection of prime farmland and drinking water, but these are things that we’re going to push for at the committee stage.

Again, it’s disappointing that they have taken so long to address some of these problems, then delayed them even further through prorogation. Just like in introducing this bill, the government has historically shown a lack of urgency towards facilitating multi-billion-dollar infrastructure and jobs generators in the north.

Speaker, sometimes it feels like this is a broken record. We’re just dancing to the same broken record. How often can we say that the government has left the details out of the bill, the government has delayed the introduction of important amendments, the government has refused to properly consult with experts and stakeholders, and here we are again? We keep saying it, but they keep doing it. So I guess we’re back to where we started.

Once again, the government is asking us to trust them with vague, enabling legislation that leaves almost all the crucial details to regulation. Once again, they have little to show for over five years of reviewing. Like I said, it’s a 73-page bill—it’s not a light bill—but it is still missing pieces.

I’ve outlined the broad concerns we’ve been speaking about on this bill in the Legislature. I’d like to take a moment to thank my colleague the member for Timmins–James Bay, who has long served as the NDP critic for natural resources and forestry, and my colleague the member from Algoma–Manitoulin, who serves as the NDP critic for northern development and mines. They’ve done incredible work on these files. They’ve pushed for positive and necessary changes that have often fallen on deaf ears with this government.

I know that being an opposition critic can be a thankless job some days, but I’d like to thank them for their work in this field. I want to thank them for their experience, their passion and their expertise. I hope the government has at least listened to a few things that you’ve suggested, now and on so many occasions in the past.

We are supporting this bill. There are changes we will fight for. There is time to make this bill stronger, and we are happy to continue to make those suggestions, whether the government is listening or not.

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

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: It’s again a pleasure to rise on behalf of my constituents in Cambridge to add my comments to Bill 39.

I just wanted to point out that the work that’s been done on many sides of the House leading up to this bill has been substantial.

I’m really delighted to know that the recommendations from the standing committee are reflected in this bill in response to what the standing committee put forward, for instance: the standardizing provisions for site plan amendments, which is recommendation 8; creating a framework for equalizing fees and royalties, which is recommendation 6; and enhancing provisions that will support improved reporting on rehabilitation and recycled aggregate production, which is recommendation 10; and so on and so forth. Certainly, that work that was done on A Blueprint for Change has also helped to inform this process.

Other committee recommendations will be moving forward when we move to phase 2.

In saying that, I’ve listened intently to many members on all sides of the House and have taken note of all those comments, and certainly I want to see this bill move forward as quickly as possible to committee so that we continue the work and the discussion with more public consultation and see what the committee can make of the bill and finally shape this moving forward.

I did want to make my final comments after thanking all the members who have already spoken to this bill to talk about equalizing fees. This has been a subject of great interest with the municipalities, industry and the public. Certainly, equalizing fees between crown land and private land helps to address the ongoing burden that the municipalities face with infrastructure. So that particular discussion will move forward fairly quickly. The consultation has now finished. We’re now poring over that work, and that will be moving forward to see how that addresses it in the future.

So again, Mr. Speaker, thank you to all who have spoken to the bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments. The member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Mr. Speaker, yet again, thank you very much. I’m piecing my information-sharing together this morning.

I want to thank the member from Oshawa for her comments. For sure, 60% of aggregates are used by the public service, so they’re used by the governments of Ontario, and I think that people have to realize that. This is where we struggle for the balance.

In his comments about recycling, to follow up with the member for Eglinton–Lawrence, the Ministry of Transportation has done trials of up to 30% use of recycled aggregate. Actually, one of the recommendations from our review was that they share their technical expertise and best practices regarding aggregate recycling. I think that we should push that further with other municipalities, certainly, to show them that it can be done. It has the right standards and I think those are very much what we need. In fact, there were nine recommendations, I believe it was, under recycled aggregate materials, so nine recommendations we actually made to that effect.

There are also recommendations that were made in regard to the federation of agriculture, so basically aggregate operations and agricultural land. So there are great recommendations there about where the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the industry, the Ontario Aggregate Resources Corp. and other parties do the evaluation of current and potential innovative rehabilitation practices by which excavated areas may be returned to agriculture production. So we’re trying again to strike that balance.

I just want to mention quickly the cumulative impact of aggregate operations on water resources. I actually had the initial pilot project done in the Carden township area of Kawartha Lakes on that. So those pilot projects are out there, and they should look at those recommendations also.

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: I want to commend the member from Oshawa for engaging herself and learning about this. This is something where, when you really look at the aggregates and mining sector, you find out very quickly that it really is about your communities that you have, your services, the economic opportunities that come from it, jobs and prosperity. It’s not just a bag of dirt. It’s not just rocks. A lot of it is so connected to our communities.

She went at length during her comments talking about the two schedules. On

schedule 1 she talked about the ultimate problem being that it’s enabling legislation and the government is basically saying, “Trust us. We’ll do what’s right and we know what’s wrong.” She also touched on missing components that are not within the legislation that were absolutely within the blueprint, and unfortunately we didn’t see those in the bill. That’s a common theme that we hear from many of the members who are standing up and talking about this particular bill.

The additional powers of the minister: What do they exactly mean? How are they going to be applied? Are they going to create more bureaucratic red tape, reports and oversight in the industry, causing them further delays? That is another shortfall in this bill.

Speaking about shortfalls, there are shortfalls on wetlands, shortfalls on source water and shortfalls on recycling. The Environmental Commissioner has been talking about these particular changes to the aggregates act for a very long time. These are all things that she highlighted in her comments.

On

schedule 2, she talked about the entire—the amendments that are being done were already proposed. This is not new. This is just a redefining of some of the

definitions that are there.

One of the biggest things that is missing under both schedules is an engagement process. Yes, we talked about the First Nations that are there and, yes, that process is highlighted under the aggregates act, where they’re actually identified this time. But what is that framework? What is going to be the process that industry, or even First Nation communities, are going to have to go through in order to engage themselves? That’s a question that remains unanswered.

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

Mr. Mike Colle: I listened with interest to the member from Oshawa and, like the member from Haliburton said, we should correct the record here: The Ontario government does recycle; municipalities don’t. The Ontario government, through MTO, which uses 60% of the aggregates, is a leader. It’s not because we’re trying to pat the government on the back. We think they should do more; we’ve got recommendations for them to do more. But at least MTO is using recycling when they build their roads. That’s a very important clarification that’s got to be made, and we wish municipalities would follow.

Sometimes, as elected officials, we try to simplify things, but on the committee, we learned how complex and challenging this is. It’s a series of industries, really. It’s not just one industry; it’s a series of industries. It deals with the municipalities. It deals with First Nations, that we have to consult with them, which we’ve done for years on this. The mining industry, the environmental concerns, the Ministry of the Environment, natural resources, wetlands—all of these have to be taken into account. The construction industry—wow.

The agricultural community, the Ministry of Agriculture—all of these ministries, industries and communities had to be consulted. That’s why it’s taken the time it has. That’s why we have the report—with the help of Mr. Richmond, who put together that great report—to find out the different balances.

That is what’s gone into this bill. I think that it’s a good, solid step in the right direction that deals, again, with the economy of Ontario, with the environment of Ontario and with the governance of our wonderful province. It is a good step forward.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I appreciate the thoughtful comments from around the room: the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, the members from Algoma–Manitoulin and also from Eglinton–Lawrence. I’d like to address some of the comments, and I appreciate the opportunity.

As the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock pointed out—the 60% use by the public sector—and to the point that the member from Eglinton–Lawrence made, the government is using them, the government is recycling, and we’re awfully glad to hear that and to know that. But what I had commented on was: Why aren’t we seeing more of a leadership role taken? That leadership would be how to engage municipalities, how to get others on board, how to improve and increase the recycling.

To the point made by my colleagues about the blueprint and about the recommendations: Why aren’t we seeing more of those recommendations being considered in this piece of legislation? Hopefully more of that will come out in committee and can further strengthen this, especially when it comes to agricultural land use, when it comes to the shortfalls on environmental issues. What will the engagement process look like?

The missing components, which the member from Algoma–Manitoulin brought up: With the aggregates and mining sector, we should be talking about jobs and prosperity. We are, but there’s so much opportunity there. How best do we unlock that potential? As he said, it’s not just about a bag of dirt or about rocks. What I’ve learned in the time that we’ve been researching this and debating it is that we’re literally talking about the foundation of what we build our province on. That’s important stuff. We are building Ontario on a foundation, and we need to ensure that that foundation is as strong as possible.

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

Mr. Mike Colle: I’m happy to speak and, like the member from Haliburton, I think we have so much to say about this bill. It was a fascinating experience to see the industries that are related to aggregate resources. Again, some of the ironic things I’ve found in this whole issue over the years—I know, even in my own riding, I had these signs on front lawns of big stone houses saying, “Stop the mega quarry.” And I said to people, “Well, where do you think all the rocks and stone to build your big stone mansion come from, and your swimming pool and your paved driveway?” I said, “Maybe you should build your house of wood, if you really want to do the environmental thing.”

So there is a disconnect between people who use the aggregates and where the aggregates come from. They don’t know the challenges that people in small rural communities have with the aggregate hauling, with the extraction, the impact on the environment, the water table, the wetlands. There’s a need to try and educate people in cities about the relationship between building all these mammoth homes made out of extracts from quarries, and building highways. People are driving up and down the new 407 there and they’re talking about how we need this 407, yet they don’t realize that it comes from aggregates.

Without the aggregate pits and the excavation, you’re not going to have the highways; you’re not going to have the new schools, the hospitals. So that’s the reality that sometimes makes things difficult.

I remember it was a very interesting deputation we had from the former Environmental Commissioner. He said that he had the answer to all this conflict. He said what we should do is basically extract aggregate only from northern Ontario and ship it by train into the urban areas in the south. That was his simple solution. I said, “Yeah, in a dream world you might be able to do that. Who’s going to pay for the building of all these railroads all across the province and hauling aggregates off trains onto trucks in the cities?” There’s no simple solution, as proposed by the former Environmental Commissioner.

But we’ve heard from some very knowledgeable, intelligent people. We visited aggregate sites. We walked them up in Manitoulin. We walked them up in Ottawa and all throughout the Guelph and Kitchener area. We saw first-hand the incredible industry and the challenges they have. One of the challenges they have is that to get approvals for an aggregate pit, it takes up to 10 years, and that adds to the cost. I think one of the recommendations we made is to try and streamline this approval process, which shouldn’t take 10 years.

On the other hand, the 10 years and the delays occur because there are many objections. Every aggregate pit has countless numbers of objections from local communities, agricultural groups and environmental groups, so it is a very painful, slow and costly process to get one of these approvals. That’s the challenge, I think, the ministry had in trying to come up with this legislation: to try and be fair with everyone.

That’s why it’s been a very deliberate process of examination, of consultation, of changes that have to be made, because it’s also a changing industry, with the new technologies that are occurring in the whole area of using recycled materials and the whole area of mitigating impacts on water tables.

But there is, as I’ve said, a need to bring this legislation up to date, and it is a very comprehensive bill. Is it going to solve all the conflicts? By no means, no. There are just too many very difficult, challenging issues.

I can recall talking to the members who represent areas where there’s aggregate extraction. The challenges they have from what happens on the roads, what happens with the dust, what happens with the impact, perhaps, on water tables, the whole issue about getting the aggregate—because the aggregates have to be close to markets to make it affordable. So if you’re hauling trucks full of aggregates from northern Ontario down to the GTA, it’s not going to work financially, because there’s a cost in terms of trucking, etc.

These are some of the things that came up. Again, as I said, we had people with scientific backgrounds, geologists; we had agricultural community representatives come forward and talk about the need to take into account the impact on agricultural land, like we had in Melancthon. But, as you know, in Melancthon, what happened is that the Ministry of the Environment did an unprecedented thing and asked for a full environmental assessment of the Melancthon application, and that basically killed it. The American company who tried to get in there disappeared, thankfully.

We just have to remember, though—I think it’s essentially an awareness issue—that we are all connected. Therefore, if we demand more aggregates to build our homes, to build our roads, to build our office buildings—and we have a lot of construction, thank God, in Ontario. But remember, the construction material—raw materials—comes from generally agricultural rural areas. There’s an impact there, so there’s a price to pay.

Again, I think many members have mentioned that they would like to propose amendments and make the bill stronger. I think this is very important, because I think we have a number of members who have got good backgrounds in this legislation, and we know that there are some issues that may be missed in this bill. I know that a number of us have taken an interest in this and there’s a need to really ensure that the experts—again, the stakeholders, their cultural community, the industry—are brought forward to the Legislature in the committee so that we can make amendments to make this bill the best we can.

Again, it’s not going to be easy, but we need to hear from those people so that we can finally get a bill that’s going to be workable to the benefit of the economy of Ontario and the environment of Ontario. It’s something that is really needed, because it is a backbone.

I think there has been over nine and a half hours of debate, and I think we should go listen at committee, where we can make this bill stronger. As a result, Mr. Speaker, I move that this question be now put.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): The member from Eglinton–Lawrence has moved that the question be now put. Having listened intently to the debate from all parties this morning and considering the amount of time, I am satisfied that there has been sufficient debate to allow this question to be put to the House.

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

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

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

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

Vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Seeing as how it is almost 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

M me France Gélinas: We have some very important guests in the west gallery this morning, starting with Mrs. Theresa Agnew. She is the executive director of the Nurse Practitioners’ Association of Ontario. We have Jane Fahey-Walsh; Alana Halfpenny; Barb Sbrolla; Beth Cowper-Fung; Beth Gerritsen; Jennifer Clement, who is the clinic director of the very first nurse-practitioner-led clinic in Sudbury—welcome; Marnee Wilson; Shawn Dookie; Donna Kearney, who is the chair of the Nurse Practitioners’ Association of Ontario; Katherine Trip; Kim Demers; Mary Geroux; Suzanne Tobin; Wendy McKay; and Debbie Graystone.

Please help me welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: From my riding of Barrie, I would like to welcome nurse practitioner Tina Lesk to the Legislative Assembly. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Norm Miller: I’m pleased to welcome guests of page Sage Nakamoto. Her father, Craig Nakamoto, is here today, but also her grandmother Anne Heggie is here.

Please welcome as well Donna Kearney, who was just introduced. She’s from Muskoka, a nurse practitioner. I’m very happy to have her visiting as well.

Mr. Wayne Gates: I’d like to introduce a young man from my riding who is here working as a page, Jackson Louws. Jackson, I know you’re going to do good work today, and I can’t wait to take you to the Leafs game tonight.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Page Henry Klinck has a very special guest today. His mother, Terra Klinck, is down to see him at work. Please welcome her to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I’m pleased to announce guests of page Fallon Gervais. This is on behalf of Cindy Forster, the MPP for Welland. Her father, Eric Gervais, is in the public gallery today. Welcome.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: On behalf of all the members from Ottawa, I want to recognize the nurse practitioners who are visiting from Ottawa. I want to apologize to them as well for missing the meeting because of other obligations.

Please welcome Hoa Duong, Debbie Tirrul, Chelsea Cameron, Yvonne Makosz, Joanna Binch and my very good friend Hoda Mankal to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Paul Miller: I would like to introduce Francesca Grosso, mother of page Giulia Paikin, the daughter of Steve Paikin.

Mr. Arthur Potts: I also would like to welcome a nurse practitioner from my riding, Connie Denomme. Thank you very much for being here.

Mr. Bob Delaney: On behalf of the member for Eglinton–Lawrence, I’d like to introduce a guest of page William Cross: his mother, Anna Cross, who will be in the public gallery this morning.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I know that there have been other introductions, but I’m pleased to also welcome the more than 75 nurse practitioners from the Nurse Practitioners’ Association of Ontario here with us today to celebrate nurse practitioners’—day? Week? Month? It should be a year.

Hon. Charles Sousa: We’d like to welcome the Provincial Council of Women of Ontario. They’ve come here from all over the province. Their honorary president is Elizabeth Dowdeswell, the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario. Thank you for joining us today.

Legislative pages

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): My colleagues, we have a new batch of pages. I would like them to assemble for introduction.

From Oak Ridges–Markham, Adrian Rassaf; from Timmins–James Bay, Anne Quevillon; from Mississauga–Erindale, Calida Nguyen; from Markham–Unionville, Charis Liu; from Beaches–East York, Charlie Scholey; from Richmond Hill, David Zhou; from Durham, Emma-Rose Hoog; from Don Valley East, Eric Pei; from Welland, Fallon Gervais; from St. Paul’s, Giulia Paikin; from Hamilton Mountain, Helen Kottaras; from Oakville, Henry Klinck; from Niagara Falls, Jackson Louws; from St. Catharines, Kaitlyn Spaan; from Etobicoke–Lakeshore, Lauren Riha; from Northumberland–Quinte West, Reagan Smith.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That was nice. You got brownie points, dad.

From Parry Sound–Muskoka, Sage Nakamoto; from Chatham–Kent–Essex, Victoria Armstrong; from Scarborough Centre, Vishmen Aynkharan; from Huron–Bruce, Liam Cronin; from Eglinton–Lawrence, William Cross; and from Kitchener–Conestoga, William Dixon. These are your pages.

Appointment of French Language Services Commissioner

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

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you, Speaker. I believe we have unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice with respect to the French language commissioner.

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

Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I move that an humble address be presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council as follows:

“We, Her Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, request the appointment of François Boileau as the French Language Services Commissioner for a term of five years, commencing on November 15, 2016, as provided in

section 12.1 of the French Language Services Act.”

And that the address be engrossed and presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council by the Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mr. Naqvi moves that a humble address be presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council as follows:

“We, Her Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled”—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Dispense.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Did I hear a “dispense”?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Dispense.

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

Do we agree? Carried.

Motion agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Therefore it is time for question period.

Oral Questions

Hydro rates

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. Michel, a gentleman in Ottawa–Vanier, called the Liberal campaign headquarters just the other day. Like most people, he was fed up with his hydro rates. Michel asked the Liberal campaign about his hydro bill. Can you imagine what he was told? Someone in that office told him to lower his thermostat and wear a coat.

Is that the Liberal’s new solution to skyrocketing hydro rates? Should everyone simply have to turn down the thermostat and wear a coat inside in winter? Are they that out of touch?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. The indication is that I’m going to have to consider moving into warnings. For those individuals who believe that that will be the case, continue speaking.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I certainly expect that any resident of any part of the province, but certainly in a by-election—I would expect that any resident who calls any of the offices of the parties involved would get good information.

In this case, the reality is that we are working very hard to reduce people’s electricity costs. We know that the costs associated with the rebuilding of the system which we inherited, which was degraded, had not been invested in, had not been kept up, was dirty—the electricity grid was dirty, Mr. Speaker. The work that we have done to shut down the coal-fired plants, to rebuild over 10,000 kilometres of line, to clean up the electricity grid and make it reliable—there’s a cost associated with that.

We are working to take costs out of the system for people across the province, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: It makes me shake my head to think that’s an acceptable answer—to just wear a coat in your own home.

The Royal Victoria hospital in Barrie is doing their best to lower their energy use. That’s because they are seeing a six-figure increase in their hydro bills this coming year. The hospital will see a 4% to 6% increase in the hydro costs. It will cost the hospital approximately $200,000.

In the local media, in the Barrie Advance, RVH spokesperson Jane Cocking said, “We know hydro rates are going up,” but “we have to keep the lights on” in the hospital. But at what expense? Should money not be going to front-line care instead of forcing hospitals to struggle to pay their hydro bills?

Mr. Speaker, can the Premier tell us what she’s doing to help hospitals that are struggling to pay their hydro bills?

Interjections.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Health care, not hydro.

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

The indicators are still there that I may have to go to warnings. This is getting very close.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m delighted that the Leader of the Opposition has made the connection between electricity and health care, because I know that he knows that the shutting down of the coal-fired plants—the fact that we moved from brownouts, blackouts and smog days to no smog days—means that we’ve saved $4 billion in health care costs. And kids with asthma and people with respiratory disease have a much easier time breathing in this province because of the work that we’ve done. Thank you for asking that question.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, again to the Premier: When it comes to Michel in Ottawa–Vanier, it’s “wear a coat.” When it comes to a hospital that’s struggling to pay their hydro bills, it’s more Liberal spin, trying to say everything is fine and everything is rosy. It isn’t. We’re seeing hospitals having to fire nurses because of hydro bills. It’s not right. It’s not appropriate—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Barrie, the member from Davenport, and the Minister of Children and Youth Services, come to order.

Finish your question, please.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier: Let me share with you another hydro horror story: Adrienne in Smiths Falls. Adrienne has autism and is on ODSP. She shares the cost of living with her mother, a pensioner. They live in a small wartime house and are as energy-wise as they can be, but their hydro bill is almost the same as their mortgage payment. They are juggling other bills, but they can’t make ends meet. Adrienne says that they can’t afford to live. That’s not hyperbole; that’s the legacy of this Premier because of the unmitigated failure of her hydro policies.

My question to the Premier: Does she really want energy poverty to be her legacy for Ontario?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I said, the work that we have done to clean up the air in this province to make a clean electricity grid, to rebuild a system that was degraded, has a cost associated with it. We recognize that. Adrienne and all the people across the province who are struggling with their electricity bills—we recognize they need support. That’s why we have taken the debt retirement charge off their bills. It’s why, in January, there will be an 8% reduction across the province. It’s why we’ve put in place programs to help people of low and middle incomes with support on their electricity bills.

We recognize that there’s a challenge. We recognize that there needs to be support, which is exactly why we have made the changes that we have made.

Health care

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, public hearings began on the government’s new health care bill. One thing is resoundingly clear: Nothing in this bill puts patients first.

In fact, just hear what Michael Decter from Patients Canada had to say: “We strongly support a patients-first agenda for health care. It is, in fact, long overdue. However, we are hard pressed to find how patients are first within the actual substance of Bill 41,” when you read it.

Patients Canada is right. This is an investment in administration. This is an investment in bureaucracy. It is not an investment in patients.

It is not too late to put patients first. Can the Liberals explain why high-paid management is more important than caring for patients in the province of Ontario?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care is going to want to comment, but let me make it very clear that the impetus behind the legislation that has been proposed is exactly about making sure that patients, that people in communities across the province, can access primary care, that they will know where to get that care and they will get the appropriate care. In fact, many of the things that critics have been calling for in terms of that access is exactly what is in the legislation.

So that’s what this is about. It’s about making sure that people have access to those primary care physicians and primary care practitioners, like nurse practitioners, without having to spend an enormous amount of time finding those people—that they have access and that they know where to go to get the appropriate care. That’s what the legislation is about.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: This high-paid-administration bill does nothing to curb years of Liberal attacks on the health care system. Just look at the Liberal track record: They cut $815 million from physician services. They cut 50 medical residency spots. They cut $50 million from seniors for physiotherapy, and this government has fired 1,400 nurses since the start of last year. That is their record. This doesn’t sound like you’re putting patients first.

The government spin is absurd. They’ll go back 13 years to hide what’s happened in the last few years. The front-line workers know the truth. They don’t buy the Liberal spin. When will this government finally put patients first?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, don’t even get me started on referring back to their promise to fire 100,000 public sector workers, many of them in the health care sector. They’re good at putting patients last, Mr. Speaker, and this bill does the opposite of what they would propose to do.

In fact, I wish their spin on this was at least original, because they’re just copying the position of the Concerned Ontario Doctors, the coalition of Ontario doctors that represents those high-paid specialists that are perpetrating and propagating the mistruths that that sector—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member will withdraw.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I will withdraw, Mr. Speaker. I’m happy to withdraw that. I wasn’t referring to the opposition; I was referring—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, no, no. No explanations, just a simple withdrawal, please.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I withdraw.

Mr. Speaker, the Patients First Act’s aim, at its heart, is to actually improve services for patients across this province, to provide quicker access, same-day, next-day services and outside of regular hours; to better integrate health care services; to find administrative savings and management savings so that they can be reinvested in front-line health services. That is the core of the act.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: We are joined by nurse practitioners from across the province today. Ontario is the only jurisdiction in North America that doesn’t allow nurse practitioners to prescribe controlled drugs and substances. In some places in northern, rural and remote Ontario, nurse practitioners are the only primary care provider able to provide timely access to care.

Mr. Speaker, this government needs to commit to making sure that every person in Ontario has access to the care they need. We don’t need vague promises. The government has hinted that they’re going to do something, but it’s hints and vague promises. I want a commitment. I want a date when they’re going to honour their promise.

Directly to the Premier: Will this happen this year? Yes or no?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Coming from the third party, I would understand the motivation. I just find it incredible coming from the official opposition with the commitments that they’ve made in election campaigns to gut our health care system.

When it comes to nurse practitioners—

Interjections.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: —they know the commitment that I’ve made for prescribing controlled substances. They understand that it requires a bylaw to be posted and approved by the College of Nurses—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. First of all, we are that far away from warnings.

The member will address the Chair.

Finish your answer, please.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I’m just so excited that our nurse practitioners have joined us here today. They know the commitment from me personally, the commitment from the ministry.

I recently wrote to the College of Nurses as well, to ask them to expedite this process as fast as they can possibly do. I expect that in the very, very near future, they’re going to have the opportunity to prescribe controlled substances.

By-election in Sudbury

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. This Sunday, the Sudbury Star published the results of a poll that showed that 71% of its readers think their MPP, the Minister of Energy, should step down from cabinet until the Sudbury by-election scandal has been resolved.

It appears, Speaker—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m now moving to warnings.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): To be clear: I’m moving to warnings.

Finish, please.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It appears the people of Sudbury understand—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation is warned.

Carry on.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It appears the people of Sudbury understand the concept of integrity and honour. When will this Premier follow their lead and ask for her Minister of Energy to step aside?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the leader of the third party understands that there is a court process under way. This issue is before the courts.

I’ve been very open in the Legislature, in the media over many months about the circumstances around the Sudbury by-election. Under the presumption of innocence, we’re going to let that process play out in the courts. Really, there’s not any appropriate way that the issue should be litigated here in the Legislature, Mr. Speaker. There’s a process outside of the Legislature that has to be allowed to unfold.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, one reader called in to the newspaper to explain why she thinks the minister should step aside. “It would be the honourable thing to do,” she said. Does the Premier think that it is honourable to continue to protect Liberal insiders like the Minister of Energy while ignoring the wishes of the people of Sudbury?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Attorney General.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, I think we had this conversation yesterday in the House on this precise topic. You also made a very, very clear ruling on the nature of questions, discussion and debate—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, you also outlined a very clear ruling yesterday, talking about this issue and the limits around the discussion around this issue, both in question period and debate. I think the member opposite, the leader of the third party, very much knows that this matter is before the courts. It would be highly inappropriate to deal with this issue.

As it relates to the Minister of Energy, it’s also clear that the Minister of Energy is under no investigation. There are no charges laid—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Durham and the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek are warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: There are no charges laid against the Minister of Energy. His responsibilities as the Minister of Energy are not a subject of this investigation. Therefore, the minister will continue to do his job and serve the people of Sudbury.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Another caller told the Sudbury Star, “I definitely think MPP Glenn Thibeault should step down.” Yet another said, “I say he should resign completely, along with Wynne—they’re all in this together.”

How can the Premier continue to put the interests of Liberal Party insiders ahead of the wishes of the people of Sudbury when we clearly see what a detrimental effect this is having on their faith in this government? When will the Premier do the honourable thing, the thing that was done by other cabinet ministers across all parties? Conservative cabinet Ministers Runciman and Wilson, and Liberal cabinet Minister Sorbara: All of those folks did the honourable thing and stepped aside.

I ask the Premier: When will she ask her Minister of Energy to step aside until the OPP allegations regarding his role in the Sudbury scandal are fully dealt with?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: The Premier, the member from Sudbury and all members on this side of the House continue to focus on working for their constituents. The member from Sudbury is focused on getting Maley Drive built. He is focused on delivering the PET scanner for the good people of Sudbury. These are the kinds of public services that the member for Sudbury is providing. He is under no investigation whatsoever and the member from the third party very much knows that. There are no charges against the Minister of Energy either.

There is no reason whatsoever that the minister should be considering stepping down. He is focused on his job not only as the Minister of Energy but, most importantly, as a very good member from Sudbury.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Premier. If the Premier needs a reason other than the Sudbury bribery scandal to ask her Minister of Energy to resign, I would suggest it could be the mess that he has helped her make in our energy system.

The Liberals’ short-sighted sell-off of Hydro One is hurting businesses in Ontario. Last week I was in Windsor and had a chance to visit the Arner Stop, a local diner just outside the city owned by Gabe Saad. Gabe has owned the Arner Stop for 12 years. He told me that his hydro bill is now his second-largest expense after his mortgage. It hit $2,000 this summer, and he’s bracing for an even bigger bill now that winter is coming.

He’s tried hard to keep costs down. He’s reduced the number of coolers he keeps in the diner, he’s replaced the roof, but still he’s struggling, Speaker.

When will the Premier realize how much damage her sell-off is doing to families and small businesses across Ontario and put an end to it?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Trinity–Spadina is warned.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I will say to the leader of the third party—and I know that the Minister of Energy will want to comment, because he is working every day to find ways to help people with their electricity bills, to take costs out of the system, because he knows that the work we have done to build the system up had a cost associated with it, and that that’s exactly why we need now to find ways to take costs out of the system, as we have been doing by putting programs in place, taking the debt retirement charge off people’s bills and, as of January, taking the provincial portion of the HST off people’s bills.

Again, the leader of the third party, as she is wont to do, conflates issues. The reality is that she refers to Hydro One and the broadening of the ownership of Hydro One, which is related to the investment in infrastructure, in transit and roads and bridges—the very infrastructure that the member for Sudbury has been fighting for—and that she also knows that the electricity prices are not set by Hydro One. They’re set by the Ontario Energy Board.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, I think the Premier just admitted that the government, the Liberal government, made a mess of our electricity system and now we’re supposed to trust them to fix it. I don’t think anybody trusts them to fix it, Speaker, but we’ll leave that to the people.

I also met a gentleman named Mark Stannard when I was in the Windsor area last week. Mark is a second-generation dairy farmer in this province, in Essex, and his small business is also struggling under the burden of exorbitant hydro bills. He tries to conserve as much energy as he can, but the reality of his business is that his cows need to be milked and they don’t wait for off-peak hours.

Will this Premier—in fact, when will this Premier—wake up and realize that this sell-off of Hydro One is hurting farm operations like Mark’s and do the right thing and make a commitment to stop any further sell-off of Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It is so interesting to me that in this whole discussion, the NDP has never talked about the importance of building infrastructure. The NDP has never talked about the importance of clean air. The NDP has never talked about how important it is that we have a reliable electricity system. I’ve never heard the NDP talk about what the electricity system would look like, had they not cancelled the deal with Manitoba for clean hydro power when they were in office, Mr. Speaker.

I’ve never heard the NDP talk about how important it is that we continue to build out the system so that northern communities can be connected to the grid. I’ve never heard the NDP talk about how important it is that we have an electricity system that is clean, that has a low-carbon footprint. I’ve never heard the NDP talk about any of those things, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: And I have never heard the Liberals admit that the sell-off of our electricity system is costing the people of this province bills that they simply cannot afford and is ruining the future of the next generation of the people of this province.

Bernard Nelson is yet another example of a dairy farmer I met in Essex last week. Bernard has seen his hydro bill double over the last three years—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport is warned.

Please finish.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Bernard as well has tried to conserve. He switched to energy-free water bowls for his cows. He changed out the barn lights. He bought new variable-speed fans that are more energy-efficient, to keep his cattle cool in the summer. But still, Bernard is worried about having to lay off some of his staff because the cost of hydro means that he cannot afford to keep everyone working on the farm.

Small businesses are hurting. Farmers are hurting. Families are hurting. When will this Premier finally admit that the sell-off of Hydro One hurts families, hurts agriculture, hurts business, and stop any further sell-off?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’m very pleased to rise and answer this question, Mr. Speaker.

The broadening of the sale of Hydro One has allowed us to invest in many things that the Premier has talked about, and let’s just talk about some of those. Some $13.5 billion is being invested in the GO regional express rail in the GTHA, which will quadruple the number of weekly trips to 6,000. The Eglinton Crosstown LRT: $5.3 billion in capital investments.

Mr. Speaker, you know what? We are making sure that businesses and farms right across this great province of ours are getting a rebate. We’re working hard to ensure that happens. Just yesterday, I was in the great riding of Hamilton, working and talking with Dofasco where they’re saving over 170,000 megawatts of power, saving over $10 million and creating 81 jobs in that riding.

That’s what we’re doing on this side of the House: creating jobs and helping our economy.

Government fiscal policies

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday’s fall economic statement revealed the government is significantly hiking service fees and taxes to pay for their years of waste, mismanagement and scandals. Vehicle and driver registration fees have increased by $503 million in just four years. If you drive a car, you pay more. If you heat your home with gas, you pay more. If you hunt or fish or camp, you pay more. In fact, the Financial Accountability Officer told us this Liberal government has hiked service fees on everything by nearly 40% in just five years. Yesterday’s news did absolutely nothing to address this half-a-billion-dollar driver’s fee hike.

Can the government please explain why it’s insisting on making life more affordable for the people of Ontario?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Unaffordable.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Unaffordable.

Interjection.

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

Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I appreciate the opportunity to talk about the fall economic statement that we delivered yesterday—the tremendous amount of work we are doing to stimulate economic growth and create more jobs. Independent economists have understood and are actually indicating that Ontario is surpassing and exceeding the growth in Canada. In the last quarter, we outpaced the United States and the G7. As a result, we’re taking the necessary steps to come to balance next year and the year after that.

The member opposite makes reference to a number of programs that we are revising as we proceed to take cost recovery measures necessary in that program. At the same time, we’re doing many other things to help everyday Ontarians by providing free tuition to many students, by enabling us to provide more child care spaces to young families, and we’re providing a doubling of the rebate for first-time homebuyers to $4,000, all of which will help our economy and help our families at the same time.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Minister of Finance. We know that their waste, mismanagement and scandals have made life more unaffordable for Ontario families. Yesterday, they presented a fall economic statement, but the independent Financial Accountability Officer told us their numbers just don’t add up. He also told us that we have unprecedented debt levels, and interest on that debt is $1 billion a month. It means that Ontario now pays more in interest than it does on post-secondary education and community safety combined. For taxpayers, this government’s reckless mismanagement means higher taxes, higher hydro rates and less funding for front-line services.

Can the government please explain why it insists on making life more unaffordable for Ontario families?

Hon. Charles Sousa: The member opposite began by speaking about the implementation of an additional $30 in savings for Drive Clean, which we are proceeding to do, but then he referenced interest costs. Let’s be clear, Mr. Speaker: Under this government, we’ve taken steps to reduce our overall percentage of costs for interest to 8.9% of our budget. That has been consistent over the last four years since we’ve been providing for some of the work.

Under the Conservative government, it was 15% of the budget that the interest costs were attributed. Under the NDP, it was 12%. We have taken steps to control our spending—we are the leanest government in all of Canada—without sacrificing the things that matter. We’re investing more in health care. We’re investing more in education. We’re producing 641,000 net new jobs, all of which is providing for a growing economy, all of which is enabling us to come to balance next year and the year after that. The FAO knows that because we now have updated information that he didn’t have the benefit of, and we are moving forward with our plan.

Government fiscal policies

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday’s fall economic statement does little to address the real issues facing Ontarians. It’s nothing more than a distraction.

People in Ontario are facing energy bills that they can no longer afford. Life in Ontario is less affordable every day. But instead of stopping the sell-off of Hydro One, Ontarians found out yesterday how well the Liberals’ asset sales are going. Basically, they were boasting about the public sell-off of these assets.

We now know that the Liberal government is selling off Hydro One to meet the Liberals’ promise to balance the books next year. On page 48: “By broadening Hydro One ownership, the province expects to generate ... $5 billion to reduce debt.” The Financial Accountability Officer has already told us that once the sell-off of Hydro One is complete, it will cost Ontario $500 million every year.

Speaker, why does the Premier continue to put the needs of the Liberal Party ahead of the needs of Ontarians?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance

Hon. Charles Sousa: The member opposite again makes reference to an asset that we are repurposing and actually augmenting to provide for greater investments into new assets.

The member opposite also talks about the wholesale value of that asset, which does go towards debt and which is done by law. But she fails to mention that there is $4 million in capital appreciation that’s being reinvested, dollar for dollar, through the Trillium Trust to be reinvested into programs and into assets, even in her own riding, in order to achieve a better quality of life for all Ontarians.

At the same time, we’re taking steps to reduce the overall cost of hydro through the elimination of the 8% portion of the province’s charges. We also have eliminated the debt retirement charge, another $70 a year that’s being benefited to those bills.

So we’ll continue on our plan. We’ll continue to reinvest, dollar for dollar, all of those assets so that we can build new assets for the long-term benefit—

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: The finance minister should follow the money, because we know from public accounts that the Trillium Trust wasn’t used last year.

Also, this Premier, if she was actually concerned about Ontarians’ priorities, could have proved it yesterday. Instead, we got another distraction from this government. Rather than actually addressing the crisis in affordable housing, the Liberals adjusted real estate transaction costs. A senior Bank of Montreal economist said that it “hardly makes a dent in worsening” housing “affordability, and, if anything, just adds more fuel to the housing fire.”

Yesterday’s report describing Toronto as the child poverty capital of Canada pointed to the lack of affordable housing as a key contributor to poverty and inequality. We know that investing in affordable housing is an investment in social justice and makes economic sense.

Speaker, can the Premier explain why her fall economic statement did not address the affordable housing crisis in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, let me correct my record: Of course, I meant “billion” dollars in new investments for the people of Ontario as a result of the work we’re doing.

The member opposite doesn’t feel that a doubling of a rebate to young families who are starting to buy into their new home—that it matters little to them. The $4,000 does help, as well as the work we’re doing to increase child care spaces for young families; as does our ability to provide free tuition to many students who are entering the education system so that they’re not burdened by debt. All of these efforts are designed to help those young families get started.

In fact, because of the work we’ve done on this side of the House, we’re also helping them with retirement security in the future, all of which requires us to be diligent and assemble some of these programs. It’s not one item in particular; it’s all of them combined that are enabling us to provide for greater service and greater help for our young families.

Home ownership

Mr. Arthur Potts: My question is also to the Minister of Finance. Just yesterday we know that the minister delivered the fall economic statement, which detailed the economic outlook and the fiscal review for the province. Then, last night, I attended the Woodbine Gardens Homeowners Association annual general meeting, chaired by president Briar De Lang, and they were delighted to hear that we’re on track to balance the budget while we continue to invest in Ontario.

I know that as part of the announcement, the minister committed to helping first-time homebuyers enter into the housing market. I also know that many Ontarians have expressed concerns about the difficulty first-time buyers are currently facing as they try to get into the housing market.

Speaker, would the minister please outline and explain how these recent changes outlined in yesterday’s financial economic statement will benefit Ontario homebuyers?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I thank the member from Beaches–East York for the question.

I think we all recognize and appreciate that many people have benefited from improved equity in the increased valuations of their homes. But for some young families and others looking to buy their first home, it’s becoming more challenging, and that’s understood in this housing market as we stand today.

Buying your first home, as we all know, is one of the most exciting decisions in a young person’s life. But many are worried about how they will be able to afford that first condo or house, as the member just asked. To address this and to help young families, we are doubling the maximum refund for first-time homebuyers to $4,000 starting January 1, 2017, enabling them to also benefit from entering the marketplace and having the same benefits as many of us have had as we started at that young age as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Arthur Potts: Thank you to the Minister of Finance for the leadership he’s showing for young people to buy their first homes. I know the people at Woodbine Gardens were excited because there are still opportunities for affordable houses in the north part of my riding, and these people will benefit. It will be a significant savings for them.

This is a very important step for first-time homebuyers who are looking to enter the housing market. I’m pleased to hear that the government is taking these steps to invest in supports that help people, and especially young people, in their everyday lives.

I know that the province is also taking steps to modernize the land transfer tax system. Will the Minister of Finance outline and explain further how these changes will also make life easier for first-time homebuyers?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Again, thank you for the important question, recognizing that there is inventory available for many first-time home buyers.

In fact, these changes will mean no land transfer tax will be payable on the first $368,000 of the cost of your first home. That also means that more than half of first-time homebuyers will pay no LTT because of this refund. We’re also modernizing, as mentioned, the land transfer tax system for the first time in a generation to reflect the current real estate market in Ontario.

The housing market is an important source of economic growth and employment in Ontario. Improving housing affordability will help more Ontarians participate in the market. That is an exciting opportunity for them to take their first step in buying their first home.

Hydro rates

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is to the Premier. Sadly, we did not get a response yesterday from the Deputy Premier, so we’ll try to get an answer today from the Premier.

Ratepayers deserve answers as to why the Liberals hired David Herle and the Gandalf Group to conduct polling about whether ratepayers want relief from skyrocketing hydro prices. From the response our opposition has received, ratepayers are astonished that the Liberals needed a poll to tell them the obvious: that there is an electricity rate crisis in this province. They’re also appalled that the Premier would waste money on such a redundant poll that benefits an individual who is a senior Liberal strategist.

Speaker, will the Premier finally come clean and tell us exactly how much money she gave her campaign manager to conduct this wasteful and unnecessary poll?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the member opposite knows full well that every government does polling, that every government taps into the opinions of the people in the province.

I also know that the member opposite knows there is a process. I believe there were five bidders. There’s a process. It’s not a political decision which group is chosen to do the polling. I think the member opposite knows full well that that process is in place.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: When the number comes back at 94%, it is proof that no poll was necessary.

As we have said on countless occasions, families all across this province are struggling to pay their hydro bills each and every month. Yet instead of providing meaningful relief, the Liberals would rather give money to their campaign manager, David Herle, to tell them what they should already—and, I believe, do already—know. Moreover, this contract strikes taxpayers as entirely wasteful and just another example of Liberals helping their well-heeled friends.

Will the Premier live up to her lofty rhetoric, actually be open and transparent for once, and tell this House exactly how much her campaign manager was paid for this totally redundant poll?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just go through the process. All public opinion research conducted by the government of Ontario is procured through a fair, transparent and competitive process. The member opposite, I think, is a member of a party that actually believes in competitive bidding.

The final decision about which vendor is best suited for the project is made by a committee of at least three non-partisan public servants, Mr. Speaker; that’s who makes the decision.

Every company has to be a qualified vendor of record and has to compete for a project with no less than five competitors. In fact, the record shows that five other companies competed for this contract with the Gandalf Group. I believe that the member opposite knows full well that that process means that there is not a political intervention. It is a process that is transparent and is applied in every situation.

Water quality

Ms. Sarah Campbell: My question is to the Premier. Access to clean, drinkable water is a systemic issue in the province of Ontario if you are an indigenous person living on a First Nations reserve. For more than a week, Weagamow First Nation, a community in my riding north of Sioux Lookout, has gone without drinkable, usable water. The aging water mains have burst. They’ve got staff working with what they’ve got to fix it. I’m sure the Premier will tell the House that it’s a federal jurisdiction—their responsibility—but surely abdicating the province’s role will not sit well for the more than 800 people who are without usable water.

My question is simple: What is your government doing to aid the situation?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I completely agree with the member opposite that it is unacceptable that anyone in Ontario would not have clean, drinkable water, and I understand that it is absolutely critical that this be addressed. As recently as yesterday, the Minister of Indigenous Relations and I had a conversation with Regional Chief Day, with Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler and with Grand Council Chief Patrick Madahbee. We are part of a tripartite process.

The federal government, First Nations and the provincial government are working together because each party, each order of government, brings something different to the table. The provincial government has expertise and has capacity, there’s funding that comes from the federal government, and First Nations have community knowledge. Mr. Speaker, we are absolutely working to make sure that all of these systems are being worked on.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sarah Campbell: The provincial government is responsible for First Nations’ health through its responsibility for education. No clean water and sewage means no school. Children and elders are developing skin rash breakouts just like they did in Kashechewan. There are over 80 First Nation communities—mostly northern, mostly remote—in this province that do not have access to clean water. For some communities, it has been decades. That number wouldn’t stand in any other community in this province.

The Premier met with her federal counterparts at the privatization conference here in Toronto yesterday. My question is simple: What did she ask them about the situation in Weagamow?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

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

Hon. David Zimmer: I’m happy to respond to this question—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member will wait until I acknowledge, please.

Carry on.

Hon. David Zimmer: Thank you, Speaker. Here are some things that we’re actually doing to alleviate the problem. The Ontario clean water energy act is providing operations and maintenance services on a fee-for-basis service. The Walkerton Clean Water Centre provides operator training. The Minister of the Environment and Climate Change has provided engineering and technical advice to First Nations and carries out conformist reviews of proposals for First Nation water systems upon request.

First Nations are included in showcasing water innovation programs in which Ontario is funding innovative, cost-effective solutions for managing drinking water, wastewater and stormwater sewers. The Canada-Ontario First Nations drinking water improvement initiative is a partnership with four small First Nation communities to provide innovative solutions. The clean water act—

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

New question.

Child care

Ms. Harinder Malhi: My question is to the Associate Minister of Education responsible for child care and early years. We know that the earliest years of a child’s life are important to their future development. From the day they are born, they are human sponges, absorbing everything around them and learning basic skills at an astounding rate.

I’ve spoken with many parents and soon-to-be parents in my riding of Brampton–Springdale who tell me that it is challenging to find quality, affordable child care. That is why I am encouraged by this government’s speech from the throne in which Ontario committed to creating 100,000 new licensed child care spaces, and yesterday, building upon that announcement in the fall economic statement, made a sizable investment in children four and under.

Would the minister, through the Speaker, please explain to the House the details of this investment in child care, and help shed light on what it will mean for Ontario families?

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I would like to thank the member from Brampton–Springdale for this very important question, and I want to tell her what a great job she is doing for her constituents.

Mr. Speaker, in the recent throne speech, we unveiled our government’s vision for the early years, and we made a bold new commitment for Ontario’s child care and early years sector. We committed to transform the way we deliver child care in this province by creating 100,000 new licensed child care spaces within five years for children four and under.

Yesterday, the fall economic statement revealed our first step in this commitment to child care modernization. I’m proud that the fall economic statement announced an additional $65.5 million in the 2016-17 school year to create approximately 3,400 new child care spaces across the province. This is fantastic news, and this investment means more—

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

Supplementary.

Ms. Harinder Malhi: Thank you to the Associate Minister of Education for that answer. I was glad to see that yesterday’s fall economic statement includes a significant investment in child care, because the creation of new licensed child care spaces is a part of our government’s plan to invest in the earliest years of a child’s life, and create jobs and help families in their everyday lives.

Mr. Speaker, I’ve heard the minister say in this House that engagement and consultations are very important to ensure that we get the new child care framework right. Can the minister please inform the House of the status of her consultations, and when we can expect to see these new spaces open?

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Thank you to the hard-working member from Brampton–Springdale.

Planning and engagement are currently under way to inform the framework and distribution of the 100,000 new child care spaces. Over the next few months, we will be consulting with the child care and early years sector, parents and communities to get their advice and perspectives.

In fact, province-wide consultations are now under way. We want to ensure that we make informed decisions, so that our children can get a head start in life and families can get the support they need. This feedback will help us develop a renewed early years and child care policy framework and the five-year plan to create 100,000 licensed child care spaces.

These will be the first steps towards the 3,400 spaces announced yesterday, the first spaces to count towards the government’s historic commitment to build 100,000 new spaces for children zero to four years old.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is to the Premier. At the justice committee’s hearings into the gas plant scandal on December 3, 2013, the Premier testified this: “I know that when I’m going to do an important interview or appear before a committee or go into the Legislature to answer important questions posed by the opposition, I take some time to read documents, talk with my staff and understand the issues.”

The Premier knew that standing by Pat Sorbara put the integrity of her office at risk. And she didn’t just stand by her; she publicly stated she didn’t expect charges. We know she likes to talk with staff and understand the issues, so will the Premier tell us what Pat Sorbara told her in those conversations? And does she now regret believing her?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Attorney General.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I was wondering, at the beginning of the question, where the member opposite was going with that question. He was, I think, trying to put a different flavour to the same question that he has been asking for a few weeks, fully knowing that his question may be offside and that the answer he is seeking—this is not the venue or the forum for that answer.

I think the Premier and I, on behalf of the government, have been very clear, as you also have suggested, that this would be an inappropriate place to discuss any matters that are before the courts. The issue at hand, Speaker, as you know, is before a court, and there are charges laid against two individuals who do not serve in this House. It is only appropriate and advisable to all members not to discuss those matters—or the evidence or any questions relating to those issues—in this House.

I know the member opposite knows this. He may continue to ask me these questions, but I suggest that he should reconsider.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Steve Clark: Back to the Premier: Speaker, I want to remind the Premier of something else that she said at those gas plant hearings. On April 30, 2013, she explained her reason for testifying. Here’s the quote: “I thought it was very important for me to be open and to let everyone know what I did know and what I didn’t know.” Wow. It’s hard to believe that that’s the same person who now has so little to say about this very important issue.

Since the Premier won’t live up to that pledge of being open and answer our questions in the House, we’re left with this: Premier, you and your minister are not required by law to testify as MPPs. Speaker, will the Premier commit to Ontarians that she and her Minister of Energy will waive their privilege and testify at trial?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: The Premier has co-operated in this matter. The Premier has co-operated in the investigation that took place. The Premier has been absolutely transparent in terms of answering questions that are posed in this House, to Ontarians, and through the media. The Premier will continue to serve her role, her duties and obligations that have been given to her by the people of Ontario.

The Premier also recognizes that it is not advisable to prejudice a legal proceeding. There are two individuals who are charged in this matter. As we know, the fundamental principle of our system is that everybody is innocent until proven guilty. I think we owe it to those individuals to—

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

Nurse practitioners

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. Ontario’s 3,000 nurse practitioners do remarkable work each and every day. Some of them are with us today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Nurse practitioners continue to face barriers that only make it harder for Ontarians, for us, to get the care that we need. You see, salaries for nurse practitioners working in our community have been frozen for eight long years while the scope of practice and responsibility has increased exponentially.

This year the minister offered $85 million over three years to all primary care agencies. After eight years of salary freeze, the minister offers 10 cents on the dollar. It is wrong, it is disrespectful and it needs to change. Does the minister agree?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’m proud of the fact that since this party, this government, took office in 2003, the number of nurse practitioners in the province, as the member opposite alluded to, has gone from approximately 500 to more than 3,000 nurse practitioners. It’s extraordinary and it reflects the incredible talent that they have and they provide.

It was this government, as well, that began the first nurse-practitioner-led clinic in Sudbury. In fact, in the north we now have 25 nurse-practitioner-led clinics. I know having worked hard with the Nurse Practitioners’ Association of Ontario and others led us to this year’s budget decision to invest $85 million, an increase to the compensation for nurse practitioners, but importantly, attached to that was their ability to come into a new form of pension, which dramatically and substantially increases their pension entitlements as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: The nurse practitioners are here today asking the government to help them