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

February 17, 2016

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-Feb-17 (PDF)

L136 - Wed 17 Feb 2016 / Mer 17 fév 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 17 February 2016 Mercredi 17 février 2016

Order of business

Orders of the Day

Concurrence in supply

Introduction of Visitors

Legislative pages

Visitors

Hugh O’Neil

Oral Questions

Energy policies

Climate change

Health care funding

Employment

Waste diversion

Privatization of public assets

Ontario budget

Mental health services

Ontario Anti-Racism Directorate

Human trafficking

Wind turbines

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Climate change

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Visitor

Correction of record

Visitors

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Health care

Post-traumatic stress disorder

Family Day Walkathon

Black History Month

Transportation infrastructure

Council of Ontario Universities

Advanced Agricultural Leadership Program

Blood donation

Services hospitaliers / Hospital services

Supplementary estimates

Introduction of Bills

Commission of Inquiry into Illegal Trade and Trafficking of People, Drugs, Money, Tobacco and Weapons Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 concernant la commission d’enquête sur le commerce et le trafic illicites de personnes, de drogues, d’argent, de tabac et d’armes

Motions

Consideration of bills

Petitions

Driver licences

Privatization of public assets

Lung disease

Health care funding

Health care

Home inspection industry

Driver licences

First responders

Protection de l’environnement

Hydro rates

Hospital funding

Public transit

Health care funding

Privatization of public assets

Private members’ public business

Orders of the Day

Health Information Protection Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la protection des renseignements sur la santé

Waste-Free Ontario Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 favorisant un Ontario sans déchets

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Order of business

Hon. Jeff Leal: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Point of order: Minister.

Hon. Jeff Leal: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Good morning to all the good folks in Peterborough riding this morning. I know they’re digging out from a little bit of snow yesterday.

I believe we have unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice for the arrangement of proceedings for debate on concurrence in supply.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Do we agree? Agreed.

Minister.

Hon.

Jeff Leal: I move that, notwithstanding any standing order, the order for concurrence in supply for the various ministries and offices, as represented by government orders 34 through 40, inclusive, shall be called concurrently; and that when such orders are called they shall be considered concurrently in a single debate; and two hours shall be allotted to the debate, divided equally among the recognized parties, at the end of which time the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of the order for concurrence in supply for each of the ministries and offices referred to above; and that any required divisions in the orders for concurrence in supply shall be deferred to deferred votes, such votes to be taken in succession, with one five-minute bell.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mr. Leal moves that, notwithstanding any standing order, the order of concurrence in supply for the various ministries and offices, as represented by government orders 34 through 40, inclusive, shall be called concurrently; and that when such orders are called they shall be considered concurrently in a single debate; and two hours shall be allotted to the debate, divided equally among the recognized parties, at the end of which time the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question—

Hon. Jeff Leal: Dispense.

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

Do we agree? Agreed. Carried.

Motion agreed to.

Orders of the Day

Concurrence in supply

Hon. Jeff Leal: I move concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Energy, including supplementaries; the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care; the Ministry of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure/ Ministry of Research and Innovation; the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs; the Ministry of Finance, including supplementaries; the Ministry of Education; and the Office of Francophone Affairs.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mr. Leal has moved concurrence in government orders 34 through 40. Mr. Leal.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank all sides of the House this morning for being in a very co-operative mood and for allowing us to move forward with concurrence.

We do know that concurrence represents the Legislature’s approval of estimates for the fiscal year. Concurrence is required for all ministries and offices that have been selected for review; the Standing Committee on Estimates is very important. Estimates of ministries and offices not selected by the committee were deemed passed by the estimates committee and reported to the House last fall, concurred on September 24, 2015, and November 4, 2015.

We’re moving forward with estimates to co-operate, of course, with the committee. It’s a very important part of our parliamentary democracy established years ago by Westminster, when various government departments would come forward to be reviewed by a standing committee on estimates to peruse the money that’s being spent—of course, by the government of Ontario and various ministries that will impact north, south, east and west.

We’ll have the opportunity to look at a number of things through estimates, a very important committee. At that time, suffice to say, with those introductory remarks it will allow us to move forward.

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

Mr. Yvan Baker: It’s a pleasure to speak to this important issue today, to talk about the concurrence in the estimates. When I think about why we’re here, I think we’re all here to make a difference for our communities and improve the quality of life of the people that we represent. Fundamental to doing that is making sure that we’re allocating funding to those priorities. That’s really what this is all about.

What I’d like to do today are a few things: I want to go over a few points just for the sake of the viewers at home and to refresh our own memory about what concurrence in the estimates actually is, to revisit that estimates process and recap what has happened so far this fiscal year. I will also discuss the Supply Act and how it relates to concurrence in the estimates and why it is important.

Also, I will take a bit of time to outline some of the achievements of the past year, time permitting, to help provide some context for the discussion, and ultimately to refer back to what I said at the beginning, which is how the estimates help us achieve our goals of making a difference in the lives of the people that we represent.

Let me just give some background again on what concurrence in the estimates is, for the folks at home. Concurrence basically represents the Legislature’s approval of the estimates for a fiscal year. In this case, we are discussing concurrence for the 2015-16 fiscal year, so the fiscal year that ends March 31, 2016—in a month and a half or so.

Concurrence is required for all ministries and offices that have been selected for review by the Standing Committee on Estimates. Estimates of ministries and offices not selected by the committee were deemed passed by the estimates committee, reported to the House, and received and concurred in, in this case, on September 24, 2015, and November 4, 2015, respectively.

For the 2015-16 fiscal, the committee selected seven ministries and offices for review. On November 26, the committee on estimates filed its report with the Legislative Assembly on its review of the estimates of the following ministries: the Ministry of Energy; the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care; the Ministry of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure; and the Ministry of Research and Innovation. On November 30, the committee selected for consideration the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Education and the Office of Francophone Affairs.

The assembly’s concurrence in the estimates, which we are speaking about today, represents the approval of these selected ministries’ and offices’ estimates.

The Supply Act would be introduced following orders in concurrence in estimates and, if passed, would represent the final statutory authority for spending by the government in this assembly. So today’s discussion and vote are important steps in approving government spending for this past fiscal year, which will end on March 31, 2016.

I also just want to take a moment to remind members where we are in the fiscal cycle. The estimates for government ministries and offices, volume 1, was tabled in the Legislature on May 14, 2015; volume 2, for legislative offices, was tabled November 3, 2015, and supplementary estimates were also tabled in the fall. The estimates set out a comprehensive account of the government’s intended expenditures for the fiscal year and include details of the spending plans that were presented in our 2015 budget.

As we near the end of fiscal year 2015-16, we will soon be introducing the Supply Act, should concurrence in the estimates be reached here. So today’s concurrence in the estimates discussion is really important because it allows us to move forward with finalizing the review of the estimates that has taken place.

The Supply Act is required every fiscal year to provide the final approval and legal authority for all spending for the year. Let me be clear for those of us here who need a reminder—I’m sure most of you don’t, but certainly for those folks back home who are watching: This does not seek any new spending; it authorizes expenditures as reflected in the estimates for the fiscal year that ends this March 31. Today’s concurrence in the estimates must be obtained before the Supply Act can be introduced.

The Supply Act would constitute the final authorization by the Legislature of the government’s program spending for the fiscal year. It would give the government the authority to finance its programs and honour its commitments, and enhance the quality of life for the people we represent.

Let me recall just briefly what some of the estimates we’re talking about today have delivered. When you think about where we were in 2009, in the global economic downturn, Ontario has taken great strides since the fallout from the downturn, which had a devastating impact, of course, on the people of Ontario and many parts of the world. Mr. Speaker, we’re committed to balancing the budget in a fair and responsible way by 2017-18.

Achieving a balanced budget is important because it allows us to support the programs, make the investments and deliver the estimates that allow us to deliver those services that the people of Ontario rely on. Balancing the budget will require a relentless focus on finding smarter and better ways to deliver the best possible value for every dollar we spend as we review and transform government programs and manage public sector compensation.

The 2014-15 deficit was $10.3 billion, down about $2.2 billion from the 2014 projection of $12.5 billion. This marked the sixth year in a row that Ontario beat its deficit target. In the 2015 Ontario economic outlook and fiscal review, the government projected deficits of $7.5 billion in 2015-16 and $4.5 billion in 2016-17, and a return to balance in 2017-18. This reflected an improvement of $1 billion in 2015-16 and $300 million in 2016-17, compared with deficit targets laid out in the 2015 budget.

The way we’re going about this, through PRRT, is a process that involves going through every program in government and finding the best bang for the taxpayer dollar to basically ensure that we’re spending money as wisely as possible and getting the best results and outcomes for the people of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, what I want to say in

summary is that this debate today is really important. The importance of concurrence in the estimates today cannot be understated. Receiving concurrence in the estimates would allow the Supply Act to be introduced, providing final spending authority for the fiscal year that is coming to a close. Again, this is not about approving new spending; it’s about providing authority for the government to finance its programs and honour its commitments. This is about approving spending on important priorities, the things that people care about: health care, education, transportation, infrastructure—the things we debate in this Legislature every single day.

I urge all members to support concurrence in the estimates so that the important work on the public services that the people of Ontario care about can be delivered and can be approved.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate? The member from Prince Edward–Hastings.

Mr. Todd Smith: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and good morning to you on another snowy morning in the greater Toronto area, and likely across most of Ontario as well. I will be speaking a little bit about my occasions in the chair during estimates committee, but I would like to just back up and talk about what has occurred over the last couple of months or so in Prince Edward–Hastings, and more specifically in Whitby–Oshawa.

I spent a lot of the break, when we were back in our constituencies, meeting with my constituents. I can tell you that a lot of the people I met with were doctors—a lot of doctors. Family physicians, emergency room doctors, obstetricians—you name it—I met with all kinds of doctors. And the doctors are furious with this government right now because of unilateral cuts that have been made. So when the member opposite stands up and says, “We’re worried about our health care and making sure that we have proper health care going forward,” they’re not doing what needs to be done to ensure that we have proper health care going forward.

The doctors I spoke with, family physicians who had just left university, have all kinds of student debt, and now they’ve been hit with a unilateral cut by this government that’s making it more and more difficult for them to stay in Ontario. There are a lot of young doctors who want to stay and work in Ontario, but because of the cuts that have been forced upon them by this government, by Kathleen Wynne and the Liberal government, they are now second-guessing whether Ontario is the right place for them to be. These doctors are telling me they would be far better off working in Saskatchewan, in British Columbia, in Alberta. The compensation is better for them there.

They’re fed up with the fact that the Minister of Health here in Ontario goes out to the stand and says that the average doctor in Ontario is making $368,000. I can tell you that the family physicians in the Quinte region aren’t making $360,000, and on top of that, they’re having to pay for their overhead in their offices from what they are making, which is far less than $360,000.

The government would lead you to believe that our doctors are rich, that they’re getting rich out there. Our doctors are leaving Ontario for other jurisdictions.

Mr. Chris Ballard: No, they’re not. Balderdash.

Mr. Todd Smith: Over the last couple of months, I had two doctors leave Belleville to head to British Columbia. The member from Newmarket–Aurora can say “balderdash” all he wants. That’s a fact: Young doctors are leaving Ontario for other jurisdictions because of the cuts that this government is imposing on them. I don’t know if they have no idea what’s going on in their ridings, but their doctors are getting up and leaving for other jurisdictions.

We have a real, serious health care problem on our hands as a result of the cuts that have been made to the doctors’ salaries. Health cuts are happening to our doctors. They’re happening in our hospitals. Quinte Health Care has had to cut almost 200 employees in the latest round of cuts there. It’s happening. For them to try and pull the wool over the eyes of the public is incredulous to me, because it’s happening in our communities. Our health care is being cut.

So they can stand here and they can say whatever they want about investing in health care. It’s not happening. They need to manage our health care system better, not continue to throw money at it and not cut in the places where cuts shouldn’t be occurring, and that’s on the front lines.

That was the resounding message I heard over and over again when I met with doctors over the holiday period: The cuts that they are making aren’t being made in the right places. They’re happening on the front lines in our health care system. Our system is loaded—bloated—with bureaucracy, but are they nibbling away in there? No, no, no. They’re cutting front-line nurses and they’re cutting the salaries of our doctors in Ontario, the people who actually provide health care, yet they’re continuing to build the bureaucracies in our health care system.

I also had the opportunity to spend a lot of time on the ground in Whitby–Oshawa during the recent by-election. I probably went door to door five different days. Some of them were colder than others. Some of them were really, really, really cold; others were not bad. But what I did hear over and over again—and I congratulate our newest MPP, Lorne Coe, who will be arriving in the next couple of days. What I heard over and over again was the disgust that people had for the current Liberal government, specifically the Premier of Ontario.

There was an outrage against the things that have gone on in Ontario and in Whitby–Oshawa: the cuts that have been made to health care, as I’ve documented already, and the rising cost of electricity, and the decision that was made to sell off Hydro One without any mandate to sell it off. People are furious.

You know what? Maybe, finally, the Premier got the message on February 11 that people expect more from this government. They cannot continue to believe this government. If you heard any of the advertisements that the Liberal government put out during the recent by-election—my goodness. It’s unbelievable, what these guys were saying.

The Premier of Ontario—now that coal has been completely phased out in Ontario, an initiative that was actually started by the previous Conservative government and was completed by this government, a decision that was supported by all parties in the Legislature—to phase out coal.

What does this government, what does this Liberal Party decide to do in their advertisements in Whitby–Oshawa? The Premier was saying that if you don’t support the Liberal candidate in Whitby–Oshawa, then the other parties are going to go back to burning coal. That is an out-and-out lie, Mr. Speaker. It’s a lie, and for some reason she was able to get away with it.

Well, no. Hold on. She wasn’t able to get away with it. She wasn’t able to get away with it because—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Point of order: Minister?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I have much respect for my good friend from Prince Edward–Hastings, but I think maybe he’s bordering on language that’s not parliamentary. I want to listen to him finish his speech, so maybe we could just get some guidance from you, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I appreciate your input, and I do believe that the member was questioning some of the legality and truth of statements that were made in Whitby–Oshawa, and certainly it’s up for debate. At this point, I will not cut him off, but if he goes any further, we’ll talk about it.

Mr. Todd Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And you know what? There was debate on this issue in the Legislature when it comes to phasing out coal in Ontario. It was started by the Ontario PC Party and finished by the Ontario Liberal government, and now coal is no longer burned to produce power in Ontario.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I’d appreciate less talk from the peanut gallery, and the member might want to get back in his seat if he wants to yell.

Continue.

Mr. Todd Smith: Thank you, Speaker. I’m sorry for the interruption as well, but he can’t help himself sometimes.

In Whitby–Oshawa, I was going door to door and I would see, stuck in the crack of the door—when a Liberal canvasser had maybe come ahead of me or had gone to a door ahead of me—a flyer there, and it showed large stacks with smoke coming out of them, saying that the only party that was committed to phasing out coal in Ontario was the Liberal Party of Ontario.

I was here in this Legislature when we voted against that, I was here when the NDP voted against burning coal and I was here when the government did, too. You know what? All three parties in this Legislature agree that coal should no longer be burned in Ontario to create power. But what were they saying in their ads? You know what I think? People of Ontario are finally sick and tired of the lies from this party and this government.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): All right. I gave the member some leeway, and now he’s accusing the whole party of lying. You will withdraw that.

Mr. Todd Smith: I’ll withdraw that, Mr. Speaker.

You know what? People just want to hear the truth. They want to hear an honest debate. But they haven’t been getting one. They certainly haven’t been getting it through the airwaves, on the radio stations in Whitby and Oshawa, and they certainly weren’t getting it in the ads that were coming to their door. People want the truth. They want an honest debate about what’s going on in the province of Ontario.

They don’t want these games. They told the Liberal Party loud and clear in Whitby–Oshawa that they’ve had enough of this foolishness, and they sent a PC member to Queen’s Park in resounding fashion. I can’t wait for Lorne Coe to get here next week. He’s going to do a fabulous job representing Whitby–Oshawa.

Going back to electricity rates: Electricity rates have increased 77% over the last five years as a result of the decisions that were made by this government. When we had the Minister of Energy in estimates to question him on what the decisions were, he tried to distance himself from the decisions that were made, in spite of the fact that the Minister of Energy has been a cabinet minister in this government since I’ve been here and before I arrived here. Yet he’s trying to distance himself from the decisions that were made by his own government.

It was unbelievable to hear those kinds of things coming from a minister of the crown. It is the Green Energy Act, which Minister Chiarelli was akin to or a part of, that has created the biggest reason for the increase in our electricity rates in Ontario.

The sell-off of Hydro One: We had an opportunity to question the minister for a long period of time on the sell-off of Hydro One, something that this government has no mandate to do. They’ve already sold off the first 15% of Hydro One in spite of the fact that there has been enormous opposition from the opposition parties, the Tories and the NDP, and there has been huge opposition from the public. Every survey that you have seen, every poll that’s come out, indicates that over 75% or 80% or 85% of those polled are against the sell-off of Hydro One. Yet the Premier and this government bury their heads in the sand and continue.

And you know what they’re saying, Mr. Speaker? They were telling us for the longest time that the money from the sale of Hydro One was going to pay for infrastructure. They were actually telling people out there that the money that was coming from the sale of Hydro One was going to pay for transit; it was going to pay for health care. I know that the candidate in Whitby–Oshawa was going door-to-door telling people that the proceeds of the sale of Hydro One were going to go to infrastructure and to health care. That is a lie. That is another lie. That money is not going to health care or to infrastructure.

That money is going to pay down the deficit. Their own financial statement in the fall indicated as much. That money is not going to pay for one ounce of health care or infrastructure.

Again, they’re not telling the people the truth. That’s the only way that they can get elected because their record is so horrible. This government’s record is terrible. There’s no way that they could actually run on their record, so they have to make things up to make it seem as if they’re doing something productive, or that they’re the progressive party in the Legislature.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The minister is holding court over there. Maybe she’d like to take the group outside. It’s a little loud.

Continue.

Mr. Todd Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now, where was I? We were talking about infrastructure projects. I can tell you that in my riding over the last couple of months I’ve had the opportunity to meet with most of the mayors, councillors and CAOs of my municipalities, and I represent 16 municipalities in Prince Edward–Hastings. They all have infrastructure needs; they all have critical infrastructure needs.

I’m thinking of Highway 62 just north of Maynooth on the way to Barry’s Bay in the Ottawa Valley. Highway 62 is in desperate need of a total remake, a total redo. They’ve applied for money under the Small Communities Fund and the OCIF, and like almost every municipality in my riding, they received a form letter telling them that they had been denied to move on to the next phase to get the funding that they need for the projects that are required in their municipalities. The government will say that they’re putting all of this money into infrastructure. They re-announce the same pool of money budget after budget, but not much ever really gets done.

I know there are concerns in rural Ontario that the infrastructure money that the government has to spend isn’t actually going to be spent in rural Ontario. These are real concerns that the municipal politicians in rural Ontario have and that they’re experiencing. There are, I believe, 78 projects that have been approved by the ministry in the Small Communities Fund. Only 10 of those are actually for infrastructure projects, for roads, and there are a lot of highways out there that need to be replaced.

They don’t have the trust—and you can understand why, given what I’ve said over the last 15 minutes—that this government is actually going to do what it said it’s going to do and spend the money to fix the projects that need to be fixed.

They’re putting load restrictions on Highway 62 right now for the big loads of timber that are making their way in from the Ottawa Valley to be processed. It’s causing a real problem for the movement of goods. We don’t even need to bring up the Nipigon bridge and the disaster that’s happened in northern Ontario there.

They have no faith that this government is going to deliver the funding for the infrastructure projects they need, and they don’t have a lot of faith, if they do deliver the infrastructure money, that it’s going to be built properly. The faith from the public is lacking when it comes to the promises of this government.

As I wrap up, let’s talk about the ORPP. I heard an awful lot about it from businesses in my riding over the last two months. The ORPP is causing more fear and worry out there for small businesses in my community.

Small businesses really are the backbone of rural eastern Ontario. It’s those small businesses that actually create the jobs with the best wages. You think of the McDonald’s jobs or the fast food jobs, or you think of the Walmart jobs, but there are actually business people in our communities—construction, trades—those small businesses where their employees are making good money. There are a lot of those jobs out there. The owners of those businesses are concerned. The employees who work at those businesses are concerned because the last thing they can afford right now is more money being taken off their monthly or biweekly paycheque.

Everything else is getting more expensive. The cost of electricity to heat their homes keeps going up. The people who are contacting my office about the price of electricity are at wits’ end. They just simply can’t continue to pay the increases.

We were talking about Hydro One and the fact that Hydro One is sold. The first thing that the new board at Hydro One did was apply for a rate increase, and they got it. On February 1, the price of electricity went up another 1.9%. Backtrack to the 1st of January, when the Ontario Clean Energy Benefit was taken off: The 10% savings was taken off your residential hydro bill. That was a 10% increase on the hydro bills of every person who gets their electricity, their energy, their heat from Hydro One. Tack on another 1.9% in February. It’s getting to the point where people can no longer afford to pay for their heat and their hydro.

So what does the government want to do? They come in with this plan to take more money off the paycheques of people in their ORPP, when they simply can’t afford it. Businesses want to continue to hire. They can’t do it. A lot of them tell us that they’re going to be eliminating staff as a result of this.

These things are well intentioned, I think, Mr. Speaker; I really do. I believe they’re well intentioned, but they just don’t know how to implement them without causing more damage to our economy and to the people who live and work in Ontario.

Everybody believes that we should have more when we retire. Everybody believes in that concept. It all comes down to the implementation, and the people of Ontario have lost faith in this government to ever get it right.

So let me recap. We had the opportunity to speak to a couple of different ministers—as was outlined by the Minister of Agriculture when he spoke—during the estimates committee. They talked about being open and transparent. There’s another word that we need, and that’s “honest.” We need honesty. We need honesty now from this government. The people of Whitby–Oshawa have clearly indicated that they have had enough of the games of this government. It’s time to get honest with the people of Ontario.

Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s always an honour to be able to stand in this House. This is my first opportunity to speak in this House since we came back.

With your indulgence, I’d just like to take a moment. There was a very serious accident in my riding on February 14, a little bit after 6 o’clock in the morning. Two young men in my riding, Maxime Beaulac and Daniel Germain, died tragically in a highway accident close to the town of Earlton. I’d like to express our condolences to their families, on behalf of all the people in this House. I don’t think there’s any greater pain than having your child taken away in their prime of life. I think the only people who understand a pain like that are those people who have experienced that.

I’d also like to express our thoughts to the driver of the tractor-trailer, a 59-year-old person from Cobalt, whose life will forever be changed by the events of that morning.

Thank you for the time, Speaker.

Now I’d like to talk about what the issue is today. It’s the concurrence in supply. Basically, we are here to discuss a motion that needs to be passed so that the government can pay its bills. That’s basically what we’re doing here—for the folks at home, and for the folks in my neck of the woods, some of whom do listen at home. You have to try really hard, because you can’t get it on TV in my part of the world. You really have to be dedicated to look at this at home.

Part of this process is called the estimates. The government did a good job of explaining how it’s supposed to function. It comes from the Westminster process. What it really is supposed to do is—the legislators get to pick a few ministries, and we get to grill the ministers on questions of the day, questions that should be important to their constituents, questions that are important to their constituents. The ministers do their best to answer the questions or to evade the questions. I think that’s a fair statement.

The problem with that process, and the problem we have come to recognize with this whole process, is that this government seems much more interested in the public relations aspect of government than actually the governance aspect of government. There’s a big difference, Speaker. There’s a huge difference.

One of the ministries that came up before us was energy. Energy is a huge issue in this province. In my riding, it’s number one or number two, mainly because of the cost of electricity. It’s an essential service. There are lots of people in my riding who have no access to natural gas. They have access to heating oil, and heating oil has gone down a little bit, but for the last couple of years, it has been very expensive. They have to heat with hydro.

I felt sorry for the people last week in Toronto when it was minus 26 because it’s humid down here at 26. But when it was 26 below in Toronto last week, it was 44 below in front of my house. You know what? I burn with wood. My house is pretty warm. But when I’m 75 or 80, I won’t be able to burn with wood anymore. The only thing I’ll be able to use, and the only thing that many of my constituents can use, is electricity, and the cost keeps going up and up and up and up.

This government’s biggest move on electricity has been to announce the sale of Hydro One. Now, there are two big problems with the sale of Hydro One. You lose control of your transmission system, which is a huge, huge problem, but you’re also selling something that actually brings money, brings funds, to the government. Anybody who has ever been in business knows that when you start selling the things that actually bring money into your coffers, that’s the beginning of the end. That’s the beginning of the end.

When the dairy farmer starts selling the cows to pay the feed bill, that’s the beginning of his end, or her end. That is also the beginning of this government’s end. It’s a political pivot point.

What’s really, really frustrating is how the game pieces change in this political game. When the Conservatives tried to sell our hydro system and were kind of successful and the people stopped them mid-job, the NDP fought them and the Liberals fought them. Now the Liberals are trying to finish what the Conservatives started, and the NDP is fighting them and, for some reason beyond my comprehension, the Conservatives are fighting them.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Well, do you know why?

Interjection: No, why?

Hon. James J. Bradley: They want to sell the whole thing.

Mr. John Vanthof: Yes, but why is the government going ahead with something so foolish? They’re selling income.

What’s most galling is that we hear from this government that they’re selling Hydro One to pay for this massive infrastructure investment that we are going to do. In my part of the world, we see that the massive infrastructure investment is the closure of the New Liskeard train station—the New Liskeard bus station. It was a train station, but they closed the train; now it’s a bus station and they just closed the bus station.

Again, we go back to the PR part. A few of us in northern Ontario read the Toronto Star and the Toronto Sun, and there’s the UP Express, which cost a lot of money to build and there are no riders. They need to make a few changes to get more ridership.

Miss Monique Taylor: It’s a nice train, though.

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s a nice train.

Miss Monique Taylor: And it’s diesel.

Mr. John Vanthof: And it’s diesel. I’m not that upset about the diesel part, personally.

No one is saying we have to close the UP Express because it doesn’t pay for itself, but that’s what they’re saying about buses in northern Ontario. They closed the train, the Northlander, to save $12 million a year. How many millions of dollars a year could we save by closing the UP Express? Do I want to do that? No. Do I believe that the people in the GTA need a good public transit system? Absolutely. But the people in northern Ontario also deserve an equitable transportation system.

Did I say “equal”? No. Do I expect a subway between Haileybury and New Liskeard? No. Do I expect that seniors in my riding can actually make it to a doctor’s appointment in Toronto without having to spend two days in a hotel? Yes, because we used to have that under this government.

Every time this government talks about an improvement to infrastructure, we seem get a cut in public service in northeastern Ontario. That is what is so frustrating. If they just came out and said, “Look, we’re going to do this and this and this, but it sucks to be you”—but that’s not what they say. What we see and what they say is so much different than what actually happens. That’s what’s frustrating. That destroys faith in all government, because what they’re saying is not what’s happening.

Another one: winter road maintenance. Again, we’ve been doing winter road maintenance for as long as—MTO is 100 years old; we had a ministerial statement about it yesterday. We’ve been cleaning roads maybe not for 100 years, but close to it. I’ve been standing here for four years, and we’ve been saying for at least four years that winter road maintenance in many parts of northern Ontario is not what it was 10 years ago. The Auditor General came out and said, “You know what? That’s true,” and now the government has made some changes. We don’t know if those changes are working yet.

I do distinctly remember saying that with these private contracts—and I’m not against the contractors. It’s the contracts, designed by this government, that force the contractors to bid so low that they can’t maintain the standards.

But there’s a caveat to this. The reason this is going to work is because if the contractor doesn’t make the standard, we can fine them. We’re going to fine them. Yesterday we read in some of our esteemed newspapers that emanate from the GTA that the government would like the contractors to go to arbitration, because they’re not paying their fines. So, again, why does this government continue to say things that they know aren’t going to happen?

Health care: I listened to the Premier and I listened to the Minister of Health saying that there are no cuts in health care, that everything is fine: “We’re making adjustments. We’ve got a new focus. We’ve got all these things.” Hospital budgets are frozen in my riding, as they are in other ridings. When you freeze something, when you freeze the top line and everything else is rising, you leave these people no choice: They have to make cuts. I get people coming into my office who have cuts in home care. They have to wait months and months for basic surgical procedures.

Yet this government stands there and says, “No, no, no, you guys are all wrong. You don’t understand. You don’t know what’s going on.” That is not the truth. The people of Ontario do know what’s going on, and what’s going on isn’t the same as what the government says is going on.

I’m going to give you another prime example, and we’re not going to agree with the PCs on this one. We believe that people should have a good pension. We believe that. No one thinks about a pension when they’re 30 or 40. But when we have people coming to my office when they’re 60 or 65—and especially now, when there are more precarious part-time jobs than ever before, and you’re never going to get a pension on a part-time job. So the government comes out: “We are going to have the ORPP, and it’s going to be fantastic. Vote for us, folks.” Again, you know what? It sounds perfect.

Do you remember the ads? Do you remember the ad where the guy is running over the stream? There’s the bridge, and then he’s jumping. You remember that? He’s just jumping—

Ms. Sylvia Jones: The bridge was actually still up.

Mr. John Vanthof: Yes, and the bridge is building as he’s going. Well, guess what? They have now delayed it for a year. Is the next ad going to be the bridge coming back? No, that ad is not coming down the pipe, folks.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Some $600,000 for that.

Mr. John Vanthof: Some $600,000 for that, during the election campaign.

But that’s the problem. They say they do things for PR purposes and, a lot of the time, with very little intention of actually proceeding. They’re more interested in playing political games, and that is hurting the people of Ontario. The people of Ontario know that things are not getting better.

I think I speak for parents across the province: It’s every parent’s dream to have their children do equal or better than they’ve done—financially, physically, mentally. Waves of immigrants have come to this province with that goal in mind, and they’ve succeeded—many, including my parents and including my wife. But it’s becoming increasingly obvious that that may no longer be possible in the future.

This government is putting up a facade of all the great things that they’re going to do, and it’s becoming more and more and more obvious that it’s a facade. People, Ontarians across the province, I believe—certainly Ontarians in my part of Ontario are very proud Ontarians, but we don’t believe that this government really knows what’s going on in our part of the world.

When I have people come into my office who are 70, own their own home and are being driven out of their own home because they can’t afford to heat it, that’s not my Ontario. When I hear ads on the radio—I can’t even remember what the program is called anymore. The Ontario electrical—help me out, folks.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: OESP, the Ontario Electricity Support Program.

Mr. John Vanthof: The Ontario Electricity Support Program, and all the ads about how this is going to help. If you have two people in the home and you make under $28,000, I think it’s 30 bucks a month. That is not going to keep people in their homes.

That’s something that has to be addressed. It has to be, Speaker, because those are the people I represent and they are the tip of the iceberg. There are a lot of people who are going to face that in the future, and we need to stand up for those people. Government actually has to be accountable and not just say nice things to keep getting re-elected.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate? The member from Kitchener–Conestoga.

Mr. Michael Harris: Thank you, Speaker; just in the nick of time, I suppose.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to concurrence in supply following our extensive deliberations on the estimates committee. You know, Speaker, the estimates committee provides an opportunity for us as legislators to perform one of the most fundamental of our responsibilities: Government seeks consent on its annual expenditure program.

Of course, the committee is responsible for reviewing the estimates of at least six, but not more than 12, ministries or government offices each year. This year, the committee selected to hear from the Ministries of Energy, Health, Economic Development, Aboriginal Affairs, Francophone Affairs and Finance. Today, of course, I’ll be focusing most of my comments on the deliberations within the Ministry of Health.

I’ve had a great opportunity, as a member over the last four years, to be an active member on the estimates committee. Before I get moving on to this year’s estimates committee, I will say that I recall my former colleague Rob Leone, the member for Cambridge, and I in estimates committee when we were doing the Ministry of Energy. Actually, my seatmate here, Rick Nicholls, the member from Chatham–Kent–Essex, was also with us. That’s really where the gas plants started to come out. We all remember that.

Minister Bentley, the member from London West, was there throughout the committee. I remember that the finance minister then was Dwight Duncan; the member from Vaughan was also in committee. That’s really where things started when it came to the gas plants and filing the contempt motion and all those things, and we’re still seeing that flow through the courts. We talk about it daily: the billion dollars that was wasted on those gas plants.

Speaker, I know you just wanted to hear a little snippet there on my previous involvement in estimates, and I’ll carry on with this year’s estimates committee. I would like to note that I find it interesting that one day before we have the privilege to speak to the concurrence in supply debate and discussions stemming from many days of committee meetings, and a full couple of months after those committee deliberations concluded—it was just yesterday that we actually received answers to some of the committee members’ outstanding questions, questions that were left unanswered until the day before we’re going to discuss the committee’s work.

As usual, we see this government waiting until the last minute to provide the answers we deserve as elected members and that the people of Ontario deserve as taxpaying members of this province. The answers that we did receive, both in committee and sent across in emails, continue to raise the concerns that brought our questions forward in the first place.

I think back to the hours we devoted to considering the Ministry of Health estimates and to the questions from my colleague from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound with regard to this government’s cut to physiotherapy. He noted the first-hand stories from seniors telling him they’re not getting the services. The fact is, Speaker, as my colleague will say, the number of appointments was cut back to 12. They used to maybe get around 40, and of course they’re getting 12 now.

I had an opportunity to host a round table in my riding some time ago on this, and we heard about some of the significant concerns from folks who were recovering from—whether it be a fall—who were getting individualized care and were now forced into a group. They were actually falling back in terms of their progress. He added that it’s not an increase in service; it’s actually a decrease. Despite the contentions of ministry staff at committee, I would have to say that my basic math would also indicate that going from 40 appointments down to 12 is actually a decrease.

Further concerning during our meetings with the Ministry of Health were issues my colleague aired with regard to Alzheimer’s and other dementias. Specifically, he was wondering about the target set in 2013 to implement a prevention program to help seniors living with Alzheimer’s and other dementias. A series of four more questions were asked about this prevention program, and we are still waiting for answers—again, yes, waiting.

He asked how many of the targeted 629 long-term-care homes in Ontario have implemented this program to date. How much was targeted to allow them to implement these programs to date? How much was actually spent of what they had actually budgeted to do? And if you didn’t spend all of the money, then where did the money go? Speaker, I regret to report that those questions are still unanswered. In fact, in the set of answers to outstanding questions we received yesterday, we were told that “the ministry is not clear on the specific initiative being referred to.”

Here we are, months after my colleague asked the questions, with no answers and with continued concerns on where our money is going at the Ministry of Health and why that money seems to be failing to address our health care priorities—in this case, the long-term-health-care needs of our senior citizens impacted by dementias and Alzheimer’s.

It was a similar set of concerns that I attempted to address in questioning the minister and his staff with regard to rare-disease access to treatment here in the province of Ontario. I asked the minister about patients suffering from EDS and the working group he formed after we first wrote him letters on behalf of Ontario residents suffering from EDS. While the minister did indicate that a working group would be reporting back to him, I would note that I also asked if he or his staff could provide upcoming meeting dates and timelines. After going through yesterday’s package of outstanding questions, I would have to say that one is still outstanding and I’m waiting for that information.

I ask the question because, again, we have concerns on this side of the House on the spending of our health care dollars and ensuring that they go to provide Ontario residents with the access to public health care treatment that they expect and that, in fact, they deserve. For far too long, rare-disease sufferers, those who suffer from EDS or PKU—those patients I mentioned to the minister among them—have faced endless hurdles to diagnosis, to referrals or out-of-country treatment by approved medications due to their smaller numbers and higher relative treatment costs.

The fact is, these are people of Ontario just like you or me, and the higher cost shouldn’t mean that rare-disease sufferers are abandoned by a government that leaves them to fund their own medical expenses.

I’m hopeful that will change, hopefully in time for our next series of estimates meetings, where the minister can detail the new provincial strategy for rare-disease treatment across Ontario. That’s next year, though. In the meantime, we’ll spend what time we have left this morning to continue discussing this year’s health ministry estimates.

While there was a lot of discussion regarding government investment into nurses and doctors in our province, there continues to be a sense that, despite the response we received at committee, some things are just not adding up.

Our health critic from Elgin–Middlesex–London asked about cuts to doctor services, indicating a total of “over $815 million alone to doctor services being cut from this government.” Again, concern remains in that area, as the minister contended, “I would argue against any characterization of what took place as ‘cuts.’” Yet, despite the denials, we continue to see evidence to the contrary.

Of course, we see the same thing when it comes to cuts to our nurses: deny, while nursing positions continue to be slashed at hospitals right around the province. In fact, the Ontario Nurses’ Association claimed just last month that 770 registered nursing jobs were cut in 2015 as hospitals struggled to balance their budgets.

Those layoffs show no sign of stopping this year either. I know there was news out of Windsor of nurse layoffs right around the time that we were dealing with our own concerns in the Kitchener area after a layoff announcement at Grand River Hospital: 68 positions eliminated at Grand River Hospital, 68 fewer people to continue the good work at Grand River Hospital to look after the health of the people in our community. That’s too bad, because Ontario can do better to ensure health care is a government priority.

Sadly, we continue to see, both at estimates and every day in this House, the continued toll from ongoing wasted spending that has taken funding from where it’s most needed and led to cuts throughout the province. The Premier was elected on a promise of no cuts to front-line health care workers, and yet again and again we see the complete opposite, with Grand River being the latest to announce cuts: 30 vacant positions being slashed and layoff notices given to 38 others, including nurses.

Make no mistake: These cuts fall at the feet of the Liberal government and its fiscal mismanagement. Unfortunately, when billions are wasted on gas plants and non-existent eHealth registries, it means less for the priorities we all share.

You know, Speaker, I recall, and I was reading this morning, how soon after the election of Dalton McGuinty they brought in a health premium that needed to go to health care to make our system better, and yet it fell to general revenues, buying gas plants that we don’t need and other things that I’m sure we all can remember. Quite frankly, there is an ongoing concern with the way this government handles its money, and the spending choices made for our health sector continue to highlight that concern.

While our questions of the ministry at estimates provided little further information on cuts or nursing job loss, the denials couldn’t hide the fact that this provincial government received $652 million through the Canada Health Transfer in 2015, but only a portion of those funds was put into Ontario’s health care system, with $54 million being funnelled from that transfer to another ministry. So we see what’s going on. We may not have gotten the answers at estimates, but we see it in the real-life layoffs and cuts in our communities.

And we’re not the only ones to see what’s going on here. In fact, as he was announcing the 68 positions being eliminated, Grand River Hospital CEO Malcolm Maxwell noted in a memo to staff that “given the province’s financial situation, I do not foresee the situation becoming any easier.”

The local hospital cuts follow a series of government decisions that have seen five consecutive years of frozen hospital budgets despite a growing population; physician services slashed three times last year, for a total of $815 million; a $50-million cut from physiotherapy for seniors; and 50 residency positions cut, when 800,000 Ontarians are still without a family doctor.

As I said, we may not have received many details from the ministry, but the situation in our health care sector is as clear as the weekly headlines announcing the latest cost concerns.

We’ve had other ministries into committee, of course. We had an opportunity to spend some time with the Ministry of Economic Development and Employment. We’ll not need to look any further than the recent Auditor General’s report highlighting how many of the programs that were brought forward by the Ministry of Economic Development, in fact, invited people to apply for a lot of those grants.

Of course, in Ottawa, they typically give a loan. Here in Ontario, we give a grant. It was a select few that were in fact invited to apply to these things. Many small business people throughout the province always ask, “We don’t have the resources to apply, or to hire high-priced lobbyists to apply, for a lot of these things. How come it just can’t be fair for everyone?”

We saw how millions, if not tens of millions, of dollars were given to companies—large companies, in fact, like Cisco—that recently then laid off people in the province of Ontario. In our own community, we appreciate and value the work that those at OpenText do. But I know there were also questions surrounding the government’s program of financial aid to OpenText, and whether those jobs have in fact been created or not.

We never get a really substantial answer from the ministry in those cases. I know the minister did his ultimate best to explain the programs they did. We also got into the situation over at MaRS and the fact that tens of millions, if not more, have been spent or invested over at the MaRS building, with little to no return. In fact, if you walk over to the building today, you’ll still see vacant space.

I know my colleague from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington had an opportunity to speak to the minister and question him in this last session of estimates, which leads me also to the fact that a lot of the agencies, boards, and commissions that these ministries represent haven’t been filing their annual reports on time. There hasn’t been full disclosure to Ontarians in terms of how their hard-earned tax money is spent.

With that, Speaker, that’s my few minutes on estimates and the issue of concurrence, so I’ll wrap it up with that, I guess.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’m pleased to have a little bit of time on the clock to address the concurrence in supply motion.

Before I begin, Speaker, I want to give a shout-out to our colleague, my partner in good work, in Windsor–Tecumseh. Percy Hatfield is recovering from knee surgery. He’s at home, watching us all on TV intently, so everybody give him a big wave. Hi, Percy. We can’t wait until you’re back in here, and I’m sure—

Mr. Randy Hillier: Is he really watching?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: He is; he was texting us. I’m sure that if he had the ability today to stand and speak to the supply motion, he would have something prophetic or even poetic to say. I will be maybe a lot more crass in my remarks here.

Frankly, the government, to this point, has continued on a pattern of failing this province in every measurable way, and people are seeing it more than they ever have. Perhaps it’s because we have an old, tired government—14 years. You get stale. You get into a pattern. We’re seeing it time and time again, where backbench members can yell total nonsense from their seats, not making one solid, valid point, and not standing up and adding to this debate. People outside of this place are seeing it. They’re seeing a government with no vision, with a reluctance to consult with the people that are affected by their policies.

I’ll give you one fact here. This is a fact that’s disputable: Today it’s reported that the government and the finance minister will release the budget next week. We had pre-budget consultations. They went into various communities across this province. They came down to Windsor, and I’ll talk about that a little bit. But the budget will be released and presented in this House without having the finance committee submit a report to this House—

Interjection: Not tabling it.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: —without tabling a report that encompasses the thoughts, the visions, the concerns of all Ontarians. You are ignoring completely the time that went into that. Frankly, you don’t care about what the people in this province are concerned about. You’re ignoring it completely. You’re signalling that through introducing this budget. To argue that fact, Speaker, is indisputable.

So what does that say to people in our communities? It says, frankly, that they know best. They know what the priorities of this province should be. They don’t care about consultation; they don’t care about the issues that our communities face. One of the issues we heard through the budget deliberations in the finance committee was that access to health care, one of the fundamental pillars of our society and our province, is becoming less and less accessible. People are concerned about primary care. The ability to find a doctor in their community still looms heavily, especially in remote and rural areas of this province, where doctors are reluctant to set up.

The access to long-term care: Seniors can’t find a bed, a place to go. Despite all of the rhetoric we hear from the government on making any progress or effort on that, there still is a crisis. Long-term care, where we know there has to be an emphasis on investment, continues to drag along and to not play the vital role in the system that we know it could, because the government continues to play games with our overall system, given and juxtaposed under a Ministry of Finance that has frozen health care spending for the last five years. In real-term, real-day dollars, that’s an absolute cut.

Small and medium-sized hospitals are faced with stagnant budgets and increased costs. What are they to do? They’ve cut everywhere they can. I can tell you, I’m working with our health care leaders and administrators in Windsor and Essex county, and they’ll show you the books. They’ll show you where they’ve made the most efficiencies. In fact, any metrics will show you that they are very efficient in the overall delivery of health care. Given that they can’t run a deficit—they’re mandated, legislated, not to run a deficit—they have to cut front-line care, and that is directly on your conscience, or it should be, because it affects the health outcomes of our constituents in our communities.

We’re seeing it every day. We’re hearing the calls, but it’s a government that doesn’t care, and that’s again reflected in the fact that they won’t even table the report from the finance committee before they release the budget. We don’t know what’s going to be in there, we don’t know what their priorities are, but we can ensure and we can be assured that they certainly won’t reflect the needs and desires of Ontarians.

Speaker, I think you’re giving me a little bit of a head nod because time is running—one or two minutes; it’s tough to judge.

I’ll give you one example of where we’ve seen the fiscal prudence of this government. This highlights, again, how inept they’ve been. The Pan Am Games, by all accounts from the government and the minister of the Pan Am Games, were wildly successful. We learned, after the Pan Am Games ended, that the government saw fit to commission a hair salon for athletes at the Pan Am Games to the tune of $140,000 for two months. Is that how much it actually cost? In your mind, is that what haircuts cost these days? Folks in my area certainly aren’t paying their salons $140,000 or $70,000 a month for access to beauty supplies. Maybe some members of the backbench actually think that’s reasonable.

On an annualized basis, that’s $840,000. I asked the CEO of Windsor Regional Hospital, David Musyj, “What would you do with an extra $840,000?” He said, “I would apply it directly to front-line care.” That’s where the priority is on the ground in communities, but by the Liberals’ standards, they think it’s important to ensure that there’s access to manicures, pedicures and haircutting services, not front-line nurses. How do you live with yourselves when your government is making decisions like that, and how do you go back to your communities and actually make a case for a hair salon to the tune of $140,000?

It’s reprehensible and it’s an indication of a total collapse of confidence in this government and their fiduciary responsibilities.

Debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Just before we begin, I’d like to mention to all members that we’ve got a very long list of introductions to do, so I would ask that you make your introductions and only your introductions, and we’ll get through this all together. We also have to introduce our pages, and we’re doing a special tribute today. The more we all co-operate and get this done, the better and the quicker.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Robert Bailey: I would like to introduce Mrs. Pat Bhola, the mother of one of our pages today, Tristan Bhola, from Sarnia–Lambton.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: We have representatives from Ontario credit unions here with us today who held a breakfast this morning and are meeting with MPPs during the course of the day.

I would like to welcome Antero Elo from the Finnish Credit Union; Brent Zorgdrager from the Mennonite Savings and Credit Union; Kerry Hadad from Your Neighbourhood Credit Union; from Libro Credit Union, Steve Bolton, Fred Blaak and Ralph Luimes; and from Momentum Credit Union, Malcolm Stoffman.

Also, I would like to welcome Megan McIver. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: I’d like to welcome a proud mother from the riding of Chatham-Kent–Essex, Rima Mastronardi, who’s here today to watch her daughter Delaney, who is our page captain. The Mastronardis are a proud page family, as I recall having the honour of introducing them a few years ago when their daughter Dominique was a captain. Rima is joined today by her friends Deeanne and McKenzie Cervini. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

M me France Gélinas: I too had the pleasure to meet with representatives of the credit unions. I want to welcome Taras Pidzamecky as well as Antero Elo—one is from the Ukrainian Credit Union and the other from the Finnish Credit Union. Very interesting talk. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Reza Moridi: It’s a great pleasure to introduce page captain Laura de Souza’s family: her mother, Connie de Souza; her father, Jan de Souza; and her brother, Nicholas de Souza. They are in the public gallery. Please join me in welcoming them to the House.

Mr. Todd Smith: I’d like to welcome a few special guests today. We have Eben James, Sr.—his lovely wife Gwen is here—and Eben James, Jr. in the gallery as well, with a lot of other guests from Quinte West.

Mr. Wayne Gates: I’d like to welcome my hard-working staff to Queen’s Park today: Shannon Mitchell, Josh Upper and Ryan Donnelly. Welcome.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: I’m very pleased to welcome, in the gallery, the mother of our page from the wonderful riding of Ottawa–Orléans, Mrs. Robin Boulé.

I would like to welcome our page, Jordan Boulé, who will be with us for two weeks.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I’m very excited today because it rarely ever happens. We have a page from Nepean–Carleton: Julia Robertson. Today, we are joined by her father, Glenn Robertson, one of my constituents.

We would like to welcome you to Queen’s Park. Thank you for getting out of all the snow in Ottawa today to join us here in Toronto.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Today, I’d like to welcome Marty Gillis and Susan Stockwell Andrews of the Windsor Family Credit Union, who are joining us today here at Queen’s Park. I hope you didn’t have too much of a snowy ride up.

Hon. Jeff Leal: In the members’ west gallery today is Bob Lake, who’s a director of Kawartha Credit Union and the former president and chief executive officer of Peterborough utility services.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I would like to welcome Liliana Mateus-Jimenez, the mother of page Sarah Mateus-Jimenez, who is in the public gallery today.

Hon. Reza Moridi: It’s a great pleasure to welcome the Council of Ontario Universities sitting in the members’ gallery, who are here today at Queen’s Park for their Research Matters event. I hope to see all members at the event this evening.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I’d like to welcome the Quinte region here today—and thanks for being here—specifically Mrs. O’Neil and her family; Mayor Jim Harrison and his wife, Janie; former mayor Williams and his wonderful wife; a number of councillors; and, of course, former member George Smitherman. And I’d be remiss if I did not introduce my wife, Diane, in the members’ gallery. Welcome.

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I’d like to introduce students from Halton to Queen’s Park today. There are students joining us from Holy Trinity Catholic Secondary School in Oakville, grades 9, 10, 11 and 12. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am delighted to welcome Libro financial services. Steve Bolton is here from Libro. Welcome to you all. I have to say that all credit unions are wonderful; Libro is especially wonderful. Welcome.

Mr. Toby Barrett: Yes, all credit unions are wonderful. I welcome them all to the Legislature, particularly a representative from my riding, Ralph Luimes.

Legislative pages

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): As I indicated to you, we have a couple of things to do today.

I’m going to ask that our new pages assemble to be introduced: from Essex, Andrew Garro; from Perth–Wellington, Andrew Johnson; from Ajax–Pickering, Bianca Nicole Padilla; from Niagara West–Glanbrook, Charlotte Fritz; from Chatham–Kent–Essex, Delaney Mastronardi; from Whitby–Oshawa, Dhruv Upadhyay; from York West, Erin Doan; from York–Simcoe, Jessie Popowich; from Ottawa–Orléans, Jordan Boulé; from Nepean–Carleton, Julia Robertson; from Richmond Hill, Laura de Souza; from Barrie, Luke Bentley; from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex, Micah Tamminga; from London West, Owen Davies; from Thornhill, Richard Fan; from Guelph, Ryan Eggens; from St.

Catharines, Sarah Mateus-Jimenez; from Scarborough–Rouge River, Sayeem Mahfuz; from Mississauga East–Cooksville, Suzanne Uraiqat; from Sarnia–Lambton, Tristan Bhola; and from Trinity–Spadina, Xavier Hollott-Lo. These are our pages for this year.

Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): As is our new custom, we will be introducing a few of our guests: David Warner, the Speaker for the 35th Parliament, is here with us today to pay tribute; and Mr. George Smitherman, from Toronto Centre. George, welcome.

Would members now please join me in welcoming the family of the late Mr. Hugh Patrick O’Neil, MPP for Quinte during the 30th, 31st, 32nd, 34th and 35th Parliaments, who are seated in the Speaker’s gallery? I will introduce a few: his wife, Donna; son, David; his wife, Teresa; daughter, Cathy; her husband, Mitchell; Liam, and family and friends all. Welcome, and thank you for being here.

Applause.

Hugh O’Neil

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent to pay tribute to Hugh O’Neil, former member for Quinte, with a representative from each caucus speaking for up to five minutes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The government House leader is seeking unanimous consent to pay tribute. Do we agree? Agreed.

Mr. Todd Smith: I’d like to welcome all of our guests from the Quinte region who braved the winter weather to get here this morning. It’s a long drive as it is through the Toronto commute on a nice day, but to be here in the wintry weather—it’s great to have you with us today. I think it speaks volumes to Hugh O’Neil that the Speaker’s gallery is packed with his friends and family.

We rise today to pay tribute and say goodbye to “Mr. Quinte.” The best politicians, the best people in this Legislature rise above the petty partisanship that sometimes accompanies this profession, and so it was for Hugh Patrick O’Neil. The respect he commanded from his constituents transcended politics. He was their constant champion and a pillar for his community in Quinte, Trenton and Belleville.

The list of honours is long. He was an honorary patron of the Quinte Symphony, an honorary chair of the Loyalist College Foundation board of directors, an honorary colonel at 8 Wing CFB Trenton, an honorary chair for the Quinte Ballet School and a co-chair for the Afghanistan Repatriation Memorial committee. And he was a former cabinet minister, and that’s why we’re paying tribute here today. He was Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology; then Tourism and Recreation; then Mines; then Culture and Communications from 1985 to 1990. He spent 20 years in this Legislature.

But, first and foremost, he was Donna’s husband, David and Cathy’s dad and grandpa to four beautiful grandkids.

Even after leaving politics, Hugh was still doing his best for the community in both Trenton and Belleville. It was his efforts and those of Quinte West’s then-Mayor John Williams, who joins us today with his beautiful wife, Heather, that brought the Afghanistan Repatriation Memorial to town.

He was also still active here at Queen’s Park as well. He was on the board of the Ontario Trillium Foundation and the Ontario Arts Council. He was quiet about that.

Hugh was active in causes in Trenton that were at the core of the community that he loved so much. While respect for Hugh knew no party lines, Hugh remained a Liberal to the last. Any time the two of us were at an event where I had the opportunity to speak as the MPP for Prince Edward–Hastings—and there were a lot of times where we would rub shoulders at events at 8 Wing Trenton or other charitable events throughout the community—when I was done speaking, Hugh, putting to use his good heckling skills that he probably learned here, sitting next to Jim Bradley for a number of years, would always say in his Irish baritone, “Pretty good, MPP Smith. Not bad for a Tory.”

I also had the opportunity to stand shoulder to shoulder with Hugh at many commemorative events in and around the Quinte region. I always made sure, though, Mr. Speaker, that if I could, I wouldn’t stand next to Hugh if the national anthem was to be sung. I would always try and stand next to Donna. She is the real talent when it comes to singing in the family, part of the St. Peter’s Catholic Church choir in Trenton and a beautiful, angelic voice—Hugh not so much, but definitely Donna.

Hugh O’Neil was a man and also, at times, a monument. He was a touchstone for every politician in the area. Being a new politician sitting on a dais next to Hugh O’Neil was kind of like sitting down the bench from Gordie Howe. I know my colleague from Northumberland–Quinte West would agree. His presence was enough to instruct you on how it was supposed to be done. Regardless of your political stripe, Hugh O’Neil could teach you how to be a pro.

Now I’d like to do something that probably doesn’t happen all that often here, but I’d like to pay some homage to the legacy that my departed friend left on the history of the party opposite. Anyone who stares at the structure that is the first two terms of Dalton McGuinty’s terms of office should be encouraged to dig a little bit below the surface, and if they take a second look at the foundations, they’ll find that one of them is Hugh O’Neil.

In the gallery today we have two of Mr. O’Neil’s former staffers. They are men who are no strangers to this House. One is the former Premier’s chief of staff, Peter Wilkinson, and the other is the former Deputy Premier, George Smitherman, who is with us today. I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that a quick conversation with either of these men will reveal the lessons of public service—character under fire and love of your community—that were so central to the Hugh O’Neil that we all knew. Hugh O’Neil’s legacy extends well beyond Quinte to the profound impact he left on those who worked with him and the lessons they took from their time with him and applied to how they serve the people of Ontario.

As I tried to think of some way to close this out, I wanted to highlight an example of Hugh getting to his feet in this place and representing the people and the place that he loved so much: Trenton. So I decided to read the last question that he delivered in this House. It was the last opportunity as a member of the official opposition, probably right down here somewhere, that he had to question the government of the day. It was November 30, 1994.

Just to set this up, the day that Hugh O’Neil left this earth, he was protecting Trenton Memorial Hospital in his community as part of a rally that was going on there. Keep this in mind as you listen to his last question to a minister, on November 30, 1994.

Mr. Hugh O’Neil from Quinte in Hansard: “My question today is for the Minister of Health. Minister, back in June of this year, approximately 500 people travelled to Queen’s Park from the Trenton area to voice their concerns about the future of the Trenton Memorial Hospital and to ask for your help. At that time we came away feeling hopeful that you would make things happen. It is now the end of November, and we still have not heard from you....

“Based on reports from the fire department, the city’s building department, architects and unions, Trenton Memorial Hospital is in critical condition and the health and safety of staff and patients are at risk as a result. Minister, I ask you to address these matters immediately. What do you intend to do?”

Until his final day, Hugh O’Neil was standing up for his community, and that’s why he will forever be known as Mr. Quinte. Thank you.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank the member for Prince Edward–Hastings.

Further tribute?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: It is my privilege to rise in this Legislature to pay tribute to Hugh O’Neil. I would like to echo the welcome of my colleague to Hugh’s family and friends who are filling the galleries here today. Welcome, of course, to his wife, Donna; his daughter, Cathy; his son, David, and wife, Teresa. I am sure that Michelle, Marleigh, Makenna and Liam would be very impressed to see where their grandfather worked for 20 years, representing Quinte communities from 1975 to 1995.

It is my honour, as a newer member in this Legislature, to both pay tribute and to share with my colleagues and the people of Ontario a bit more about a man who truly knew what political service meant. The word “political” is often used to describe behaviour that is seen as perhaps less than favourable. But in many cases—and, I would like to think, the majority—the pursuit of political life is not about personal gain. It comes from the noble desire to serve our communities and is driven by an effort to do our small part to leave our respective corners of the world better than we found them.

For the best of us, politics isn’t driven by selfishness, but by selflessness and a sense of responsibility to our neighbours.

Taking a look at the life of Hugh O’Neil, it is clear that his kind of politics was the best kind: one that seeks to give back to a community that he was proud to call home, one he was committed to doing all that he could for to make it the best that it could be. To Hugh, community service wasn’t a job or a hobby; it was a calling. It was a way of life.

Whether it was in an official capacity, such as his 20-year tenure here as MPP, or through one of his many volunteer and community service roles over the years, he dedicated himself to the betterment of Trenton, Belleville and the surrounding Quinte region, which, I might add, is a beautiful region. And it would seem richer for his involvement.

Hugh was active in local clubs, boards and organizations, ranging, as we’ve heard, from the Quinte Ballet School to the Ontario Trillium Foundation to the Royal Canadian Legion. He had been awarded the Canadian Forces Medallion for Distinguished Service, which is the Canadian military’s highest level of recognition for a civilian. Hugh clearly was a man who saw opportunities everywhere around him to be engaged with people and to be a part of strengthening the community around him.

In preparation for today’s tribute, it became clear that his dedication to his community and his genuine and caring approach bridged all kinds of gaps, be they partisan—forging lasting friendships with political adversaries—or generational, as witnessed by his work as a teacher, as an educator, as a principal, and the way he embraced his role as a father and a grandfather.

Today, we see that the galleries are full of people from across communities who have come to pay their respects to a great politician and, as history will attest, an even better man. To his family and friends who have made the trip to Queen’s Park for this occasion, we thank you for sharing Hugh with this Legislature and for sharing him with the community.

As legislators, we sit in seats that have been filled by leaders and trailblazers. Hugh was someone who widened those trails for us. His caring, commitment and belief in education, service and community broadened the roads for us in this Legislature and, across his riding, for the people of Quinte region.

When it comes to legacies, it is clear that Hugh O’Neil has left the best kind. His is a legacy of true service and commitment. Thank you, Hugh, for your lifetime of service to the people of Quinte and Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank the member from Oshawa. The member from Northumberland–Quinte West.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Speaker, Donna, David, Cathy, family and friends of Hugh O’Neil—by the sheer numbers here today, I’m not sure who’s left at home minding the place, but thank you for being here.

It is truly a bittersweet occasion for me that I have the opportunity to stand in this place, in this chamber, where our friend and former colleague the honourable Hugh O’Neil served the people of Quinte, and indeed Ontario, with distinction and honour, and to be able to speak of his legacy with a tribute to almost 20 years in public life.

I would speak to Hugh on a regular basis. Sometimes it wasn’t by my own choice. Normally, I used to call him for some advice on issues facing not just the Quinte region but eastern Ontario and Ontario. He called me just as often, usually with a phrase when I picked up the phone: “What the heck are you doing, Rinaldi?” He set me straight pretty quick; he didn’t hold back. He was a huge advocate for his community, something I strive to live up to each and every day.

I remember it vividly: It was on a Monday evening that Hugh had called me. Somehow, I didn’t get his call, and I returned his call around 9 o’clock or 10 o’clock that night. Yes, he wanted to talk to me about Trenton Memorial Hospital. I believe I was the last person to speak to Hugh besides Donna on that evening. I went to sleep that evening after spending, I would say, about an hour with Hugh—Donna, if I remember correctly—and I was just heading to the office the next morning when I got a phone call from the local media asking me for a comment on the death of Hugh O’Neil. I was shocked.

It was about 7 o’clock that morning. I really thought it was some sort of a prank and I didn’t take very lightly to that reporter—definitely not a funny one. I asked the reporter if he had his facts correct because I had just talked to Hugh just a few hours prior.

Hugh began his career as an educator, as you heard. He spent time working in real estate and was an active member of the Kiwanis Club of Trenton, an honourable member of the Royal Canadian Legion, an honourable member of the Lions Club, an honourable member of the Kinsmen Club and member of the Knights of Columbus.

His political career began in 1975, winning the Quinte seat as a Liberal MPP—and frankly, his friends or supporters kept on telling him that he was crazy, that it would never happen. But it happened, Speaker. Hugh spent the next 20 years—six terms, from the 30th to the 35th Parliament—representing his constituents of Quinte and really all of Ontario while sitting on many standing committees, serving on cabinet as Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology; Minister of Tourism and Recreation; Minister of Culture and Communications, and as Minister of Mines.

In 1979, he held the government of the day accountable for the needs for pension reform—you hear that? Pension reform—and gender equality for pay in the workforce. He understood that people should be able to afford to retire after working their whole life, and guess what? After 37 years, we’re having the same debate today.

I remember Hugh sharing with me one of his greatest memories, of which there are many, from his time in office as Minister of Tourism and Recreation. We had the opportunity to travel to Seoul, South Korea to cheer on 169 Ontario athletes who were part of the Canadian team. He beamed with pride as he spoke of getting to watch Lennox Lewis be the first Canadian boxer to win gold in the super-heavyweight category, and many other moments as well. When he returned home, he addressed the Legislature and recounted that experience of being in Seoul with the athletes to celebrate while they were playing O Canada.

During his time in office he had the distinct pleasure, as we do today, to serve alongside long-time actively serving members, like the members from St. Catharines, York Centre, Ottawa West–Nepean, Wellington–Halton Hills, Timmins–James Bay and Simcoe–Grey. I’m sure that you will have lots of memories of Hugh. Hugh’s most admirable asset was that, like every successful politician, he was able to work collaboratively with members of all political stripes for the betterment of his community, including when he worked with the opposition government to rehabilitate Highway 33 just north of Trenton.

Since his retirement in 1995, Hugh continued his hard work for the community. Supporting his passion for the arts, he served on the Ontario Arts Council and the Ontario Arts Foundation. Now each year, the Quinte Arts Council awards two Hugh P. O’Neil Student Arts Bursaries, one each for the public and Catholic school boards serving the Quinte region. He also proudly served as vice-chairman of the Ontario Trillium Foundation.

In 2013, Hugh and the former mayor of Quinte West, John Williams, who is here with us today, were recognized by the Canadian Forces and awarded the Canadian Forces Medallion for Distinguished Service. The medallion is the military’s highest level of recognition for civil service and was awarded for their involvement in spearheading the Afghanistan Repatriation Memorial.

Mr. Speaker, as I conclude, life is short. We need to remember to embrace the good times and special people in our lives. Hugh was one of those special persons. He was my friend, my mentor, someone whom I admired immensely and held in the highest esteem. Hugh loved his community, but he loved his family even more. Donna was the love of his life and sometimes I think she was the MPP, Speaker. He was extremely proud of David and Catherine, and valued above all else the time he spent with his grandkids—and he talked about that.

So Speaker, on behalf of all of us here today, I would like to thank Donna and his family for sharing Hugh with us, not only for the Quinte region but for all of Ontario. The province and the Quinte region are better places to be today because of Hugh.

Speaker, I’m going to take the indulgence, and I know I’m probably going to break some rules, but I hope that you give me some leeway—same with the Sergeant-at-Arms. I want to propose a toast to Hugh O’Neil. His most favourite drink: a glass of ice, Speaker. I know you’re not looking. Hugh, this is for you. Cheers.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank all members for their heartfelt and genuine comments.

As is now our tradition, a DVD and a copy of Hansard will be provided to the family as a sign of our affection and our respect for Hugh and his commitment to the province of Ontario. Thank you for being with us. If you want to stay for question period, be my guests.

The member from Northumberland–Quinte West, you and I will have a talk outside.

It is now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Energy policies

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. The people of Whitby–Oshawa sent this government a very clear message: They are tired of the cost of keeping their lights on. The people of Whitby–Oshawa don’t support this Hydro One fire sale. I heard those messages at almost every door I knocked on.

It continues to be a disgrace that this Premier ignores families across the province. Whitby–Oshawa told the Premier that life is harder under the Liberals because of their hydro policies, but she won’t listen.

Why is the Premier continuing with the Hydro One fire sale despite a very clear signal from across the province and in Whitby–Oshawa that you’re offside with the residents of this province?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Leader of the Opposition is very aware that the building of infrastructure in this part of the province—in fact, across the province—is of critical concern to every community. If the Leader of the Opposition had the opportunity to speak with mayors across the province, including in the GTHA, he would know that infrastructure is number one on the list. In terms of roads and bridges, transit and transit expansion, those are critical investments that must be made now.

I think that the Leader of the Opposition is also aware that in order to do that there must be funding. So the broadening of the ownership of Hydro One, which is a proposal that in the past the Conservatives might have supported, is part of the plan to build that very, very necessary infrastructure.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: Quit the spin. You’re talking to mayors? Over 200 municipalities have passed resolutions saying they’re against the Hydro One fire sale.

In terms of infrastructure, the infrastructure budget prior to the fire sale was $130 billion; it’s $130 billion after. Not a single cent has been added to infrastructure.

So let’s talk about the facts: The Auditor General has said that this government will overcharge the equivalent of $450 each year for every person in Ontario. That is reflected on every bill. That’s about $40 a month per person. Mr. Speaker—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ve tried to simply ask for order. If I’m not going to get it, I’m going to the individuals and I may go to warnings. We’re not starting that way.

Please finish.

Mr. Patrick Brown: The government may trivialize this cost, but to the average family it means a lot. It could mean an extra night at a restaurant; it could mean new shoes for a child at the start of the school year.

Why has the Liberal government made it so much harder for Ontario families to pay their hydro bills? No more spin; no more excuses. Why?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think that the Leader of the Opposition knows that it is critical that we make the investments in infrastructure that municipalities across the province are crying for. They know that if they’re going to be able to grow their economies, if they’re going to be able to attract the jobs that they know they need, those infrastructure investments must be made.

We also know that—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): My comment was meant for all members, not one side.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I understand that in order to make these investments, there are decisions that have to be made that are difficult. We understand that on this side of the House. We also understand that if we’re going to grow the economy, if Ontario is going to stay a leader in economic growth and job creation in this country, we must make those investments. That’s why we’ve made this decision.

In terms of electricity prices, there are programs that we have put in place specifically to address the challenges of people who are on a low income. I hope the member of the—

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: No matter how many times you say it’s about infrastructure, your infrastructure budget has not changed.

Let’s talk about the facts again. This is because of billions and billions of dollars’ worth of your energy scandals. It’s the fact that Ontario will be paying neighbouring states and provinces to take our extra energy. In just the first six months of 2015, Ontario paid $1.1 billion to give away our energy.

Liberal waste and mismanagement are having real consequences for Ontario families and seniors. The consequences are seen every month on Ontario’s hydro bills. Mr. Speaker, will the Premier finally take responsibility? Will she admit that Liberal waste and mismanagement are the only reasons we are seeing higher hydro bills?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, we will take responsibility for the investments that we are making around this province. We’ll take responsibility for the LRT that’s being built in Ottawa. We’ll take responsibility for the four-laning of Highway 17. We’ll take responsibility for the lines that are being built in municipalities across the GTHA. We will take responsibility for the support that we are giving municipalities across the province to invest in infrastructure.

That is the kind of investment that is necessary at this moment. It’s necessary for long-term economic growth, but it’s also necessary for job creation right now: 110,000 jobs a year, $134 billion over 10 years to make sure that we are set, in terms of our infrastructure, to compete globally. We are not competing with other jurisdictions in Canada; we are competing with the world. In order for us to be able to do that, we need to make those investments. We’re making them, and the Leader of the Opposition has no plan to make those investments.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

New question.

Climate change

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, again to the Premier: Since I can’t get an answer on energy, I will try something else.

It has been 10 months since the Premier held her first cap-and-trade photo op. The Liberals told us that details would be coming, but no details. Since then, the Premier and her ministers have made multiple announcements that have reminded me of the movie Groundhog Day: the same non-announcement time and time again.

Families and businesses want to know the true cost of the cap-and-trade plan. George Smitherman, when he introduced the Green Energy Act, said that it would cost about a dollar a day. The Auditor General has since told us that it’s costing people thousands of dollars every single year.

Ontarians deserves to know exactly how much this cap-and-trade proposal will cost them every year. Will the Premier finally provide details and costs?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The Leader of the Opposition knows full well that we have introduced a strategy. He knows that we are linking our carbon market with Quebec, with California and with Manitoba.

But I cannot imagine, in 2016, a more irresponsible position than a position taken by a politician that says, “We’re not going to have a plan to address climate change. We’re going to bury our head in the sand and we’re going to pretend that we can continue to emit greenhouse gases and that we can do that with impunity”—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that sometimes it’s hard to hear the heckles.

This is about taking decisive action. We’ve shut down all the coal-fired plants. We’re taking the next steps. The fact that the Leader of the Opposition has no plan to address climate change—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: That’s exactly what we’re talking about: There is no plan. Everyone in Ontario is asking: Will the Premier finally introduce details to show Ontario that you have a plan? That’s precisely our worry.

The government has talked about cap-and-trade since 2008—not a single detail. You’ve made countless announcements since last April, but no details. We have asked to see an economic analysis of cap-and-trade—nothing. We’ve asked for details on carbon credits—nothing. We’ve even asked the most basic question of what it will cost Ontario families in increased costs for food and heating. Alberta’s Premier released details on the very first day they announced it, but in Ontario, nothing. Why do we get nothing from the Liberals? If you have a plan, you won’t hide it.

Families need time to plan. Businesses need time to budget. Will you provide details at some point, or is this another Liberal secret that you’re going to hide from the people of Ontario?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I trust that the Leader of the Opposition will read our climate change strategy that sets specific targets and demonstrates how we are going to reach that 80% below 1990 levels by 2020. The fact is that the plan is being designed, and as we come up with the design features, we put those into the public realm.

What is really important, and I think people need to understand that, is that underlying this question is an assumption that we don’t need to do anything; that as a society, we can just sit back and we can continue to emit greenhouse gases; that we don’t have to take responsibility for the future of our children and our grandchildren; that we don’t have to do anything more than just sit back and do exactly what we’ve been doing for the last 40 years. Well, that’s unacceptable. It’s an irresponsible position.

We are tackling this head-on. We have made huge advances. We have taken the biggest strides in North America by shutting down all the coal-fired plants. We’re taking the next steps. I expect them to support—

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

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier, and I will give the Premier a third opportunity: The details of the $2-billion cap-and-trade scheme should not be hidden from the public. If this system is to be successful, there needs to be proper monitoring of emissions, credit allowances and trading procedures. The only information we have from this Premier is that they’ve already committed $312 million of money that she hasn’t even collected. Well, that’s a good gesture. It’s well short of the $2 billion in revenue the government has predicted it will collect from this scheme.

When will the Premier tell us what she plans to do with the other $1.7 billion from Ontario families and businesses? Why won’t you just be transparent?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We are developing the plan in a responsible way. Of course there will be allowances. Of course all of those structures will be in place. We’ve released our climate strategy. We’ve made it clear what the targets are. We’ve made it clear how we’re going to be working with Quebec, California and Manitoba. We will be putting those design features out as we develop them.

But the fact is that people in this country, in this province and around the globe are already seeing the impacts of climate change. To be in a debate with a party that has no plan, that has no idea of how they would deal with climate change—and all they can do is present a critique that is hollow at its very, very best.

The fact is, we know that—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We know that higher food costs, extreme weather events, droughts and floods—all of those are related to climate change, and all of those increase costs for families. We’re going to tackle those as a responsible member of the global community.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Health care funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. The people of Ontario have clear priorities, like creating good jobs and protecting the health care that we rely on. People expect their Premier to share those priorities too.

But instead, the Liberals are making deep cuts to health care that we rely on—cuts that mean longer wait times for patients, fewer registered nurses in our hospitals, and less care when people need it the most.

Why does the Premier think patients should pay the price for the cuts to health care?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: First, let me just say that I absolutely share the concerns of the people of Ontario in terms of the need to make sure that services like health care and education are strong. We rely on those every single day. I understand that.

Right now, we are having a real challenge as a country and, quite frankly, as a global economy, to make sure that we have good work for all of the people who live in our constituencies, for all of our residents, and to make sure that our economies grow.

The fact is that we have a plan in place that is tackling those things. That plan does not include cutting health care. That plan includes increasing our health care budget year after year, and—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What increased funding does not mean, Mr. Speaker, is never changing anything. It doesn’t mean that. There have to be changes. We’re dealing with increasing mental health challenges. We’re putting more money there and more money into community care. All of those challenges are things that we are tackling head-on.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the Liberals are cutting hospital budgets four years running, heading into the fifth. Mental health services are being cut in community after community. The education budget has been cut by $250 million, and another $250 million is on the way. Those are real cuts. I don’t know what the Premier’s talking about, but she’s not in reality.

It is a priority for Ontarians to have a good health care system, and it is a priority for New Democrats as well, but it is not obviously a priority for this Premier. Ontarians are already waiting hundreds of days for home care. Thousands of seniors are stuck on wait-lists for long-term care for years. And now, nearly 1,200 registered nurses have been cut from our hospitals in just over a year.

How can this Premier look Ontarians in the eye and say she’s not cutting our health care system?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The fact is that the health care budget has increased year over year. It will continue to increase. The member opposite will see in the budget that there is an increase to health care.

Let’s just go through the hospitals and health care centres around the province that are hiring, Mr. Speaker, that have jobs posted as we speak: the Ottawa Hospital, Hamilton Health Sciences, Orillia Soldiers’ Memorial Hospital, Royal Ottawa Health Care Group, Cambridge Memorial Hospital, Bluewater Health in Sarnia, London Health Sciences Centre, Grand River Hospital and Health Sciences North in Sudbury. Mr. Speaker, there are institutions all over this province who are hiring. They are posting jobs.

The health care budget will increase, but we are making changes. We are changing the health care system to deliver health care where people need it and when they need it. That causes some disruption in the system, but it has to—

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

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the Premier of this province should at least know what she’s talking about when she talks about health care. The jobs she’s talking about are casual jobs. They are unscheduled part-time jobs. Those are not real health care jobs. Nurses are not widgets in this province, Speaker.

The Liberals’ freeze on hospital budgets is forcing hospitals to cut hundreds of nurses and front-line health care workers. That is the truth. You talk to any CEO in a hospital and they will tell you that that’s what is happening. Next week’s budget could bring even more cuts. That’s what I expect to see in next week’s budget.

Here’s what that means to people: When a patient in Windsor or Waterloo or North Bay needs help, the nurse that they need to rely on will not be there for them. That patient will have to wait longer for care.

Why won’t this Premier think about patients for a change and stop her cuts to health care?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Let me just make some comparisons, because the leader of the third party wants to talk about our record. Let’s talk about their record, where the number of RNs in Ontario fell by 3,000 under the NDP government—

Interjections.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They fired 3,000 RNs. We have hired more than 10,000 RNs, more than 25,000 nurses since 2003, full-time positions. The percentage of nurses working full-time under the NDP fell by 3%. The percentage of nurses working full-time has increased under our government by 14%.

Our commitment is clear. They fired nurses. They introduced more part-time nurses. We’ve hired more full-time nurses to the tune of 25,000, including last year, where the complement of nurses working in our hospitals increased by more than 1,000.

Employment

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The patients in Ontario, I’m sure, are not impressed with that minister’s response.

My next question is for the Premier. For most Ontarians, life is actually getting harder. I keep meeting families across this province who are struggling. They can’t find a decent job, and more and more people are trying to survive on part-time and low-paying work, if they can find a job at all. But rather than working to make life better for families, the Liberals are too busy helping private investors turn a profit on the sell-off of Hydro One.

Why is this Premier more interested in helping her friends when she should be working for all Ontarians?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It’s very interesting to me that, in one breath, the leader of the third party talks about the need for jobs, and the next thing out of her is about actually taking actions that would decrease jobs.

The fact is, the investments in infrastructure that we are making are creating 110,000 jobs a year. Those are jobs that are happening right now, never mind the jobs down the road because of the economic growth that that infrastructure will foster.

The fact is that I would expect the leader of the third party would actually be supportive of investments in infrastructure, that the leader of the third party would understand that putting people to work and providing those opportunities builds prosperity now and into the future. I would think the leader of the third party would be very supportive of the opportunities that are created by those investments, the investments that we’re making in people’s talent and skills, that she’d be supportive of that because that leads to economic growth now and into the future.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Regardless of the way the Premier decides to weave her tale, we all know that the way you build infrastructure is not by selling off Hydro One. In fact, that is the worst way to pay for infrastructure. So says the Financial Accountability Officer for this province.

The Premier should actually look at what is happening in Ontario today. Windsor has the highest unemployment rate in the entire country. Young people are struggling to find work and get a good start in their lives, and families are starting to feel like there are two different worlds here in the province of Ontario: There’s a world where this Premier helps her friends get rich off the sale of our public hydro system, and there’s another world where families are falling further and further behind.

People want to know: Why isn’t this Premier working for them?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The world that I live in is a world where we have to make difficult decisions and we have to work on a whole number of fronts. I understand the challenges of people in Windsor, which is why we’re doing everything in our power to make sure that the auto sector and the manufacturing sector have our support.

I was at a plant this morning where there’s green technology that’s being developed; solar panels are being developed and sold internationally. We’re working to support a company like that that’s going to expand. Those are the kinds of companies all across the province—whether it’s in southwestern Ontario or in eastern Ontario or in northern Ontario—that we are looking to support.

The world I live in is the world where we have to make those decisions that are in the best interests of the people of this province. They’re not always popular. It’s difficult to make some of those decisions, Mr. Speaker, but that’s actually the role of government: to make those decisions so we make the investments that are needed today and into the future. That’s the work we’re doing.

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This Premier needs to stop kidding herself. The sell-off of Hydro One is not a difficult decision; it is the wrong decision for the people of Ontario. That’s what it is, Speaker. The people of Ontario have told her that.

In fact, the people of Ontario have clear priorities. They expect their government to protect their health care system and to help create good jobs, but the Liberals just are not working for Ontarians. Rather than helping people, we see a Premier who is focused on helping private investors profit off of the sale of Hydro One. We see Liberal insiders facing criminal charges for their conduct in the Premier’s office, and next week, we will see even deeper cuts to our public services, Speaker. How can this Premier be so far out of touch with the people of Ontario and their priorities?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let’s just look at the facts. Let’s look at what is actually happening in Ontario, Mr. Speaker. Despite what the leader of the third party is saying, 2015 third-quarter results showed Ontario’s real GDP has grown by 0.9%, which has outpaced both the Canadian and US economies. We’ve ranked first for foreign direct investment in North America for the second year in a row. Ontario was the only province in Canada to gain jobs in January. And since the recession, Ontario has created more than 600,000 jobs—608,300, to be exact. Almost 99% of those are full time.

The unemployment rate of 6.7% is beating the national unemployment rate of 7.2%, and we’ve invested more than $565 million in youth employment.

Mr. Speaker, we are working on every front to make sure that we create the conditions for economic growth and prosperity in this province.

Waste diversion

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: My question is to the environment minister. Ontarians are rightly outraged with the waste and abuse of their money by the Liberals’ tire tax agency, Ontario Tire Stewardship. When drivers pay an eco tax on each tire, they expect the money will go toward protecting our environment and increasing recycling. But the Toronto Star has revealed that OTS has been blowing that money on the Liberal government—Liberal golf tournaments, to be exact, lavish stays at luxury hotels, and fancy dinners of elk tenderloin and wild boar chops. There’s only one way to stop this abuse of Ontarians’ money, and that is to scrap the Liberals’ tire tax agency.

Speaker, will the minister commit today to establish a clear legislated timeline to eliminate OTS?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, I’m so glad the Toronto Star is doing its job, because the opposition isn’t. I don’t know where the party opposite has been while this government has been working hard. It presented a bill last year that eliminates the tire stewardship organization over the next year. We didn’t even have a question from the opposition for an entire year on this, and then they had to read the newspaper to realize the government already solved the problem.

Mr. Speaker, maybe the member opposite, who’s so frustrated by the issues of donations from that, could explain why the Conservative Party not once, not twice, but three times took money from the Ontario stewardship organization.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: That has nothing to do with the question at hand. The minister has admitted—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs will come to order.

Please put the question.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: It is interesting that when you can’t defend something, you try to deflect. So we’ll go back to this question.

The minister has admitted that his eco tax programs and agencies are holding the province back from achieving a higher rate of waste diversion. Last November, the minister’s office actually told the Toronto Star that to move forward with reform, Bill 151 would scrap eco tax agencies like OTS. Unfortunately, when reading Bill 151, it’s clear there are no guarantees that this will actually happen. This oversight proves, yet again, that this government just can’t get anything right.

Will the minister commit to closing this loophole and establish a clear, legislated timeline to eliminate all eco tax programs?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: There are no eco tax programs. They are all being eliminated. We’ve already done that. It’s clear that the opposition party doesn’t read the climate strategy. It clearly—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Glen R. Murray: It’s very clear that the opposition doesn’t read the climate strategy. It doesn’t read Bill 151, which very clearly outlines a

schedule over the next five years for an orderly transition. Thank God they read the Toronto Star, because that seems to be the only journal of record.

They complain about donations from Ontario stewardship, but their bagmen are running over there to collect the money. It’s a little bit of a moral conundrum they’ve gotten themselves into, Mr. Speaker. That’s not deflection; that’s painting yourself into a corner. But that sort of is the problem—

Interjection.

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

New question.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question to the Premier: When the government set up a website to ask Ontarians for budget ideas, the second most popular idea was to stop the sale of Hydro One. People of Ontario know that the Hydro One fire sale will drive up their electricity costs while costing the public hundreds of millions of dollars a year in stable, long-term revenue. The Premier desperately wants to distract the people of Ontario from the sale of Hydro One, but beer and wine announcements don’t seem to be doing the job anymore.

Is the government ignoring the people who spoke at budget hearings, disrespecting this Legislature and rushing ahead with early budgets just so it can change the channel on Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I know the member from Toronto–Danforth has been in this place for quite a long time, but he keeps promulgating myth after myth after myth. Speaker, he’s the most myth-taken man in the Legislature—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s too close. I’m going to ask the member to withdraw.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

He should get his facts straight; okay? First of all, in terms of Hydro One, $5 billion will go to paying down debt; $4 billion will be invested in infrastructure. That will not come from taxes. It will not come from increasing our debt, and it will not come from cuts. It is responsible fiscal management. It’s repurposing our assets in order that we can provide more services and more economic development for the people in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Ontarians know that the sale of Hydro One is not about them or their interests. They know it’s about the interests of the Liberal Party and their Bay Street friends. The sale of Hydro One shows a government that can’t think beyond the next election while it ignores the long-term interests of Ontario families.

Will the government finally put the interests of Ontario families ahead of the interests of the Liberal Party and stop the sale of Hydro One?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The premise of the question is that electricity rates are going to be going up in Ontario. They’ve been saying that across the province over and over again. They know that the Ontario Energy Board is the independent regulator that controls prices. They’ve done it before the broadening of ownership from Hydro One; they’re doing it afterwards.

As a matter of fact, legislation that we’ve passed in this Legislature is strengthening the role of the Ontario Energy Board so that if any utility, including Hydro One, is not abiding by the rules, they’re subject to a fine of $1 million a day on the order of the Ontario Energy Board.

There’s stronger regulation, the people of Ontario are better protected and Hydro One will not be able to raise its own rates.

Ontario budget

Mr. John Fraser: Ma question est pour le ministre des Finances. Minister, I know that recently you provided an update to the people of Ontario through the 2015 fall economic statement. In the update, you talked about our government’s work and plans to continue creating jobs and growing our economy. Most recently, we heard that since 2009 Ontario has created over 608,300 jobs.

Minister, like many Ontarians, residents of Ottawa South would like to hear more about our government’s plan. Could you please tell us when the next update on our progress will be?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I thank the member from Ottawa South for the question. Over the last few months, our government has collected over 2,700 ideas and pre-budget submissions. We’ve heard from Ontarians through in-person meetings, online with Budget Talks, in writing and via telephone town halls. In total, there were 20 in-person consultations in 13 cities where we heard from over 700 people.

What we heard consistently is that people want to get to and from work more quickly and spend more time with their families. They want to know that they have secure retirement, and they want a government that will invest in the people of this province while remaining fiscally responsible. That is what we will do in the 2016 budget.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Fraser: I thank the minister for that update. I had the opportunity as well to participate in a tele-town hall with a number of my caucus colleagues from Ottawa where we spoke with thousands of residents in Ottawa. We, too, heard the same thing: that people want a government that they can count on to make their lives easier, one that focuses on the things that are important to them and their families.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, can the minister please let us know what our government’s plans are to do just that, and when?

Hon. Charles Sousa: It’s a good question, Mr. Speaker. I again thank the member from Ottawa South for the question.

Next week, we will be providing an update to Ontarians on how we will continue to create jobs, grow the economy, invest in our young people, combat climate change and build key infrastructure.

As a government, we are focused on working together for the people of Ontario. With the upcoming budget, we will provide a positive plan to do just that.

I look forward to presenting Ontario’s 2016 budget in this very House on February 25.

Mental health services

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Connect for Mental Health, an inexpensive program proven to help psychiatric patients leave hospitals and successfully reintegrate into communities, has been dropped in London. The $106,000 program saved London hospitals roughly $2.9 million a year and provided an overlap of hospital and community care during discharge.

Unfortunately, due to this government’s health care cuts, scandals and the freezing of the hospital budgets for the last four years, this program that saves health care dollars cannot be funded. Due to the financial mismanagement of the scandals of this government, health care services are being crowded out.

Mr. Speaker, how long will Ontarians suffer due to this government’s incompetence?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I appreciate the question. Certainly the provision of strong, high-quality mental health services in the London area is extremely important to this government. In fact, not very long ago, I was proud to announce, with the president of the Treasury Board, a new commitment of $1.2 million in London toward a brand new mental health and addictions crisis centre in that city that will provide crisis intervention for adults aged 16 and up.

This is such an important addition being run by the Canadian Mental Health Association Middlesex, as well as the Addiction Services of Thames Valley. They will work collaboratively, of course, with all of the health care providers within the community providing that crisis assessment, stabilization beds and longer-term