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

April 22, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Apr-22 (PDF)

L072 - Wed 22 Apr 2015 / Mer 22 avr 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 22 April 2015 Mercredi 22 avril 2015

Orders of the Day

Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’infrastructure au service de l’emploi et de la prospérité

Introduction of Visitors

Wearing of carnations

Oral Questions

Ontario budget

Ontario budget

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Hydro rates

Education funding

Climate change

Home care

Health care funding

Flooding

Energy policies

Energy conservation

Consumer protection

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Visitors

Deferred Votes

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Bill Blair

World Meningitis Day

National Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Week

Town of Gananoque

Healthy Heart Day

Ontario budget

Maplefest

Fertilizer

Private members’ public business

Introduction of Bills

Meningitis Awareness Day Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le Jour de la sensibilisation à la méningite

Motions

Private members’ public business

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Forest industry

Petitions

Taxation

Special-needs children

Student safety

Energy policies

Ontario Northland Transportation Commission

Legal aid

Youth services

Hospital funding

Water fluoridation

Climate change

Diagnostic services

Water fluoridation

Opposition Day

Ontario budget

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’infrastructure au service de l’emploi et de la prospérité

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 16, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 6,

An Act to enact the Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act, 2015 / Projet de loi 6, Loi édictant la Loi de 2015 sur l’infrastructure au service de l’emploi et de la prospérité.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): When we last discussed this issue the member from Newmarket–Aurora had the floor. We are now into questions and comments.

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s my pleasure to address the speech of the member from Newmarket–Aurora. We all know how important infrastructure is to our economy and how it translates into jobs when those infrastructure projects are going to be initiated and completed. So it’s great that the government is bringing forth legislation, but what we really need to see is a concrete, laid-out plan as to what they’re going to do with infrastructure here in the province of Ontario, because we hear the clarion call from municipalities all over Ontario, how we are all struggling with an infrastructure deficit.

This government has a history over the past 12 years of doing things on paper—because that’s what these bills are; they’re on paper—and then not following through with them. We’ll have to see what happens with this bill and see if it’s an exception to some of the other pieces of legislation that have not been followed through with in the past.

In my riding of Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, one of the biggest challenges we have is we have the Trans-Canada Highway going through it but it’s not four lanes throughout the riding. We need to see some more action on that. I know it’s under progress right now, the Highway 417 expansion through Arnprior and now moving beyond Arnprior, but it is painfully slow.

People in my riding want to see some real, concrete—no pun intended; asphalt will work, too—action on this particular project because it is of vital importance, not only from a traffic safety point of view, which is clearly paramount and should be and always is for the ministry, but also as an economic development tool for my riding of Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. We’d like to see some further action on that as quickly as possible.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further questions or comments?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Infrastructure is one of the pillars that drives the economy. People need infrastructure to get around to their work, their appointments, everyday life. There were many promises made by this Liberal government with regard to infrastructure and transit. KW, or Kitchener–Waterloo: They were promised a bullet train. Niagara Falls, the member from Niagara Falls: They were promised transit as well, GO train services. London–Fanshawe: The city of London, which is a great city, is facing transportation concerns, and we were promised a bullet train.

All these promises that came about—there was never a plan of how to fund them. So we’re very interested to know how the government has pre-empted promises without a plan to actually fund transit.

We don’t believe in privatizing hydro as a way to finance transit. We’ve had many suggestions to this government of how to do that. One of those was closing corporate tax loopholes. That was a billion dollars of funding that could actually go into projects for transit and infrastructure. So it’s disappointing that this bill doesn’t have that vision of how to actually enforce what it’s proposing.

Again, it’s a bill that’s got an idea. The idea is great—when it comes to ideas, the Liberals are full of them—but we’d like to see some funding attached to those ideas that’s actually concrete and not privatizing hydro, where people will end up paying higher rates in their hydro, which people don’t want in my riding of London–Fanshawe and people don’t want in London. They want to keep our public facility services like hydro public so that we have oversight and transparency and they’re not going to be gouged for a necessity of life.

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

Mr. Mike Colle: Just to do my two minutes here: It’s just noteworthy, if you compare Ontario’s money on the ground, in terms of infrastructure, to the incredible sleight of hand by the federal budget yesterday—

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s not their responsibility, Michael. You know that.

Mr. Mike Colle: They committed $1 billion for all of Canada for transit. We just announced $1.6 billion for the light rail line between Brampton and Mississauga. So I don’t know how Hamilton or anybody is going to get any money. It’s $1 billion for all of Canada,

whereas we’re putting $130 billion over the next 10 years. So we’ve got no partner in Ottawa.

We’ve got the Trans-Canada Highway system. They spend no money for the Trans-Canada—did you know that, Mr. Speaker? The Trans-Canada Highway: There’s no federal money in it. So it’s all a matter of—

Mr. Randy Hillier: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Stop the clock. Point of order.

Mr. Randy Hillier: We are speaking to Bill 6, not the federal budget. We should be keeping our comments to Bill 6.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): If I feel that the member from Eglinton–Lawrence is wandering, I’ll certainly inform him. Thank you.

Continue.

Mr. Mike Colle: About our infrastructure in Ontario—one day I’d like to see an opposition member in the Tories actually say something nearly critical of their federal cousins. Just once I’d like to see one member.

The fact is, the people of Ontario spend and get most of their infrastructure money, almost 95%, from the provincial coffers. We need a partner if we’re going to go ahead with helping all these infrastructure projects that are needed across Ontario. I know this really hurts the puppets over here who always defend their friends in Ottawa. For once, stand up for the people of Ontario and our infrastructure needs. We need sewers, roads, highways repaired; we need public transit, and they are silent, always standing up for their federal cousins. Once in a while, stand up and tell the truth about being—

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Speaking of telling the truth—I know that would be unusual for that side, Speaker—let me tell you what we actually saw in the budget. Last year in the budget we had a sentence that told us exactly what they intend to do with their asset sale. It’s not going into infrastructure whatsoever. In the budget, it said they “may” put a “portion” into the Trillium Trust. Our party brought forward amendments that said you “must” put it “all” into the Trillium Trust.

First the government voted down the word “must,” so now they only have “may” put it in, and then they voted down the word “all,” and they left the word “portion.” So instead of all the money going into the Trillium Trust, now they may put some or none of it in, but they don’t have to put all of it in and they don’t have to put any of it in. That’s what these people voted for. That’s the amendment.

Speaker, we took it one step further, and we said, “We want an amendment that has the Auditor General looking, within 90 days of the sale of any asset, and reporting to this Legislature what was sold, how much was received and where the money went.” These guys voted it down; that’s what they did. That is the lack of transparency and openness. That’s what is happening to the sale of GM shares; that’s what is happening to this fire sale of Hydro One; that’s what is happening to their planned sale of the LCBO. It’s all about squeezing money out to try to balance the budget. It’s not about infrastructure.

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

Mr. Chris Ballard: I’m thankful to hear comments from members from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, London–Fanshawe, Eglinton–Lawrence and Nipissing.

I think my colleague from Eglinton–Lawrence hit the nail on the head in terms of the sleight-of-hand federal budget. I’m not going to spend any more time on that, because I think the public understands that budget for what it is.

I do want to say that this bill, Bill 6, represents our government’s priority for building Ontario up by investing in people’s talents and skills, building new public infrastructure, and creating a dynamic business climate. We know that there will be $130 billion spent on public infrastructure over the next 10 years. That, obviously, is one of the biggest spends on infrastructure in the history of this province. If we look back at the history of this province, that is one of the key things that has made Ontario great.

The building of the 400-series highways, the building of the railroads: They’ve all worked to make Ontario very prosperous, and we need to continue to invest in those. It’s unfortunate that the bulk of that falls on the shoulders of Ontario taxpayers.

The Conference Board of Canada has told us that every dollar that Ontario invests in public infrastructure raises Ontario’s GDP by $1.14 in the near term, and our own studies have shown that that expands to $3.10 long-term, so it’s a significant investment going forward.

Bill 6, if passed, would require our government and future governments to regularly prepare long-term infrastructure plans so that we don’t get caught in the deficit we’re in today.

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: It’s a pleasure to be here today and to speak and debate on

An Act to enact the Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act. I want to just read the very first section:

“Purpose

“

(1) The purpose of this act is to establish mechanisms to encourage principled, evidence-based and strategic long-term infrastructure planning that supports job creation and training opportunities,” and on and on.

So this law is now going to compel the province—this government—to establish evidence-based, strategic long-term infrastructure planning. That clearly implies that they have not been engaged in evidence-based, strategic long-term planning for infrastructure in the past. I think the evidence shows that that is indeed true. They have not been involved in long-term planning—not long-term planning that is for the benefit of the people of Ontario; maybe long-term planning for the benefit of the people of the Liberal Party, but certainly not for the people of Ontario.

You would think that we’ve had responsible government here in what is now Ontario since the 1830s, and you would think that somewhere in those mere 200 years governments have actually been engaged in some strategic long-term infrastructure, that this is not just an epiphany that’s happened today with the Ontario Liberals, that they have now found evidence-based strategic planning where all other governments in those mere 200 years did not understand or comprehend or implement long-term strategic planning.

I would say to you, Speaker, and to this House, that I think the 401 was a long-term strategic plan. I would think the Adam Beck generating station at Niagara Falls was probably a long-term strategic planning project. I could go on and on. This is not something new, but what is new and what is evident to me in my time in this House is the cavalier and casual regard for the law that this Liberal government does provide in its abiding of its own laws. What people will notice in Bill 6 is that there are no enforcement or compliance mechanisms.

Nothing compels the government to actually do anything in Bill 6, other than it being the law. If they had a conscience, they would follow the law, but we know that most people would be suspicious if they do have a conscience.

Let me take you back, Speaker, and this House, to the deleted emails. Deleting the emails was unlawful. It was against the law. However, there was no consequence in the legislation for failure to abide by the law. So the Liberal government could and indeed did violate the law but not bear any consequence for that violation or that offence to the law, that offence to the people of this province, that offence to this Legislature—scot-free.

In this bill, there are no enforcement or compliance mechanisms. So if the Liberal government goes like this tomorrow and throws it in the trashcan and doesn’t ever do anything about it, nothing will happen. It will be somewhat like what we found out during estimates committee last fall when we had the Ministry of Tourism and the Ministry of Energy there, and a host of ministers came in to have their ministries scrutinized for their appropriations for the year.

Time and time and time again it was revealed to us, when we asked questions of these ministers and their senior staff, when we asked questions why the annual reports were not filed by their agencies—and, again, these were statutory obligations, included in a law just like this. The government and the ministers have an obligation to file annual reports. However, they weren’t filed.

The minister seemed to be somewhat perplexed, even though it was his responsibility to ensure the agencies filed the annual reports. But there was no consequence. Some of those agencies were up to three and four years behind in filing their annual reports. But the minister didn’t really—I shouldn’t say “the minister”; the ministers, because we had a number of them in estimates committee. They just said, “They’re late. They’re late. We’d like to abide by the law, we’d like to fulfill our statutory obligations, but we just don’t know how to do it,” or, “It’s just not that important because there is no consequence for us being lazy or cavalier or disregarding the law.”

We saw the same thing with the filing of expenses. We saw the same thing. Many, many, many people have an obligation to this House and to the public to file their expenses online. It was a law that was just passed in the 40th Parliament. In the 40th Parliament we passed a law that said that all these people have to file their expenses online. However, there was no consequence in that bill if they didn’t file online and in a timely fashion.

So once again, we see this government repeating its past failures time and time and time again. They put a puppy in the window; they get some people to talk and to be distracted about this new-found crusade of the Liberal Party to act on evidence, to act on science-based and strategic planning, but guess what? “We don’t really have to. It’s just a law.”

What we’ve seen very clearly is that this Liberal government believes everybody must abide by the law except themselves. When they craft a law that is to be applied to the general public, they don’t forget about enforcement and compliance. They put in a host of mechanisms to ensure compliance and to enforce it: warrantless entry into homes, warrantless entry into businesses, compelling of documentation. But in their own bill, they leave enforcement and compliance absent. Why is that? In the questions and comments maybe we’ll get the member from St. Catharines to explain to this House why enforcement and compliance are not mandatory for government but only for the subjects.

I come from a line of advocacy for democratic institutions that say their foundation is that “neither prince nor pauper is above or beneath the law.” Clearly, this Liberal government believes their princes are above the law, but the paupers will feel the weight of their enforcement and compliance each and every time.

So once again, after 12 years in government, this government has now decided it’s going to be thoughtful about infrastructure projects. Does anybody believe that? Does anybody actually believe that now, after 12 years of wasteful mismanagement, after 12 years of maladministration, of scandals, they have now found and turned a new leaf and they are going to be thoughtful and methodical in conducting business with regard for evidence and science? It’ll be interesting. I’ll be watching for the next three years. I’ll be watching to see if they ever actually table this plan that they say is now mandatory in this law.

If I’m still here, I’m going to be waiting for that day when it says that this plan is going to be tabled. I’m going to stand up in this House and I’m going to ask the question: Why not? Because it won’t be. The track record demonstrates time and time and time again that this Liberal government does not have any regard for the laws that are based for itself.

We’ll see what the member from St. Catharines says on that day. He’s not saying much today; he probably won’t be saying much that day, either, just, “We didn’t get around to it. It wasn’t that important at the time. We thought it was important way back when, in 2015, but it’s not important now”—because they’re that good, that they don’t have to apply to the law.

But I want to also say, going through the bill, that they lay out these broad, general frameworks of what projects will be subject to this long-term plan. And then they put forward a host of exemptions and a host of clauses which allow them to essentially exempt any and all projects from being involved in the long-term evidence-based strategic plan. And I want to hear during questions and comments: Why are they exempting so many projects from the obligation to be included in the long-term plan? I’m really looking forward for somebody on the government side to explain that to me.

Explain to me why there are no consequences. Explain to me why there’s no enforcement. Explain to me why there’s no compliance. And explain to me why it is full of exemptions that you could drive a Liberal Party bus through. That’s what is in this bill.

After we saw the events of the last week, with this Liberal government making deals with Ed Clark and other people outside of this House, beyond the view of this Legislature, I wonder what else we’ve got in store with this, what actually is going to be included in the evidence-based strategic plan that actually comes before this House. Or will it be done outside of the House—

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Burlington, a point of order.

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: I would ask that the honourable member stick to the topic at hand. I know that he is prone to talking about other things, as we all are from time to time, but I would ask that he do so in the interests of people watching the discussion.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I’ve been listening carefully, and I think the member has been addressing the compliance and lack of enforcement around his discussion, so I don’t think he’s wandered too far yet, but if he does, I’ll certainly let him know.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Solid interjections would be—if they maybe had read the bill themselves, they would know that what I’m talking about is the bill. There is no enforcement and compliance, and I was making the contrast of how we’ve seen this government operate when there are no enforcement or compliance mechanisms on them. We saw that, as I said, last week with their making deals with the Ed Clark panel outside of this House. There was no enforcement or compliance.

There’s a tradition, there’s a convention, in our parliamentary institution that these things ought to be discussed and first announced in the Legislature. But it is a convention. It is a tradition. It’s a tradition that some people don’t respect very much, but it’s a tradition that others have a high regard for. And we’ve seen that this government does not have a high regard for traditions or conventions. If there’s an opportunity to skate, they’ll skate, and this bill, Bill 6, allows them to skate ever more. It allows them to skate around traditions and conventions.

It allows them to skate around obligations to the people of this province. It allows them to rag the puck and not be forthcoming in a complete fashion about what they’re doing with infrastructure projects.

I’ve put out a challenge to the Liberal benches if they can explain to me in the questions and comments why there are no enforcement and compliance mechanisms in this bill. That’s number one. Why is there no enforcement? Just like the deleted email offence that they engaged in that had no consequence, why are they repeating the same mistake here? And why have they created so many exemptions? So many projects can be exempted from this bill.

Finally, over the last 12 years—as I stated at the outset, “The purpose of this act is to establish mechanisms to encourage”—I guess that’s the one: encourage; not to make mandatory. It’s just to encourage the Liberal government, give them a pat on the back: “Maybe if you just go this way a little bit to evidence-based and strategic long-term infrastructure planning.”

I’d like to see the Liberal backbenchers encourage themselves to do better, encourage themselves to walk the walk and actually put some enforcement mechanisms into Bill 6 when it does come to committee. I challenge you: Put enforcement mechanisms in this bill during second reading at committee. I’d like to see it.

Just like the deleted emails, if some minister down the road doesn’t table the reports like the convention asks, like the bill requires, what will be the consequence? Will the minister be forced to step down? Will the minister have to vacate his seat? What mechanisms will we require to ensure that the minister does his job? Because from what I’ve seen in estimates committee over these years, none of them—very, very few of them—take their responsibilities of the law very seriously, and have little regard for both the law and the traditions of representative democracy in this Legislature.

Thank you very much. I’ll be listening keenly for the questions and comments.

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: It’s always a privilege and a pleasure to stand up on behalf of the great people across my riding of Algoma–Manitoulin. I listened very closely to the comments from the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington. My, that’s a long one.

Mr. Randy Hillier: It is long.

Mr. Michael Mantha: I thought mine was long.

He talked quite a bit at length in regard to the lack of enforcement and the lack of consequences for a bill that, quite frankly, is obvious. Wouldn’t you as a municipal leader, wouldn’t you as a community member, wouldn’t you as an Ontarian already think that your government is thinking and taking action about having long-term infrastructure investment? I would think that’s a direct role of government; that’s what they were doing. But in the infinite wisdom of this Liberal government we now need a law to think about what we’re supposed to do.

It goes back to something that I’ve been using for a very long time when talking about this government: We’re developing a plan to have a plan to implement a plan. It’s a lot of planning but no action.

We see a lot of what is coming from this government as nice media front-line announcements—

Mr. Randy Hillier: Puppies in the window.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Puppies in the window—but really little substance behind them.

What I would like to see in this long-term plan is—I’m glad to see that there is going to be some consideration for what’s referred to as a bullet train. What about northern Ontario? We’ve lost our ONTC. You’ve taken away our buses. We’re losing our infrastructure. I hope that’s part of your long-term plan.

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

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: I’m pleased to stand up in the House today. It’s a great privilege, on behalf of the citizens of Burlington, to talk about long-term infrastructure.

I know I’m not the only member of this House who has had their mayor talk to them significantly about the need for long-term, predictable infrastructure funding and planning.

I was new to this place, but I was at OGRA/ROMA, and as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry I had the great privilege of meeting with municipal leaders from across the province, as I did last year at AMO. It was interesting to hear the comments from the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington—might I just say: That is a long name, isn’t it?

I heard mayors from his riding come in and talk about exactly that: the need for partnership with government, the need for infrastructure funding, the need for predictability and the need for a funding partner who is going to give them the certainty of a long-term plan for Ontario’s infrastructure investments that are going to serve the needs of their communities.

While I come from a riding that’s largely urban, our rural infrastructure needs are just as critical, and I’m happy to say that this legislation, Bill 6, will provide that kind of clarity, sustainability and greater predictability in infrastructure policy to keep our province economically competitive.

Internationally, companies are looking to invest in Ontario. In fact, we’re the province with the largest amount of foreign direct investment. Why is that? Because people enjoy investing here. But they’re going to do it even more and with more regularity if we have the kind of infrastructure and predictable funding for infrastructure that’s going to attract their business to come here.

I’m enjoying the debate, I look forward to more of it, but I ask that all members of the House support this important bill because it’s going to serve our municipalities and our communities well.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Chatham–Kent–Essex.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Bill 6,

An Act to enact the Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act, 2014. It sounds great for what it implies, but who wouldn’t say that in the province of Ontario infrastructure is desperately needed? We on our side agree that it is needed. But my one question is this: Where will the money come from? Where will it come from? They talk about a three-year plan, a five-year plan, a 10-year plan and so on. It is our hope on this side that there will be a different government in three years’ time.

You think about the scandals that this government has been involved in over the last three and a half years or so, or maybe a little bit longer: I talk about the gas plants—they’re tired of hearing about it; we’re tired of hearing about it—Ornge, eHealth scandals, OPP investigations, all of that. That costs money, and it was all on the backs of the taxpayers.

I support openness and transparency, I truly do, but my fear is that what this government says versus what they do are two very different things. It sounds wonderful, but my concern is: Will they really follow through?

We’ll support this bill. It’s our recommendation—we’ll support the bill at second reading. But trust me, there has to be a number of amendments put into this which will, in fact, strengthen transparency and accountability.

I look at partisanship—and partisanship is alive and well inside this Legislature. My concern is simply this: I don’t like the “us versus them” attitude, that everything they say is great and everything we say is bad or vice versa. I get that; I don’t like it. I really believe, though, that there are good, caring, sincere people represented in here by all parties, but my concern is that this may be going against some of their values and principles, and therefore I have a serious concern.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It’s a pleasure to follow on the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington. I must say that the member probably has some of the largest election signs in Ontario with that name.

As my other colleagues have said, I can hear a whole lot of sizzle but there’s a mammoth shortage of steak when it comes to this bill. I don’t think it’s an offensive bill; I don’t think it’s going to end the world if it’s passed. But the government has the power to plan for infrastructure now. It provides the bucks, so it can say to any municipality or hospital or university, “These are the principles you’ve got to follow when you’re doing infrastructure planning. When you’re making an investment for the people of this province, it has to be infrastructure that makes sense, that’s beautifully designed etc.

It has to be climate-resilient. It can’t offend our environmental principles.” I don’t think those are bad things to say, but they already have the power to do that.

Speaker, we do have a problem with this government relying on public-private partnerships to build infrastructure. The Auditor General said that we’ve wasted $8 billion in roughly the last decade because we’ve overpaid private consortiums to eliminate risk. At what cost? Apparently eight billion wasted dollars—$8 billion that could make a difference in this province. People would notice an $8-billion project landing just about anywhere in Ontario.

Instead of dealing with where we’re hemorrhaging money, what we’ve got is an announcement of sizzle. I understand this is a government that wants to look good. It brings forward a bill, and people ask, “What about infrastructure?” “We’re bringing in a law. We’re dealing with it.” Speaker, you can’t build a bridge with laws.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington has two minutes.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I just want to thank the members for their comments. However, I put out a challenge for what I see are deficiencies in this bill; they weren’t addressed. They weren’t even recognized by the Liberal member. Nobody has challenged my statements about this bill, about its shortcomings.

This bill is not about infrastructure projects. This bill is about imposing obligations on the government to develop plans and to report those plans to this institution. That’s what this bill is about. Nothing in this bill says we’re going to build more bridges or we’re going to build more hockey rinks or hospitals. It doesn’t say we’re going to have more relationships or long-term planning or funding for municipalities. This bill is about putting safeguards in place—that’s what the bill says—so that this assembly understands what the government’s plan in the long term for infrastructure is.

That’s what the bill is: to report back to this House. However, there are no consequences for its failure to report back to this House. There are no consequences for failure to develop the plan at all.

I put that challenge out earlier; I’m still seeking an answer to my questions on this bill. Why is there no enforcement? Why is there no compliance? Why are there so many exemptions for projects to be outside of Bill 6?

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: It is always an honour to rise in this House and speak on behalf of the people I represent in London West, who are counting on me to bring their concerns forward to inform the development of good legislation and good policy.

I’m especially pleased today to join the debate on Bill 6, the Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act. This is a bill that was introduced in this Legislature way back in July. It was actually one of the first bills that was brought forward by the new Liberal government following the election, and it has had a very short period of time for debate since it was introduced.

I’m glad to participate in this debate because, surprisingly, here at Queen’s Park, MPPs don’t get a lot of opportunities to talk about jobs and prosperity. There are actually very few bills that the Liberals have brought forward that contribute to getting our economy moving, that will create jobs for Ontarians and especially for young people.

There are, of course, bills like the Fighting Fraud and Reducing Automobile Insurance Rates Act and the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act that will create jobs and prosperity for the insurance industry and for financial institutions, but there are very few pieces of legislation we’ve talked about here that address the needs of people who are underemployed, who are unable to find employment or who are looking to enter the labour market for the first time.

I do want to point out that my own private member’s bill, the Protecting Interns and Creating a Learning Economy Act, would have done just that. Unlike the bill that we are debating today, my private member’s bill did address the needs of vulnerable workers and it did include measures to boost productivity and grow the economy. I’m still waiting for that bill to be considered at committee and I hope it will be soon because I’m looking forward to debating it in the House at third reading and I know other members of my caucus are also looking forward to that.

The bill that we’re debating here today, Bill 6, is similar to several other bills that have been introduced by the Liberals this Parliament. It is another fairly innocuous fluff bill. It has a grand title but relatively little content. It is more feel-good legislation, more spin than substance, and it includes no enforcement mechanisms that will ensure that it actually has an impact on some of the most pressing issues that are facing Ontarians today.

The primary purpose of Bill 6 is to encourage long-term infrastructure spending for the government of Ontario and the broader public sector by setting out specific principles that have to be followed and requiring the minister to prepare a 10-year infrastructure plan. Now, I said “principles that have to be followed”; I should have said “principles that have to be considered” because there is no requirement, actually, that these principles be adhered to.

Certainly, there’s no question about the importance of long-term planning. Infrastructure spending is not a tap to be turned on and off depending on the political will of the day, nor is it a temporary solution to economic downturn to be discontinued once the economy improves. In fact, it’s this kind of thinking, this kind of short-termism and ad hoc-ism, that has created the huge infrastructure deficit we see in this province today, which sits at around $100 billion. Without a long-term infrastructure plan, what we have seen are many of our assets across this province in the communities we represent falling into serious disrepair and decay.

In London, in my community, the most recent State of Infrastructure Report indicates a current infrastructure funding gap of $52 million, which could grow to $466 million under current investment plans. Londoners are understandably concerned about the fact that 7% of our city’s assets are listed in very poor condition. They are still functioning, perhaps, but the level of service they provide is well below par.

At the same time, Londoners are excited and energized by the work that’s under way on Shift London, which is an initiative to develop a rapid transit system for our community. An environmental assessment has started, and we will certainly be looking to the province to support this major infrastructure investment in London’s growth and prosperity.

I should say that Londoners are intrigued. We recognize the potential of high-speed rail but we’re not exactly holding our breath to see this initiative move forward, given the lack of planning that went into this hasty Liberal pre-election goodie announcement.

Of course, properly planned life cycle infrastructure is important, but, as has been said earlier this morning, the government doesn’t need a new law in order to undertake this kind of long-term infrastructure planning. There’s absolutely nothing stopping the government, if it wanted to, to proceed with the development of 10-year, 20-year, even 50-year infrastructure plans for this province. However, they did decide they need a law, so now I want to turn to specific aspects of the legislation that they have proposed.

First, in looking at the definition of infrastructure, I couldn’t help but notice one very significant exclusion. The infrastructure covered by Bill 6 includes highways, bridges, bicycle paths, drinking water systems, hospitals, courthouses and schools—basically any physical structure or facility through which a public service is provided to Ontarians.

What the bill doesn’t cover is publicly owned electricity infrastructure, nor does it cover Hydro One or OPG. The cynic in me wonders if there was perhaps a deliberate omission by the Liberals when they wrote this legislation last summer. Maybe they knew all along what they were planning to do with the sell-off of Hydro One and maybe they knew how awkward it would be to have this bill debated in the Legislature while they were in the process of dismantling our public electricity system. How hypocritical this would make them appear, because there is no way that the privatization of Hydro One could be justified according to the principles that are set out in this bill.

There are nine planning principles that are described in Bill 6 that the government of Ontario as well as all broader-sector entities are required to consider when making infrastructure decisions.

First, take a long-term view and be mindful of demographic and economic trends.

Second, take budgets and fiscal plans into account.

Third, identify infrastructure priorities.

Fourth, ensure that core public services like health care and education continue to be provided.

Fifth, promote economic competitiveness, productivity, job creation and training opportunities.

Sixth, make innovative use of technologies.

Seventh, plans should be evidence-based and transparent. I will come back to that principle in a moment.

Eighth, be mindful of provincial and municipal plans or strategies; for example, those developed under the Planning Act or the Metrolinx Act.

Speaker, I can tell you that, as a former school board trustee—and school boards will be covered by the act and be expected to take these principles into account—I would have loved to be able to make decisions about managing school assets that were based on principles and not just budget concerns.

Here in the NDP caucus, we have three former school board trustees. All of us were involved in very, very difficult decisions about school closures. These decisions were forced on school boards as the only possible option we could take, directly as a result of provincial underfunding. In these cases, the only principle that school boards were able to apply was principle number two—budgets and fiscal plans—because in all of these school board debates it was basically impossible to take the long-term view. The provincial funding model left school boards unable to maintain assets for long-term community benefit and for future generations of students.

If this bill goes to committee, I will be very interested in hearing from school boards how it will affect their infrastructure planning process and how it will inform their accommodation review process.

I want to speak in a little bit more detail about principle number seven, which is ensuring that infrastructure plans are evidence-based and transparent, which seems highly ironic in light of the Auditor General’s report last December. The Auditor General revealed that the government spent an additional $8 billion on public-private partnerships than they would have spent if the projects had been financed and managed by the public sector using traditional procurement methods and private construction.

These projects were undertaken as P3s because the government claimed that the P3 model allowed them to transfer large amounts of risk to the private sector. In fact, they claimed that the risks would have been five times greater if they had used public sector procurement compared to P3s. But as the Auditor General points out, they provided absolutely no evidence to support this claim.

After confirming with external consultants like Deloitte, the auditor’s report stated that there “is no empirical data supporting the key assumptions used by Infrastructure Ontario to assign costs to specific risks.” Basically, the assumptions the government made about risk transfer, the costs that they calculated to compare the P3 model to traditional models, were fabricated. They were pulled out of thin air. They were cooking the books, so to speak, to provide a rationale for directing tens of billions of dollars of public spending—

Mr. Bob Delaney: Point of order, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Point of order: the member from Mississauga–Streetsville.

Mr. Bob Delaney: Speaker, standing order 23(

h) prohibits the making of an allegation. You cannot say indirectly what you cannot say directly. “Cooking the books” is an accepted expression for “theft.” That’s over the line.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I agree with that point of order. The member will withdraw that statement.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Withdraw, Speaker.

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: In addition to the absence of empirical data, the other part of principle 7 about transparency in decision-making is also sorely lacking at Infrastructure Ontario. They have refused to make public the detailed cost calculations from any specific value-for-money assessments, and they have refused to make public even the generic risk assessment matrices and assumptions they use.

Certainly, this raises serious questions about the basis on which P3 decisions are being made. What we see at Infrastructure Ontario is not evidence-based infrastructure planning and investment. It is evidence-free planning and investment. It is not transparency, as would be required by principle number 7.

With $130 billion to be spent on public infrastructure over the next decade, it would be a very good thing if principle number 7 prevented more money being wasted on overpriced P3s. But as we see the Liberals rushing to privatize whatever they can get their hands on, I suspect we are unlikely to see an end to their commitment to the P3 model, despite the evidence that shows that this is a bad deal for Ontario.

The second part of Bill 6 requires the minister to develop a long-term infrastructure plan, to be tabled in the Legislative Assembly and published on the government of Ontario website. The first plan is to be tabled in 2018, if the act passes this year, and subsequent plans every five years thereafter. But while the minister is expected to consider the planning principles set out in the bill, there is no requirement that the principles actually be incorporated into the plan.

The plan must include an inventory of government infrastructure assets, as well as a strategy on how to address anticipated infrastructure requirements through improvements or new assets over the next 10 years. Basically, the long-term plan must show how infrastructure investments and maintenance will be funded.

Again, when we look at the sell-off of Hydro One, one certainly sees the value of this approach, because instead of keeping plans secret from Ontarians, people would have known, when they went to the polls last June, that the Liberals planned to privatize Hydro One and drive up electricity bills, in order to fund GTA transit.

So New Democrats certainly see the value of this provision of the bill and support this direction.

Bill 6 also sets out the criteria to prioritize and evaluate new infrastructure projects, including alignment of the project with existing provincial or municipal plans; capital and operating costs; and economic impacts, such as long-term return on investment and implications for tax-based growth.

Here I see a missed opportunity to incorporate criteria related to community benefits agreements, like that negotiated by Metrolinx for the Eglinton subway. This was, of course, after the Toronto Community Benefits Network fought hammer-and-nail to get Metrolinx to sign.

I was at the Good Jobs Summit last fall. I heard the Premier say that she supports community benefits agreements for major infrastructure projects and would have liked to see that commitment reflected in this bill.

Community benefits agreements are legally binding contracts that detail the specific benefits a community must receive from a given development project, such as equitable hiring practices, funding for training, neighbourhood improvements, good jobs, and support for social enterprise. They are gaining traction in the US and are starting in Ontario, so why not use this bill to incentivize municipalities to develop community benefits agreements as a criterion for major infrastructure projects?

The bill also requires apprentices to be hired for the construction or maintenance of infrastructure projects, but provides very little detail on what this will mean in practice. We understand that these details will be worked out in regulation; however, it will be critical to ensure that apprenticeship ratios are maintained. I look forward to hearing from the construction trades about this bill during the committee process and what they believe needs to be included in the regulations to ensure increased and more systematic use of apprentices on large infrastructure projects.

Finally, perhaps the most worrisome provision of this bill is the regulatory authority it gives to the Minister of Infrastructure to establish regulations on virtually any infrastructure issue, including what infrastructure can be exempted from the definition of infrastructure. This kind of extremely broad latitude always raises concerns for Legislatures because passing such a bill is like writing a blank cheque: It’s an open-ended invitation for the minister to introduce regulations on almost any aspect of infrastructure planning and funding.

Before I close, I want to comment on two other gaps I see in this legislation.

First, it doesn’t require school boards and municipalities and other broader public sector entities to work together to make infrastructure planning decisions. What I experienced as a school board trustee was boards and municipalities often working in isolation instead of collaborating to maximize the impact of infrastructure investments in supporting the well-being of citizens and the needs of communities.

The other gap I see: Certainly, I think this bill is attempting to take a triple-bottom-line approach to infrastructure planning, but it is very weak as currently written. There’s only one vague reference to environmental sustainability as a principle that should be considered, and there is basically no reference to social benefits other than the hiring of apprentices and the principle that core services like health and education should continue to be delivered.

I also believe that this is an aspect of the bill that could definitely be strengthened, and I hope we will be hearing about that when and if the bill moves to committee. Triple-bottom-line approaches ensure not only environmental protection, not only an economic boost, but also that people who are disadvantaged and marginalized from the labour market receive some of the benefits of infrastructure projects.

In closing, New Democrats do have some reservations about this bill. We are concerned about the lack of impact that we suspect it will have on ensuring evidence-based infrastructure planning from this government. However, we believe there is enough merit in the bill to support it through the second reading process, and we are very much looking forward to hearing from stakeholders at the committee about how this bill can be strengthened.

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

Ms. Daiene Vernile: I’m very pleased to rise today to talk about Bill 6, to add my voice to this on the Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act.

I do want to say that, as a newer member, I do listen very closely to what’s being said, the discussion here. I find it somewhat disconcerting when the discussion tends to stray and, sadly, you hear things that have nothing to do with what’s at hand. It would seem that the opposition sometimes uses their time to try to air their grievances, but I want to speak specifically to this bill.

In my riding of Kitchener Centre, which is an urban riding, we care very much about infrastructure. We’re very encouraged by our government’s investment in the LRT. Construction is now under way, with $300 million dedicated to that.

We see construction of a new Highway 7 between Kitchener and Guelph—that is going to be beginning later this year—and we have ambitious plans for all-day, two-way GO service that’s going to be coming to our community in the next decade. That is a very solid investment to position ourselves in the future.

The underlying principle of this bill, as you know, is building modern infrastructure. That is part of our plan to continue growing the economy and to create jobs. We are investing $130 billion in public infrastructure, and that is over the next 10 years. These investments are going to add 110,000 jobs annually. We just heard the member for London West say that there is no social benefit. Well, I would say that creating 110,000 jobs is a very good social benefit.

If Bill 6 is passed, it would require our government and future governments to regularly prepare long-term infrastructure plans. I keep hearing this from my mayor in Kitchener: “We need to have not just a shot of money, but it needs to be ongoing.” This is what we are committed to.

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

Mr. Jack MacLaren: It’s my pleasure to speak to this bill. As the member from Toronto–Danforth pointed out, it’s unfortunate that we even need a bill like this because the government already has the power and the authority and I would say the responsibility to plan for infrastructure and investments.

However, the nature of government is such that all good planning and investment priorities are not done as they might be in the private sector, where profit would be the motivation, keeping costs under control would be a motivation and delivery of good services and good products would be the motivation. Sometimes other things happen, like, strangely, gas plants get closed—and that was not for profit; at least, maybe for political gain—and other activities like that that have interfered with investment planning as we want to do it now and in the future.

We find ourselves now in a position where we can’t afford subways because bad investment planning was done in the past, with gas plants and things of that nature.

Our member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington articulated very clearly that what’s wrong with this bill—which is a well-intentioned bill, unfortunately a necessary bill, because we have a government that’s not doing what it should be doing: There’s no accountability for compliance, no penalties, and therefore the bill will not be complied with. There are no penalties, no reason to comply with the unfortunate need to even write this bill.

We will support the bill because unfortunately government needs this kind of thing. We will have to put amendments into it in committee for accountability and oversight.

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: I sat very attentively and listened to the words of the member for London West. She touched on the lack of enforcements and consequences within this. This is another announcement which is going to bring concern in regard to bringing proper transparency, oversight and accountability on it. She was right when she highlighted that this was one of the first bills this government brought forward in their new mandate on July 7, 2014, and quite frankly, this is probably only the second or third time that they’ve talked about it. Traditionally, they have to do it six, seven, eight times before it moves forward. So it’s still a long way from actually becoming policy.

In her comments she talked about the P3s and the amount of money that the Auditor General was able to identify that was lost in years of P3 development and projects. We’re talking about $8 billion, Mr. Speaker: $8 billion. That’s with a “b”—$8 billion. That’s a heck of a lot of money. That’s money that we could be using today. If we had that money, would this government actually be considering selling off and privatizing Hydro One? I think not, because that’s money that would be going toward our services and our programs.

One last comment that I wanted to make on behalf of the member: She talked about something in regard to baking, some kind of a recipe, something going on. And you know what? I look at this bill—this is like a birthday cake, but the only people who are going to benefit from this cook are Bay Street individuals and large construction consortiums, which are not only going to benefit from blowing out the candles, but they’re going to be eating their cake as well.

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

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Just before I start to talk about the bill, the member from London West said that she didn’t have much chance to talk about jobs and prosperity. I would like to suggest that there were four weeks when there was nothing talked about but the riding of Sudbury and there was lots of time then to talk about jobs and prosperity.

But moving on: If passed and proclaimed, this proposed legislation would build on this work by ensuring that current and future governments regularly prepare long-term infrastructure plans and continue to improve how this province prioritizes and addresses infrastructure needs. We need that. We need to know that it’s not going to be left for years and years and years and hope that it doesn’t break down. We need to have plans so that it doesn’t cost as much money as it does because it has broken down.

The number one thing that the city of Barrie wants is money for infrastructure. I know that the rural communities, when I’ve been at rural events, definitely need roads and bridges improved. This will help them, and they’re very happy about it.

In Barrie on Friday, we were there and our government announced that we will be having our GO train be more of a priority, and over five years we will have it all day, every day—that is very exciting—both ways. We believe that we’ll be able to entice people to come and visit Barrie, not just have people from Barrie commuting in to work in Toronto.

I urge everyone to pass this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from London West has two minutes.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I want to thank the member for Kitchener Centre, the member for Carleton–Mississippi Mills, the member for Algoma–Manitoulin and the member for Barrie for their comments on my remarks.

The member for Barrie talks about the importance of this legislation because it requires the government to regularly prepare and table infrastructure plans. We question why you need a law to enable the government to do that. Isn’t that something the government could just go ahead and do? What this legislation includes is a list of feel-good, motherhood principles that it says the government should consider, but there is no requirement that these principles actually be reflected and incorporated into the long-term infrastructure plans that are brought forward. We have serious reservations about the lack of enforcement of this bill.

The member for Kitchener Centre talks about the social benefit of the jobs that are created, and that’s one of the issues about infrastructure investments. We know that jobs are created, but who is benefiting from those jobs? Are jobs being created for people who are long-term unemployed, who are disadvantaged, who have been marginalized from the labour market, who are living in poverty, who need opportunities to get a leg up in the labour market? There are no current provisions in this bill to ensure that there are some strong, targeted social benefits for individuals who have been shut out of Ontario’s economy.

Speaker, as I said, we will be supporting this bill. We would love to see some evidence-based planning in infrastructure investments to prevent more P3s.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise to introduce a number of my constituents who are here today with the Association for Reformed Political Action. In the gallery are Bert and Mariah Budding, James Van Gorp, Peter Bos and Jonathan Zekveld. Thank you all for coming. I look forward to having a meeting with them this afternoon.

Hon. Mario Sergio: Visiting Queen’s Park today, in the east members’ gallery, we have, from the Ontario Retirement Communities Association, Mr. Paul Fogolin, Charlotte Burchett and Lesley Chalklin. Welcome to Queen’s Park. I hope you enjoy it.

M me France Gélinas: I am happy to present Furakh Mir. She is the founder and president of Meningitis Relief Canada, and she’s here today to educate us about meningitis. I hope you welcome her to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I ask all members to join me in welcoming Zack Goldford to the Legislature today. Zack is from the riding of Thornhill, the great riding of the honourable member from Thornhill, beside me. He is president of the Ontario PC Youth Association. Welcome back.

Ms. Cindy Forster: I have some guests here today from my riding. From the Wainfleet part of my riding, I have Ed, Jenn and Kim Vander Vegte, and Tyneesha Petter.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I am pleased to introduce representatives from both the Canadian Transplant Association and Trillium Gift of Life, who are here with us today, and to recognize that April is Be a Donor Month. We have with us Sandra Holdsworth, Marc Quinet, Suzanne Camu, Mike Sullivan, Helen Farinha, Mae Herrera, Linda Bowers, Kelly Kleinschmidt, Niva Segatto, Bianca Segatto, Ronnie Gavsie and Adam Lemm. I’ll be joining them at the kickoff event for the Canadian Transplant Games, which are coming to Toronto in 2016. We’re kicking it off at Nathan Phillips Square today.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I had the privilege to meet this morning with the National Assembly of Vietnam Law Committee, led by Dang Dinh Luyen. They’re in the Speaker’s gallery.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’m pleased to welcome health care representatives from OPSEU that I had the pleasure of meeting with this morning: Jacqueline Partnoy, Kim Doucette, Julie Miller, Sandi Blancher and Richard Forget.

Also, I’m pleased to welcome Sara Labelle from Oshawa, who is the chair of the hospital professionals division, representing 24,000 hospital professions in 70 hospitals.

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I would also like to welcome members of the Meningitis Relief Canada group, who are here today to mark World Meningitis Day, which takes place on April 24. I also invite all members to attend the reception they are hosting today, between 4 and 6 p.m., in committee room 228. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Well, it’s déjà vu all over again, Speaker. I would also like to recognize and welcome people here from Meningitis Relief Canada, and invite members to the reception here today.

M me France Gélinas: I have a long list of guests who have made the trip to Queen’s Park to launch the campaign to restore sustainable hospital funding.

I will read their names into the record, because they don’t come to Queen’s Park very often, and I’d like us to recognize them: Marlene Riviere, Paul Taylor, Jane Loucks, Sean Platt, Lisa Miller, Bryan Mitchell, Betty Palmieri, Jacqueline Partnoy, Kelly Poole, Yves Shank—from my riding—Harjinder Sangha, Sylvain Thibault, Remi Thibeault, Una Wallace, Ed Zacharewski, Lynn Heins, Jonathan Hopkins, Richard Janson, Steph Kuntz, Kingsley Kwok, Sara Labelle—who was already introduced—Kelly Light, Lauren MacLaren, Linda Matteau, Steven McCaw, Patricia McNamara, Spencer McGonegal, Richard Meagher, Julie Miller, Brenda Allan, Jeff Arbus, Jan Archer, Adrian Balojin, Paul Beaumont, Sandi Blancher, Herve Cavanagh, Christine Charkavi, Mike Davison, Barb De Roche, Anette DiMatteo, Mike Donaldson and Kim Doucette.

Welcome to Queen’s Park, and good luck with your campaign.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Two quick things: One, I want to introduce, on behalf of the MPP for Oak Ridges–Markham, page captain Megan Chan’s father, Johnny Chan, who is visiting us in the public gallery. I want to welcome him to Queen’s Park.

Also, Speaker, I just want to give a hearty happy birthday to my chief of staff, Jackie Choquette, for celebrating her birthday on Earth Day. Happy birthday to her.

Hon. Dipika Damerla: I want to introduce Chris Yaccato, who is here from the Ontario Lung Association. He’s here today to support Bill 45. More importantly, Speaker, he used to be your EA, so a special welcome to him.

Interjection: And my EA.

Hon. Dipika Damerla: And your EA.

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: Bob should be in the front row.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Let’s get into question period before we start hearing that, okay? And then I’ll tell you to stop.

We have with us in the Speaker’s gallery today—and I’m sure we will provide a warm welcome to them—the delegation from the Law Committee of the National Assembly of Vietnam. Welcome.

Wearing of carnations

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Halton on a point of order.

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent for members to wear carnations today in recognition of World Meningitis Day.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Halton is seeking unanimous consent to wear the carnations. Do we agree? Agreed.

They’re in both lobbies. Thank you. Carnations are available in both lobbies.

Oral Questions

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The leader of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we ask that we stand down our lead questions, please.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The lead questions are to be stood down for the official opposition.

It is now time for the continuation.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A point of order for—no, not a point of order. The member from Timmins–James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Mr. Speaker, as well, we’ll be standing down our leads, awaiting the Premier.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We do require consent to stand down, so I’m going to seek unanimous—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Yes, I have now heard that the lead is also requested to be stood down by the third party, so now our consent will be to stand down both leads.

Do we agree? Agreed.

I will now turn the rotation to—one moment, please.

I have been informed that the Deputy Premier will be responding to questions to the Premier today, so I will now request that the unanimous consent actually be rescinded.

Interjections: No.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Let me be clear—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. Let me clear about that. I mentioned this once before. It is considered a courtesy to notify. That has been the tradition. It does not make a requirement to attend.

I’m going to repeat myself that the indication is that the Deputy Premier will be made available to answer questions that were intended for the Premier.

I’m offering the opportunity to rescind the unanimous consent to stand down, providing the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the third party to put their lead questions.

I’m now going to turn to the leader of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition for questions.

Ontario budget

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is to the Acting Premier, and I’m sure it will be

an act.

Over the last few weeks, Deputy Premier, the official opposition has laid out five commitments that we are asking to be included in tomorrow’s budget:

Cancel the Ontario registered pension plan payroll tax because it will kill jobs.

Cancel the pay-to-pollute carbon tax that will increase the price of everything in the province.

Fix the home care system and improve home care services while tying community care access centre funding to outcomes.

Commit to reducing electricity prices in the province.

Finally, we ask that you provide a serious, credible and detailed plan to balance the budget.

Deputy Premier, will you commit to these five requests in tomorrow’s budget?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, really, the answer is a resounding no. We are absolutely committed to moving forward on retirement security for Ontarians, and I, for the life of me, don’t understand why you would not support enhanced retirement security for seniors.

We are moving forward with a balanced plan. I know we’re all looking forward to seeing the budget tomorrow, but we have a plan to get back to balance and, at the same time, invest in those much-needed infrastructure projects that will lift Ontario up.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Deputy Premier, your own internal finance ministry documents have told you that the Ontario registered pension plan will cost the province at least 18,000 jobs. The pay-to-pollute carbon tax will spike the price of gas and increase the price of everything. Patients and their families are finding it extremely difficult accessing home care through the CCACs. Electricity prices are set to rise 15% on May 1, in addition to the 42% increase over five years that we already know about.

Let’s be serious: No one believes you have a plan to balance the books by 2017-18. Rising interest payments on that debt means less money for important front-line services like health care and education. The auditor, in her recent report, said exactly that.

Deputy Premier, will you take our advice and stop gouging Ontarians who can’t afford to pay any more than they already are?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I do respect the clarity of the party opposite, but we reject the approach that you are taking. We had an election less than a year ago. This different way of moving forward was debated. The people chose to go with the Liberal Party because we had a plan to move forward, investing in much-needed infrastructure, investing in the things that people need in our education system, in our health care system—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Please finish.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, our plan is thoughtful, it is pragmatic and we are moving forward on implementing that plan.

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: To the Deputy Premier: Ontarians know your budget will result in skyrocketing electricity prices and a tax on everything. Cuts to nursing and home care will continue. Some 249 nurses have been fired since last year’s election, when the Premier promised health care services would be protected. Schools are closing and teachers are being fired despite the Premier’s election promise that teachers wouldn’t lose their jobs. Private sector jobs are being lost across most sectors of the province and of the economy because it has become too expensive to do business in Ontario, and the cost—

Hon. Brad Duguid: That’s totally false. There is nothing to statistically support that whatsoever.

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

Interjections.

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

While he was in the middle of his argument, I asked the member to come to order. In case he didn’t hear it, the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure will come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And whoever decides to want to be my armchair quarterback will also be warned.

Carry on.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Clearly, private sector jobs are being lost in many sectors of the economy. You can’t deny that. You’re living in wonderland if you deny—

Hon. Brad Duguid: Clearly, that’s false.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Economic Development will come to order, and he’s inches away from a warning.

Carry on.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Deputy Premier, why won’t you commit to our budget ask that will give hard-working Ontarians financial relief, better home care and a credible plan to keep and create jobs in this province?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, we are all looking forward, as I said, to tomorrow’s budget. What we will see is a plan to continue to promote the expansion of our economy in Ontario.

The member opposite, the member who ran on the platform of firing 100,000 people, is now concerned about job losses. Where was that concern in the last election campaign?

The member knows full well, as a former Minister of Health—he’s watching carefully, I’m sure—that we have 24,000 more nurses working in Ontario than we did when we took office.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Dufferin–Caledon, come to order. The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, come to order.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: You can point to individual situations—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I will repeat myself a second time for the member from Dufferin–Caledon and the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, and for the member from Simcoe North: Come to order.

Finish, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the heckling: 24,000 more nurses—

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Not working.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Working. Working. Employed—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Simcoe North: second time.

Carry on.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let me repeat: 24,000 more nurses are working in Ontario now than when you left office. I know the member opposite doesn’t actually believe that number. We would be happy to give you those numbers. It is the truth, Speaker. They don’t like it. They want us to cut nurses. We are not going to do that.

Ontario budget

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Deputy Premier. You grew our deficit from $9.2 billion to $10.5 billion, and now to $10.9 billion this year. You’re headed the wrong way. You’re getting farther away from balancing, not closer.

You turned our once-proud province into an economic wreck. We have the highest energy costs in North America. We have the highest payroll taxes in Canada.

Since you turned us into a have-not province, you’ve received $14 billion in equalization payments from the federal government, and you still can’t balance the budget. You’re failing our youth, hurting our seniors and putting families in an ever-deepening hole. Why should anyone believe you can balance a budget when you can’t even reduce your own deficit?

Interjections.

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

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We have a very clear plan to balance the budget by 2017-18, and tomorrow’s budget will demonstrate how we are taking those next steps.

I can tell you that in 2014-15, our government is once again beating our deficit target, Speaker. We have done that year after year. The result is $25 billion less in debt than originally projected.

We have a responsible plan. We have a balanced plan. We have a plan that invests in our people and invests in our infrastructure as we take responsible decisions to get best value for the money that we spend in this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: To the deputy: Every expert has spoken out about the sorry state of Ontario’s finances—all under your watch.

Our latest release of Focus on Finance puts Ontario under a microscope, and no one is happy with what it reveals. The Auditor General said, “Ontario’s debt continues to grow faster than the province’s economy.” The result is what she calls a “crowding out of other spending.” We now have less money for the things our citizens expect from the province. We’re starting to see front-line cuts in health care and education, just as the Auditor General warned.

Later today, our interim leader, Jim Wilson, will present our opposition day motion with five budget asks designed to help Ontario’s families. Will you agree to change your downward path and support our motion?

Interjections.

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

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Just say yes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Oxford, come to order.

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, the opposition party continues to tear Ontario down, calling us an economic wreck. That is simply not accurate.

Our plan, in stark contrast, is all about building Ontario up. We are committed to continuing to build that dynamic, innovative, competitive business environment. We will continue to invest in our people, particularly young entrepreneurs and young people who are working on that transition from school to work.

We absolutely are committed to building up our infrastructure. For too long, the appropriate investments have not been made in our infrastructure. We’re addressing that.

And we are going to continue to ensure that the hard-working people of Ontario have the retirement security that they deserve. I would suggest that you look at our plan and join us in this fight.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: To the deputy: Earlier this week, we asked that you present a serious, credible and detailed plan to balance the budget. Instead, we continue to see front-line cuts. Everyone in this Legislature has examples, so let me give you some from my hometown of North Bay: 94 full-time and 34 part-time front-line health care workers, including nurses, have been fired in North Bay; more than 54 people at Nipissing University, including 22 professors, have been fired in North Bay; and 43 workers from Ontario Northland have been fired in North Bay. Your wasteful and scandalous mismanagement of our budget is reducing services and putting the most vulnerable at risk.

When will you present a serious, credible and detailed plan to balance the budget?

Interjections.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: The federal government has balanced theirs.

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

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, I’m glad that the member opposite has referred to health care in North Bay, because I know he already knows this information that I want to share with the rest of the Legislature. On Monday, it was announced that three health organizations would receive funding for this fiscal year. In fact, this announcement was made by the member opposite. Quoting the North Bay Nugget, “The funds, recently announced by Nipissing MPP Vic Fedeli, will go toward mental health and replacement reserve costs associated with supportive housing services in Nipissing.”

In fact, the member opposite, in a release, extended—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: On Monday, he extended his “sincere appreciation on behalf of Nipissing residents to our local health care professionals for their”—

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

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Deputy Premier. Last year, the Premier stood in this House and she said she would “look at the assets” to “optimize the value of those assets.”

The Premier has talked about maximization, unlocking value and rationalizing assets. The Premier has used just about every word except “sell” and “privatize” when it comes to Hydro One.

If the Liberals are so proud of what they’re doing, so proud of selling and privatizing Hydro One, why can’t they just say the words? Will this Deputy Premier tell Ontario today how proud the Liberals are to do what Mike Harris wouldn’t dare do: sell and privatize Hydro One?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, this government is committed to building the infrastructure that this province absolutely needs. Governments of the past have not invested appropriately in infrastructure, which leaves us with a huge infrastructure deficit. What we are doing is, we are unlocking the value of some of our assets so that we can build that very important transit infrastructure.

We were clear about this. This was discussed in the budget prior to the last election. It was included in our election platform. Whether the leader of the third party knows it or not, she ran on it too, because she took all of our fiscal assumptions and embedded them in her platform.

We’re moving forward. We are expanding the sale of beer, and we’re broadening the ownership of Hydro One. At the same time, we are protecting ratepayers. We are creating lasting public benefit to the people of this province, and the status quo just simply doesn’t—

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the Liberals are selling Hydro One, and now they say this is what they ran on. The words “sell Hydro One” aren’t in their platform; neither is “privatize.” They were not even whispered on the campaign trail.

The Premier says she’s being straightforward with Ontarians. Oh, please. Ontarians were never told of her plan to sell Hydro One, Ontarians were never asked what they think of her plan to sell Hydro One and they certainly have never signed off on the Liberal plan, the wrong-headed plan the Liberals have, to sell Hydro One.

Will the Liberals just come out and admit it—just admit it—to the people of Ontario?

Interjections.

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

Deputy Premier?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The party opposite has been vocal in their criticism, but they have offered no constructive plans on how to pay for infrastructure that we need in this province. This is not about ideology. This is about finding a practical solution to a problem.

Some members of the NDP, I know, do support this. Former NDP cabinet minister Frances Lankin was on the panel. She understands that we need to make these investments. The Power Workers’ Union is supportive of our plan. They understand that need. LIUNA, the building trades, mayors and councillors across this province are supportive of this plan. It is unfortunate that the leader of the third party can’t see beyond—

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

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Once the Liberals sell off Hydro One, it is gone. There is no going back. As Ontarians watch rates go up to feed Bay Street profits, they will do so knowing that they will never, ever be able to regain control of their hydro system. It is wrong for our generation, it is wrong for our kids’ generation and it is wrong for our grandkids’ generation.

The Premier is spending more time right now in this province consulting about where to sell a 12-pack of Bud than they are about privatizing strategic assets like Hydro One. Selling Hydro One is forever. The plan is the wrong plan for Ontario.

Will the Liberals do the right thing and pull the plug on this plan?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As a result of that decision to broaden the ownership of Hydro One while protecting the public interest, it is allowing us to invest in infrastructure. The Moving Ontario Forward fund is now $31.5 billion over 10 years because we’ve been able to unlock those assets. Some $16 billion of that will be spent in the GTHA and $15 billion outside the GTHA. It will go for regional express rail, Hamilton RT, Hurontario LRT—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Someone is close to a warning.

Carry on, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: It’s allowing us to fund the Connecting Links program, Highway 7 between Kitchener and Guelph. I ask the member opposite: What do you want to cut? What don’t you want to build?

Interjections.

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

New question: leader of the third party.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Deputy Premier. The Premier’s plan is wrong for Ontarians. It is going to mean that families who are already stretched are going to be stretched even further. People will be paying more so that a small handful of shareholders can make more money. Every dollar that goes into their pockets is a dollar that doesn’t go into hospitals, schools or transit. This will actually cut stable income that goes into projects like building transit, keeping schools open or building hospitals.

Do the Liberals really think Ontarians should keep paying more and more and more and getting less and less and less?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, we just fundamentally disagree with the approach of the third party. We believe in investing in our infrastructure. We believe in investing in those projects that actually improve the quality of life for the people of this province. I think that if she went and spoke to the people in Hamilton, they would say that they don’t want to spend time caught in gridlock.

We must make these investments. We want a growing, thriving economy because it’s the right thing to do for people. So we are going to move forward. We are moving forward, building the infrastructure that is needed, because the people of this province are demanding that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Today, Hydro One puts hundreds of millions of dollars into the things that people rely on, like hospitals, schools and infrastructure. But the Liberals are planning to sell Hydro One to Bay Street, and it’s going to make a handful of well-connected Bay Street investors even wealthier while Ontarians have to stretch every dollar further just to make ends meet.

Privatizing Hydro One is wrong for Ontarians and will actually cut stable, long-term revenue. Why do the Liberals think this is okay?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, the member knows that part of the work of the panel was to actually look at how you offset the revenue loss. They did that. That’s why we’re making changes in beer distribution, for example. But we’re not the only ones who think this is a great idea. Don MacKinnon the president of the Power Workers’ Union, says, “The Power Workers’ Union welcomes and supports the decision by government to keep Hydro One whole in an IPO process that would, in partnership with government, broaden the ownership structure in Hydro One. This will position the company to grow and provide further high-skill quality jobs for Ontarians.”

Joe Mancinelli, the vice-president at LIUNA International, says, “The Wynne government is to be commended for today’s announcement implementing sweeping changes in our province which will greatly benefit all Ontarians. The $4 billion these changes will introduce for investment in infrastructure projects”—

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

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier wants to continue to protect private profits through sweetheart P3 deals. That’s going to waste billions and hurt families. She’s opening up brand new HST loopholes. That’s going to waste billions and hurt families. She’s planning to sell Hydro One to Bay Street. It means a cut to provincial revenues and it’s going to hurt families.

Nobody cares what the Premier calls this, whether she calls it ideological, non-ideological, the activist centre; I call it a sellout. I call it taking hard-earned dollars from middle-class families and struggling Ontarians and dumping those dollars into the pockets of Bay Street boardrooms and shareholders. That’s what this is. It doesn’t matter what she calls it, because those are the facts. The money is coming out of the pockets of everyday families and going into the pockets of Bay Street shareholders. That plan is wrong for Ontario, and Ontarians deserve better.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let’s hear what Joe Mancinelli had to say. He said, “The $4 billion these changes will introduce for investment in infrastructure projects, the largest infrastructure investment in Ontario’s history, is welcome news to LIUNA and our members. Job creation is one of the key components of this initiative, and we welcome the much-needed infrastructure and the thousands of jobs that will be created for our members for years to come.”

There are many others who are supporting this decision. We’ve heard the NDP do not support these investments. I think that’s a shame, because the people of this province need those investments.

Hydro rates

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Minister of Energy. I’ll go directly to him because I know it’s going to get dumped over there anyway.

Minister, the speed at which the price of electricity continues to escalate in Ontario under your government is even quicker than your attempt to expedite the sale of Hydro One. Your frantic desire to sell off this public asset clearly suggests and indicates that your government is desperate for money. Perhaps if you weren’t recklessly wasting billions of dollars on failed gas plants, expensive wind energy experiments and defective smart meters, energy rates would be much more affordable and you wouldn’t have to resort to the sale of Hydro One.

Minister, why are you continuing to do nothing to lower unaffordable energy rates for ratepayers and businesses here in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I’m pleased that the member mentioned electricity rates for businesses across the province. One word that the opposition never mentions is “conservation.” Let me say a few words about conserveation.

Home Depot has completed 191 conservation projects province-wide. These have reduced energy consumption by more than 29 million kilowatt hours since 2012, enough electricity to power more than 3,000 typical Ontario homes per year.

Tim Hortons, Mr. Speaker—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Leader of the Opposition will come to order, please.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And Thornhill.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Did I miss? Never mind. Thank you.

Finish, please.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, 245 Tim Hortons restaurants underwent renovations that included energy-saving measures like switching to LED lighting and installing white roofs. Through its combined conservation efforts last year, Tim Hortons would save around four million kilowatt hours of electricity province-wide—

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

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Well, Minister, when the factory closes, their consumption goes down to zero. I guess that’s your ultimate conservation plan.

Minister, you have got to stop playing games with vulnerable people in Ontario, with your energy prices. One day you announce a minuscule rebate for low-income ratepayers. However, within days, you increase their bills and the bills of everyone else across this province by an unacceptable, unsustainable 15%.

This sleight-of-hand shell game of yours has got to stop. People cannot take it anymore. They’ve had enough of your failed energy experiments here in the province of Ontario. Your negligence has resulted in unaffordable electricity rates, making it more and more difficult for small business, seniors and families to survive in this great province of Ontario.

Minister, as one of our PC caucus asked, will you restore competitive electricity rates in Ontario, to make them affordable for families, seniors and small businesses?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, the member is aware of the fact that the MDF paperboard plant in Pembroke, his riding, is reopening after being accepted into the IEI Program—which is a program that supports businesses—creating 140 new jobs for the area, in his riding.

Atlantic Packaging, from Whitby, is expanding their paper mill and creating 80 jobs with the help of the new IEI Program. Detour Gold says that the program will save them $20 million in one year while they expand what will be one of the largest gold mines in Canada.

Our rates are competitive. On the residential side, there are three provinces that have higher rates than we do. There are two, Manitoba and Quebec, that are considerably lower because of legacy hydro programs. When we compare them to cities like Detroit, Boston and New York, we’re considerably below them. In North America, we are competitive from an industrial business point of view, and competitive from a residential—

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

Stop the clock, please.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Education funding

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: My question is to the Minister of Education. Minister, contrary to Liberal spin, Ontarians know that your government sets the priorities for education in this province.

This Liberal government has made it clear that it prioritizes cutting special education and forced closures of neighbourhood schools. Now we’re learning that they plan on flip-flopping on their commitment to keep class sizes manageable.

Speaker, why is this government refusing to take responsibility for short-sighted cuts to education, which have resulted in labour unrest and the closure of community schools?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m really pleased to share with this Legislature that, in fact, education funding is stable. It was $22.5 billion last year; it’s $22.5 billion this year—and the number of students has gone down, which means the per-pupil amount has gone up.

But let me tell you about some of the really exciting things that we’re doing. We have invested $12.9 billion in school infrastructure, including nearly 725 new schools and more than 700 additions and renovations. We’ve worked to give our students programs like specialist high-skills majors, co-op education and dual credits. We announced just last week that the graduation rate has now gone up to 84%. We are actually doubling the amount of money this year spent on school renovation—

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

Supplementary?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: I’d like to point out to the Minister of Education: You say funding is stable. Special education needs have gone up, hydro rates have gone up, and transportation costs have gone up; therefore, the funding has gone down.

Speaker, back to the Minister of Education: Ontario families are growing tired of a minister who finds her portfolio perplexing. With teachers in Durham on strike, Rainbow District in northern Ontario to join next week, and now Peel preparing to strike in May, this government must take responsibility for throwing our school system into chaos.

Why are the minister and her government skirting responsibility for the mess her government’s cuts to education have made in our school system?

Hon. Liz Sandals: The member opposite might be interested to know that the lines to pay for utilities have gone up.

However, let’s talk about Durham, because the member opposite brought up Durham. Let me tell you about Durham. The Durham public board is going to receive $729 million in funding for this school year. That’s $2 million more than last year. It’s $289 million more than in 2003. In fact, it has gone up 65% since 2002-03. Let me tell you about the per pupil funding. It’s up almost $4,000 in Durham, a 57.4% increase for every single student in Durham. It’s now $10,661—

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

Interjections.

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

New question.

Climate change

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: My question is to the Minister of the Environment and Climate—

Interjections.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Have you been ejected?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Well, you may be.

Carry on.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: My question is to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. The first Earth Day was held on April 22, 1970. Since then, Earth Day has grown into an international event, with 192 countries holding Earth Day events across the globe. Children in classrooms and daycares in Barrie and around the world will be learning about why there is an Earth Day and how they can help save our planet on a daily basis. Earth Day Canada is celebrating their 25th anniversary this year with the goal to engage people across the country in a national effort to reduce their carbon footprint.

I’m sure constituents of my riding of Barrie will be pleased to know that, thanks to the leadership of this government, Ontario met—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Question.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Speaker, could you please ask the minister to answer: What are some simple things Ontarians can do to reduce their carbon footprint?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I want to thank the member from Barrie, who is a great educator and understands the importance of the next generation.

I was out with about 100 children this morning. There are certain moments in your life you’ll never forget, and this was one of them. I realized, as I was looking at those children, that they are the first generation that will never know normal climate. We are the last generation that will ever know normal climate. What they were saying to me and what they wanted to say to members of the Legislature is that they ride their bikes; that they’re living on a planet that’s fast heading for four degrees Celsius, and they want us to stop that. They realize that we’re the last generation that can do that.

This is the 25th Earth Day anniversary in Canada; we maybe have 25 more Earth Days to get this right. I’m very proud to be part of a government that understands that that’s the first priority of Canadians.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Thank you, Minister. While it’s important that individuals reflect on their carbon footprint and take some simple measures to reduce their impact on the environment, it’s equally important that our government continue to show leadership in fighting climate change. I know that my constituents are proud of the fact that Ontario was the first jurisdiction in North America to close coal-fired power plants.

The 2013 Air Quality in Ontario report was released a week ago, on the anniversary of the last coal plant closure in Ontario. The report confirms that our air quality has improved significantly over the last 10 years, and for the first time in 20 years, no—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Please finish. Wrap up.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Minister, could you inform us about what further action this government is taking to fight climate change and reduce greenhouse gas pollution in our atmosphere?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton will come to order. The member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek: I can do without the whistling.

Mr. Paul Miller: I didn’t do it. I didn’t whistle.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m sorry. Whoever it was, I’ll do without it. I apologize.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Eglinton–Lawrence. I have a feeling that you have not got the message that I would like a question period as best we can.

Minister?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that.

We are doing everything from my friend the Minister of Transportation working to electrify the entire GO system—in economic and development we’re global leaders in green technology, low-carbon technology. These are very important things.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Did you drive together with the Premier, Steven?

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

Hon. Glen R. Murray: It was interesting because my friend from Timmins–James Bay made the reference to dinosaurs, which I thought were extinct until I heard some of the positions of the party opposite. The difference between us and dinosaurs—

Interjections.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Speaker, I demand retraction. To refer to honourable members as dinosaurs is unacceptable.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Before I make my comment that I was going to make, the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke is warned.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell is warned.

I am not impressed with any kind of response that impugns anyone in this place. It’s getting a little ridiculous, so let’s just calm down, everyone.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Will he withdraw that?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I wouldn’t want to add anything more to where you are right now.

And I would advise anyone that if they do say something that is inflammatory, that they would be kind enough to withdraw.

Carry on.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I sometimes don’t think we fully understand how serious this was. Yesterday, the federal government became the first government to completely divest entirely from any dollars or expenditures in climate change, leaving the entire fight on climate change in this country to municipalities and provinces. So here we are in the shadow of the worst environmental budget in Canadian history, celebrating Earth Day.

Home care

Deputy Premier, how much longer do seniors and their families have to wait for you to make the necessary changes to their home care system?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I appreciate the question. I know the member opposite knows that we appointed Gail Donner and a team of experts, in fact, to look at home and community care. We did that last year. They presented their report to me at the end of January. That report is being made public.

I’ve also indicated that I’ve endorsed the recommendations in that report. We agree that more needs to be done for home and community care. That’s the express purpose of us convening that table in the first place.

We are taking the recommendations very seriously. We are continuing to invest in home and community care. Of course, this year $270 million more invested in home and community care—that’s a 5% increase. But we are looking at the table’s—the expert panel’s—recommendations very seriously, and we will be making changes based on those recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Bill Walker: Back to the Deputy Premier. The people of Ontario are frustrated. This frustration is being felt by the senior citizen who can’t get a personal support worker following a hip replacement. This frustration is felt by a daughter trying to get physiotherapy for her father who recently suffered a stroke. This frustration is being felt by the thousands of people who cannot get the home care services they need.

We know the two biggest issues within our system are excessive bureaucracy and a lack of accountability for system outcomes, yet you continue to ignore the obvious.

Deputy Premier, will you make the functional changes to our system that we need in order to improve patient care? Will you tie funding to the community care access centres so we can have improved outcomes and patient results? Will you do that, Deputy Premier?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: As I said, we’re making substantial investments in our home and community care sector—more than $4 billion invested in that sector annually, increasing that this year, next year and the year after by 5%, as we continue to provide that high-quality care, accessible and timely care, in the places where people want it the most: in their homes or in their communities. We are making changes.

I would hope, now that we have Gail Donner’s report guiding the way forward with her specific recommendations of her and of the team—I would like to ask the member opposite if we can count on his support as we implement those changes that are required to meet the recommendations and the aspirations that are outlined in that report.

Health care funding

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est également pour le ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. OPSEU hospital workers are at Queen’s Park today in the gallery. They came to tell us, as first-hand witnesses, that the Liberal government’s cuts to health care are having a devastating impact on quality of care.

I’ll give you some examples. At Lakeridge Health centre, they had to let 20% of their genetic technologists go. They are also laying off their senior technologists in flow cytometry. This is the charge tech being laid off. These positions have a direct impact on the patients at the Durham regional cancer centre.

In Cornwall, it is 11% of their sonographers that have been cut.

Hospitals are forced to reduce or cut these services because of your government cuts. My question is simple: How many more cuts should we expect—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Children and Youth Services, come to order, a second time.

M me France Gélinas: —Ontario’s hospitals will see in tomorrow’s budget?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’ll say this as generously as I can, but, despite what the member opposite has just said, the facts are somewhat different. We are, and have been and will be, increasing our funding to health care, as we have done over the past decade, and we will continue to do so moving forward.

The member opposite knows that we invest more than $50 billion in our health care system annually, and that investment—a significant portion of that investment goes into the hospital environment as well. That investment in our hospitals—our front-line health care workers and the environment that people depend on when they do get ill and require service—has increased by more than 50% in the last decade.

It is factually incorrect, I would suggest to the member opposite. To state that we are somehow cutting health care—health care has for the past decade increased in funding each year, and it will continue to do so.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: It is bad enough that we’re seeing health care cuts throughout our province, but when the minister refuses to acknowledge that those cuts are taking place, it’s making things worse, not better.

This is year three of a hospital-based budget freeze. All of them are struggling to balance their budgets, and they have no choice but to cut programs, services and positions. The bottom line looks like this: 22 positions cut in Cambridge; in London, 97 positions cut; Sarnia, 39 positions cut; Timmins, 40 positions cut; Sudbury, 42 positions cut; CHEO, 50 positions cut; and at the brand new hospital in North Bay, 94 full-time and 34 part-time positions cut. We all know who pays the price for those cuts: It’s the patients who need health care services.

Speaker, with the budget coming tomorrow, will Ontarians continue to see this right-wing austerity health care agenda? How many more cuts to health care can we expect to see in tomorrow’s budget?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: The member opposite, of course, has her list and I have mine, which is somewhat different.

The Ottawa Hospital has 49 RN active postings right now where they’re looking for 49 registered nurses to work at that hospital; the Royal Ottawa health centre, 15 RNs and one RPN active postings today; the Orillia Soldiers’ Memorial Hospital is looking for 10 RNs; London Health Sciences Centre is looking for 10 RNs and three nurse practitioners; Lakeridge Health centre, where I had the privilege of announcing a new pharmacy, is looking for seven RNs; Hamilton Health Sciences centre is looking for 16 RNs; Grand River, seven RNs; Bluewater Health system, five RPNs; Almonte General Hospital, two RNs and four RPNs. This is the situation around the province.

Of course, programs change, and there are changes that are made at that local level, as they should be, but we are adding health care personnel—

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

New question.

Flooding

Mr. Chris Ballard: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. Rising temperatures and April showers bring spring flowers, but rising temperatures and heavy rains also bring spring flooding.

The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, along with conservation authorities like the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority in my riding of Newmarket–Aurora, monitors surface water levels, weather forecasts, water conditions and locations across our watershed. These measurements, weather forecasts and radar information on temperature and rainfall predictions, along with historical data, are all compiled to develop a flood forecast.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry: Can the minister please explain to the House what his ministry is doing to ensure that communities in Ontario are prepared to respond to potential flooding emergencies?

Hon. Bill Mauro: I want to thank the member for the question. It’s topical and timely.

Our ministry works with communities, conservation authorities and Environment Canada to forecast where and when flooding is likely to occur. The ministry has an information website to inform people in Ontario about potential flooding, provide real-time information about weather and flooding risks, and tips on what to do in the event of flooding.

This piece is very important: Conservation authorities, for people to know on a local level, are responsible for providing local flood messaging to municipalities. In areas where there is not a conservation authority, district offices will provide that information to First Nations communities and to the local municipalities where a conservation authority does not exist.

Our Surface Water Monitoring Centre performs daily assessment for flood hazard potential. The ministry does a variety of things in that regard, and monitors watershed conditions 24 hours a day. This is a significant piece, and I want to make sure that communities, conservation authorities and First Nations are aware of what’s available to them in terms of achieving that data.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Chris Ballard: Thank you to the minister for his response and dedication to ensuring that Ontario’s communities are as prepared as possible for potential floods.

Water levels remain high in parts of Ontario, as is common for this time of year, and we expect high-water conditions to continue for several weeks.

In northern Ontario, a late spring snow melt, accompanied by above-average snow pack and significant rainfall, can lead to flooding. As we know, these floods can shut down roads, flood homes and, in extreme circumstances, lead to evacuations. Residents from all parts of Ontario need to know that, in the event of an emergency such as a flood, our province has proper response plans in place.

Through you, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister please tell the House how our government prepares to respond to emergencies such as floods in our province?

Hon. Bill Mauro: Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thanks to the member from Newmarket–Aurora for asking a very important question.

Each spring, many communities across Ontario are confronted with the possibility of flooding as winter snow melts and river ice breaks up. Just last night, the member from Prince Edward–Hastings and I were reminiscing about visiting Belleville last year when they were fighting the floods in their community.

Our most important priority is the safety and security of all Ontarians, and that means, well before we begin to enjoy warmer weather, that the Office of the Fire Marshal and Emergency Management, also known as OFMEM, prepares host communities to accept evacuees. This ensures that during a flood, people in affected communities have a safe place to go.

Throughout the flood season, OFMEM maintains regular contact with municipalities and ministries to assess the risk from flooding and ensure that we have the most up-to-date information. If an evacuation is necessary, OFMEM works closely with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry to coordinate flights out of affected communities.

Energy policies

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Last week you released your new carbon pay-to-pollute scheme, and your own Premier admitted herself that she was adding a tax. We know that this is because the price of everything will increase. What we don’t know are the details on it. Instead, you have left Ontarians in the dark about how much you will be taking out of their wallets.

Deputy Premier, families can’t afford to manage their budgets the way you do. They can’t run deficits for 11 years and shrug off hundreds of billions of dollars of debt.

Deputy Premier, will you commit to not implementing another devastating tax onto the people of Ontario?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, I actually have a question for the member opposite.

Interjections.

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

Please finish.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I think she might be helpful in helping me understand something. When her party introduced a cap-and-trade on NO x and SO x , they didn’t call it a tax on everything. When they did it again on carbon monoxide, they didn’t call it a tax on everything. When the Alberta government—their sister party in Alberta—did it, they didn’t call it a tax on everything. Why is that? Because it’s not a tax on everything. It’s an effective carbon trading market.

But given their party’s lack of concern—and their federal cousins’, with zero investment in climate change, who took us out of Kyoto and are undermining efforts right now to get an international agreement in Paris—I would be pretty embarrassed if I was a card-carrying Conservative today too.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Speaker, I have to go back to the Deputy Premier. The bottom line is that when costs go up for business, the cost of living goes up for everyone. Ontarians cannot afford another tax that will go to fund the scandal-plagued, mismanaged Liberal government. Liberal mismanagement in this province has already seriously affected the lives of all Ontarians.

In my riding alone, we have a hospital in disarray from broken Liberal promises. We have seniors who can’t afford diabetic test strips, and families who cannot afford their hydro bill. And here you are: You’re wanting to add another tax on them. This will be devastating to the people across the province. They can’t afford your arrogance any longer.

Deputy Premier, as the fourth of our five budget asks, will you commit, in your 2015 budget, not to levy another misguided tax on the people of Ontario?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, let me share with the member what I think Ontarians can’t afford. The residents of Goderich, in her constituency, can’t afford another devastating tornado. They can’t afford it.

The people in Burlington cannot afford to see their operating rooms wiped out by 100-year floods, two in 24 months—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton is warned. Thank you.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Apple farmers in rural Ontario can’t afford to lose 80% of their crop anymore. People who get their drinking water from Lake Ontario can’t afford to risk it going toxic so they can’t even boil it. Ontarians can’t afford more frequent ice storms. People who ride GO Transit can’t afford $600 million of damage in one hour, Mr. Speaker. We can’t afford—

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

New question.

Energy conservation

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Today is Earth Day. It’s a day to think about the environment, to think about sustainability and conservation. However, this government has had a problem sustaining its energy conservation programs.

In 2010, the government cut the Ontario Home Energy Savings Program, which helped people reduce their heating bill with grants to retrofit their homes and make them more energy-efficient. Since then, energy costs have skyrocketed. Why did this government cancel this important home energy conservation program?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The member would know that in our long-term energy plan of December 2013, “conservation first” is the overriding principle of that plan, Mr. Speaker. He will also know that throughout November and December of this past year, every LDC, every utility across the province, signed on to a new conservation framework. It is a very extensive program. It gives more authority to the LDCs to initiate conservation that is relevant to their particular communities.

We are conservation first. We’re going to continue on that, and our projections are that there will be very, very extensive take-up.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Well, Speaker, this is a government that loves to make announcements—loves it. But it’s the follow-through that counts.

Seven years ago, the government announced an agreement with Quebec to create a cap-and-trade system by January 2010. The NDP welcomed the announcement. But seven years later, we’re still waiting—and Speaker, I was there for the reannouncement, if that’s their answer.

In 2013, the government announced a plan to help homeowners conserve energy with on-bill financing for energy retrofits. It’s now 2015, and there is still no such program.

Mr. Speaker, will Ontarians have to wait another seven years for action on energy conservation, just as we have had to wait seven years on cap-and-trade?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Minister of the Environment.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Well, if you were listening to the question from your friends next door, you will know you wouldn’t have to wait very long for a carbon market.

Second of all, we are doing unprecedented things right now, Mr. Speaker, in building standards and building codes. Thank you to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and his predecessors for initiating standards that are actually bringing down greenhouse gases and emissions. We’re just beginning, because, working with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Minister of Economic Development and the Minister of Energy, we are about to introduce some of the most robust initiatives in reducing building-based greenhouse gas emissions, providing Ontarians with lower costs of heating their homes.

I’m working closely with the Minister of Transportation, who is doing globe-leading work right now in the electrification of transit. We are making the biggest investments in public transit in the history of Ontario and some of the biggest in the history of North America. You don’t have to wait for a bus very long anymore, Mr. Speaker, thanks to this government.

Consumer protection

Mr. Arthur Potts: My question is for the Minister of Government and Consumer Services. I think we can all agree that the spring weather that we’re finally having and enjoying presents a welcome relief following the great winter that has just passed.

As my constituents of Beaches–East York are quick to remind me, with spring comes a whole host of new responsibilities for homeowners. Yard maintenance, lawn care, seasonal cleaning and other landscaping needs are all tasks that many homeowners are taking up with the use of service providers. Seasonal yard work is important, and it creates valuable opportunities for entrepreneurs and Ontario businesses. With the short-term and the sometimes informal nature of these services, however, many of us are concerned and worried about the legitimacy of the agreements that are entered into with the service providers.

Will the Minister of Government and Consumer Services address the concern and speak to how his ministry regulates home service contracts?

Hon. David Orazietti: I want to thank the member from Beaches–East York for raising this important consumer protection issue. I agree that this type of seasonal work creates excellent employment opportunities.

Providing clear, contractual agreements for consumers is a priority, and our government continues to strengthen these services for our consumers.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Arthur Potts: I’m delighted by the response the minister has given us about this very important area of concern for Ontario consumers.

We agree, and I agree, that lawn care companies make unique and important contributions to our seasonal economy. It’s how I got through university. Most Ontarians have either used such a company, worked for one or they know somebody who had relied on their services in the past. It’s important that we instill confidence in Ontarians that their government is contributing to a fair and competitive marketplace.

I know the Ministry of Government and Consumers Services has a strong history of enforcing fair consumer standards for Ontarians. I tell my concerned constituents in Beaches–East York that when they file complaints, they will receive decisive actions that will be taken up on their behalf. It’s very important that we protect consumers at every stage of these relationships.

Can the Minister of Government and Consumer Services please speak to action the ministry has taken to protect consumers specifically in dealing with lawn care companies?

Hon. David Orazietti: Again to the member from Beaches–East York, thank you for the question. Our ministry continues to monitor this issue closely and has taken action when necessary. In 2014, we received 124 complaints with regard to this particular issue. We’ve demanded that companies are practising good and safe co