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

November 25, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Nov-25 (PDF)

L125 - Wed 25 Nov 2015 / Mer 25 nov 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 25 November 2015 Mercredi 25 novembre 2015

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Wearing of scarves

Wearing of ribbons

Oral Questions

First responders

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Climate change

Climate change

Energy policies

Climate change

First responders

Labour disputes

First responders

Energy storage

Long-term care

Collective bargaining

Family dispute resolution

Hospital funding

Notice of dissatisfaction

Visitors

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

MedviewMD

Nogdawindamin Family and Community Services

Durham Foods

Privatization of public assets

Bicycling infrastructure

Domestic violence

Insurance Bureau of Canada

St. Mary’s Polish Roman Catholic Church

Peel lunch and after-school program

Visitors

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills

Introduction of Bills

Rowan’s Law Advisory Committee Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le comité consultatif de la Loi Rowan

Energy Referendum Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur les référendums en matière d’énergie

Motions

Private members’ public business

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Family Dispute Resolution Week / Semaine du règlement des différends familiaux

International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women

Woman Abuse Prevention Month / Mois de la prévention de la violence faite aux femmes

Family Dispute Resolution Week

International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women / Woman Abuse Prevention Month

International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women

Family Dispute Resolution Week

Petitions

Labour dispute

Concussion

Water fluoridation

Renewable energy

Mental health and addiction services

Speed limits

Ehlers-Danlos syndrome

Hospital funding

GO Transit

Health care funding

Privatization of public assets

Protection de l’environnement

Hydro rates

Opposition Day

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Adjournment Debate

Energy policies

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Hon. James J. Bradley: I move that, pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 144,

An Act to implement budget measures and to enact or amend certain other statutes, when the bill is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment and at such time the bill shall be ordered referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs; and

That the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, December 2, 2015, from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., and Thursday, December 3, 2015, from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. for the purpose of public hearings on the bill; and

That the Clerk of the Committee, in consultation with the committee Chair, be authorized to arrange the following with regard to Bill 144:

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

—That the deadline for requests to appear be 1 p.m. on Tuesday, December 1, 2015; and

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

—That each witness will receive up to five minutes for their presentation followed by nine minutes for questions from the committee members; and

—That the deadline for written submissions be 6 p.m. on Thursday, December 3, 2015; and

—That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be 10 p.m. on Friday, December 4; and

—That the committee be authorized to meet on Monday, December 7, from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. and from 6:45 p.m. to midnight, in Toronto, for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill;

On Monday, December 7, 2015, at 4 p.m., those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. At this time, the Chair shall allow one 20-minute waiting period pursuant to standing order 129(a); and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House no later than Tuesday, December 8, 2015. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and

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

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

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

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

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mr. Bradley has moved notice of motion number 44. I now recognize the deputy House leader.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, this important piece of legislation fulfills a commitment made by the government in the 2015 budget and further implements our economic plan to build Ontario up. If passed, the Budget Measures Act will enact five new statutes and amend a number of other statutes. This bill implements necessary changes in order to continue to implement our economic plan to build Ontario up.

The plan includes investing in people’s talents and skills; making the largest investment in public infrastructure in Ontario’s history, over $130 billion over the next 10 years; creating a dynamic and innovative environment where business thrives; and strengthening retirement security. These changes are necessary as we continue to implement the plan for Ontario. This legislation will help our economy grow and create jobs.

As you know, our government has committed to unlocking the value of provincial assets and placing the net proceeds from the sale of qualifying assets in the Trillium Trust. These funds will then be used for public infrastructure projects such as roads, bridges and transit—

Interjection.

Hon. James J. Bradley: —including, if necessary, work on Highway 417 in eastern Ontario.

The Budget Measures Act, 2015, seeks to make amendments to the Trillium Trust Act, 2014, which would specify the qualifying assets. This amendment would help us fulfill the government’s commitment of investing more than $130 billion in public infrastructure across the province over the next 10 years; investments to help our economy grow and enhance the quality of life for all Ontarians. The Budget Measures Act, 2015, also seeks to make amendments to the Liquor Control Act to support the sale of beer in grocery stores.

We are also proposing to make an amendment to the Electricity Act, 1998. The government has already taken action to reduce electricity cost pressures for Ontario households. As previously announced, the government is removing the debt retirement charge from residential electricity users’ bills beginning January 1, 2016. Currently, business and other electricity users will continue to pay the debt retirement charge until it is determined that the residual stranded debt has been retired and a notice to that effect is published in the Ontario Gazette.

If passed, the proposed amendment would end the debt retirement charge for all electricity users in Ontario on April 1, 2018. This means that commercial, industrial and other non-residential electricity users could stop paying the debt retirement charge nine months earlier than previously estimated and give them certainty to help them make investment decisions. This would save a typical large industrial company about 7%, a large northern industrial company more than 8% and a small business about 4% on their electricity bills.

In the last Parliament, this Legislature was virtually ground to a halt and was unable to move forward. Only 39% of government bills were passed in the last minority government, compared to more than three quarters of bills that were passed going back to 1990. The voters of Ontario sent a clear message last June: They wanted a government to get on with the business of governing in their best interests. So it is time that we now conclude second reading and refer the bill to committee.

In committee, stakeholders will present their views, we will be able to hear directly from the public their thoughts on this bill, and committee members will have an opportunity to move amendments to the bill. At the same time, this House can move to substantive debate on other matters. There are a number of important pieces of legislation that have already been introduced, which the government would like to debate in the House and move through the legislative process.

I’ll give examples: Bill 119, the Health Information Protection Act; Bill 132, the Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan Act; and Bill 135, the Energy Statute Law Amendment Act. We would like to spend time debating some other important pieces of legislation currently before the House, but we cannot until Bill 144 is dealt with. I urge all members of this House to support this motion and help pass this bill as soon as possible.

What we see is an opportunity that I must say did not always exist, when I look back on the history of this Legislature. In other words, believe it or not, there were previous governments that had no time allocated in committee for bills.

We wanted to ensure that there was time in committee for two things: first of all, representations by the public—that is, the public has an opportunity to comment on specific aspects of the bill and make suggestions and recommendations to the committee of the Legislature—and second, that any member of the committee have an opportunity to introduce potential amendments to the bill if they believe it can be improved or changed in such a way as to make it a bill that would be better for the people of the province of Ontario.

So we have provided that opportunity and a considerable amount of time for debate on this particular piece of legislation.

As I say, Mr. Speaker, that didn’t always exist, but in consultation with members of the opposition—you can’t always come to a final conclusion, but there has been some consultation with members of the opposition—

Interjection.

Hon. James J. Bradley: —including my good friend the member for Renfrew-Pembroke-Nipissing. That’s a different order, but I like to change the order around a bit, because I want to emphasize that one part of a riding is not always more important than the other. So I try to make sure that I change that around from time to time.

I do appreciate the fact that already in this House we’ve had some considerable debate on this particular piece of legislation. I have read Hansard carefully and have taken into account, as all members of the government have, what has been said by all members of the Ontario Legislature. You will note as well that the government, in its wisdom, I think, has actually allocated more time for the opposition to be able to speak at second reading than members of the government, because we know that members of the opposition have wanted to speak on this particular piece of legislation.

So we said, let’s have fewer government members speaking or, if government members are speaking, reduce the amount of time they might otherwise have the opportunity to speak. Again, that’s trying to accommodate the wishes of members of the opposition, as we try to at the House leaders’ meeting, where the leaders of the three parties—these are the parliamentary leaders or, as we call them, the House leaders of the three parties—along with the whips get together to try to iron out a

schedule that is mutually acceptable to all. We know that’s very challenging to do, but we make that genuine effort.

When we cannot come to a conclusion, the government is then compelled to move forward with a specific

schedule for a bill. That is what we have done here: a specific schedule. One other good thing about this is that everybody knows exactly when the bill will be in committee, how long it will be in committee, the specific hours and then something that—when I first came to this Legislature and for a number of years after, there was virtually never third reading on a bill.

The government has said, “Well, you know something? After we’ve had the opportunity to go through committee, to hear people and to hear amendments put forward, we’re still prepared, at the conclusion of that, to allocate time for third reading”—and allocated it, I might add, equally amongst the three parties. Even though the government has more seats—and one would say, if you’re doing it proportionate to the number of seats, the government would have more time—we have said it’s important, we think, that the three parties have that opportunity.

I know there will be a very positive and fulsome debate on this particular motion. I’m confident that members of the opposition will be—

Miss Monique Taylor: A point of order.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Point of order.

Miss Monique Taylor: Do we have a quorum?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Would the table check to see if we have a quorum?

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Tonia Grannum): A quorum is present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): A quorum is present.

Continue, deputy House leader.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I will avoid making any reference to the fact that a quorum is present at this time and that there are the required number of members. But, of course, that’s—

Interjections.

Hon. James J. Bradley: That is something, for sure, that used to happen.

I see a gathering of people around the member for Nipissing, and therefore I feel compelled to yield the floor to him for his very positive and supportive remarks about this motion.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Yes, it’ll be positive. I’m positive that this should not be happening.

Speaker, I want to talk a little bit about the actual Bill 144. I know we’re going to hear from our whip and we’re going to hear from our deputy leader, and they’re going to talk about the finer points of closure and why this should not be happening. I want to talk about the meat of this bill and what this is really all about, and why, in my opinion, this closure is happening.

The member talked about unlocking the value of public assets and using them to fund this $130 billion in infrastructure. Speaker, it’s easy to say that, but none of that—none of that at all—is what’s happening here. Absolutely none of that. So I’m going to talk for maybe 10 minutes and take us on a little trip as to what this is all about.

This is all about filling the financial hole in their budget. This has nothing to do with infrastructure. I’m going to prove that. In fact, I’m going to use the government’s own words, on page 162 of the budget bill, to prove what this is all about: that it’s all about plugging the financial hole. It’s about desperately trying to balance their budget, at which the Financial Accountability Officer showed us that they’re going to fail.

Let’s just take a little history, because this is all about selling Hydro. Let’s start at the beginning, when this happened. It started back when the Ed Clark report was first presented. The first time it was presented—because it was presented twice—it was called Retain and Gain—and he’s talking about Hydro—Making Ontario’s Assets Work Better for Taxpayers—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Stop the clock for a second.

I would ask the members on the government side especially—when your member was speaking, everybody in this House was silent, and that you would offer the same to the speaker currently.

The member for Nipissing.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: As I was saying, Speaker, the original Ed Clark report was entitled Retain and Gain: Making Ontario’s Assets Work Better for Taxpayers and Consumers. The whole purpose of this one was to retain all the companies and significantly improve their performance. That’s what it was called. In fact, the Ed Clark commission concluded that Hydro One transmission should remain in public hands as a core asset.

That was then, and this is now. Now you’ve got the Premier in front of this massive—and I mean massive; she is dwarfed by this beer-in-grocery stores backdrop. It is so huge, it would encompass about eight people in front of it to hide it; it’s that massive. She was standing there talking about beer in grocery stores and said, “Oh, by the way, we’re selling Hydro.” That was just a little aside. Something happened along the way—when we got Ed Clark’s final report, which came that day. It was issued five months after his first report that said Hydro One transmission should remain in public hands as a core asset.

Now he’s got a second report, and this one is called Striking the Right Balance: Improving Performance and Unlocking Value in the Electricity Sector in Ontario. Speaker, that is so full of crap that the title needed a colon in it.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I’d ask you to withdraw.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I withdraw, Speaker.

They concluded the province should sell a majority interest in Hydro One through share sales to the public. This is an amazing reversal in five months: going from “They should remain in public hands as a core asset” to “The province should sell a majority.”

It appears that what has happened is the government realized what the Ministry of Finance has been saying all along in the internal documents: There’s no plan to balance the budget. They’re not on track to meet their deficit targets. So they opted to burn the furniture to heat the house. They’re selling off assets to artificially balance the budget. That is exactly what’s happening here.

They talk about—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Order.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: It’s so obvious that we are on the track of the truth here, something that this other side knows nothing about.

Let’s see what happens here. They are now going to be selling Hydro One, which they say, ostensibly, is to go into infrastructure. Here’s the first part that shows everything they’ve had to say is inaccurate. It starts off in their 2014 budget. In their 2014 budget, they were talking about putting $130 billion into infrastructure. It is comprised of selling $1.1 billion of the GM shares and, over the next three years, only another $2 billion in assets. So it’s $3.1 billion in assets over four years, including the GM shares. That’s in their 2014 budget. In their 2015 budget, they now need the Hydro One sale to make that happen. But that is absolutely untrue.

In the Ottawa Citizen, way back in April, they nailed it. They said:

“A reasonable person might wonder why we need to sell most of a significant ... asset ... just to keep doing what we have been doing for years.

“The real answer ... is that putting some billions of new money into the province’s transit trust will enable the government to quietly shift existing money to help it reduce the deficit or pay for other spending.”

What they’re saying is, “Look, you’re going to sell Hydro, but you can pretend to take that money and announce you’re putting it in transit—but taking it out of the existing money, the transit budget, that you’ve already put.” That’s what they alluded to back in April. We’ve been standing here saying that for months now.

Now, in the government’s own budget document, Bill 144—it’s 167 pages long—buried, in one sentence on page 162, is what this is all about. Everything comes down—all this other material here is just fodder to bury this one sentence, and the one sentence is in “Authorized expenditures.” What can they do with the money from the sale of Hydro One?

Schedule 22,

section 7(1):

“1. To fund, directly or indirectly, costs relating to ... infrastructure.

“2. To reimburse the crown for expenditures incurred by the crown ... for a purpose described” above.

They can reimburse the crown for infrastructure spending. That lays it flat out in front of everybody that this game they’ve been playing—every single day they have stood here and said that the money is for infrastructure, it is going to infrastructure, and then taking the infrastructure money out and putting it against their deficit, because they do not know how to control their spending and they cannot balance their budget.

One sentence lays everything they’ve said to waste. It is laid out now very clearly for us that all of this is, in their own words, “To reimburse the crown for expenditures” of “construction or acquisition of infrastructure.” I need not say another word. We now know the truth for the first time in this Legislature. We now know that everything they’ve been saying about the infrastructure has been laid flat here.

Mr. John Yakabuski: It has been exposed.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: It has been exposed. They’ve been outed. They got caught again. They got caught red-handed again with yet another yarn that they’ve spun, and we know flat out, in their own words, that it’s not true.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate? The member for Kitchener–Waterloo.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Thank you, Mr. Speaker—

Interjections.

Ms. Catherine Fife: John Yakabuski, be quiet.

Bill 144: time-allocated. The finance minister stood up and spoke to this piece of legislation for 16 minutes—16 minutes—unbelievable.

Now this Premier ran in the last election as if she was going to be a progressive Premier, as if she was going to rule—do you remember?—from the activist centre. I guess the activist centre doesn’t believe in the democratic right of members of this Legislature to fully debate pieces of legislation which will negatively impact the people of this province. The entire premise—do you remember? “Oh, yes. We are going to put evidence over politics. We are going to put policy over partisanship. We are going to make sure that we consult with the people of this province.”

What has happened? An omnibus bill is before this House. We have not even fully had the opportunity to consult with the people who this piece of legislation will be affecting. This includes everyone from the small grocery stores that can’t get the licence to sell beer in their stores. We are just hearing from that whole sector from across the province because they’re worried that the large chains that, apparently, fell into favour with this government are able to sell beer.

Yet, the entire beer conversation, just to add insult to injury, the day that this government came out with the full privatization plan of Hydro One—that same day—that was the day where this government decided to say, “Beer for everybody. Don’t look at this plan over here, the privatization of Hydro One and the false choice of ‘You must sell off Hydro One in order to get infrastructure.’ Forget about that. No, look over here.”

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Member for Eglinton–Lawrence, would you come to order?

Ms. Catherine Fife: This is the biggest charade that this province has ever seen. The sell-off of Hydro One is the largest transfer of wealth from the public sector to the private sector. It is the largest. It is so unfair to the people—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Eglinton–Lawrence and the member for Hamilton Mountain, if you wish to carry on a conversation, I’d ask you to take it outside.

Carry on.

Ms. Catherine Fife: We have to let the people of this province know what is actually going on in this House, Mr. Speaker, with this huge bill and

schedule 22, which I spoke to at length when I had the opportunity. Most of the caucus on this side of the House have not had an opportunity to share their concerns. I could not agree more with my fellow critic on

schedule 22, and it is important to get on the record what the Trillium Trust is.

As I explained in my lead, the Trillium Trust is not a bucket where, when you sell off and you carve off pieces of Hydro One, that money ends up in this bucket and then it’s safeguarded for infrastructure. No, no, no, Mr. Speaker; that is exactly the opposite of that fund.

Money will go through the revenue and it will end up in the minister’s hands. Essentially, that is exactly what this piece of legislation does. It gives unbelievable power to the Minister of Finance and, obviously, to the Premier. You can’t blame us for having concerns about that because this government has a long-standing record of not being able to follow through on their promises, of not listening to independent officers of the Legislature like the Auditor General, like the Financial Accountability Officer.

When we look at where the money has gone in this province—as the finance critic, it’s hard to follow it, quite honestly, because there are these little sidelines, this shell game of where money goes.

Schedule 22 of Bill 144 makes it very clear that this government is not going to be putting this money solely into infrastructure—not at all. In fact, this government has basically put into legislation the right and the entitlement of the Finance Minister to spend whatever he wishes on infrastructure.

I’m going to read: “When money is withdrawn from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for infrastructure expenditures, including ‘reimbursements’ for expenditures directly or indirectly related to infrastructure construction or acquisition, the government may record as an ‘authorized expenditure’”—carte blanche—“an amount up to the total balance in the trust.

“The government is given broad regulatory authority to prescribe ‘anything that is permitted or required by this act to be prescribed, designated or done by regulation or in accordance with the regulations.’”

Once again, we have a government that ran from this activist centre, “where we will consult, where we will listen, where we will draw people into the democratic process”—no consultation on this, no consultation on Hydro One. People are still waking up to the fact that this government is selling out Hydro One right from under their feet. Hydro One generates revenue for this province. That revenue supports education; that revenue supports health care. This government can’t afford to waste any more money.

As we move forward with this piece of legislation, clearly the government doesn’t want to hear from the people of this province on this bill; clearly they don’t because they have time-allocated it. They have shut down democracy. How is that for progress? That’s not my definition of a progressive.

Who knew that right in the middle of the activist centre of this Premier is a banker, a banker who is pulling the levers and using the Premier’s office as a pulpit to privatize the public services in this province? It is unbelievable, Mr. Speaker.

You can clap.

Applause.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It really is. It’s hard to actually explain this fully to the people of this province because they don’t feel connected to this place at all. In fact, they’re losing confidence in the legislation that has come from this place, the lack of consultation. Just to find out that even as this government moved forward with the privatization of Hydro One, the way that they carved it off and then the province paid the bill for that financial transaction, that, in and of itself, demonstrates that this government is solely focused on that 1%. Believing in evidence over partisanship is a thing of the past, for sure.

The false choice—this is what I really do need to focus on, Mr. Speaker—is that this government has said that without selling Hydro One, we will see no infrastructure investment. The money—even if you get it, even if it flows through general revenue, even if it ends up through the Trillium Trust, even if somehow that shell game ends up on an LRT or GO train maybe, even if that happens—is 1%, Mr. Speaker.

Now, remember that this is the government that failed to spend the money that they had in their budget in 2014 and 2015; allocated funding, $1.4 billion in total. This government was unable to spend that money. Yet the Financial Accountability Officer has said that with the sale of Hydro One, this government may accrue $1.4 billion to $3.1 billion. I mean, they are moving mountains to sell off Hydro One, and 80% of the people of this province, who were not consulted, have said, “We do not want you to do that. You did not run on it. It was not in your platform.”

Broadening the ownership: That’s what they’re going to come back with. They’re going to say, “Oh, it was in our platform, broadening the ownership.” How do you broaden the ownership any more than having the entire province own this important public asset? The entire province, prior to the sell-off of that 15%, they were the owners.

There could be a focus on conservation. There could be a focus on efficiency. One of the first things this government does is it gives the new CEO of Hydro One $4 million. That’s what that new CEO makes. No CEO of any hydro facility across this country makes that kind of money. It’s a slap in the face to the people of this province, what is happening in this place, Mr. Speaker.

So we challenge this premise that you have to sell Hydro One to deliver infrastructure. No other Premier across this country has to do that. We challenge the premise that you are actually going to invest these dollars in infrastructure; in fact, your legislation proves that you are not. And we challenge this concept that you are actually moving forward with this Budget Measures Act in the best interests of the people of this province, because it is simply not the case.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate?

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s a pleasure to join this debate on this closure motion. Interestingly enough—how telling is this?—I just grabbed a copy of Bill 144 off the table, and when I opened it up, it’s printed upside down. Now, that pretty well should answer the whole story about what’s wrong with this motion and what’s wrong with this government. Half the time, they can’t tell whether they’re right side up or upside down. Here is another indication of it right here. They got Bill 144 and they printed it upside down, because it’s a mess right from the start. How illustrative is that? I can read upside down, so I’ll get the points that I need out of it.

Interjection.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Oh, no need, no need; sometimes it’s better to have it upside down. Well, we’ll get two copies here. That’s just like—see, the government has two sides: one where they want to tell you how nice they want to be, “We want to work with the opposition. We want to collaborate. We want to hear from the opposition about their views on different things, so together we can bring in better legislation for the province of Ontario.” This one, sure enough, is right side up.

Earlier today, my colleague from Nipissing said that I was going to touch on some of the finer points of this motion. Well, I may get to that, but unfortunately I’m going to say some things this morning that are not going to make people very happy. The people on the other side are definitely going to get a little upset.

We’re getting a little tired of the same old thing over and over again. You know, this motion—and I want to correct my record. Yesterday, I said it was the 17th closure motion since this government took office in July 2014; it is actually only the 16th, but trust me, Speaker, it won’t be long before there is a 17th. My record of yesterday will be correct in short order. My record will be correct in short order because there will be another closure motion coming from this government. Because, you see, this is the problem with this new Kathleen Wynne arrogant majority government—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I would ask you to refrain from using names. Use titles.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Precedent has said we can call it the Wynne government—okay, this new, arrogant Wynne government and their arrogant attitude with their majority. Now that they’ve got their massive majority that they keep talking about, the mandate that they got from the people, they can behave with absolute impunity when it comes to being arrogant and how they disregard the members of the opposition.

Now, once again, here we have the guillotine motion. We heard from captain closure earlier, the member from the Garden City, St. Catharines, bringing the motion this morning. Once again, he stood on behalf of the government—general guillotine, captain closure, you can give him whatever rank you want—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I hear what you’re saying, but I would ask you to be a little bit respectful of your colleagues in how you describe them. I don’t think it’s appropriate for the chamber.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you, Speaker. That is not meant in any disrespect. It is quite obviously in jest. It is not in disrespect; it is in jest. He would understand it and most people who have an open mind, if they are not too small-minded, they would understand that. We’re attaching something to try to point out how much pleasure they seem to take in doing these kinds of motions, and it’s wrong. It’s wrong.

I’m going to get down to the nitty-gritty here and talk about the arrogance of the government, and the Premier in particular. I remember the first time when we were having a debate in this House, long before she was even in cabinet. She made a comment in this House—you can go back and check Hansard, I don’t have the date—but she basically referred to the men in the opposition as a bunch of misogynists. She called us a bunch of misogynists. It really struck as a bit of the attitude that we’re going to experience.

Now, as Premier—this is why we have these motions to shut down debate, because they consider the opposition to be somewhat irrelevant: “We will hear the requisite amount of debate. We’ll have to suffer through it, as the know-it-all government that cannot be challenged,” because they have their electoral mandate. “We’ll sit through what we have to, but then we’re going to do what we decided to do because they are inferior to us.

That opposition is quite frankly inferior; we don’t have to listen to them and we’re not going to.” Even though on the front side, when they’re talking outside, in the press, or here, they’ll talk about trying to work collaboratively, but it hasn’t happened. It hasn’t happened.

But how many times, when members of the assembly, or anywhere—and the best illustration came out this week, when we were talking about the Syrian refugee crisis and the federal plan. The Liberals derided the Conservative plan and made great promises about what they were going to do about the Syrian refugee crisis by the end of 2015, by the end of the year. When anybody questioned that plan, the Premier would rise to the defence of her mentor up in Ottawa and as much as call those people racists for challenging the plan that the federal government had to bring—even the former Premier of British Columbia, a Sikh.

Now, Speaker, I have never tasted the sting of racism. That’s probably fairly obvious. There are members in this Legislature, I am sure, who have tasted the sting of racism, and it is absolutely painful, I am certain. But Premier Kathleen Wynne is not one of them. Now, the former Premier of British Columbia, I’m sure, could speak to that because he most likely probably has tasted that sting. But when he is being lectured by the Premier of Ontario because he questions the plan of the federal government—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I hope the member is going to tie this into the debate that’s in front of us very soon.

Mr. John Yakabuski: It is as tied in as what else was being talked about, Speaker—infrastructure and everything else was tied into the debate on this motion. This is about the attitude of the government towards the people on this side of the House. I believe it is absolutely tied into the debate because that is why we have had 16 closure motions by this government since they took office in July 2014—16 closure motions.

You see, this has become the tactic of this particular Premier. When you don’t agree with her, you are racist or a bigot, or some other word that makes people feel very uncomfortable. When you challenge them on their social policy, well, she drifts into as much as calling you a bigot.

When you challenge their support—their blanket support—of the Ottawa plan, which now they have completely reversed on and gone back more to what the plan was of the previous government, is she now going to call Justin Trudeau and Ralph Goodale and John McCallum racist or impugn that they are racist because they are backing off on their plan to bring over Syrian refugees? No, of course she’s not. But then she shouldn’t refer to members of the opposition, or any other group that doesn’t immediately fall in line with her tactics, that way either. Those words are hurtful, and they’re painful.

When you attach them to people, you should do it only—only—when you absolutely have come to the conclusion that they are deserving of having those words attached to them, only if you are absolutely certain they are deserving of having had those words adjoined to them.

I hope that there is a change in attitude in this government about what we do on this side of the House. It is our responsibility to challenge what the government does. We have been given that legal responsibility, that legislative responsibility, to challenge what the government does. It is not something that we take lightly, but when you are challenging the government, you should never have to feel that because you question something they’re doing, for legitimate reasons—the plan has changed. Was the plan—

Interjections.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I say to the government whip: Has the plan changed in Ottawa? What changed in the last few days, or since, that they changed their plan completely? Nothing has changed in the last few days, but now they are backing off on it.

I just want the people on that side of the House to understand that we also have a right to question what governments are doing, and we should not be immediately characterized. We should not hear phrases that I know have been said in this House. They don’t get said anymore because the offenders have been told not to use that phrase anymore, but I do see the hand gestures sometimes, and the gentleman knows who I’m talking about. We should never have to put up with that in this House when we question something the government is doing. The debate should be based on the value of the issue, not whether or not you agree with the government’s one-sided argument.

It’s about time that the government showed that they are interested in hearing what the other side has to say. That’s what the owl impugns on that side: Be wise and listen to the other side. The eagle on this side tells us to be vigilant and keep an eye on the government. That’s our job.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: But that’s hard.

Mr. John Yakabuski: But it’s hard to do that when the debate is stifled because the government—this was unbelievable, this is the epitome of their actions, what they have done to this bill here. This is not a bill of small importance. It’s not a small bill. It is 167 pages—167 pages. It’s a significant piece of legislation. Shortly after they reach the 6.5—for those out there who are listening and don’t understand the rules of the Legislature, after 6.5 hours of debate the government can decide that there will be no more debate.

The next bill that would be as big as this—well, with as much stuff in it—would be a budget bill. When the government brings in a budget, it requires a set amount of debate. I may not be exactly correct on this, but it’s 12 sitting days of debate that have to take place for a budget before it can even be voted on and passed or rejected. Because of the significance of the legislation, there’s a requirement that this Legislature debate it for an extended period of time. It can’t be shut down after 6.5 hours.

I would have thought that that kind of consideration would have been given to a bill of this magnitude—167 pages, Speaker. There are 23 separate statutes that are being amended in this piece of legislation. This is not a small piece of legislation.

It is not only our right, it is our responsibility to question what is in this legislation. People didn’t send us here to be rubber stamping what the government does. In that case, we need not have a Parliament. We need not have any debate whatsoever. We need not sit here. We just need the kings and queens of the Liberal Party to run the province and we’ll just go home and cut ribbons. Of course, there wouldn’t be many cut because this province would probably be on its knees and broke even faster if there wasn’t an opposition to hold these people to account.

But if they’re not going to pay any attention and they’re not going to pay any heed to what we have to say about a piece of legislation like this—as I say, 167 pages. How is it possible to have a full and complete debate on a piece of legislation of that size when only a few select members of the House have had a chance to speak to it? All of the critics who are affected by this have not spoken to it. People who are representing their constituencies have not had the opportunity to speak to it.

Yet, because the government has its own agenda and they’ve become so arrogant in believing that we are an inferior group on this side of the House, their view is that they need not concern themselves with what we have to say.

We’re only getting 40 minutes to speak to this because of the standing orders. The standing orders require that. If the government could put this bill through without giving us the 40 minutes, they would have done that. That is a scary thought, when you think about it, Speaker: a scary thought when you think that this is where we’re coming to in this Legislature. If this attitude continues, where are we going to end up?

This is not what our forefathers envisioned when we brought the British parliamentary system to this country. This is not how they saw it happening. They saw the opportunity for people who are elected by their people at home to come here and debate that legislation. They did not believe for a minute that they would be stifled on legislation of such magnitude in such short order. They believed they would have a chance to speak to it.

I have not been shocked with some of the closure motions that have come forward by this government. Some of them I’ve totally expected. I must tell you that when I saw this motion yesterday, when I saw it presented, I was shocked. I remember saying to my colleagues, “I don’t believe that even this government would possibly bring forth a closure motion this quickly on this bill.” They just have to see that it’s wrong. They’ve got to know that it cannot be right to take a bill of that size, and that changes 23 separate statutes, as I said, and just ram it through without any real debate. It’s wrong.

I don’t blame the Liberal backbenchers. They take their orders from the corner office. That’s what has happened here. This is the attitude that is coming out of the corner office, and it should change.

I don’t blame the staffers who work for the Liberals. They’re doing their job. I talk about him all the time: Lucas Malinowski in the under press, the man with the rope. He pulls the switch on the guillotine. He takes orders from the deputy House leader. He pulls the switch on the guillotine and down it comes on the opposition once again. I don’t blame Jackie Choquette either. She does a great job working for the House leader. She gets her orders to go sharpen the knife edge on the guillotine because Lucas is getting ready to pull the switch—and down it comes once again. They shouldn’t be doing that to their staffers over there.

We’ve got good staff here too. Jessica Lippert is here all the time, every day. She doesn’t get to do those kinds of things, but she’d like to have her members have an opportunity to speak more often. Cody Welton is down there, wondering, “What’s going on down here?”

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: Point of order.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Point of order.

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: I’m listening, caught on every word that the honourable member is talking about—as always, captivating. However—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Can you make your point of order succinctly, please?

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: —talking about the staff is, I think, a tad unparliamentary and not—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): That’s not a point of order.

Member, carry on.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you, Speaker. I knew it wasn’t a point of order.

Sometimes, I think it’s important to recognize the good work that staff do around here, and I do that routinely because I respect the work they do. I respect the work that the members on the opposite side of the House do. What I’m having trouble respecting is the attitude that is coming out of the Premier’s office more and more with regard to respect for the work that we do on this side of the House.

Speaker, if this is going to be a Parliament that works collaboratively, that works collectively, that works for the betterment of all the people of Ontario, then that attitude over there has to change.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I rise today, on behalf of the constituents I represent in London West, to share some of the concerns that have already been raised by my colleagues in the House. Certainly, we have deep concerns about the time allocation motion that is before us today, to limit debate on Bill 144, the Budget Measures Act.

Speaker, time allocation, as others have said, is inherently undemocratic. It cuts off debate, it stifles citizen engagement in the political process, it denies MPPs the opportunity to share the views of our constituents and it allows the government to push through a legislative agenda without the full scrutiny of members of the Legislature. But it is particularly egregious when it is used to cut off debate on legislation with the heft and scope of the Budget Measures Act.

Bill 144 is an omnibus bill. It is 167 pages in length, and it amends 23 existing statutes. It was introduced just late last Wednesday. On Monday, it was debated for second reading. Only one week after its introduction, the debate is being cut off.

Usually, a bill is introduced, it sits on the order paper before it is called, and citizens and stakeholders have an opportunity to review the legislation. They have an opportunity to think about the implications of the changes that are proposed. This is not the case with Bill 144. There has been very little time to unpack the bill and to reflect on its contents. There has been very little time for MPPs to reach out to our constituents to see how they feel about the amendments that are included in the bill.

Speaker, we’ve seen this government resort, time and time again, to time allocation, but rarely have we seen it being used to push through a bill with the magnitude of Bill 144.

I understand that the government would like us to believe that the bill simply ties up loose ends from the 2015 budget. I guess that was wise. The Minister of Finance chose not to spend time explaining or defending Bill 144 when it was introduced for second reading debate. He and the member from York South–Weston spoke to it for a total of 16 minutes instead of the full hour that is typically allocated to a leadoff speech. I understand why it is important for the government to be able to tie up loose ends, since the process to develop the 2016 budget is already under way. So I do understand what is motivating this legislation, as well as the motion that is before us today to cut off debate.

The problem is that this place is not supposed to be about the government. It’s not supposed to be about what’s in the government’s interest. It’s supposed to be about the people of Ontario. It’s supposed to be about allowing time for full and meaningful debate among the 107 MPPs who have the privilege and honour of representing the people of the province. It’s supposed to be about consulting with stakeholders who will be directly affected by the legislation, so that we can ensure that their views are represented and taken into consideration as the bill moves through the legislative process.

As my colleague the member for Kitchener–Waterloo said in her excellent leadoff speech—and by the way, Speaker, she did take the full hour—this kind of conduct hardly demonstrates the openness, the transparency and the accountability that the Liberal government promised to Ontarians. If anything, what the Liberals are doing with the time allocation motion is the exact opposite of what they promised. It’s no wonder that Ontarians feel so disappointed. It’s no wonder they feel let down, even betrayed, by the government’s use of code words during the election, like “optimizing assets” and “unlocking value.”

Despite the government’s claims that people knew all along that voting Liberal meant voting for the largest wholesale sell-off of public assets in this province’s history, Ontarians just aren’t buying it. Ontarians know that they did not give the Liberals a mandate to sell Hydro One, regardless of what the government says. On the contrary, the overwhelming majority of people in this province—83%—are opposed to the privatization scheme. Speaker, 188 municipalities have passed resolutions to keep Ontario’s electricity system in public hands.

Yet in the face of such strong citizen opposition, what does the government do? Instead of voting in favour of the NDP motion to halt the sale of any more shares in Hydro One; instead of respecting the independent, objective analysis of the Financial Accountability Officer, who showed that privatization could net as little as $1.4 billion for the province, which is less than half of the revenue projected by the Liberals; instead of listening to the people of this province, who are demanding that Hydro One remain in public hands, the Liberals are ramming through Bill 144.

This is a bill that will enable the government to go, as the Premier says, “full steam ahead” with its flawed, short-sighted and irresponsible Hydro One privatization plan.

Speaker, I want to focus my comments on two of the most concerning statutes that are amended by this Budget Measures Act: the Electricity Act and the amendments outlined in

schedule 3; and the Trillium Trust Act, which is outlined in

schedule 22 of the bill before us. These two pieces of legislation provide the legislative scaffolding that the government needs to use to push through its privatization of Hydro One.

On Monday, in her lead speech, my colleague the MPP for Kitchener–Waterloo quoted from a very insightful analysis of Bill 144 from Tom Adams of Energy Probe. He said that

schedule 3 of the bill “contains the first clues so far disclosed as to how the government intends to fill the hole it has created” at the Ontario Electricity Financial Corp. “with the sale of Hydro One.”

Schedule 3 repeals the sections of the Electricity Act that would have redirected monies collected from Hydro One, OPG and municipal electricity utilities through payments in lieu of municipal and school taxes back to municipalities, once the residual stranded debt is paid off.

Currently, while the residual stranded debt—the debt inherited by the government following the dismantling of Ontario Hydro—remains outstanding, these monies flow to the OEFC, and they will continue to do so under Bill 144. But as Tom Adams points out, this means that the proceeds of the sale of Hydro One to build transit are to be achieved in part through the farcical finance of seizing revenue from another level of government. The amount of money may be small in the scheme of things, but it illustrates the government’s reliance on astrology and unicorn sightings to guide their electricity and transit plans.

We see the same kind of shell game played elsewhere, in

schedule 3 of this bill. A magic wand is waved so that any and all references to the residual stranded debt and the stranded debt are simply erased from the act. The minister is no longer required to report the value of the residual stranded debt and no longer has to inform Ontarians when the residual stranded debt has been retired. This is information that Ontarians have a right to know, since they are on the hook for paying off the debt through a debt retirement charge on their electricity bills.

Schedule 3 does make good on the government’s commitment to remove the debt retirement charge by the end of 2015, and also sets a date of April 1, 2018, for the elimination of the debt retirement charge from all electricity bills, not just residential, including business and other consumers.

We know that the residual stranded debt was estimated to be about $2.6 billion as of March 2014, and it’s being paid down at a rate of about $1.3 billion a year, which means that it should be nearly paid off. However,

schedule 3 makes it clear that businesses will still be paying debt retirement charges between now and 2018, even if the residual stranded debt is retired prior to April 2018. According to the analysis done by the Financial Accountability Officer, debt retirement charges represent a financial hit to Ontario businesses of about $600 million a year, so businesses have a huge stake in having the charges removed as soon as possible.

To be fair, however, it does seem unlikely that the residual stranded debt will be retired early, given the impact of the privatization of Hydro One. As the FAO pointed out in his report on the sale, the loss of dedicated Hydro One revenues will have the effect of increasing the residual stranded debt, thus prolonging the need to keep the debt retirement charge.

I want to move on to

schedule 22 of Bill 144, which deals with the Trillium Trust and the proceeds of privatization, which is where things get really interesting. This

schedule completely restructures the Trillium Trust in its current form. Instead of operating as a bank account for the government—money in, money out—this

schedule changes the purpose of the Trillium Trust to become what is essentially an accounting procedure. No longer will the trust record all receipts and disbursements of public money. Instead, its purpose will be to track:

“

(1) Prescribed amounts of designated proceeds of disposition of qualifying assets.

“

(2) Prescribed amounts of prescribed non-cash benefits that are recognized by the crown in connection with dispositions of qualifying assets.

“

(3) All expenditures of public money under this act.”

Currently, the designated proceeds of disposition are paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, not the Trillium Trust, and a prescribed amount of the proceeds is then credited to the trust. This will not change with Bill 144. There will still be no guarantee that money from an asset sale will be dedicated to the trust, and the government will maintain full regulatory authority to prescribe whatever amount it wishes to dedicate.

The critical change with

schedule 22 is that there will now be no guarantee that amounts credited to the trust represent actual money. It will be possible to increase the balance of the Trillium Trust simply by designating a claimed gain on paper with respect to assets that the government already owns. Not only will no money ever be deposited into or withdrawn from the Trillium Trust, but there is no longer any guarantee that amounts credited to the trust represent actual money or even a liquidable non-cash asset.

As we know from the work done by my colleague the member for Toronto–Danforth, the estimated $2.2 billion in Hydro One proceeds that the government claims will be dedicated to the Trillium Trust is actually a non-cash gain that cannot be spent.

Why does Bill 144 merit more fulsome debate, and why should it not be time-allocated? Because Ontarians do not want a legislative framework to sell off Hydro One. They want to keep Ontario’s electricity system in public hands. I’m going to read a sample of some of the emails I’ve received about the sell-off, and I suspect these will sound familiar to all MPPs, including those on the government side of the House, since we are all receiving very similar messages.

Here’s one: “Selling Ontario Hydro is a very bad ‘investment’ in the future for the people of Ontario. Will the Liberals become the party that sold Ontario? Do not sell Ontario Hydro at any price as it is owned and paid for by the people of Ontario ... not the Liberal Party.”

Here’s another: “All government assets are owned by the citizens and not by a particular political party that happens to be in power at the moment. I don’t recall seeing this sale mentioned in any election platforms. What’s next? Selling off provincial parks or maybe even selling off Queen’s Park? Maybe they can sell off naming rights to Queen’s Park. Maybe Budweiser would be interested.”

Here’s another: “Selling it is like if I sold 60 acres off a 100-acre farm and then used the money to buy hay for the cows in the barn. It would be much more cost-effective to grow the hay. I have lost the land, lost the income, will lose the cows and then the rest of the farm.”

Finally: “As a legally blind Ontarian who is reliant on public transportation, I am in full support of investing in transit and infrastructure. That being said, I am not in favour of doing so at any cost. Selling a money-making asset for a one-time influx of cash is foolish.”

Speaker, I want to expand a little bit on this last quote that I shared because it is worth emphasizing. Londoners want investments in transit. Londoners are united behind a new rapid transit initiative in our community called Shift London. Londoners recognize that our future prosperity relies on people’s ability to move around the city, on students’ ability to get to campus, on businesses’ ability to move goods to market. We recognize that our collective well-being relies on our ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by taking vehicles off the road.

But to say that Londoners can either have transit or we can have public hydro is a false choice. There are other and better ways to fund transit infrastructure, ways that will generate more revenues and will not jeopardize the province’s bottom line, which is what the FAO said the sell-off would do, and I quote from his report, “In years following the sale of 60% of Hydro One, the province’s budget balance would be worse than it would have been without the sale.”

The sell-off of Hydro One is a bad deal for the families and businesses of this province. While the Premier says the sell-off will raise $4 billion for transit and infrastructure, we know from the FAO that the sell–off could raise as little as $1.4 billion. It is not only a bad deal for the people of this province, it is an irresponsible deal—$1.4 billion is only about 1% of the revenues needed to fund the Liberals’ infrastructure plan.

Look at what the implications of the loss of public electricity will be for this province: Ontario will be in worse long-term financial shape after privatization. We will be losing almost half a billion dollars a year annually by 2025 as a direct result of this sell-off.

Speaker, for these reasons and many more that have been articulated by members on this side of the House, the time allocation motion should not proceed. We need a more fulsome debate on Bill 144 so that we can investigate and further elucidate the implications of the changes that are proposed in the bill.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Seeing the time on the clock, this House stands recessed until 10:30 a.m.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It looks like we have a large body of people to introduce, so if we can do that sharply this time around.

Mr. Bill Walker: It’s a pleasure to welcome Michael Schmidt, a farmer from my riding, and a number of other people from my riding. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: It’s not often that I get to welcome people all the way from Timmins, sir, but we have professional firefighters here, some from Timmins, some not: John Mavrinac, Peter Osterberg—we’re not going to say what his nickname is—and Rob Shaughnessy is here as well.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: I’d like to recognize all of the violence against women stakeholders and advocates who have joined us today at Queen’s Park. Among them are Charlene Catchpole, chair of the board of directors for the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses, known as OAITH; Marlene Ham, provincial coordinator for OAITH; and all the members of OAITH here today.

In recognition of the United Nations International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, you will see these advocates wearing purple scarves as part of the Wrapped in Courage campaign. We invite all members to join us on the grand staircase following question period for a photo in our purple scarves, and everyone is welcome to attend the reception hosted by OAITH from 11:00 a.m. until 12:45 p.m. in room 228.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I’d like to welcome nine people to the Legislature today. These are nine very strong and responsible advocates for the consumption of raw milk in Ontario. They are: Nadine Ijaz; Sibernie James-Bosch; Steve Martin; Gerry Isabel; Robert Greenfield; Cathy Noble; Paul Noble; Elisa Vander Hout; and Michael Schmidt. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I hope that everyone will join me in welcoming Dean Good and Brett Gibson from the Waterloo Professional Fire Fighters Association; and Gerald Van Decker from RenewABILITY Energy Inc. from Kitchener. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Bill Mauro: The College Student Alliance is here today, and I had an opportunity this morning to have breakfast with three of the members from Confederation College in my riding of Thunder Bay–Atikokan. I was pleased to meet and welcome Chris Cartwright, Tanner Bell and Preston Cromarty to Queen’s Park.

As well, I have one other very special introduction I’d be happy to make. Welcome to Queen’s Park, in the members’ gallery, Mr. Don Rusnak, the newly elected federal MP for the riding of Thunder Bay–Rainy River.

I want to welcome them all to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: I’m pleased to welcome guests from the Chatham Kent Women’s Centre to the Legislature today. They are: Amanda Kelley; Cindy Howes; Luisa Teasdale; Erika Jones; and Zahra Elhussein. Welcome to the Ontario Legislature.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Good morning, Speaker. Two amazing young people from the Windsor–Tecumseh area have joined us this morning. They are student representatives at St. Clair College, Miranda Underwood and Jeff Rousseau. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Speaker, please help me in welcoming the president of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, Mr. Carmen Santoro, and the vice-president of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, Mr. Ernie Thorne. Please give them a warm Queen’s Park welcome.

Mr. Patrick Brown: It’s my pleasure to welcome firefighters from Simcoe county, from the Midland force, Orillia and Barrie.

I would also like to welcome to Queen’s Park today my friends from the College Student Alliance.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I would like to welcome some guests today, women who are here to talk about women’s issues and advocate for women’s issues. I would like to welcome Kate Wiggins; Jane Scheel; Silvia Samsa; Lorris Herenda; Eva Kratochvil; Jehan Chaudhry; Marlene Ham; Pamela Havery; and Lyn Allen. Welcome to the Legislature today.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I’d like to welcome today President Ryan Madill and Vice-President Mike Vail of Local 485 in St. Catharines of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’m honoured to welcome to Queen’s Park today very good friends of mine and supporters Gail and Henry Wiersema from Strathroy-Caradoc.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: It is my privilege to welcome to the Legislature today the president of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, Carmen Santoro, and vice-president of the OPFFA, Ernie Thorne. Also from Oshawa, President Steve Barkwell is joining us and Vice-President Rod Thwaites, and from Whitby, I’d like to welcome firefighters Bob Brandon and Dirk Franke to the Legislature.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I’d like to welcome the members of the permanent Roundtable on Violence Against Women, who are meeting at Queen’s Park. The Premier and I met with them this morning, and I just want to thank them very much for their work and for being here today.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I’d like to welcome two professional firefighters from St. Thomas: Warren Scott and Daryl Smith. Welcome, guys.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: I would like to welcome professional firefighters from Windsor: Wayne Currie and Kris Matton.

Mr. Granville Anderson: I would like to welcome firefighters from Clarington in my lovely riding of Durham: Scott Snowden, Dan Worrall and Peter Lomax. Welcome.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to welcome Andrew Rogerson from the Stratford fire service.

Ms. Sarah Campbell: I’d like to welcome Kendall Trembath, the executive director of Saakaate House in Kenora.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: On behalf of the Ottawa caucus from all sides of this Legislature, I want to welcome Ontario’s finest firefighters. From Ottawa, members of Local 162: President Peter Kennedy, Vice-President John Sobey, Treasurer Erik Leicht, and Malcolm Todd to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I’d like to welcome Bessie Sullivan from the Haliburton County Public Library here today with us in the gallery; and also Bob Brandon and Dirk Franke, Whitby professional firefighters who I met with earlier.

Mr. Wayne Gates: I’d like to welcome two people from my riding today: Shane Malcolm and Alison Mary Nakiwala from Niagara College.

I’d also like to welcome two firefighters from the Niagara Falls Professional Fire Fighters Association, Dave Jarrett and Brandon Fife, who are joining us today. Thank you for all the work you do.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I can’t go without recognizing Captain Vail, a member of the Niagara Falls Professional Fire Fighters Association who died tragically on November 10. Although Captain Vail is not here today, I know he’s here in spirit. I just wanted to recognize him as well.

Hon. Reza Moridi: I would like to welcome student leaders from the College Student Alliance who are here today with us: Ciara Byrne, Jeff Rousseau, Justin MacDonald, Colin Gaudet and Chris Cartwright.

I also want to welcome firefighters from York region: Jeff Voisin and Dan St John.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I would like to welcome friends Norah and Lyn from Family Transition Place, who are joining us today.

Also, I would like to introduce my father, Brian Jones, and Audrey Archer.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I’d like to recognize two students from my riding of London–Fanshawe, Alan Bushell and Maria Nikides from the Fleming College students’ union. They are here at Queen’s Park today as part of the College Student Alliance advocacy workshop, and I look forward to meeting with them this afternoon.

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: In the east members’ gallery, I’d like to welcome two members of the Cambridge Professional Fire Fighters Association, Chris Davidson and John Holman.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I want to recognize all of the firefighters from the Woodstock Professional Fire Fighters Association—even though they’re not here, they deserve recognition.

Ms. Cindy Forster: I’d like to introduce Karl Lehan and Steve McQueen, two Welland professional firefighters who are here today in the gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am delighted to welcome Kate Wiggins from London Women’s Community House; my old, dear friend Eva Kratochvil from Windsor; and, of course, all members of the London Professional Fire Fighters Association.

Mr. Steve Clark: I want to thank and welcome my friends with the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association.

I met with some of my constituents today about Ontario libraries, but I do want to recognize a young person who’s here, Tyshan Zakss, who is here from St. Lawrence College in Brockville. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: It is with great pleasure that I introduce Lynda Muir in the members’ gallery. Lynda is the executive director of the Women and Children’s Shelter of Barrie.

As well, I’d like to welcome—I don’t see them right now—Kevin White and Nevin Hamilton, members of the Barrie Professional Fire Fighters Association.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I know there are Toronto firefighters here as well, so I want to acknowledge that. Welcome to all the Toronto firefighters as well.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I would like to introduce Ms. Pam Havery, the executive director of Kingston Interval House.

I would also like to welcome the delegations of the Ontario Library Association and the Federation of Ontario Public Libraries; and Anne Bryan, the president of Kingston firefighters’ Local 498. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

M me Marie-France Lalonde: Ça me fait un grand plaisir de présenter aujourd’hui l’Association des pompiers d’Ottawa au nom de mes collègues d’Ottawa des deux côtés de la Chambre : MM. Peter Kennedy, Erik Leicht, Malcolm Todd et John Sobey. Ils sont ici avec nous aujourd’hui. Merci d’être ici.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I’d like to extend a warm welcome to my constituent Kate Wiggins, who is also executive director of Women’s Community House in London. Thank you.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Please help me in welcoming Sharon Floyd, executive director of Interim Place, to the chamber this morning. She’s visiting this morning as part of the third annual Wrapped in Courage event for the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women and girls.

For over 32 years, Interim Place has been providing shelter and support services for women in the Peel region who face violence. Thank you for being here, and to all of you who are supporting this issue.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: On behalf of my constituents in Scarborough–Guildwood, I’m very pleased to introduce Sukanya Chakraborty, who is from Centennial College Student Association. She’s here today with the Centennial College Student Alliance advocacy workshop.

I’d also like to welcome Frank Ramagnano and Janos Csepreghi, who are the Toronto Professional Fire Fighters’ Association president and executive officer.

I would also like to give a warm welcome to the students of West Hill Collegiate. We have 100 students here today to observe question period, along with their teachers, Ms. Permell Ashby and Mr. James Sorel, and many volunteers who are here with them, including PC Randy Arsenault from 43 Division.

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park Charles Lewis, who is the president of the Oakville Professional Fire Fighters Association, along with all members here from the Oakville and Burlington professional fire fighters’ associations.

In addition, I’d also like to welcome Diane Beaulieu, who is here with Halton Women’s Place. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I’d like to welcome firefighter Chris Francescone from the Belleville Fire Department.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I want to welcome two members of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association: Eric Nordlund, District 7 vice-president of the OPFFA, and Dennis Brescacin, who is the president of the Thunder Bay Professional Fire Fighters Association. Welcome.

Mr. Arthur Potts: I want to introduce Amy Cronin, who is with Ontario Pork, and all the members of Ontario Pork, who are holding a reception here this afternoon, 5 to 7 p.m., in room 228. Come down and enjoy some of Ontario’s great pork.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I have other introductions. I’d like to get the introductions done.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I would like to welcome my constituent Mr. Patrick Whitten, who is here with his college today.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I would like to introduce firefighter Robb Roy. I’ll be meeting with our firefighters this afternoon.

Mr. Mike Colle: I’d like to introduce page captain Jack Farley’s mother, Manjusha Pawagi; his father, Simon Farley; and his grandmother Asha Pawagi. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Michael Harris: I’d like to welcome two gentlemen from the Conestoga College student association: Jeff Scherer and Colin Gaudet. Thanks for joining us today at Queen’s Park.

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: I’m pleased to welcome to Queen’s Park today Dan VanderLelie, president of the Burlington Professional Firefighters Association. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Just in case there’s anybody else in the building that hasn’t been welcomed, welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank the member from Windsor–Tecumseh. That used to be my old line when I used it, as well.

I do have visitors in the Speaker’s gallery. I’ll just bring attention to the professional firefighters that are here from Brantford. And my other brother, Joe Peters, is here, with his friend Hayley Moffat.

I will now entertain a point of order. The Minister of Community and Social Services.

Wearing of scarves

Hon. Helena Jaczek: I believe that you will find that we have unanimous consent that all members be permitted to wear purple scarves in recognition of the United Nations’ International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The minister is seeking unanimous consent to wear purple scarves. Do we agree? Agreed.

Wearing of ribbons

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I believe you’ll find we also have unanimous consent that all members be permitted to wear white ribbons in recognition of Women Abuse Prevention Month.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Children and Youth Services is seeking consent for permission to wear white ribbons. Do we agree? Agreed.

Just before we move into question period, I’ll bring note to you that I try as much as I can during that time allotment to introduce all of our guests, but I’d just like to make a note that there’s an awful lot of people here who have come to watch question period. I just thought I’d like to point that out.

Oral Questions

First responders

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier: I want to start by welcoming all the firefighters here today. Many of them are my good friends, and those friends of mine, along with their paramedic and police officer colleagues, continue to tell me that the government is holding up access to care for post-traumatic stress disorder.

It has been 72 days since I asked the Premier to work with me and the NDP to fast-track the third party’s bill that would enable faster access to PTSD support for first responders. Will the Premier bring back this bill for third reading and pass it today, not a watered-down version of a government bill? Do the right thing: Show all firefighters here today that the government stands behind them and supports them. Will the Premier do that?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I also want to welcome all of the firefighters and all of the guests who are here today to question period.

The question that the Leader of the Opposition has asked, I think, highlights once again a very important issue that we are already working with firefighters on. The fact is that we have worked very well with firefighters over our time in government in terms of presumptive legislation. We know that PTSD is an issue that has to be addressed.

I don’t think that this is about a particular member’s bill; this is about getting it right. This is about putting supports in place for these first responders who are critical to the safety and the security of all of the residents of Ontario. So we will continue to work with firefighters to make sure that we have the right supports in place.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: The NDP do have a good bill. Don’t blindly oppose it simply because it’s an NDP idea; it’s the right thing to support. The work that firefighters do, the sacrifices they make and the fact that they risk their lives every day for the people in our communities should mean so much to us.

I vividly remember attending the funeral of Bill Wilkins in 2002. Madam Premier, you may remember that Bill Wilkins was a firefighter from Simcoe county. He served the city of Barrie and tragically lost his life responding to a call.

The danger is very real for firefighters in the line of service. Many of our communities have seen it first-hand. The families of those lost need our support. There has been no action on this front as well.

Will the Premier support a heroes’ fund similar to what we have with the Canadian Forces, for survivor benefits for the families of first responders who have fallen in the service of our province?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: In terms of actions that have been taken, I have specifically asked the Minister of Labour to come forward with steps on a comprehensive strategy for dealing with PTSD as well as other mental health issues. The Minister of Labour is working on that and I know he will want to speak to it in the supplementary.

This is something that we need to get right. It is very complex. I understand why the Leader of the Opposition wants to make political hay of a particular bill. The reality is that I’m glad that the member for High Park raised the issue. I think it’s very, very—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want all of the resources of government to be able to be put behind bringing forward a bill that’s going to ensure that we’re a leader in prevention, that we’re a leader in resiliency and that we get this right. We are working on that.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: It’s not political when you have a firefighter die in your community. I haven’t gotten an answer on PTSD and I haven’t gotten an answer on the heroes’ fund, so I’m going to try a third question and maybe the Premier can actually answer it.

The most appropriate way for municipalities to ensure public fire safety is through a risk-based assessment of their communities. Currently, there are municipalities making cuts to their fire service without undertaking a risk-based assessment. That causes a serious threat to public safety. This government needs to support a comprehensive risk-based assessment for fire prevention.

Will the Premier direct the Ontario fire marshal to develop an integrated risk-management tool? Don’t pass the buck; just answer one of my questions—just one.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I say to the Leader of the Opposition that these are very important issues. These are issues that we have been working on. We have been talking with firefighters for a number of years and we’ve made advances.

As we’ve talked with firefighters, we’ve gotten advice on presumptive legislation. Breast cancer, multiple myeloma and testicular cancer were added to the list in 2014. Prostate cancer, lung cancer and skin cancer will be phased in by 2017. I only raise that presumptive legislation in the conversations we’ve had with firefighters to say to the Leader of the Opposition: We are open. We are open with firefighters. We have discussions with our first responders in order to make sure that we continue to change legislation to put the supports in place.

Will we work with the fire marshal to make sure that the right protections are in place? Absolutely. Will we make sure that we have the right resources and policies on PTSD? Absolutely.

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Mr. Patrick Brown: To the Premier: As you are aware, the PCs have put forward a motion to be debated this afternoon, with specific points. Maybe the Premier can let us know if she’ll be supporting them.

First, as she knows, I was very disappointed when I learned that the government handed out $2.5 million to pay for education negotiations without asking for a single receipt. If that money had been—

Interjections.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: —invested into the education system, it would have gone a long way. The Premier could have funded 75 education assistants with that money. She could have put the money towards special education.

Will the Premier ensure the Ontario Liberal Party pays back the money to the Ministry of Education to reimburse Ontario students and teachers for the funds that were taken out of the classroom?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I would just remind the member opposite that he is talking about a negotiation process that has been successful. Students have remained in the classroom. The negotiations were concluded in line with our net-zero bargaining framework—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s enough. I will be tempted to move to warnings if it persists.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: And we’ve done all of this without making cuts to the classroom. That process, which was developed in conjunction with our education partners, has been successfully concluded.

The fact is that this new process, which, as I say, was developed in conjunction with our partners, required new resources. What we have put in place—there are some examples of the way the agreement was paid for. I’ll come back to those in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: If your measure of success is successfully taking money out of the classroom, you’re dead wrong. The PCs still aren’t quite sure if these payments are even legal.

Section 70 of the Ontario Labour Relations Act says—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It goes both ways. I need to hear the question and the answer.

Carry on.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, I guess we’ve touched a nerve.

Section 70 of the Ontario Labour Relations Act says employers can’t contribute financial support to a trade union. The secrecy and the backroom dealing gives off the wrong impression, especially since recipients of these payments were engaged in partisan activities and donations.

Mr. Speaker, will the government strengthen

section 70 of the OLRA to prohibit any future payments, or are you going to continue to do this as your version of business as usual?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me once again talk about what I think the measures of success are. Students have remained in the classroom. Our agreements are in—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton, come to order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The agreements are in line with the net-zero framework, and we did this without making cuts to the classroom. The funds did not come out of the classroom. The cost of this process was funded—let me tell you how—through early discounted payout of retirement gratuities, through the lowering of the cost of sick leave, and through making the delivery of professional development more efficient. That’s the reality. That’s how the agreement was put in place, and no matter how often the Leader of the Opposition denies that, that’s the reality. Those costs did not come out of the classroom, and children stayed in the classroom.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: Your story is changing every day, and we only know about this because you got caught, because it got exposed. These payments have too many unanswered questions.

I want to remind everyone that even the Toronto Star said that these payments were impossible to defend. The Star said “There is no reason they should have been kept hidden from the public,” unless, I suppose, they were used for political purposes. And the recipients of those payments did spend over $3 million engaged in the last campaign. Ontario is the Wild West of third-party advertising. It’s time to do the right thing and to fix it.

Mr. Speaker, will the Premier introduce legislation to cap third-party election advertising?

Interjections.

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

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, question period is always a random access activity these days.

Let me just go back to what I think was at the core of the question, and that is that teachers’ unions will be required to provide an accounting of the funds. The money has not flowed. Unions will be required to provide an accounting to show how costs were incurred and what they were, and we will make those details public. We have said over and over again that we’re supportive of having the Auditor General look into these costs.

But remember, this was a successful process that meant the kids remained in the classroom. We stayed within our net-zero framework, and costs were not taken out of the classroom; cuts were not made to the classroom. Those are my measures of success.

Climate change

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Climate change is one of the most important issues in our generation, and it needs more than rhetoric.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Education, come to order, and the NDP caucus, come to order.

Interjections.

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

Thank you. Please put the question.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It needs more than just rhetoric, Speaker. It actually needs a plan. Does this Premier have a plan that she’s actually bringing to the Paris summit?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Absolutely, and I was very pleased yesterday to put forward the strategy that the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change has been working on. As the leader of the third party will know, there will be a five-year detailed plan that will come forward in the new year.

The leader of the third party also knows that we closed our last coal plant in 2014. The Leader of the Opposition also knows that we passed legislation in this House to make sure there will be no coal plants to generate electricity in this province ever again.

The leader of the third party also knows that we are working on linking our cap-and-trade market with that of Quebec and of California. She knows that that work is under way. Officials are working on that.

She also knows that the investments we are making in transit across this province are very much a part of our reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ontarians were hoping that the Liberals would announce a climate change plan yesterday. Instead, we got a reannouncement that there will, at some point, be an announcement.

The Premier knows, or ought to know, that we’ve been waiting for a plan since 2008, when Ontario signed on to cap and trade. It took the NDP government of Alberta a mere six months to develop a plan to deal with climate change. But after nearly 10 years, two general elections and two Premiers, the Liberals are promising that they are going to have a plan, maybe, next year.

Why doesn’t this Liberal government already have a climate change plan?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, when the leader of the third party says she has been waiting, that’s right: passively, silently, waiting for something to happen, and she has put not one word forward in terms of what she would do.

Now the Premier of Alberta has done a wonderful thing—she has moved forward—but she has got a huge hill to climb. She’s catching up. We’ve shut down our coal-fired plants. They’re going to shut them down in 15 years.

The fact is, Ontario has been at the lead of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in this country. The former Prime Minister touted the accomplishments of this country, riding on the closure of coal plants in Ontario.

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs will withdraw.

Hon. David Zimmer: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I hope that’s a signal that I want the tone to change.

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: At yesterday’s announcement, this Premier boldly patted herself on the back for releasing yet another strategy but left people waiting again for an actual plan.

People want to take action. They want to have options. They want bold leadership. That’s the job of the Premier of this province. Instead, they’ve got just the opposite from this government and have been getting the opposite from this government for eight long years.

Why, after nearly 10 years of study, are we still waiting to see an actual climate change plan from the Liberals?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I just want to say to the people of Ontario, but also to all of the members of this Legislature, that they can be very proud of what has happened in Ontario. We have made the greatest greenhouse gas emissions reduction in North America. That is what we have done in this province.

I welcome the leader of the third party to proudly go outside of Ontario and say, “Look at what we’ve done in Ontario.” She has the right to do that, because she’s part of this Legislature, and I welcome her to do that.

We are moving on climate change initiatives. I think that if the leader of the third party talked to businesses around the province, they’d know we’re working with them right now as we develop a cap-and-trade system. They know it’s real. They know we need to work together with them, because they know it’s going to make them more competitive and it’s going to allow them to innovate. That’s why we’re implementing it.

Climate change

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. Yesterday, the Premier reannounced her plan to make an announcement to address climate change. She talked about being a leader in green energy. But in order to do that, Ontario will need an electricity grid that actually serves the public interest, not just shareholders. Unfortunately, the Liberals are selling off Hydro One. That’s a big step backwards.

Will this Premier commit to how much Hydro One will be spending on conservation programs going forward?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change really wants to answer one of these questions.

I would just note that climate change was not mentioned in the Ontario NDP platform once. In fact, the leader of the third party wanted to take the HST off gasoline. She wanted to take the HST off home heating fuel. Every environmentalist who read their platform said, “That’s a bad idea. That’s not going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That’s not going to deal with climate change.” In fact, they had an anti-plan. They had a plan to increase greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. Speaker, we have a plan. We’re moving forward with it. We’re implementing it. We have already come a very long way. We have reduced greenhouse gas emissions more than any other jurisdiction in North America. We’re—

Interjections.

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

Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Public hydro agencies in other provinces already invest more in conservation than we do here in Ontario, and they have lower electricity rates. Instead of learning about what works from provinces like Manitoba, BC or Quebec, this Premier is learning from Nova Scotia, where the rates are sky-high and the private power company there is actually fighting against conservation measures.

Can this Premier actually answer my question and commit to how much Hydro One will be investing in conservation?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, all my ministers want to answer this question, but I need to make a point here. The leader of the third party is doing something that I think at this moment in our history is not a good idea. Apart from having been passive on climate change, she is trying to drive wedges among the provinces.

What we’ve done at the Premiers’ table is we’ve actually worked together. I’ve worked with Alberta. I’ve worked with British Columbia. I’ve worked with the Maritime provinces. Contrary to what the leader of the third party is trying to do, we’ve actually forged a Canadian Energy Strategy. That Canadian Energy Strategy has climate change and GHG reductions as part of it, because of work we have done at that table with the Premiers.

The leader of the third party might just want to talk to some of her counterparts in other parts of the country and understand that the provinces working together has been a very good thing for this country.

We now have a federal government that’s going to work with the provinces. We’re going to take our place—

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

Interjections.

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

Be seated, please. Thank you.

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Quite to the contrary, Speaker, what I’m doing is trying to encourage this Premier to learn the lessons from what other provinces have successfully done with public electricity systems, and this Premier knows that’s exactly what I was trying to say.

Yesterday, this Premier said that the cost of inaction on climate change was too high, and I agree with her on that fact. But instead of taking the kind of action that would lead to better energy conservation, this Premier is selling off Hydro One, which is likely going to mean less conservation here in the province of Ontario.

Will this Premier admit that selling Hydro One is the wrong decision for Ontario? It is wrong for our economy. It is wrong for our environment.

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

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say three things. The first thing I want to say is this: In Norway, the Netherlands and the UK, they put climate change above partisan politics.

Let’s just look at what we’ve done. We already had a plan. It’s finished. It achieved the 6%-below-1990 levels. It was just completed. It was the most successful climate change plan in North America.

We now have a strategy that is more detailed and more comprehensive if you compare it to Quebec or California. The strategic document is not the action plan, and we needed one.

We are the only province that has invited my opposition critics, the member for Toronto–Danforth and the member for Huron–Bruce, to be part—and we now know that our federal government is including them in our official Ontario delegation. I think we’re the only province doing that—and the previous federal government didn’t.

We need to work together on this. This province has the deepest reductions in North America. No one holds a candle—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Just a reminder: When I stand, you sit.

New question.

Energy policies

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: My question is for the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Yesterday, the minister held another photo op about the looming cap-and-trade scheme, revealing little to no details at all.

In attempting to say nothing at all, the minister unfortunately said more than we could have ever hoped. When Alberta unveiled its plan this past Sunday, the government told Albertans exactly what the cost would be: $470 per household a year by 2018. But the minister’s answer to that same question yesterday was, “We are not focusing, nor has there been a lot of discussion about cost.”

Mr. Speaker, how can this minister possibly move forward with cap and trade without telling Ontario businesses and Ontario families what it is going to cost them?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I hope the member has accepted her invitation to join our official delegation in Paris, because what she will see is a place like Switzerland, which has deployed 25,000 ground-sourced geothermal and has the most comprehensive program in Europe on lowering heating and energy bills by switching people away from expensive power to in-home and non-polluting. It now has some of the lowest energy costs by creative adaptation of technology.

The cap-and-trade system has been in over a year of negotiations and discussions with industry, environmental groups and homeowners. If you look at British Columbia and California, which have had these pricing systems in, they have had the strongest GDP growth and some of the strongest job creation.

Part of the reason I asked you to join us is to meet Conservative organizations, like in the UK, that are successfully managing these projects, because we need a more sophisticated, less partisan response from the official opposition.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, it’s all about the cost. Alberta’s government told the people on day one, yet we’re almost a year into this process and the minister—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. Start the clock.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Speaker, the minister still can’t answer a simple question: What’s it going to cost?

When asked yesterday if food prices would go up or if energy prices would go up, all he could muster was, “We’re hoping not.” Well, hope is not a strategy. Clearly the minister hasn’t done his homework. He hasn’t even tabled a cost-benefit analysis.

Speaker, will the minister finally tell this House and the people of Ontario what they can expect to pay per year under their cap-and-trade scheme?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, three things: Let’s just deal with the other cost, the cost of inaction.

Insurance rates are going up. One hour of rain three years ago in July cost us $600 million when, the Minister of Transportation will tell you, we lost eight metres of track—$600 million could have built an LRT line in this province.

Food: California is now in the most severe drought. That’s 34% of our food, and probably more than half of it in the winter. Those are real things affecting family budgets. The cost of inaction is unacceptable.

Let’s look at the 28 jurisdictions that have some sort of carbon pricing. Their CPI, their cost-of-living indices, are not going up faster than those that don’t. As a matter of fact, they’re driving productivity.

I know industry has gone to the member opposite and is supporting this, because they can internalize these costs, they can make their plants more productive and they can reduce their operating costs by using this system.

We have four cap-and-trade systems already in place in Ontario, and not one of them has driven costs—

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

New question.

Climate change

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Yesterday, the Premier had the nerve to “welcome” the NDP—

Interjection.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: —to the discussion about climate change.

As an MPP, I’ve watched the Liberals slash programs that help families invest in conservation, like the Ontario Home Energy Savings Program—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Who is the question for, please?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: For the Premier.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: —and delay taking action on climate change over and over again. We’re not going to take any lessons from this government on environmental responsibility.

There’s an essential question: Are Ontarians going to see a real climate plan next year, or will it be more rhetoric and more reannouncements?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The member speaks to conservation occasionally, and I would expect that if it was that important, he would be on his feet talking about conservation every day.

We’re very proud of what we have done in conservation. Just last November and December, 71 utilities—LDCs—in the province of Ontario signed a six-year contract that will see us work towards a conservation target of 30 terawatt hours in 2032. It’s a very aggressive target. They have announced that they’re now reaching 106% of their target already.

Our conservation programs in Ontario are a tremendous success. If he wants to talk about climate change, ask him to talk, as the Premier said, about us going off carbon, off coal, which has reduced our costs by $4 billion in terms of environmental costs and health care costs.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I guess the Premier didn’t want to answer the question.

I’ll go back to the Premier. Ontario’s non-partisan Environmental Commissioner has said Ontario is going to miss its 2020 greenhouse gas targets unless there is significant action.

Yesterday’s government announcement on climate was a reannouncement that they would make an announcement about a plan at some point in the future. The government has been reannouncing its intention to take action since 2008. In the meantime, we’re another year closer to 2020, and the government claims it has a plan coming next year.

Will the Premier commit that her plan will actually get us to the greenhouse gas targets we’re supposed to meet in 2020?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: This is the most serious issue of our generation. Our Arctic is going to be seven or eight degrees warmer, no matter what we do.

I would ask that every member of this House go and Google what an eight-degree-warmer Arctic, which is inevitable in 2050, will mean to our children and our grandchildren.

We have to leave our children as good a legacy and as healthy a planet as we inherited from our parents. This strategy is better than or as good as any other in North America. Our action plans that we have completed, unlike almost every other one in the world, achieved their targets; very few did. We achieved 6%.

The strong measures we’re taking—not being afraid to tell the truth, and being honest about this—are a cap-and-trade system that will close the 20% gap we had. We reported that 20% gap and then we took measures to do it.

We have said when we’ll meet our goals. We’ve reported shortfalls, and we’ve taken strong, bold corrective actions to—

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

New question.

First responders

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Today, we are joined by firefighters from across Ontario, from the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association. I know that on behalf of all members of this Legislature, on all sides of this House, I can say that each and every one of you today deserves our respect and our gratitude for keeping Ontarians safe.

I know that in my riding of Ottawa South and across Ontario, hard-working women and men put their lives on the line each and every day to ensure that our friends and families back home in our communities are safe. They show courage, valour and bravery when they leave the fire hall and head to what could be a dangerous situation.

I know that yesterday the minister spoke to the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association conference. Could the minister please provide us with some of the things he spoke about yesterday?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I thank the member for that excellent question. Yes, I was down at the association speaking to their conference yesterday. Like the member says, we owe a great deal to those people who put their lives on the line in dangerous situations for complete strangers, for people they’ve never met.

I’d be happy to share what I spoke about. We all know that PTSD is a very serious issue. It has entered the public consciousness in a way that it hasn’t before. I’m hoping that this House will work co-operatively to get to that solution that we need. We’re working on how we approach that change. We’ve had a first responders round table, a first responders summit. Quite recently, the Premier obligated to bringing forward some PTSD legislation early in the new year.

I want to particularly thank the member from Parkdale–High Park. She has held this House’s feet to the fire on this issue and I think she deserves credit for that, Speaker. In order for Ontario to be a leader in this, we can do better than Bill 2. We can take Bill 2 as a great first step and we can improve it. That’s what I obligate to do.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Fraser: I thank the minister for sharing those points on post-traumatic stress disorder, which he spoke about yesterday, and I too congratulate the member from Parkdale–High Park.

I know the minister continues to make sure we do all that we can for firefighters. It’s because of the critical work that firefighters do that our government is making it a priority to do our best to protect them, just as they continue to protect us.

Last year, the government announced it was extending workplace protection for firefighters by adding six cancers to the list of diseases presumed to be work-related. I know that we made these changes so that the firefighters who are sick and suffering can use their energy on their most important duty, which is getting better for their families.

Speaker, through you to the minister, I’d like to know what else this government is doing to ensure that our front-line workers are given increased protection.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Once again, my thanks to the member for that question. When I spoke with the association yesterday, I also mentioned some of the other things we’re working towards that are going to benefit our firefighters and all first responders in this province.

Earlier this year, we introduced Bill 109, which, if this House passes it, is going to address how survivor benefits are calculated by the WSIB for a worker who dies of an occupational disease and who had no or low earnings on the date of that diagnosis simply because they were retired or they weren’t able to work. If passed, what it would allow the WSIB to do is to continue the current practice, but also enshrine it in legislation. It’s not something you should do; it’s something that has to be done in the future.

I’m also happy to talk about how, just last week, we moved to ensure that all injured workers are finally treated the same in this province with indexation. Whether you’re fully disabled or partially disabled, you deserve to be treated the same.

Labour disputes

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. Last week’s hand-delivered letter to the Premier’s office stated that North Bay is in a state of chaos. The disruption at three of the largest employers falls firmly at the feet of the Liberal government.

Patients and staff at the hospital are still reeling over the 350 cuts made to front-line health care. The workers at Ontario Northland are locked out. Unifor is looking to the Premier as they’re willing to go to arbitration.

Nipissing University is in its fourth week of a strike. This is causing grave concern, with students and parents calling, worried that the semester will be lost. Nipissing University is the third-largest employer in our city, and this strike is also now affecting businesses.

The city is hurting. I ask the Premier again, will she act to get all sides in these disputes back to the table?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Labour.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you to the member for the question. This province has an excellent record of dispute resolution. In fact, 98% of all agreements are reached without a strike, without a lockout. So obviously in cases like this, when there is a disagreement—negotiations are tough by their nature, and they should be. We want them to result in a resolution that both parties can walk away from feeling that they’ve been able to resolve their differences at the bargaining table.

We’re confident in this case as well that, by working together, those parties can reach a settlement. What we do at the Ministry of Labour is we’ve got some of the best arbitrators, some of the best mediators in the country. They have been involved in this. They are remaining at the table. They remain available to assist those parties to reach the successful resolution that we want them to reach.

If the past track record is any indication, Ontario resolves these issues at the table.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: You have created strife at our hospital, Ontario Northland and Nipissing University. The problems at Nipissing were created in no small part when the Liberals made significant cuts to funding for teacher training. I wrote to the minister on this issue, first as a concerned mayor and again as MPP in 2014. These cuts had a disproportionately large effect on Nipissing, where education students accounted for 30% of total enrolment. I warned that without adequate transitional funding, the Liberal cuts would put the university in a precarious financial position.

Speaker, we’re certainly pleased that a mediator is trying to get both sides together, but what is the Premier going to do to preserve the vitality of Nipissing University over the long term?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you to the member once again for his interest in this issue. We’re committed, obviously, to supporting Ontario’s post-secondary education system. It ranks among the best in the world. I think we have more people entering that system than many other jurisdictions. But each one of those universities, each one of those colleges, by its nature is an autonomous institution. It’s got responsibility. It has reached a mature level where it handles its own labour relations and handles its own HR issues, and that includes collective bargaining.

The record of success that this province has in collective bargaining tells me, as Minister of Labour, that the right thing to do is to get arbitrators in there and let these people bring their best to the table—

Ms. Catherine Fife: What about EllisDon?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Kitchener–Waterloo.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: We encourage all those parties involved to work together, because we know that working together, these people will negotiate a fair settlement for both parties.

First responders

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Premier: Today, Toronto firefighters are watching, not just here but all over the province, hoping to finally hear that this government will bring in legislation to recognize post-traumatic stress disorder as a workplace injury. This is not rocket science. That’s all they’re asking for.

Mr. Speaker, they have been waiting for eight long years. My bill has passed second reading. It’s been tabled five times.

I regularly get calls from desperate first responders with no place else to turn, because this government won’t listen and, in many cases, won’t even take their calls. These firefighters, paramedics and police officers are the people we call when we need help. But when they need us, all we can say is, “Just keep waiting.”

How much longer will we keep first responders waiting?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Minister of Labour is going to want to reinforce some of what he has already said. But just to be clear, we take the calls of our firefighters, and we absolutely meet with them. We have taken action based on their advice; I use the example of presumptive legislation. We have taken their advice in terms of the importance of the PTSD legislation. We are working with them. The Minister of Labour is working with them to bring forward the right policy and build on the work that the member opposite did in putting together her private member’s bill.

But we have to get this right. We can only do that in conjunction with the front-line responders—with those workers—and that is what we do, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Back to the Premier: So far this year, there have been 31 responder suicides in Ontario because of PTSD, eight more years of more suicides—eight years already. One suicide is one suicide too many.

Labour Minister Flynn promised that the legislation would be tabled this month. Now, all of a sudden, we’re hearing January. We are far behind other provinces on this. Alberta has had this legislation since 2012.

If the government fails to see the urgency in this, I don’t know what else we can do. First responders are asking. Will more have to die before action is taken?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Labour.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: In a sense, the member has answered her own question. The solutions she brought forward were for people who had already contracted PTSD. It was a good start, but very, very clearly, it became evident that what you also wanted to do as part of a comprehensive strategy was ensure that people didn’t contract PTSD in the first place.

What we obligated to do—in conjunction with working with the first responders, working with the police departments, with the fire departments, with the EMS detachments around this province—was to build on their best practices so that when we bring forward our PTSD legislation in the very near future, it will be the best in this country.

Simply put, Bill 2 is a good start. It got us talking about it; it put the issue on the table. It’s nowhere near as robust as anywhere else in this country that has legislation. I want Ontario to lead this country, not follow this country, when it comes to PTSD.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Energy storage

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, it was a pleasure having you visit my riding of Halton this week to announce a big step forward for our energy sector. Based on the high turnout at Monday’s announcement, I think we can all agree that this is an exciting time in energy technology.

I’m proud that my riding will be home to a new energy storage project. New energy storage technologies allow for electricity to be captured and then used later on demand. This means more control over the time between when electricity is generated and when it has to be used. This can mean savings.

In the past, decisions about electricity have largely been based on real-time demand and on how or when it can be delivered, but new energy storage technology is changing that. Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: Can he please tell the House about the benefits of energy storage?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: It was a pleasure to visit Milton with the member from Halton. It was an exciting opportunity to discuss the work Ontario is doing to incorporate energy storage into our system.

Storage remains one of the world’s most innovative aspects of energy policy, particularly because of the incredible potential it represents. Storage technology adds stability to our power supply and is a technology that has the potential to revolutionize the way we operate our electricity system. Instead of needing to use or transmit electricity at the time it’s produced, often when it was most expensive, storage allows for system operators to hold back your electricity for use at optimal times.

Instead of building costly generation for use only a few times a year, we are now starting to store the electricity from existing generation for periods of peak demand. This could mean tremendous cost savings for the system and for consumers when fully developed.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Thank you, Minister. I am excited about the benefits of energy storage and the opportunities they provide for improving Ontario’s electricity system. It opens new doors.

The possibilities offered by new storage activities are definitely game-changing. I’m thrilled that my riding of Halton will be home to Baseload Power Corp., one of the cutting-edge companies that will offer a plan for energy storage. This new project will have the ability to store up to eight megawatts of energy.

I know my constituents will be happy to hear that new sources of energy storage have the potential to strengthen the economy, create jobs and lower costs for consumers—very important. It’s fantastic to see so many Ontario companies leading the pack in innovation.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: Could he please tell the House about the province’s second phase of energy storage procurement and how we are integrating this technology into Ontario’s electricity system?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Our government is committed to being a global leader in energy storage. This week in Milton, we announced that the IESO has selected five proponents, representing nine projects, for energy storage contracts totalling 16.75 megawatts. With this announcement, Ontario has completed our long-term energy plan commitment of procuring 50 megawatts of energy storage technology.

Ontario is already an energy storage leader, with real-world experience in integrating energy storage technologies, like advanced batteries, flywheels and pumped storage.

The companies that have been awarded contracts will provide a valuable contribution to our grid, allowing us to store electricity over longer periods of time. In the process, we will improve reliability, increase flexibility and efficiency of our networks, and reduce costs for electricity consumers.

Long-term care

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is for the Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. I recently attended a meeting with the board chair and CEO of my Central East LHIN, where we discussed the LHIN’s Integrated Health Service Plan.

LHINs and service providers continue to roll out palliative care community teams, GAIN community teams and other investments in home and community care. Despite these investments for home care, when it is no longer safe for Ontarians to stay at home, they deserve to know that long-term-care beds will be provided for them.

My Central East LHIN is in crisis. It has the lowest number of beds available and the highest number of those in need in Ontario. In Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock alone, just one part of the LHIN, there are 770