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

November 26, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Nov-26 (PDF)

L126 - Thu 26 Nov 2015 / Jeu 26 nov 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 26 November 2015 Jeudi 26 novembre 2015

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Strengthening Consumer Protection and Electricity System Oversight Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 pour renforcer la protection des consommateurs et la surveillance du réseau d’électricité

Introduction of Visitors

Wearing of football jersey

Visitor

Oral Questions

Health care funding

Climate change

Energy policies

Privatization of public assets

Economic outlook

Collective bargaining

Amateur sport

Environmental protection

Disaster relief

Agriculture industry

Health care

Health care

Research and innovation

Human trafficking

Lyme disease

Visitors

Deferred Votes

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Municipal land transfer tax

Northern economy

Holodomor

Tamil community

Attawapiskat hospital

Interfaith Refugee Resettlers

Thomas Fleming

Hate crimes

Lake Shore Santa Claus Parade

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Estimates

Introduction of Bills

Waste-Free Ontario Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 favorisant un Ontario sans déchets

Motions

Order of business

Committee sittings

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Economic outlook and fiscal review / Perspectives économiques et revue financière

Petitions

Health care funding

Autism treatment

Health care funding

Highway improvement

Water fluoridation

Health care funding

Health care funding

Water fluoridation

Privatisation des biens publics

Lung health

Private Members’ Public Business

Disclosure of Information Relating to the Protection of Children Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la divulgation de renseignements concernant la protection des enfants

Smoke-Free Schools Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 favorisant des écoles sans fumée

Smart Grid Cyber Security and Privacy Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la cybersécurité du réseau intelligent et la protection de la vie privée

Disclosure of Information Relating to the Protection of Children Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la divulgation de renseignements concernant la protection des enfants

Smoke-Free Schools Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 favorisant des écoles sans fumée

Smart Grid Cyber Security and Privacy Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la cybersécurité du réseau intelligent et la protection de la vie privée

Orders of the Day

Energy Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois sur l’énergie

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 25, 2015, on the motion for allocation of time on the following bill:

Bill 144,

An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact or amend certain other statutes / Projet de loi 144, Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre les mesures budgétaires et à édicter ou à modifier d’autres lois.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s always an honour to speak in this House and to speak on behalf of the residents of Timiskaming–Cochrane, the residents of my colleagues from the NDP caucus and, I’m sure, some other residents of Ontario. But today it’s not a pleasure, because we’re discussing the time allocation of Bill 144.

There are those who think that time allocation would be a good thing because, you know, in general, politicians talk too much anyway.

Interjection: Especially those from the north.

Mr. John Vanthof: Thanks for that.

This is a much more serious issue, because the way our democracy is constructed—it has taken hundreds of years to do this—a government is elected, and a government, especially a majority government, has every right to put forward legislation. But in return, the opposition should have the right to criticize, to critique, to debate and try to make that legislation better. The government has every right to put forward legislation, and there is a time-honoured tradition how that is done. It has taken hundreds of years to develop this. It has had a few problems over the years, but generally that’s how it is done.

In years past, one of few tools the opposition had, in a majority government situation, would be to extend debate. One of the reasons that I think time allocation—all parties have been guilty of this; this isn’t a partisan thing. The time allocation tool that’s being used is something that all the parties have used, and it has hurt democracy each time.

But with this one, it’s not only a large bill, but there are issues in this bill. It’s basically a budget bill, and on a regular budget bill, you have to at least extend the debate over 12 days. This is basically the same as a budget bill. It has schedules in it that affect people throughout the province in every walk of life, and yet this debate is being cut off.

I’m the whip for the party. It’s my job to make sure that everyone who wants to speak to a bill can get on the

schedule and express the concerns of their constituents, because the way it works when you’re elected is that you talk to your constituents and you talk to your stakeholders. When legislation comes on to the order paper, and usually this is a longer process, you know who will be affected, you go back and you talk to them, and you say, “Well, what are the issues you want me to bring back to the Legislature so I can talk on your behalf and bring forward your concerns and hopefully ensure your concerns are reflected in the legislation?” That is how it’s supposed to work.

Mr. Wayne Gates: Not here.

Mr. John Vanthof: No, not here, and specifically not today, because in my caucus of 20, I have had three members who have had the ability to speak, only three. I can safely say that all 20 want to speak—because every one of them has constituents who are deeply impacted by the schedules of this bill. But the government has taken it upon themselves to time-allocate it to basically stop not only the members from speaking on behalf of their constituents, but they’ve also time-allocated the committee time. Often we hear from the government benches in their remarks, “Well, you know what?

We need to get this bill through and then we’ll get it to committee, and we can make the changes needed in committee.”

Well, I’d like to do the search on actually how many opposition amendments get passed in committee; but in this case, they’re even time-allocating the committee time on a budget bill. It’s sad, actually. Time allocation is a tool. It’s a tool I personally don’t agree with, that our party doesn’t agree with but admittedly, when we were in government, have used. But if you think of a tool as a hammer, time allocation should be used a little like a claw hammer that you use to build a desk. This government is using it like a sledgehammer to tear down our democracy, and there is a difference.

Usually a bill will come on the order paper. We’ve had bills on the order paper for—well, the trails act has been on the order paper for a long, long, long time. I have people in my riding asking me about the trails act and when it’s going to come forward. But usually something comes on the order paper and you have time to look at it and, like I said, talk to your constituents, and this is a process of months. After six and a half hours of debate, the government can move closure, but this is a much longer process. Usually, the bill has been on the order paper for a long time.

With this bill, the bill was put on the order paper and the boxes were still warm when the government put forward the time allocation motion. This is the most egregious use of time allocation that I have seen in my four years here. They’ve time-allocated not only—even the introduction of the bill. This isn’t a bill about one widget or fixing one thing; this is a bill that is going to change how many parts of this province are run. It’s got big, big changes for labour and huge changes also for the electricity system—the sale of Hydro One and where the money is going. Guess what, folks? It’s in this bill. And how the money is going to be spent: Guess what, folks? It’s in this bill.

What they’re doing is, basically, within a week they are just shoving it through. The question, the big question, is why? When you are in any kind of negotiation—and basically the democratic system, our parliamentary system, is a type of negotiation. When you’re in a negotiation and someone on the other side does something that just doesn’t make sense for who they are representing—because the government is elected to represent the people of Ontario. It is the government of Ontario. What they are doing here doesn’t make sense for the people of Ontario. You have to ask yourself why.

There could be some plausible reason. It could be that the session is coming to an end and the government basically didn’t know how to manage the session, so they’re having to ram this through in the last couple of weeks. Is that a plausible reason? I don’t know; I’m not in the halls on the other side. But we have a lot of contact with some of the staff on the government side, and they are very competent people. We have a very good relationship with them. When you’re on the House leaders’ and whips’ team, you do a lot with the other parties. I don’t think it’s a lack of competence on the other side, not at all; not with the people we deal with. I’m happy to say they are very competent.

Another plausible reason, and I hate to even bring this up, is that someone on the other side, whoever controls this, is basically too lazy to worry about democracy. This is a tool you can use with impunity. The only impunity is pressure from the public. I don’t believe that either.

The third thing it might be is that there are actually parts of this bill that the government really doesn’t want people to talk about and this is actually an effort to hide the true impact of some of these things from the public. The time from when this bill was put on the order paper to the time that it’s going to be through the House, I think, is unprecedented. We have had no time. We’ve called our stakeholders. They didn’t know anything about these changes, and already the bill was in time allocation. The government can say, “We’ve consulted all these people.” Really? Well, they haven’t given the opposition any time to consult anyone, and that is a huge, huge issue.

There could a fourth—am I on three or four or five?

Interjection: Three.

Mr. John Vanthof: There is a fourth thing this could be, and this is probably more dangerous: This government is so ideological that they think that everything they do shouldn’t be questioned. That is extremely dangerous. And quite frankly, it’s extremely disappointing, because this government was duly elected that they were going to be progressive; they were going to be open; they were going to be transparent. Do you remember—this will come back again—that they were so transparent that they were going to release the mandate letters from the Premier to the ministers? That’s how transparent—never been done before.

It’s being done again federally. That was their demonstration: “We’re releasing more information than any other government has done. We’re flooding you with information.” But at the same time they’re doing that, they are ramming legislation through this House that is going to make a huge difference to Ontario, and they’re basically not allowing the people to have any comment time on it. That is a danger to our democracy.

This isn’t the first time it has happened. Someone will scratch their head a couple of years from now: “When did this actually—who approved this?” That has happened before with a government like the one on the other side. Take the Green Energy Act. We voted for the ideal of the Green Energy Act, but it was rammed through so quickly that there are things in the Green Energy Act that are extremely egregious.

In my riding, contractors lost hundreds of thousands of dollars specifically because of problems with the way the Green Energy Act was written. Solar farms are going up all over farmland in Ontario because of the Green Energy Act. Then the government says, “Oh, this doesn’t look like a good idea. Maybe we should have thought this through.” So now it is not allowed on class 1, class 2 and class 3 farmland. But farmland in northern Ontario isn’t classified. So, guess what? On one hand, the government says farming in Ontario is going to be one of the growth centres of the economy of Ontario.

It very well could be; there is lots of potential there. But on the other hand, the best farmland in northern Ontario, as we speak, is being covered with solar farms by this very government. Why? Because they didn’t take the time to actually look at the legislation they were passing, because they are always right.

They are ideologues. This legislation is going to have exactly the same impact. Are there good things in this legislation? Likely some. Are there some very bad things in this legislation—dangerous? Yes, there are. And the very fact that they are pushing this through so quickly is the proof.

I know that in my farm and in my business and everything, when I do something really well—I’m a pretty humble guy, but if I do something really well, I like people to see it. If I do a nice job painting the barn, I like it when people drive by our barn and say it. I don’t try and hide it. And yet, here, they are hiding it. They’re pushing it through so quickly, hoping—it is a very complicated bill. This Trillium Trust stuff, where the Hydro One money is supposed to go—this is very, very complicated, and they are trying to get it through without anyone actually noticing it. That is not the way our democracy is supposed to work.

We are very, very disappointed in the Premier, who promised to be open and transparent and is proving to be anything but. This Hydro One sale and the way the money is going to be handled through this document is a defining moment in her career, and it certainly won’t be a very good defining moment because when you try and thwart democracy, it is never a good thing for the people of Ontario, and we are all here to represent the people. In this case, by time-allocating this bill, the Premier and her government—they certainly aren’t.

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

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I’m going to try to loop back and do a little bit of, “Here is what the opposition does when governments present bills.” This is a time allocation motion that we’re debating. What is a time allocation motion? Basically, a time allocation motion is setting out that we are finishing debate on a particular piece of legislation. In this case, it’s Bill 144,

An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact or amend certain other statutes. I want to loop back to “implement budget measures,” because that’s an important part of this discussion.

Bill 144 was introduced as legislation last Thursday. It has been on the docket, shall we say, for seven days. It was introduced on Thursday afternoon at approximately 1 p.m. We don’t get a copy of Bill 144 until it is bound—printed. That happens the following day. Well, of course, Fridays we don’t sit in the Ontario Legislature, so the first bound copies arrived in our offices on Monday. That would be three days ago.

On Monday, we started debating Bill 144, the Budget Measures Act. As opposition members, when we get government legislation, part of our role is to reach out to the individuals, the organizations and the stakeholders who will be impacted or potentially impacted because, of course, Monday was the first opportunity for us to physically look at it and figure out what it covers.

Bill 144, the Budget Measures Act, has 23 schedules. Schedules generally will mean impacting other pieces of legislation: opening them up and modifying them. Bill 144 has 23: the Assessment Act, the City of Toronto Act, the Electricity Act, the Escheats Act, the Financial Administration Act, the Fiscal Transparency and Accountability Act, the Forfeited Corporate Property Act, the Government Advertising Act, the Horse Racing Licence Act—I could go on for the 23, but I think you get the point, Speaker. There are a number of pieces of legislation that are being opened up and impacted as a result of Bill 144.

So then what we would do, in opposition, is reach out. We would reach out to the city of Toronto. We would reach out to the organizations like the children’s treatment centres that are referenced in

schedule 1 of the assessment, and we would say, “What do you think of this? What are the impacts on the ground? Is this going to help your organization or is this going to hurt it? Is this going to help your municipality or is it going to hurt it?” That’s what we do in opposition. So by the very fact that within the same seven-day period we are actually talking about time allocation and shutting down the debate on Bill 144, you have eliminated our opportunity to reach out to our constituents and to reach out to our stakeholders. It speaks to the lack of regard that the government of the day is showing for the opposition’s role and what we are here to do.

I mentioned that implementing budget measures is a very important part of what I want to talk about. We have debated Bill 144, collectively, all three parties, for less than six and a half hours—so, for ease of math, six and a half hours. If you look at the standing orders—and I know a lot of us don’t enjoy reading the standing orders; maybe more of us should do it. On page 32 of the standing orders, it actually references budget motions and votes and debates related to budget options, and it says “eight hours.” Eight hours is what we have to do. So we could make a pretty good argument that a bill entitled

An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact or amend certain other statutes is in fact a budget motion. We’re not even getting the 12 hours that by our standing orders, by our parliamentary precedents, we would be afforded as parliamentarians in debate. The Liberals have spoken on why they need this time allocation motion for less than 10 minutes. It begs the question: What is the rush? What is the motivation for putting together 167 pages of budgetary motions and legislative changes and then only giving us six and a half hours to debate it?

As my colleague from the third party mentioned, we also are limiting the public part of the consultation. If you read the motion that was brought forward by the House leader, each witness—“witness” is code for “each member of the public who is interested in Bill 144”—will get all of five minutes to drive down to Toronto and talk about what they like or don’t like and amendments they want for Bill 144. I think it’s a real shame that we are suggesting that public members have five minutes and that that’s the maximum amount of interest that we will give them.

So in that manner, I would like to suggest an amendment to the motion for the time allocation on Bill 144,

An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact or amend certain other statutes. It reads:

I move that the paragraph starting “That the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs be authorized to meet” be struck out and replaced with:

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

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

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

“—That the deadline for requests to appear be 4 p.m. on Tuesday, December 1, 2015; and

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

“—That each witness will receive up to 10 minutes for their presentation, followed by nine minutes for questions from committee members; and

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

“—That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be 12 p.m. on Friday, December 4, 2015.”

I will give that to you, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Ms. Jones has moved the following amendment:

“I move that the paragraph starting ‘That the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs be authorized to meet’ be struck out and replaced with:

“‘That the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs’”—

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Dispense.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Dispense. Agreed?

Interjections: No.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): “‘That the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, December 2, 2015, from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and 2 p.m. to 6 p.m., and Thursday, December 3, 2015, from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. for the purpose of public hearings on the bill; and

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

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

“‘—That the deadline for requests to appear be 4 p.m. on Tuesday, December 1, 2015; and

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

“‘—That each witness will receive up to 10 minutes for their presentation, followed by nine minutes for questions from committee members; and

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

“‘—That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be 12 p.m. on Friday, December 4, 2015.’”

Further debate on the amendment?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: All I have done with that—let’s call it a friendly amendment—is to double the time from five minutes for public deputations to 10. I think it’s a reasonable request. Please support it.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate? Last call for further debate.

Mr. Bradley has moved government notice of motion number 44.

Ms. Jones has moved the following amendment:

“I move that paragraph starting ‘That the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs be authorized to meet’ be struck out and replaced with:

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

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

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

“‘—That the deadline for requests to appear be 4 p.m. on Tuesday, December 1, 2015; and

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

“‘—That each witness will receive up to 10 minutes for their presentation, followed by nine minutes for questions from committee members; and

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

“‘That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be 12 p.m. on Friday, December 4, 2015.’”

Is it the pleasure of the House that the amendment carry?

All those in favour of the amendment, please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the amendment will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

The vote will be deferred until after question period.

Vote deferred.

Strengthening Consumer Protection and Electricity System Oversight Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 pour renforcer la protection des consommateurs et la surveillance du réseau d’électricité

Mr. Delaney, on behalf of Mr. Chiarelli, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 112,

An Act to amend the Energy Consumer Protection Act, 2010 and the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 / Projet de loi 112, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2010 sur la protection des consommateurs d’énergie et la Loi de 1998 sur la Commission de l’énergie de l’Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member from Mississauga–Streetsville.

Mr. Bob Delaney: I’m just going to spend a few minutes here at third reading to cover the provisions of Bill 112 and explain some of the benefits of it. This is a bill that’s aimed at strengthening and enhancing the capabilities of the Ontario Energy Board to further protect electricity ratepayers by boosting consumer protection and improving the ability to ensure the continuity of service.

One of the important things that Bill 112 does is to propose legislative enhancements to the Ontario Energy Board Act, which I’ll call the OEBA, and the Energy Consumer Protection Act. These enhancements include some very key elements that consumers have been asking for and that very clearly showed up as being needed. I think the most important one is increasing consumer protection by amending the Energy Consumer Protection Act to include the banning of door-to-door energy sales.

As well, Bill 112 improves consumer advocacy through processes that give consumers a direct voice in Ontario Energy Board proceedings, including enabling cabinet to set requirements. Another thing that Bill 112 does is to reinforce the Ontario Energy Board’s ability to ensure reliability and continuity of service to all consumers in Ontario in the event of a failing transmitter or distributor. Bill 112 also enhances the Ontario Energy Board’s ability to levy penalties for non-compliant activities. It strengthens the Ontario Energy Board’s oversight of utility transactions and structures.

It lends clarity to relationships among local distribution companies and their affiliates, and it provides tools to cabinet to ensure that critical transmission infrastructure gets built.

The focus of this is and always has been putting energy consumers first. The legislation strengthens and enhances the Ontario Energy Board’s role, as I’ve just described, and ensures that it has a robust series of measures and procedures in order to regulate the energy sector effectively and to provide consumer protection.

If passed, these changes would provide the Ontario Energy Board with stronger compliance and enforcement powers by increasing the penalties that could be levied against companies that are not complying with the OEB’s legislation, rules and directions. In short, if the Ontario Energy Board makes a ruling, we need that ruling to have teeth. It enhances the ability to ensure reliability and continuity of service if distribution or transmission companies are unable to fulfill their licence obligations. Bill 112 enhances oversight to ensure best practices on utility consolidation activities.

I think the most important thing to continue to repeat on utility or local distribution company consolidation is that they are going to be love marriages among willing participants.

If passed, this legislation would enable the Ontario Energy Board to give consumers a stronger voice in Ontario Energy Board hearings and proceedings. If passed, Bill 112 would enhance consumer protection for those who sign energy retail contracts by doubling the cooling-off period to 20 days from 10 days and requiring that all contracts are subject to a verification process.

In other words, when you sign up for something on the Internet or you want to make a material change, there’s a little pop-up box that says, “Are you sure you want to do this?” That’s the only change that this is making: It’s going to make sure that consumers get that second chance—to say, “Are you sure that this is what you want to do?” Once enacted, Bill 112 will enable the province to do something that consumers have been requesting for a long time. If passed, this legislation will ban door-to-door sales of retail electricity and gas contracts.

The proposed legislation will also enable the province to identify priority transmission projects in order to ensure that critical transmission infrastructure actually gets built in a timely manner.

Let’s go into a few more of the details in the few minutes that I have left. The proposed Strengthening Consumer Protection and Electricity System Oversight Act also includes changes to the Energy Consumer Protection Act, which was passed in 2010. This would, as I mentioned earlier, prohibit electricity retailers and gas marketers from selling energy retail contracts at the consumer’s home while still allowing retailers and marketers to engage in advertising activities at the door. In other words, you can hand people information but you can’t close the deal at the door.

The ministry and the Ontario Energy Board are also proposing to more strictly govern door-to-door marketing activity. As members of the Legislature, we have, I’m sure, all had hands-on experience with this, where—normally at dinner time, it seems, in our neighbourhood—somebody rings the doorbell and you go to the door and there’s somebody who has got a plastic laminated tag. I’ve looked at a few of them and I’ve thought to myself, “Boy, that looks suspiciously like it could be either Enersource or Ontario Power Generation or something like it,” including a few who’ve actually had tags that say that they are with Ontario Hydro, which is an entity that hasn’t existed in some 15 years.

I would listen to some of the spiels, some of which would say, “And the government is forcing us to do this.” There were a few of them that I would say, “Really? I’m the government. Tell me how it is that I’m forcing you to do this.” And then a lot of them would start hemming and hawing. On a few of them, I said, “I’ll tell you what. Let me call the Peel Regional Police. You just stay right here. Let’s wait until the police come,” and—boom! most of them are gone.

So it’s this stuff that’s on the fringe of what’s actually legal and certainly over the line in what’s ethical that this act aims to stamp out once and for all. By banning sales at a consumer’s home, this legislation would protect consumers from very aggressive sales tactics in which people come in and say, “Can I see your gas bill? Can I see your electric bill?” As speaker after speaker, on all sides, has said to Ontarians, “If somebody comes to the door and asks you to produce your gas bill or your electricity bill, close the door; send them packing. End the transaction right there. You know for sure that you are being had.”

This would also allow for a more considered decision-making process prior to signing up for an energy contract. There were a lot of people who said, “Just ban the entire thing.” Ontario has not gone that far, but what the province has said is that they can’t come to the door, engage in a high-pressure scheme, have you produce your bill, copy down the measures from your bill and then suddenly a month or two later you find that you’ve been signed up to a contract that you aren’t sure whether or not you agreed to. That’s done; that’s not going to happen anymore, and if you find that it does, you’re going to have measures to get out of it.

There are also a number of other proposed amendments to enhance consumer protection. For example, stricter parameters are being proposed around contract verification. You’ve got to make sure that you are saying yes, after the person has left, to what the contract actually is, not what they were trying to make you believe that it is. Currently, only contracts signed in person are subject to a verification process—as if there’s no fraud on the Internet. Proposed enhancements would ensure that all contracts, including Internet contracts, are subject to the same process.

There are also proposed amendments to extend the cooling-off period during which consumers can cancel an energy contract without penalty, moving it from 10 days after the fact to 20 days after the fact.

As well, the legislation includes proposed changes to the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, which would provide the Ontario Energy Board with the ability to levy higher and more flexible penalties for contravention of its rules and legislation. What this means is that some of the companies that have people come to your door with this type of high-pressure sales tactic can say, “Well, you know, so let’s do it. What are they going to do: give us a tap on the wrist?

Then we just change all those phony-baloney tags our people are wearing and give them a different-coloured vest that still looks something like it and send them out again.” No. This time it has got teeth. This time it gives the Ontario Energy Board the ability to say, “And we mean it.”

The legislation advocates strongly for consumers by proposing legislative enhancements that would allow the Ontario Energy Board to establish measures to enhance the current representation of the interests of consumers in OEB proceedings. This would provide additional opportunities for consumers to make a representation before the Ontario Energy Board.

Currently, the legislation restricts the business activities of affiliates of municipally owned local distribution companies—for those of you who come from where I come from, this means Enersource—but it doesn’t include any such restrictions on the business activities of non-municipally-owned local distribution companies. Proposed enhancements would remove the restrictions on the business activities for affiliates of municipally owned local distribution companies, putting them on the same footing as privately or provincially owned local distribution companies. In layman’s terms, we want a level playing field and a fair and equitable set of rules; that’s what this bill proposes.

Currently, legislation provides the Ontario Energy Board with powers to ensure that continuity of service for distribution company customers would carry on in the event of an emergency. Under the proposed legislative enhancements, these powers would also be extended to transmission companies. In addition, some enhanced powers to help head off a potential emergency have also been introduced—again, some experience with what is happening in other jurisdictions and what we can very clearly see by being able to look at some of our experience here in Ontario.

The current legislation requires the Ontario Energy Board to examine a transaction that allows someone to gain more than 20% control of the voting securities of a transmitter or distributor. The proposed legislative enhancements reduce this to 10% to account for more widely held ownership anticipated in the future. In addition, the proposed legislative amendments would require that distributors maintain their head offices and records here in Ontario.

Currently, if a transmission project is identified as a priority project in the long-term energy plan as approved by cabinet, the Ontario Energy Board must re-evaluate the need for these projects when they apply for approval from the board, which is repetitive. The proposed enhancements would provide cabinet with the clear authority to identify priority transmission projects and eliminate the need for the Ontario Energy Board to spend further time on the basic principle of need.

All other elements of the Ontario Energy Board’s existing approval processes, including reviewing costs for prudence and allocation, would, however, remain in place. This measure would help to reduce the duplication of work between the Ministry of Energy and the Ontario Energy Board in moving forward in building key transmission infrastructure here in Ontario. In other words, once the work is done by one party, it’s deemed to be done by the other party.

A few final remarks: The protection of Ontario’s energy consumers remains the top priority of this bill. Energy consumers are better protected today than they were five years ago before the Energy Consumer Protection Act came into effect. Since the Energy Consumer Protection Act’s implementation in 2011, the number of complaints against retailers has decreased significantly. In other words, the act has some teeth. We’re making those teeth sharper and more numerous and more effective, and we know we’re building on a track record of success from legislation five years ago.

As part of Ontario’s commitment to protect electricity ratepayers, last year, in 2014, the Ministry of Energy asked the Ontario Energy Board to review the Energy Consumer Protection Act and to report back with any recommendations about opportunities to strengthen consumer protection.

Minister Chiarelli underlined the government’s commitment to doing all that it can to protect Ontario energy consumers in light of an evolving retail energy sector, and that’s what this bill does. That’s why we hope this bill will gain speedy passage through the Legislature and be enacted: so that it can get to work, continuing to more effectively and comprehensively protect Ontario energy consumers now and into the future.

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

Mr. Norm Miller: It’s my pleasure to have the opportunity, on third reading, to speak to Bill 112,

An Act to amend the Energy Consumer Protection Act, 2010 and the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998.

We’re in third reading now on this bill. One of the things the bill does is ban door-to-door sales of electricity and energy contracts. That’s certainly something that our party supports and that I support. I think most people don’t appreciate having people knock on their door to try to sell them something when they’re just trying to get on with whatever it is—cooking dinner or enjoying Saturday. Too often, vulnerable people especially are open to high-pressure tactics and end up in contracts that they don’t understand or they don’t want or they really didn’t get all the information about. This bill would ban door-to-door sales, and certainly I support that.

Where I live, out in Vankoughnet, in rural Muskoka—it’s half an hour from the closest town—door-to-door sales really aren’t a big issue; I’ve got to say that. Our driveway has a pretty good hill, and in the 10 years that we’ve lived there, I can’t say as we’ve actually ever had a door-to-door salesperson come to the door.

In fact, we’ve hardly had any kids come on Halloween. This year, my wife and I were shopping on October 31, and I raised the question, “Should we get some candy?” My wife said, “No one ever comes to our door,” so we didn’t, to make a long story short. To our surprise, on Halloween night, we actually got one visitor, and then of course we had to scrounge to have anything to give to that person. Next year, we’ll be better prepared for that.

The other group that probably spends more time going door to door is politicians. Usually, we’re trying to sell something, but we’re not trying to sell something that would cost you money, necessarily—although, in the case of this Liberal government, it usually does end up costing you a lot of money; you just don’t pay it directly. But I absolutely have no problem with banning door-to-door sales.

Some other aspects of this bill—I think maybe the member from Mississauga–Streetsville had a speech for the original second reading. He hadn’t revised it since committee, perhaps, because I believe I heard—maybe one of the government members can correct me. I know we had a number of amendments at committee, and one of them was to make the cooling-off period 10 days instead of 20, and that was passed. That was the one amendment that was passed. If the member looks at the most current version of the bill, he might note that the 20-day period is stroked out.

Where it says, “Subsections 15(4) and 19(1) are amended in order to mandate a cooling-off period of 20 days,” it is in fact stroked out. Maybe I didn’t hear him correctly.

That’s the one amendment that has passed. We did make a number of other suggestions that I think were quite logical. Unfortunately, the government defeated all of our other amendments, like allowing online verification or allowing commission payments. Those were defeated.

The ban on online verification: I think it’s quite cumbersome, the process they’ve come up with that requires a phone call. Even though you may absolutely want to buy something—it’s your choice—you still have to make a phone call afterwards and verify. If you raise any questions, then the process is immediately halted; it’s put on hold. If, for example, a wary consumer asked about the global adjustment charge, which most people don’t understand, then the process would be stopped. So I do see problems with that.

I also see problems with the ban on commissions. Commissions are a very, very typical part of the sales process. I have two brothers that are in the car business: my brother Larry, who has the Ford dealership in Bracebridge, Cavalcade Ford; and my brother Ross, who has Muskoka Chrysler, located quite close by to Cavalcade Ford. Obviously, commission sales are just part of the car business. It’s a way of motivating people. If all the salespeople were paid the same regardless of how many cars or vehicles they sold, it just wouldn’t be as efficient and effective.

Where I do have a problem with commissions is when the government starts handing out huge commissions for the Pan Am Games; that’s a place where they’re perhaps inappropriate. But I think that just to ban commission sales in the energy sector completely is a little heavy-handed, to say the least.

We’re talking in this bill a lot about the powers of the Ontario Energy Board, and I just mentioned the question that might be raised about the global adjustment. The issue in my riding, the number one issue in Parry Sound–Muskoka that, if you have to pick one—and there is, of course, a huge variety, but the one that comes up most in my constituency offices in Parry Sound and in Bracebridge, with emails and calls and people showing up looking for help, is affordability of electricity.

That is why the question about the global adjustment would be such a good one when you phone up to verify the contract you’ve signed, because most people aren’t aware that the actions of the government, through the Green Energy Act, have resulted in huge overpayments of the market price of electricity. As the Auditor General pointed out, between 2006 and 2015, it’s some $50 billion—that’s with a B; billion dollars. Most people just don’t realize that. And that’s what is a huge part of the increase—the great increase—in electricity bills we’ve seen.

I reviewed our critic’s speech back in September on this bill. He was talking about what’s going to happen on November 1. Is there going to be a rollback? Is the OEB going to roll back energy prices at that point? Well, we saw what happened on November 1, and that was another 8% increase in electricity cost. I believe it’s now 17 cents a kilowatt hour at peak hours.

People in Parry Sound–Muskoka, especially those who are the least well off, who tend to have homes with electric baseboard heat—a lot of them heat with wood out of necessity, as well, or because they like it, but increasingly out of necessity—just can’t afford to pay their hydro bills. We’re getting people showing up in my constituency office who are, in many cases, being cut off; they’re being shut down. Something’s happened—they’ve lost a job or they’ve injured themselves. We’ve had cases where people have been in hospital, and they come back from hospital and their power is being shut off. It’s a reality.

That’s the worst thing about energy policies in this province: affordability is really hurting the average person, particularly in a riding like Parry Sound–Muskoka.

The government spins that it’s the Ontario Energy Board that sets the prices, but it’s the policies of the government that affect the costs in the whole sector, that determine what those prices would be. The biggest factor in driving up electricity prices is that $7-billion-a-year global adjustment. It’s a huge part of it, and that’s directly a result of the Green Energy Act, a policy decision of this government.

That is a huge, huge factor in my riding of Parry Sound–Muskoka, and it’s affecting not just the person trying to pay their bill, but also jobs. Energy costs are just one of the basic costs of doing business in this province. Last week, I was in Parry Sound and I stopped in for lunch at Orr’s Fine Meats, or Orr meats. There’s a deli there as well. Murray Orr was there. What did he want to talk about? He wanted to talk about how much his energy bill has gone up. They have to run the coolers, the freezers and all the refrigeration.

They can’t decide to shut it off in peak times; they’ve got to run it all the time when they need cooling. So they’ve had a huge, huge increase in their energy bills. It makes it challenging for a business like that, and it makes it challenging for big businesses. The biggest example in northern Ontario—we’ve seen that Xstrata Nickel, a few years ago, left Timmins and moved just across the border to Quebec, to a dirtier smelter, and 700 jobs left the province—700 jobs.

Future mines: The government has talked a lot about the Ring of Fire now for ages, without a lot to show for it. They thought they had a deal with Cliffs resources before they left the province, and part of that deal was a huge energy subsidy. You have to do that, because there’s just not going to be mines opening in this province if they have to pay the full price of electricity. The chromite smelter that Cliffs was going to build near Sudbury would have been the single biggest energy user in the province. Without a special deal, it just wouldn’t be happening here and it wouldn’t be located here.

A couple of weeks ago, I toured Detour mines, located a couple of hours north of Cochrane, Ontario. I asked about their energy bills, and it’s millions per month. But they also have an industrial rate, so they’re paying up to about five cents a kilowatt hour, well below what the average person pays. But the billions of dollars invested in Detour Gold, and the billions of dollars being generated, wouldn’t be there unless there were competitive enough electricity prices.

I worry that we won’t have those future new mines and jobs because of the policies of this government that are driving up electricity prices. I would love to see affordability become something that the government is concerned about.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Don’t forget about NIER.

Mr. Norm Miller: I heard the Minister of Northern Development and Mines—I didn’t hear what he said, but he was making a comment. If he wants to heckle a little louder, I’d be happy to respond.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I don’t want to heckle at all.

Mr. Norm Miller: No heckling; okay.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: The Northern Industrial Electricity Rate Program.

Mr. Norm Miller: The minister just mentioned that we have the northern electricity program, which has been extended. That’s absolutely necessary, because the basic cost of electricity is becoming so uncompetitive in the province.

The problem with this program—it’s a good program—is that there’s not enough money in it, and the problem is it’s only for big mining companies. It doesn’t apply to the small company that wants to grow. So if you’re small, you’re paying the unaffordable electricity price, which either puts you out of business or you’re not able to grow because your cost structure is so expensive. The northern electricity program applies to a few of the really big energy users, to try to make the cost of their electricity somewhat comparable.

In wrapping up on Bill 112, the ban on door-to-door sales is the part that we absolutely like. We’re pleased that the government listened to our one amendment to do away with the 20-day cooling-off period and to make it 10 days.

There are some other problems that they didn’t listen to. The online verification that they aren’t allowing—I think this phone verification system would be cumbersome. As I mentioned, the ban on commissions, I think, is a little heavy-handed.

In closing, our big concern is just that the affordability of electricity in this province is such a big factor affecting individuals and businesses. Of course, that’s not being addressed by this bill.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will close. Thank you very much.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Well put, Mr. Speaker. Yes, the member for Toronto–Danforth.

Speaker, it’s a pleasure to be able to address the matter of Bill 112, the government’s—and I say this with some irony—Strengthening Consumer Protection and Electricity System Oversight Act, 2015.

As you are well aware, Speaker, this is the third and final reading of this bill. The bill, like so many others, has been time-allocated. This is not a government that actually wants to have wide-ranging debate on the issues before this province. This is a government that, frankly, seems to be more and more adopting the habits that a recently defeated federal Conservative government made part of their lives and that I think changed people’s perception of what kind of party they were. I think that will happen in Ontario as well.

Speaker, this government is taking a beating on the sale of Hydro One. It has intended to try and surround that sale with as much camouflage as it possibly can. If you listen to the Minister of Energy, he speaks about the power of the Ontario Energy Board to control prices, because he well knows that this ill-fated venture to privatize utilities—and not just Hydro One, but to allow privatization of electricity utilities across Ontario; in fact, to encourage privatization of municipal utilities across Ontario—will mean much higher hydro rates. His only shield, his only argument, is that he has a regulator that can actually take action to protect consumers.

In this act, Speaker, he substantially undermines that regulator. He substantially undermines the power of the public to intervene in rate hearings. He sets back regulation quite substantially. People have to understand that when they follow the debate on this bill. The minister ignores the reality of what has happened in Ontario for the last 12 years, and he ignores the reality of what happens when you have privatized energy systems.

Speaker, there are two bills here. One presents itself as a consumer protection act, and this is clearly where the government wants to focus. The second addresses itself to the whole question of the regulator and how that regulator will operate in the future. When we look at the privatization of Hydro One, we have to understand that the government is introducing a number of measures. This bill, Bill 135, to make it a far more investor-friendly situation, wants to make sure that investors’ interests are protected and that the public’s interests are put to the back of the line.

This bill will give the government explicit authority to bypass the regulator when it brings forward new transmission projects. These projects could be very expensive. They could be totally cost-ineffective. They could be projects that are driven politically by a cabinet that is responding to the demands of big players in the energy sector, demands that will be delivered behind closed doors with an expectation that this government will give them whatever they want.

What we have had historically—and I move on to talk about the question of the ability of the public to have its voice heard at hearings, the ability of the public to intervene in rate hearings, the ability of the public to address substantial changes to the electricity system. I’ll admit that what we’ve had has had its flaws, but I have to say, Speaker, the reality of an energy system where people do get the opportunity to intervene is one that at least gives people the opportunity to put officials and decision-makers on a stand and under oath to answer questions what about actually is being done to the electricity system.

That is going away. This government has decided that what’s good for investors is something that Ontario will have to live with. This bill will aid this government in privatizing Hydro One and allowing the privatization of utilities across Ontario. Right now, the government has all the power it needs to initiate and champion priority transmission projects.

What it is doing with this bill is giving the government the power to bypass the Ontario Energy Board and bypass public hearings where consumer advocates and those who represent major power companies, and major manufacturing and processing companies, would no longer have the opportunity to question whether or not the project was needed in the first place. Gone. Gone. The ability to actually look at whether or not something was necessary for the electricity system will be cut out.

We have had that happen already here in Ontario. I’ll get into that later when we talk about smart meters, because it is entirely relevant to the approach the government is taking with this bill. The government took an approach with a regulatory process that sidelined the Ontario Energy Board, that never had hearings on the business case for smart meters—never. That burdened us with a $2-billion bill for smart meters that produce virtually no savings and don’t allow the government to meet its target for reducing peak demands.

The government has already gone down this road. It likes the road where the public is shut out because then it can do whatever it wants. It can make its friends as happy as all get-out, because those friends who are putting forward different projects, different technologies, don’t have to worry for a second that their interests are going to be questioned or challenged because the government is going to back them to the hilt. They’ll override the public regulatory process—public hearings—and just deliver the goods.

This government has already shown that it can’t be trusted to bring forward policies that are allowed to be tested in open hearings with people who know the field, who can question and take apart bad projects.

For instance, the Ontario Energy Board is required to review and approve private sales of transmission companies to make sure they’re in the public interest. If the government was actually sincere about making sure the regulator had power, then the OEB would be reviewing the sale of Hydro One. All the decision makers would be on the stand under oath, testifying as to the reasons for this privatization; interveners would be able to demand evidence and background documents and test them in the open light of day.

Speaker, let’s be very clear: I don’t think this government should be privatizing Hydro One or our electricity utilities—not for a moment. But even using the government’s own logic, a sale like this needs to be put into a public forum where it can be dissected, and those who propose it can actually be forced to put the numbers on the table to show that it’s valid or not valid and be forced to defend their theories about how a private market works in the electricity sector. They’ve already ignored the regulator on that.

They’re now going to make sure the regulator doesn’t get to decide or assess whether or not a multi-billion-dollar transmission project makes sense or not. At every point, this government—talking about the regulator defending customers—is gutting the ability of that regulator to actually assess and protect. The government wants this to go through and, after all the horses have left the barn, kick the barn door closed and say, “Well, God, we took care of that.”

Last week we went through this bill clause by clause. I attempted to amend this bill to prevent some of the most serious damage that I believe it will cause. Here’s what I had to say about

section 18 of the bill, the bill that allows this assignment of priority to transmission projects and this exempting transmission projects from review by the Ontario Energy Board:

“Section 18 ... allows the Lieutenant Governor in Council—effectively, the cabinet—to declare that any particular transmission line is going to be a priority and that there will be no review at the OEB as to the necessity for that line, whether it’s justified for the system as a whole. The OEB will only be able to actually review expenses and determine whether or not, within the framework the cabinet has set, those expenses were reasonable and prudent.”

I would say, Speaker, that there are other problematic parts of that bill, but this

section is the one that has the most substantive impact.

I noted in the committee, as I did a few minutes ago, that cutting the Ontario Energy Board out when it came to taking a look at smart meters was part of the reason we got stuck with a $2-billion bill for an investment that’s producing virtually no return at all.

Mr. Wayne Gates: How much?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Some $2 billion—$1.9 billion and counting. The only thing it’s doing is making some manufacturers of smart meters extraordinarily happy. The savings on a system that produces, say, 23,000 or 24,000 megawatts at peak capacity in mid-winter is about 200 megawatts—200. That’s a fluctuation from hour to hour.

Two billion bucks, Speaker: If your constituents wonder why they’re having difficulty paying for their electric heating, I think it should be pointed out to them that the plan for smart meters that has loaded them with bills—loaded the whole system with bills—never went through an open review by a tribunal at the Ontario Energy Board, where the planners and the decision-making material could be tested.

Speaker, I would say, with regard to transmission lines, that you remember the story that came out recently that Paul Bliss did for CTV about the Niagara reinforcement line, a $100-million transmission line to nowhere. The Ontario Energy Board actually had substantial questions about that line. The government went ahead and had it built anyway. Hydro One still isn’t allowed to charge higher rates for it; that’s coming. But right now we, the people of Ontario, are on the hook for $5 million a year in interest payments on this line that has never been activated. It has been there now for, what, five or 10 years?

You’re talking about very substantial amounts of money that are going to pay for interest for a line that’s just standing there.

Imagine how many more useless lines and transmitters we’ll be able to build with the Ontario Energy Board completely ruled out of the picture. Think about it, Speaker. Think about the fact that, every time Hydro One puts in a new transmission line or puts in a new transformer station, whether needed or not, they will be able to charge the ratepayers of Ontario and get a guaranteed rate of return. It’s a money machine and one whose misoperation can profoundly damage the people of this province.

Speaker, this

section of the bill allows for all kinds of hanky-panky behind closed doors, an opportunity for people to demand favours and be given favours without any public assessment of the dollar impact of those decisions.

As we’ve seen with the Financial Accountability Officer, he tried to get at the facts around the sale of Hydro One. What happened? He was told that the studies, the background documents upon which the government had made its decision, weren’t accessible. They were cabinet secrets. This

section of this bill will make far more electricity planning in Ontario subject to cabinet secrecy, unverifiable by the general public and unverifiable by those who get stuck with the bills. This bill is meant to aid the privatization of Hydro One; it is not meant to protect the interests of power consumers in Ontario.

I called for a recorded vote on this section. Every single Liberal in the room voted against my motion and voted to cut the public out—to exclude the public—from future consideration of proposed power lines.

The gas plant scandal arose when a government, in the heat of an election campaign, decided that it wanted to save a number of seats. We all know what happened in terms of its impact on our bills. This government is going to make the possibility of that scandal happen far more frequently in the future because, frankly, public scrutiny is being cut out.

Bill 112 also proposes to change how consumer interests are represented at Ontario Energy Board hearings. We have to ask, because it’s not spelled out in the legislation, exactly what they have in mind. Is the government getting ready to stop paying money to cover the expenses of people who intervene on the part of consumers and put in their own little government-owned watchdog? It’s an open question. It’s not answered in the legislation or in the numerous discussions that are taking place more widely.

I moved an amendment in committee to protect the current system of interveners being able to recover their costs so that we could have independent voices at the Ontario Energy Board. We need to have those independent voices at the Ontario Energy Board. Speaker, it is critical that that independent intervention be protected. I spoke to that; the government answer was, “All’s fine.”

Speaker, you’re indicating subtly that you may want to get up.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Hon. Jeff Leal: I’m very pleased today that Rachael, the daughter of Pam Young, one of our employees with OMAFRA, is one of the pages this session. On behalf of our ministry, we’re very proud of this young lady being a page here during this session.

Mr. Han Dong: Amongst us is the chair of the Canadian Independent Music Association, Shauna de Cartier. I would like to welcome her.

Also, I have a wonderful group from COSTI in my riding visiting the Legislature as well. Welcome.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’m honoured to welcome to Queen’s Park today my wife, Kate, and our 27-month-old daughter, Annie-Grace.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Today we have five members of the Canadian Independent Music Association here to join us. Stuart Johnston, Lisa Fiorilli, Shauna de Cartier, Chris Moncada and Juno-award-winning artist Hawksley Workman are joining us here. They are just over in the members’ gallery. We know that CIMA acts as an advocacy leader for Canadian independent music, and today is their Queen’s Park day.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: I want to introduce the page captain today from my riding, Michelle Lewis, and to welcome her mother, Nicole Knowlton, who is visiting us here today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Later on today, I have a school, Centre Dufferin District in Shelburne. I just want to welcome them before they arrive.

Mr. Paul Miller: We have a new resident in the province of Ontario. I’m proud to announce my first grandchild, Elliot May Traquair. It’s an old Scottish name, Traquair. She was seven pounds, born early Wednesday morning.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I know you’re going to do a formal introduction in a few minutes, but if I may, I’d just like to steal a little bit of your thunder and introduce a few people by name who are here with us.

We have a delegation from the Lviv Oblast State Administration in Ukraine: Mr. Yuriy Pidlisnyy, who is the deputy head of the Lviv Oblast; Mr. Bohdan Chechotka, who is head of the health department; Mr. Yuri Kushnir, president of the Canada-Ukraine Parliamentary Program Alumni Association; and Vitalina Kushnir, who is a director at the Institute for Child and Family Development Charitable Fund. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. I appreciate the assistance on the names.

Mr. Bill Walker: I’d like to introduce the newest grandfather in the Legislature, Paul Miller. I’d like to congratulate him and his family. The best of health and happiness always.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Joining us in the Legislature today is a very special guest: Jane Wright, who is the grandmother of my press secretary, Jesse Wright. This is Jane’s first time visiting Queen’s Park. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: I would like to acknowledge someone from my constituency who is receiving today the Ontario Senior Achievement Award: Mr. Gary Whitten, who is currently here today in our Legislature. Thank you very much, and congratulations to Mr. Whitten.

Mr. John Yakabuski: This morning, the father of page captain Benjamin Huckabone will be visiting us. His father, Mark, will be visiting us from Pembroke, in the members’ gallery. We hope he enjoys question period.

Miss Monique Taylor: I’d like to welcome Adam Cook, who is here today on behalf of Action Hepatitis Canada and who we enjoyed breakfast with this morning. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: One of our colleagues is actually celebrating his birthday this Sunday, November 29. I would like to recognize the Minister of Health and our great friend Eric Hoskins, who is going to be celebrating his birthday. Congratulations and happy birthday.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I have it on good authority that instead of “Grandpa,” the member for Hamilton East–Stoney Creek will be called “Grumpa.”

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I have to look in my library to find out if that’s unparliamentary; I’m not sure.

Further introductions?

Mr. Todd Smith: Well, he’s not with us yet, but he is on his way this morning. He’s Canada’s heavyweight boxing champ. He’s a good friend of mine. I hope that he can bring his belt into the House when he arrives; I’ve alerted security.

Dillon “Big Country” Carman is going to be joining us for question period a little bit later on this morning.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Yes, it’s a big country.

We have with us today in the Speaker’s gallery two delegations. We have a delegation from Turkana county of the Republic of Kenya, led by the Governor of Turkana county, the Honourable Joseph Koli Nanok. Welcome to our delegation and thank you for being with us.

We also have another delegation today in the Speaker’s gallery from the Lviv province of Ukraine. Please welcome our guests, and thank you for being with us.

Wearing of football jersey

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Point of order, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A point of order from the government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: As you and all members know, the Grey Cup is taking place this Sunday in Winnipeg between the Edmonton Eskimos and the great Ottawa Redblacks. I’m seeking unanimous consent, in recognition that the Ottawa Redblacks are Ontario’s team, to wear this jersey in the chamber today.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Holy mackerel, this is going to be fun.

The government House leader is seeking unanimous consent to wear the jersey of the Redblacks, Ontario’s team, today, and unanimous consent for him to get dressed. Do we agree? Agreed.

Mr. Paul Miller: Point of order, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Point of order, the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek.

Mr. Paul Miller: On the back of that shirt he should put “Lucky.”

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I don’t know what to make of this.

Visitor

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Do you want in on it?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Actually, no, but I have something else.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Okay. The member from Nepean–Carleton on a point of order.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I think that we should strike from the record whatever the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek said. He should withdraw that.

But in any event, I actually am introducing someone for my seatmate, who’s not in his seat right now. Ryan LaPalm, his friend from Belleville, is here. Hello, Ryan. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Oral Questions

Health care funding

Mr. Patrick Brown: To the Premier: Every one of us in this Legislature knows someone who doesn’t have a family doctor. There are over 800,000 Ontarians without one. The government’s response has been to cut clinical care funding by more than 7% over the last three years. We all know someone battling addiction, whether you know it or not, and the government slashed addiction services funding by 50%.

The government ignores the struggle of these at-risk patients, the risks they face every day. These cuts target each and every community in Ontario. Will the government reconsider their health cuts before the end of the year?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care is going to want to comment on the specifics, but I also know that the Leader of the Opposition understands full well that health care funding in this province goes up every year. Year over year, funding has increased. He knows full well that the needs are expanding in the province, and that’s why funding for health care continues to go up.

There are thousands of more doctors in this province, thousands of more nurses in this province since we’ve been in office, because we understand how critical it is that people have the care that they need where they need it. I think it’s more than 90% of people in this province who have access to a primary care practitioner. We’ve made a commitment that by 2018, everyone in the province will have access to a primary care practitioner. That’s one of the reasons that funding continues to go up.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: If you take into consideration the federal transfers, the health budget actually went down. These cuts are having real effects. In Kingston, five family doctors were unable to join a local practice group. They were turned away from practising. In Peterborough, a family doctor was unable to join a family health team, leaving 750 patients stranded. In Oakville, a family doctor closed their practice, leaving 900 patients without a doctor to see. In Richmond Hill, five doctors abandoned their plans to open practices, leaving 5,000 patients waiting to find a new doctor. The government should be ashamed.

My question to the Premier is: Did the members from Kingston, Peterborough, Oakville and Richmond Hill stand up and speak for their patients, or did you ignore them? What is really happening?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I would say to the Leader of the Opposition: What did he say, as a member from Ontario of the federal House of Commons, when Stephen Harper cut the federal health transfer to Ontario by $8 billion? What did the Leader of the Opposition say at that point? Because—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that this has been a conversation of acute interest at the Premiers’ table. We are going to be putting health care on the agenda in our conversations with the new Prime Minister, because when that $8 billion was cut from federal transfers to Ontario, I didn’t hear any voice from the Leader of the Opposition. I didn’t hear any concern from the Leader of the Opposition, who was an Ontario member in Ottawa.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: While federal transfers continued to increase, you cut $54 million. Those are the cold, hard facts. Right here in Toronto, a blood monitoring clinic couldn’t stay open because of the government’s last round of cuts. Those patients have seen dramatic delays in discharges, and it has resulted in longer wait times.

In Ottawa, two dermatology residency students left the province rather than set up shop here, when wait times are already far too long. In Ajax, 12 doctors aren’t able to offer flu vaccination clinics, affecting 8,000 patients. Again, all in Liberal ridings. I can tell you countless stories from our side of the aisle as well.

The Premier has either silenced her own members or ignored them. Why won’t anyone on that side of the aisle stand up to the Premier and say that the cuts to health care in your ridings are wrong?

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You won’t know when.

Just to remind the member to speak to the Chair. Thank you.

Premier?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I know that the leader of the official opposition was a member of the federal government at a time when they cut off refugee health care to deserving and vulnerable people in this country. I know he was part of the federal Conservative Party when they decided to eliminate any health accord with the provinces. I’m so pleased that the new Liberal government in Ottawa has made that commitment to negotiate and partner with the provinces and the territories to actually create a health accord that has been absent for nearly the last decade.

The truth is—and the member opposite knows this—I know that the Progressive Conservative Party does have a history of being challenged when it comes to the numbers, but he knows that the figures that he’s using are estimates. If he were to look at the actual numbers that are available from public accounts, he’ll see that we’ve continued to increase the health care budget year after year and will continue to do that.

Climate change

Mr. Patrick Brown: To the Premier: The Globe and Mail headline was “Ontario Long-Term Climate Strategy Short on Details....” The National Post headline reads, “Ontario Leaves Many Questions Unanswered in New Climate Change Strategy....” The Post online said, “Ontario Climate Plan Shy on Detail.” A CBC headline: “Expect Climate Change Plan Details in New Year....”

Was this just another example of photo-op environmentalism or do you actually plan to do something before you jet off for Paris?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just say to the Leader of the Opposition that we have a plan. They had no plan. They don’t talk about a plan. In fact, the member sitting behind him doesn’t think that we should implement the plan that we have announced. So, Mr. Speaker—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m not going to tolerate shouting people down.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I would suggest that the Leader of the Opposition read the stories underneath those headlines, and he will see that the outline that we have laid out is exactly what we said we were going to do. We made it very clear that we would bring out a strategy at this point. We will be bringing out a detailed five-year plan in the new year. That is consistent with the work that we’ve already done in terms of shutting down the coal-fired plants and the work that we are doing right now on the design of the cap-and-trade system.

There are members in his caucus who don’t think we should have a plan at all and think we should scrap what we are doing.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: I read those articles, and all those descriptions of your press conference said it was a news conference without news—a news conference without a plan. We need to do our part to fight climate change. We must leave Ontario a better place for generations to come.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. It goes both ways.

Finish, please.

Mr. Patrick Brown: In that spirit, I ask the minister and the Premier, as they always said: What’s the cost of doing nothing? By looking at the headlines, their climate change strategy did just that.

What I want to know—it’s a very reasonable question—is what is the cost of doing something? Will the Premier release details today or before she leaves for Paris? What is the cost for the average household of your climate change plan, if there is a plan?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m glad that the Leader of the Opposition has gotten to the real point of what he wanted to ask, which is that he doesn’t think we should do this; his environment critic doesn’t think we should do this. They don’t think we should have a plan because they are unwilling to acknowledge that the cost of doing nothing, the cost—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I did hear something I didn’t like. If I knew who it was, I would ask them to withdraw. It stops now.

Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Increased insurance costs, the degradation of the environment, costs of food—all of those costs are costs that we cannot, as the human race, afford. It is imperative that we take action, along with jurisdictions around the world, to curb this development, to decrease our greenhouse gas emissions. That’s why we’re working to put a cap-and-trade system in place, and I know they—

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings, come to order.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: Everyone agrees we should fight climate change. Our concern is, you had a news conference—it was a photo op. There is no plan. What we’re asking for, very simply, is: Share with us your plan.

I’ve asked a very simple question today, but I will narrow it down further. In British Columbia, the Auditor General ensures that every dollar from the carbon tax goes back to families and businesses to help reduce emissions.

Mr. Speaker, since we are still waiting for the details from the Premier, will she at least commit to us—will she commit to the Legislature—that her cap-and-trade program will have AG oversight and be revenue-neutral?

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

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

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

Hon. Glen R. Murray: We just finished a five-year plan, which I don’t think they’ve even read, which successfully reduced our emissions by 6% and had no negative impact and did not raise any prices, period.

Our intention with our next five-year plan is to achieve the same objectives. We’re the only jurisdiction in North America that has actually closed coal plants and has actually achieved its objectives, save Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, to answer his question directly, the plans that we are introducing will make life less expensive for Ontarians than inaction, and that has been demonstrated—

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

Energy policies

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, the Premier told Ontarians that learning from other provinces where hydro rates are cheaper and they invest more in conservation is “trying to drive wedges among the provinces.”

The Premier ought to know that learning from others isn’t wedge politics. The Premier knows that it’s simply doing the right thing for Ontarians.

But why is the Premier so stubborn in refusing to look at other provinces? Is it because she knows that Manitoba, BC, Quebec—provinces with public hydro systems—have lower rates and invest more in conservation? Is that why?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I actually have found that sitting at the table with my colleague Premiers across the country has been a very valuable experience for Ontario. In fact, the member opposite might know that we have, as a result of those conversations, forged agreements with Quebec on the exchange of energy in peak and off-peak periods for us as a province.

We have worked to write a Canadian energy strategy. There were lots of voices across the country who said, “You’ll never get agreement among all of the provinces and territories, because the geography is so different and the systems are so different.” But we did get that agreement; we got an agreement.

The Canadian Energy Strategy is a foundational document, and it’s actually a document that the new Prime Minister has signed on to. As we go into the Paris summit, it’s very much going to inform our position there.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Yesterday, the Premier suggested that Ontario had nothing to learn from our neighbouring provinces. When our neighbours invest more in conservation and have lower rates, I think we should be learning from those provinces.

Why is the Premier so determined to push ahead with selling off Hydro One when all the evidence shows that it’s bad for the environment, it’s bad for families who are struggling to make ends meet—

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Oh, come on. That’s BS.

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

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Withdraw, Speaker.

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

Carry on.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: It’s bad for the environment, it’s bad for families who are struggling to make ends meet, and it’s bad public policy. It’s simply bad for Ontarians.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the member opposite that you can’t have it both ways. If we look across the country, you will find examples where there are private distribution companies. In fact, you look in this province and there’s a mixed distribution in terms of private and public.

The fact is, it is one of the questions, when we were having our conversations about broadening the ownership of Hydro One—I actually said that. I said, “Let’s look across other jurisdictions. Show me what the impact is of having some private ownership of a distribution company.”

The fact is that if it’s a well-run company, if the services are met—and that is exactly what we want to have happen with Hydro One—then there is no negative impact. In fact, there can be a positive impact.

I am absolutely determined to learn from other jurisdictions. I work with my colleague Premiers, and I will continue to do that for the benefit of the people of Ontario.

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

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: We have evidence. We know that in provinces where there’s public hydro, the rates are cheaper. We know that in provinces where there’s private hydro, the rates are more expensive. We have the evidence. When electricity bills are cheaper in provinces with public power, we should be learning from them, not insulting them. When provinces with public power invest more in conservation, that’s a lesson. When public hydro puts money into infrastructure, that’s a lesson.

Instead, the Premier is committed to selling off Hydro One and putting the province into a worse financial situation, as told by the FAO. Does the Premier really think that Ontario has nothing to learn from those neighbouring provinces?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I’ve answered that question a number of times in terms of working with my colleague Premiers. I will continue to do that. We are in fact collaborating to an unprecedented extent with provinces across the country, and I will continue to do that.

But the fact is, what the member opposite is not talking about is the differences in geography. The reality is that there is different geography across this country. There is different water power accessible to different provinces, and we all have to operate within our own geography.

So I will continue to look for absolutely the best deal possible for the people of Ontario, That’s why we’re working with Quebec. That’s why there are conversations with Manitoba. In the interim, I want Hydro One to be the best-run company it can be. I also know that we must make those investments in infrastructure if we’re going to be competitive, not just in the country, but internationally.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Premier. The Liberals promised that selling Hydro One would fix transit. The fact is that the money brought in by the sale of Hydro One won’t come close to delivering real help to families and cities coping with gridlock. In fact, the sell-off of Hydro One has nothing to do with building transit, and the Premier knows it.

TTC riders in Toronto are being asked to pay more for cash fares. City councils across the province are asking for support, yet transit riders everywhere are being asked to pay more for services while services are being cut. Why is the Premier failing commuters?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I just have to say that the magical thinking is not on this side of the House. The magical thinking is on the other side of the House in the third party, where somehow all the projects that are needed across the province—the roads, the bridges, the transit systems—can all be built without making one tough decision. The fact is, that’s not the case.

I would say to the member opposite that when he goes down the list of projects that we are building, whether it’s the Kitchener line, which will be partly electrified, and the weekly trips will go from 80 to 250; or the Lakeshore East line, where the annual ridership will go from 10 million to 32 million; or the billion dollars for the Hamilton LRT; or the support for SmartTrack, which is the single most important project that the mayor of Toronto wants to implement—which one of those would he cut because of his magical thinking?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: The Premier knows, and her entire caucus knows, that selling off Hydro One is not the solution. There are far better solutions and far more solutions, and it’s not the way to do it.

The Premier may not realize this, but people who rely on transit also pay hydro bills. Selling Hydro One off will hurt families twice: once as they continue to wait for the bus or sit in traffic on their commute, and again when they finally get home and open up their hydro bills. Does the Premier realize that selling off Hydro One actually hurts families twice?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What hurts families is if they don’t have the roads, bridges, and transit that they need. What hurts Ontarians is if they don’t have an excellent company delivering their electricity. What hurts Ontarians is if they don’t have all the facts.

The reality is that there’s a political campaign that the member opposite is engaged in right now with his party, to fearmonger among people about what’s going to happen because we are investing in infrastructure and we’re broadening the ownership of Hydro One.

The reality is that he doesn’t talk to his constituents and the constituents in ridings around the province about the investments that their municipalities, their communities are going to get because of the decisions that we are taking.

We know that there’s not a municipality in this province that doesn’t need infrastructure dollars. We’re providing those infrastructure dollars, and we’re making the tough decisions in order to do that.

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

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Mr. Speaker, what we know is that the vast majority of Ontarians don’t want this government to sell off Hydro One. What we know is that the vast majority of municipalities don’t want this government to sell off Hydro One. People are stuck in their cars or packed like sardines in transit and they’re looking for some relief. Selling off Hydro One doesn’t actually build transit, and according to the FAO, it could raise as little as $1.4 billion. Selling off Hydro One is not going to build transit. The Premier knows this and her entire caucus knows this.

The TTC is Toronto’s second-biggest electricity consumer, and GO electrification is going to mean more electricity consumption for GO Transit. Higher rates are going to have real impacts on these transit providers who—

Interjections.

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

The member from Essex and the member from Eglinton–Lawrence, that’s enough.

You have one sentence to wrap up, please.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Higher rates are going to impact transit providers, and that means higher fares. Will the Premier stop the sell-off before she does any more damage to this province?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I thank the member for his question. This very same debate and discussion has come up several times in the Legislature over the last couple of weeks. It’s interesting, again, that the deputy leader of the NDP would ask us, or would talk about what’s on the minds of our caucus on this side of the House. I said this last week, Speaker: What’s on our minds is making sure that we build the province up.

What I think is important, though, is that the leader of the NDP and the deputy leader of the NDP have a conversation with backbenchers on that side of the House, because every single one of his NDP caucus colleagues has a specific request or a desire to see infrastructure projects occur in each of their ridings, whether we’re talking about London, or Toronto, or Essex, or Niagara Falls, or the north. Four-laning highways—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Through the Chair, please.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: —building up transit—in every single region of the province. Why won’t you level with the people in your own—

Interjections.

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

Questions and answers are directed to the Chair. And if it continues with anybody, I’ll cut you off.

Mr. John Yakabuski: The Minister of Transportation is threatening to take the title away from the Minister of the Environment.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Now that you’ve had your say, the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, second time.

New question.

Economic outlook

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Premier.

Today the government will present its fall economic statement, albeit 11 days late. Thankfully, the Financial Accountability Officer already gave us some insight into the state of Ontario’s finances. He told us of the province’s deteriorating economic performance, slower GDP and weaker labour market outcomes. What he said was that the government continues to miss their lofty revenue forecasts, but continues to spend the money they didn’t take in. We were told that the only way to right the ship is to lower the growth outlook to 3% and spend accordingly. The Global and Mail concurred, going so far as to suggest that the government is “living in a fiscal fantasyland.”

Speaker, my question is: Will we finally see the truth about the state of the finances in Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just go through the realities that we’re dealing with. Year over year, we have beaten our deficit targets, and the Financial Accountability Officer’s report said that we’re on track to beat our targets again this year. That’s exactly what the FAO has said. We’re doing that because of the plan that we have.

Our plan is to build Ontario up, including investing in people’s talents and skills, including the infrastructure investments that we were just talking about in the previous question, including fostering a dynamic business climate and working with businesses so they can expand and so that they can become exporters, and including creating a secure retirement pension plan. Those are the four pillars of our plan.

We’re unlocking the value of assets so that we can make that investment of over $130 billion for roads, bridges, transit, hospitals and schools. That will support 110,000 jobs a year. Since the recession, Ontario has created more than 500,000 jobs—559,600, to be exact. Those are the fundamentals that we’ll be talking about in the financial—

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: I question whether the fall economic statement will discuss the facts the government attempted to bury in order to lower their deficit this year.

On page 162 of a 167-page finance bill, there is one line that tells us exactly what the government has been up to all along.

Schedule 22,

section 7, item 1 authorizes the government to use the Trillium Trust money to fund or “reimburse” the crown for the construction of infrastructure. Exactly what we’ve been saying all along is now laid bare by their own document. The proceeds from the sale of Hydro One are not to fund transit. They’re to “reimburse” the government for money that was already budgeted.

Will the Premier now confirm that this has been a transit sham all along?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: No, we’ve been clear about our plan to use the Trillium Trust to build key vital infrastructure projects, transportation projects. That is what we are going to do with that money. The money is in the Trillium Trust, and it is going to go to build those projects.

I think, actually, the member opposite knows that, because he understands that there are jurisdictions all over the province, including in northeastern Ontario, that need those infrastructure investments.

But let me just talk about the track that we’re on. Ontario’s unemployment, at 6.8%, is under the national unemployment rate of 7%. According to the Conference Board of Canada, Ontario is on track to grow about 2% this year, outpacing the projected 1.1% GDP increase for the country. Ontario is the first in North America for foreign direct investment for the second year in a row.

The reality is that we are on track, and we’re going to stay on track.

Collective bargaining

Ms. Cindy Forster: My question is to the Premier. Under Bill 109, which the government is about to ram through, health care workers will no longer have the democratic right to choose the union that represents them in the case of a health sector merger. Under this legislation, if 60% of health care workers are in one union, 100% of workers will lose their right to choose the union that represents them in a merger.

In a memo prepared by the Ministry of Health, obtained through freedom of information, it clearly states that “no broad-based consultation” was done before this

section of the bill was tabled, and cites consultation with only one stakeholder.

Why were there no broad-based consultations done before the government decided to strip away health sector workers’ fundamental right to a democratic vote to select the union they wish to represent them in a merger?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Labour.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you to the member for the question. The Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act provides a framework to resolve a number of labour relations issues when there’s a restructuring in the broader public service.

When there’s amalgamation of a hospital, a school, a town or a city, two unions have to amalgamate, perhaps, in that circumstance. Where one union has a large majority, what is being suggested and proposed in the legislation is that this legislation, if passed, will say that we don’t have a vote; it goes to the largest sector, to the people that represent the most.

There’s a difference of opinion within the labour movement, I’ll admit to that. Some unions think it’s a good idea; some unions have concerns with it. The bill is at committee; it’s at the social justice committee. I understand that each and every one of those stakeholders is bringing their concerns forward to the committee. I look forward to the committee work on this.

Ms. Cindy Forster: In fact, on what appears to be the government’s very first piece of its massive health transformation plan, they admit they’ve done no broad consultations. In the memo that we obtained through FOI from the Ministry of Health, the ministry has admitted that “this issue isn’t even a problem.” Yet, the government is stripping health care workers of their most basic democratic right: the right to choose.

Speaker, will the Premier tell hundreds of thousands of health care workers in this province why it’s willing to actually strip away their rights without even having done consultation for something the government admits isn’t even a problem?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you once again to the member. As I said, there’s a variety of opinions on this, and that variety of opinions comes from within the labour movement itself. Some people have suggested that the amendments that are being put forward would reduce the potential for delay and the disruption that’s often associated with these votes. It would remove the large cost associated with it and would contribute to more harmonious labour relations.

Others have different opinions. I respect those opinions. In a very transparent way, this morning, this afternoon, those stakeholders are bringing forward their concerns. They’re addressing the committee on this issue. I suspect the committee will give this a good and true deliberation, and will bring forward its best amendments if they’re needed.

Amateur sport

Mr. Chris Ballard: My question is to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport. As every member in this House is aware, the Pan/Parapan Am Games hosted here in Ontario were the largest and most successful in the history of the games. The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport has previously addressed the members of the House about the success of the Pan/Parapan Am Games. Many suggested that no one would buy tickets to the games; fans bought 1.2 million tickets to the games. Many suggested that no one would cheer for the games; in fact, more than 1.4 million people attended the Pan/Parapan Am celebrations.

Mr. Speaker, Ontarians are proud of the success of these games. Through you to the minister, I’m interested in hearing more about the legacy of the Pan/Parapan Am Games, and I’m interested in learning how the legacy has benefited amateur sport in Ontario.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I want to thank the member from Newmarket–Aurora. I’m proud to say that not only did we host the largest and most successful games in the history of this country; we did it on time and on budget.

Because of that success, Ontarians have been left with a strong legacy of sports which will be felt for many years to come. Ontario demonstrated that we can increase our athlete success rates by winning the most medals of any Pan/Parapan Am Games. Ontario proved that it could be inclusive when we held the most accessible games.

On Thursday I was at Ryerson University and I announced the Ontario government’s plan to build a new plan—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Hon. Michael Coteau: —to increase the success of our athletes in Ontario by announcing a sports strategy called Game ON.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek.

Hon. Michael Coteau: This is the first sports strategy in Ontario in over 20 years. By—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Right after I mention, he decides to do it again. I’m just being lenient because of Wednesday.

Carry on.

Hon. Michael Coteau: By leveraging what we learned from the games, we will bring forward more change. The Game ON plan for Ontario represents another long-lasting legacy out of the Pan/Parapan Am Games to benefit Ontario.

Mr. Chris Ballard: Thank you, Minister. I’m happy to see that the minister is using the momentum of the games to promote healthier, fitter Ontarians. It’s well understood that sport creates positive and lasting benefits for health and wellness. We know that physical activity contributes to healthier bodyweight and better cardiovascular fitness for our youth and that physical activity can help to prevent chronic diseases later in life, like heart disease or cancer.

While we know of the benefits of physical activity, we also are aware that there exists a gender gap in sports, one that widens with age. For every adult female engaging in sport, there are two males. As an MPP and as a father of two grown daughters: What are we doing to address this gender gap, and what is our government doing to build up amateur sport?

Hon. Michael Coteau: Again, I’d like to thank the member. Our sports plan focuses on three key areas: participation, development and excellence. We know that in different parts of Ontario, depending on where you live and on family income, there are barriers to achievements in sport.

We also know that participation by women and girls in sport is half the participation level of that of men. With the help of an advisory panel, this year we’re going to look for new ways to advance athleticism and sport for women and girls in Ontario by increasing the amount of role models that exist.

In the last winter games, held out in BC, only 11 of the 108 coaches were female. But we also know, in contrast to that, that 97% of 400 female executives who were surveyed participated in sport. It’s my hope that we can take what we have learned from these games and continue to advance sport in Ontario for everyone.

Environmental protection

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development. The passage of Bill C-40, to establish the Rouge National Urban Park, this past January was a great day for Canada in creating the largest urban park in the world—some 20,000 acres. However, this minister threw the entire project into jeopardy by reneging on an agreement signed in January 2013 to transfer provincial land to the federal government to create the new park.

While the minister cited inadequate environmental protection as the government’s rationale for going back on its word, a fundraising email sent out by the minister made it clear that the government’s motivation was purely partisan. They made up an excuse, because they didn’t want the Harper government to get credit for the new park prior to the next election. It’s that simple.

Now that there’s a new government in Ottawa, will the minister commit to stop holding up the Rouge National Urban Park and agree to transfer the land?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I was planting trees in the Rouge Valley before I even knew what partisan politics was about. When it comes to the Rouge Valley, I and my colleagues from Scarborough, and all of us on this side of the House, recognize that we have a responsibility—nothing to do with partisan politics. It’s to do with our responsibility to the next generation to ensure that we pass on this gem of an ecosystem of a park to that generation.

The government you spoke about, the Harper government, didn’t take that responsibility seriously. Thank goodness the new Prime Minister and the new government do, and we are looking forward to working with them to put in place a real national park for the Rouge that is going to ensure it has the protections we have in place today, or may even enhanced protections. I’m looking forward to working with that new government to get that done.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Arnott: It’s absolutely ludicrous for the government to claim that Parks Canada does not provide some of the highest standards of forest protection and management, as the minister has done in the past. The provincial Environmental Commissioner recently said that the government “lack of dedicated funding makes it nearly impossible to protect new parcels of environmentally sensitive land.”

The former CEO of Parks Canada, Alan Latourelle, went as far as to say, “Any individual or organization that directly or indirectly implies that the federal legislation for Rouge National Urban Park does not meet the standards of the current provincial legislation for Rouge lands is misleading the public.”

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member will withdraw, because you cannot say indirectly what you cannot say directly.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I withdraw.

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

Mr. Ted Arnott: This government has held up the Rouge National Urban Park for far too long. Will the minister listen to the experts, submit comments on the Rouge National Urban Park Management Plan and transfer the lands he committed to do in 2013?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Interjection.

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: Mr. Speaker, it is this government that has worked so hard over the last 10 years to ensure that the policies are in place to ensure that that park is protected for future generations. It is this Liberal government that, in the 1980s under David Peterson, saved those lands in the first place. This is something we feel strongly about. It’s nothing to do with partisan politics, and the question from the member was about as partisan as you possibly could get.

This is about working together with the federal government to get this done right. We finally have in place a minister of the environment federally and a government that cares about the environment, that is determined to save this planet, determined to ensure that we preserve those ecological gems like the Rouge Valley. We’re going to get this done. We’re going to get this done with Prime Minister Trudeau—

Interjections.

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

Just to remind the minister, when I stand, you sit.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Yes, sir.

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

Disaster relief

Ms. Jennifer K. French: My question is to the Premier. In December 2013, communities across the province were hit by a massive ice storm. At the time, municipalities were assured that 100% of eligible disaster costs would be reimbursed by the Ontario government, but communities across Durham region have received just a third of that so far, with no timeline in place for the remainder.

Residents of Durham want to know that they are not going to be left out in the cold, because, Speaker, winter is coming. Will the Premier please explain why she has broken her promise on ice-storm funding to the people of Durham region?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I know the devastation that was caused by the ice storm. I was out; I was meeting with people; I was at the warming centres. I know that it was a real trial for municipalities.

I also know that municipalities are working with the ministry. I know there has been some money that has flowed. There is more money that I know needs to flow. We will continue that co-operation.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Speaker, it has been almost two years since communities were hit by the ice storm, and for two years they have been left to wonder when they would see the support they were promised, if at all. Whitby is still waiting for half a million dollars, and my community of Oshawa is waiting for over a million dollars.

Does the Premier believe that two years is an appropriate time for these communities to be left in the dark, or does she believe her government can and should do better? Will the Premier commit today to ensuring that communities like Whitby and Oshawa have their promised funding immediately: Yes or no?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite had a conversation with the municipal officials, she would know that claims are being reviewed. She would know that 28 claims have been fully reviewed and final payments have been issued. We have flowed over $62 million as of September 2015.

In addition, to help municipalities and conservation authorities, the government has issued interim payments, because one of the issues that I recognized when I was Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is that often there is an upfront payment that is needed; we know that that is sometimes what is needed.

But the claims have to be reviewed. That’s why the ministry is working with the municipalities. We are doing that as quickly as we can, but there are two parties to that review process, and municipalities need to be working with the ministry and vice versa.

Agriculture industry

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Minister, we know that climate change is already impacting our environment and our economy. Extreme weather events create challenges for agricultural production around the world.

We also know that to find solutions to the challenges that we face, we must work together across industries to tackle climate change. Our government has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate its support for farmers and the broader agricultural industry in this mission. In supporting the entire sector through a range of business development programs that include advice, partnership and research, the government is encouraging innovation.

Ontario farmers are excellent environmental stewards. They understand the impact of climate change and are already taking action to fight it. Speaker, can the minister please inform the House about proactive measures that Ontario farmers are taking to reduce environmental impacts?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank the member from Northumberland–Quinte West for his question this morning and to let the House know that the new, thriving kale industry is actually centred in his riding of Northumberland–Quinte West.

We do know that there are 52,000 family farms in the province of Ontario. Of those 52,000 family farms, 35,000 have been involved, over the decades, in voluntary environmental farm plans contributing to our government’s plan for climate change. Through their activity, they have improved the environment by some $353 million of on-farm activity to improve their environment.

In February of this year, we announced a program, some $16 million over four years, to improve water quality, particularly in Lake Erie. We’re looking at ways to contain phosphorus loading and prevent the algae blooms that are now developing in the Lake Erie area.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Thank you to the minister for that answer. It’s great to hear that Ontario farmers are engaged in efforts designed to protect the environment. Taking action to modernize, innovate and adapt allows our industries, including agriculture, to put themselves on a sustainable path forward.

Minister, I know our friends from Ontario Pork joined us at Queen’s Park yesterday. Speaker, could the minister inform the House on steps the agricultural group is taking to modernize, become more sustainable and protect the environment?

Hon. Jeff Leal: Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the great work that’s being done by Ontario Pork. All sides of the House yesterday had the opportunity to attend their reception. They just produced a new report talking about social responsibility for the pork industry in the province of Ontario. They’ve highlighted five key things they’re doing to promote social responsibility in their industry. They’re looking at farm management, they’re looking at economic performance, they’re looking at environmental stewardship, at animal care and food safety, and at their relationships with the broader consumer community in the province of Ontario.

We all know, on all sides of the House, that farmers are great environmental stewards. I’m proud of the work that they do each and every day. I want to salute Ontario Pork and Amy Cronin, who, with her husband, Mike, just got recognized as the Outstanding Young Farmers of Canada recently in Edmonton, Alberta—a good example of what they’re doing in that industry to further social responsibility in Ontario.

Health care

Mr. Norm Miller: My question is to the Minister of Health. In September, Nelson and Cathy Samuel of Gravenhurst went public with an issue that they are facing. While on a vacation to Whitehorse to visit their daughter, Nelson’s knee became infected to the point that he had to be transported by medevac to Vancouver for immediate treatment. It saved his life. The Samuels are now facing a bill of $18,400. They’re seniors on a fixed income, and this cost would be a big hit on their retirement savings. They even checked with OHIP before making the trip to make sure they had coverage.

Speaker, to the minister: What assistance can be provided for Nelson and Cathy in their time of need?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I appreciate the member opposite raising this issue. With the permission of the family, I would be interested in learning more about the specific circumstances involved.

A number of members of this Legislature have come forward to me directly when such a circumstance does take place, and thus far, Mr. Speaker, I think that we can say that we’ve made significant efforts to resolve these specific challenges.

But it does point out a deficit, I think I would describe it, nationally, for people when they are travelling out of province. We have arrangements with all the provinces and territories and the federal government for reimbursement of health care costs. But to date—and this is partly due to when these measures were put in place—they haven’t accounted for the type of air transport that the member opposite has alluded to with this example.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Norm Miller: Thank you to the minister for that response, but through the Speaker, again, to the Minister of Health: It has been over a month since the minister spoke to CTV News about this specific case. He said, “We want to make sure that Ontarians, when they travel, that they’re right to have an expectation that urgent and immediate health care costs will be covered.”

Recently, there was a case in Alberta of an Alberta mother who gave birth prematurely in a Timmins hospital. In the end, she had her emergency travel costs covered jointly by two separate provincial governments.

Minister, the clock is ticking, as the Samuels’ bill has now been transferred to an agency for collection. Through the Speaker: Will the minister commit to help my constituents Cathy and Nelson with the massive bill they are now facing?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: In fact, the Alberta case that was referenced was covered by the private insurance that the family in question had. But that being said, I made the commitment at that time—and we have a federal-provincial-territorial meeting coming up in January in British Columbia, and I’ve asked our partners across the country to have a discussion about this specific issue. I think it’s important and timely that we update the reimbursement that is available between provinces and territories. It doesn’t, as I mentioned, currently cover air transport of this nature.

I would certainly encourage any individual or family travelling outside of the province to have private health insurance to cover all necessities of travel if untoward circumstances do arise. But I have asked for this specific issue to be put on the national agenda so that we can address it in a comprehensive fashion across the country.

Health care

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health.

For the fourth year in a row, I rise to ask the Minister of Health for an investigation into the substandard care of Dimitra Daskalos, who passed away in a Toronto hospital in February 2011. The family of Mrs. Daskalos is still awaiting answers and this government has failed to provide them. The daughter of Dimitra, Maria Daskalos, is here with us today.

I’ve sent numerous letters to your predecessor, asked questions in the House, made statements and presented a petition with over 5,400 signatures. I sent this minister a letter last February, 2015. The family still doesn’t have answers to the questions that it asked.

Mrs. Daskalos was treated as a bed blocker and the hospital was clearly in violation of infection control guidelines when she was housed with other patients with an antibiotic-resistant disease.

Will the minister commit to an investigation of this case?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I appreciate the question. I want to acknowledge, speaking to you directly, your presence here today and my regret that the experience did happen—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): To the Chair, please.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: —to you. I can only imagine the devastation that it has caused, Mr. Speaker, to the family and loved ones of this individual. I would be happy to discuss afterwards, as well, the specifics of this case.

In the supplementary, I think that I would like to also talk about changes that we’ve put in place that hopefully will provide avenues for individuals and families who do go through these tragic circumstances.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, I just want to note, as well, that it was almost a year ago that this government decided not to give the Ombudsman power to investigate these kinds of cases.

Once again, I ask this minister to launch an investigation into the substandard care of Dimitra Daskalos, received while a patient at the downtown hospital, and her subsequent death, apparently due to the hospital’s failure to comply with infection control protocols.

Although hospitals are independent corporations directly responsible for the quality of care they provide, the legal accountability and enforcement of breaches in hospital protocol rests squarely with the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, why were infection control guidelines violated?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’m very proud of what we have done as a government. We’ve created the office of the patient ombudsman specifically for cases like this, where individuals or family members, where an incident occurs—perhaps in a hospital environment or a long-term-care home—if they’re dissatisfied with the process that takes place in the hospital, if they don’t receive remedy for what they see as a grievance against them, very shortly they will have an avenue that they can go to, a patient ombudsman who reports directly to the Minister of Health within Health Quality Ontario and who will work to address their concerns.

We do have a responsibility as a government to make sure that our patients, Ontarians, are provided with the highest quality of care. When incidents do occur, when mistakes are made, when procedures aren’t followed correctly, we have an obligation to make sure that action is taken. That’s the commitment that we have, and our patient ombudsman will help us through that process.

Research and innovation

Ms. Soo Wong: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure.

Minister, you informed the House on Tuesday that the MaRS west tower project is currently 84% occupied. This is great news for our province, as well as our economy, which stands to benefit from the expertise and innovative research that MaRS will attract to Ontario.

Every day, I receive questions and calls from my local residents, especially the young people in Scarborough–Agincourt, inquiring about the west tower project. Speaker, through you to the minister, can he please update the House on some of the important projects that are coming to MaRS west tower project?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The member is right. MaRS west tower is indeed a resounding success. As the member stated, MaRS is now 84% leased and is expected to be fully leased very soon.

What’s key is that the tenants locating in this building are exactly the mix of tenants originally sought. There is a healthy mix of institutional tenants that drive research and innovation, with a growing number of private sector tenants that drive innovation, commercialization and job creation, which is exactly what it was all abou