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

March 2, 2017

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2017-Mar-02 (PDF)

L049 - Thu 2 Mar 2017 / Jeu 2 mar 2017

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 2 March 2017 Jeudi 2 mars 2017

Orders of the Day

Burden Reduction Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur l’allègement du fardeau réglementaire

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Energy policies

Energy policies

Energy policies

Energy policies

Energy policies

Child care

Hydro rates

Forest industry

Hydro rates

Forest industry

Energy policies

Hydro rates

Waste diversion

Hydro rates

Canadian Black Caucus

Correction of record

Visitors

Notice of dissatisfaction

Deferred Votes

Time allocation

Burden Reduction Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur l’allègement du fardeau réglementaire

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

James Montgomery Doohan

Opioid use

Ekua Andria Walcott

Malnutrition

Women’s Institutes

Kingston Transit

Drapeau franco-ontarien

LAMP Community Health Centre

Business community

Petitions

Hydro rates

Ontario Municipal Board

Hydro rates

Hydro rates

Primary health care

Hydro rates

Lung health

Highway improvement

Hydro rates

Long-term care

Hydro rates

Private Members’ Public Business

Magna Carta Day Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur le Jour de la Grande Charte

Hymne franco-ontarien / Franco-Ontarian anthem

Child Care and Early Years Amendment Act (Not-for-Profit Corporations), 2017 / Loi de 2017 modifiant la

Loi sur la garde d’enfants et la petite enfance (organisations sans but lucratif)

Magna Carta Day Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur le Jour de la Grande Charte

Hymne franco-ontarien / Franco-Ontarian anthem

Child Care and Early Years Amendment Act (Not-for-Profit Corporations), 2017 / Loi de 2017 modifiant la

Loi sur la garde d’enfants et la petite enfance (organisations sans but lucratif)

Orders of the Day

School Boards Collective Bargaining Amendment Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 modifiant la

Loi sur la négociation collective dans les conseils scolaires

Medical Assistance in Dying Statute Law Amendment Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne l’aide médicale à mourir

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Burden Reduction Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur l’allègement du fardeau réglementaire

Mr. Duguid moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 27,

An Act to reduce the regulatory burden on business, to enact various new Acts and to make other amendments and repeals / Projet de loi 27, Loi visant à alléger le fardeau réglementaire des entreprises, à édicter diverses lois et à modifier et abroger d’autres lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister Duguid.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I am pleased to be here today to introduce the third reading of Bill 27, the Burden Reduction Act. For the record, Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my very able parliamentary assistant, the MPP for Davenport.

I’d like to thank my parliamentary assistant, all members from all parties who served on the committee—I know there was some very good discussion during the committee sessions. In particular, I want to highlight the fantastic work that the member for Davenport has done, shepherding this bill through. She’s done a fantastic job doing that. We’ll hear from her later on some of the specifics of the bill, because I think she knows this bill even better than I do. I think I can say that pretty safely. There are a lot of pieces to this bill, and she knows pretty much every nook and cranny of it.

The burden reduction bill, if passed, will help Ontario ministries to cut unnecessary red tape and create savings and benefits for both government and for business. Reducing and streamlining unnecessary red tape and making Ontario one of the easiest places in North America to do business is a key priority of our government. In particular, in a fiercely competitive global economy, it’s very important that Ontario be seen as a friendly place for investment and growth. Indeed, if you look at our growth numbers over the last little while, we’re succeeding very well indeed.

This bill proposes to make more than 150 amendments to more than 50 statutes from 11 ministries. As I said, my parliamentary assistant will speak to some of the specifics of the bill in a while.

The Burden Reduction Act would be the first of annual burden reduction bills. This annual process will provide ministries with a regular way to identify and cut unnecessary red tape. It is, I know—and sometimes the opposition will call it an omnibus bill, and that’s kind of what it is. There are sometimes criticisms of omnibus bills, because you do put a lot into it together.

But really, it’s the only way for us, together, to tackle regulatory burden on a systematic basis every single year—at least once a year—coming forward with this, where we can put all the ideas that, frankly, can come from all sides of the House, our business community at large and through our many processes, and to be able to get them through the Legislature on a timely basis. It’s one thing to identify a good idea; it’s another thing to get it through the Legislature and, at times, change legislation and regulations to actually make it happen.

It sometimes can be frustrating when you know something’s the right thing to do, but you don’t have the vehicle to make the changes legislatively. So this is a vehicle that I think all parties can take advantage of. We’re always going to be open, when it comes to reducing regulatory burden, to ideas from both sides of the House.

I don’t want to take credit for this idea, even though it’s something we came up with as a government, because the idea actually came from the CFIB—one of many ideas that we’ve worked with the CFIB on. We have a very good relationship with the CFIB, and continue to. They, of course, are one of the primary spokespeople for small and medium-sized businesses in the province. We’ll continue to work with them as we make Ontario a leader in reducing regulatory burden.

The last burden reduction bill was passed in 2010. Since 2011, burden reduction initiatives have saved Ontario businesses a total of $122 million and, just as importantly, 5.4 million hours of work time. That’s a new measurement that we didn’t use in the past but that we’re using now on a systematic basis. Again, that’s a measurement we’re using at the request and behest of the CFIB, as we continue to work together to bring down regulatory burden in this province. That goal that we’ve met surpasses the province’s goal that was set some time ago to reduce business costs by $100 million by 2017.

This Burden Reduction Act will continue to reduce the cost of doing business in Ontario. Eleven partner ministries have participated in this effort, which is important. It is a government-wide initiative. We expect that the additional savings of this bill, if passed, would be about $31 million for businesses, perhaps even more than that.

I want to share some of the changes, just to give a flavour of some of the things in the bill, with the members and those that are watching this morning. One of the areas that—and this is just a common-sense provision that just makes sense. Provincial inspectors currently have to meet face-to-face with business owners, under the Consumer Protection Act, to request information. So when they’re investigating something, they have to go to the business, which is time and effort. They need to see the business owner face-to-face, which takes up the business owner’s time.

If passed, this act will let inspectors make a simple phone call or write an email, which, I think, makes an inordinate amount of sense.

Another area that I really like in this bill is the provision on superload vehicle permits. Right now, if you’re a trucker with a heavy load, you need a police escort. If passed, the act will allow other qualified officials to provide that escort instead. Many of us have heard from folks—in the Sarnia area, in particular, where you have fabricators of very heavy equipment—that this is a costly burden to them and something that will save them dollars as well.

An area that there was some discussion on at committee was the industrial exception. Keeping the industrial exception helps businesses avoid costs of, some would say, up to $196 million per year. This is critical for Ontario manufacturers as they strive to be competitive in a fiercely competitive global economy. The industrial exemption also maintains good jobs for technicians, which are good middle-income jobs. That’s important for our economy, to ensure that we maintain and protect those good middle-income jobs.

We know that the business community supports these changes. In fact, Plamen Petkov, the Ontario vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business had this to say: “The Ontario government continues to demonstrate that it is committed to reducing the regulatory burden on small business in the province. By amending several existing acts, the Burden Reduction Act lays the groundwork for achieving real and measurable regulatory relief.” It’s not just the CFIB that supports these changes.

The Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, the Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association, the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association and, of course, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce all support Bill 27 and all have had some input into the bill—which leads me to wonder why the opposition seemed not to be so supportive of manufacturing when it comes to this bill.

Maintaining the industrial exemption has been one of the top asks from our manufacturers, if not the top ask of our manufacturers, during this process. But when members of the PC Party had an opportunity to support this legislation, rather than stand up for manufacturers in the province, they abstained altogether. I’m hoping that they’ll see the light by third reading and come on board to support it, but that is yet to be seen.

That’s not that unusual for the PC Party. When it comes to the big investments and the partnerships that we’ve made with manufacturers in our business support programs, we have invested $2 billion with Ontario manufacturers. That’s unlocked $18 billion of private sector investment in our manufacturing sector, and it’s helped to support over 80,000 manufacturing jobs. Unfortunately, the PC Party doesn’t support any of those investments, so it’s not that surprising that they wouldn’t stand up for manufacturers at committee. But we’re hoping that by third reading—and maybe the critic will let us know—they’ll support the bill and they’ll indeed stand with us, with the manufacturing sector.

The NDP’s position on this is to displace qualified technicians at manufacturing facilities who have been working on equipment for decades. I don’t think it makes sense to do that. There’s just no evidence, or very little evidence, that would suggest this would be at all beneficial. These are good middle-income jobs, and we intend to protect them through these measures. But again, I’m not surprised that the NDP would not be supporting the manufacturing sector because we all know that they have a plan in place to whack the manufacturing sector with increases to corporate taxes, something that we will refuse to do.

Right now, we have one opposition party that doesn’t stand up for manufacturing in the province and another one that, even worse, is actively working against them. I’m hoping that by the time third reading comes along, my opposition colleagues will see the light on this bill and recognize it’s an important bill to support. Indeed, that may well happen in the interchange that we have over the next little while.

I want to speak a little bit about our efforts to reduce regulatory burden, including our efforts with this bill. I want to leave about 10 minutes for my parliamentary assistant. I see I’m already running into my 10 minutes’ time, so I’ve gotten a little bit carried away here.

Our Open for Business strategy has reduced or eliminated 80,000 regulatory burdens since 2008. That’s a 17% reduction in regulatory burden. It’s something we’re very, very proud of. We’ve saved about $122 million through 26 projects, as identified in our 2016 Burden Reduction Report that came out not too long ago.

I would speak to our Red Tape Challenge, Madam Chair, but I’m going to run out of time. Our Red Tape Challenge started with the auto parts sector. I want to give credit to Flavio Volpe and the Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association for their participation in that. We have identified at least 63 opportunities to reduce regulatory burden in the auto parts sector. Food processing is coming next—I know the Minister of Agriculture and Food will be very interested in that—then financial services, followed by the mining sector.

I’m confident that with this bill and the other initiatives we’re taking, including our modernization committee that’s helping us streamline our decision-making process in reducing regulatory burden through government, we are leading not only the country; we are a global leader when it comes to reducing regulatory burden, something we’re very, very proud of.

At the same time, we believe there’s still more work to do. That’s why these bills, on an annual basis, are very, very important: Because there are still good ideas coming forward. We’re going to work relentlessly with our business community. We’ll take in the considerations that come forward from the parties opposite to help reduce regulatory burden. We will fulfill our goal and I believe our destiny to make Ontario the easiest place in the world in which to invest and do business.

I’ll now pass it over to my—it goes over there. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Further debate?

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I am honoured to rise for third reading to debate Bill 27 and to follow the Minister of Economic Development.

I think everyone is pleased to see this government bring forward a bill aimed at cutting red tape in the province of Ontario. I’ve said many times, and many other members have said, that Ontario has hundreds of thousands of regulations on the books, and our businesses are burdened with over $14 billion in costs every year as a result of this government’s red tape. So a burden reduction act is obviously very prudent and timely. But unfortunately, what the government actually brought forward in Bill 27 is a drop in the bucket.

Madam Speaker, as our party and I outlined during second reading, we will be supporting this bill, because even a drop in the bucket is better than nothing. But I’m disappointed by how unambitious the government has been with burden and red-tape reduction. According to the ministry’s own numbers, this bill will only save businesses in Ontario—all businesses—a total of $31.5 million. When you spread that out across all the companies in Ontario, it’s really nothing. In fact, it’s a 0.2% annual reduction.

Speaker, when you read this legislation and you look at the numbers, it’s clear that this is a bill intended more for government housekeeping than for the benefit of the private sector and our economy. While we do need to regularly clarify and modernize our laws and regulations with housekeeping-type bills, it’s a shabby practice this government has of dressing up omnibus housekeeping bills under titles that make them sound like some great good is being done for the people or economy of the province.

I would really like to illustrate how inadequate this bill is by painting a picture of what our companies are up against these days. Over the last few months, I’ve been visiting manufacturing facilities and speaking with business owners and entrepreneurs across Ontario. I’d like to take this opportunity to relay what I’ve heard and seen during this manufacturing tour, because I suspect that many government members have not taken the time or the opportunity to have a real look at what is going on in Ontario.

The manufacturing we have here today is almost exclusively advanced manufacturing. It’s all that’s left. These manufacturers are producing innovative products better than anybody elsewhere. They are building things that we need in this province, ensuring we get quality products made ethically and which create jobs here instead of in China or America. Manufacturing offers indiscriminate opportunities for meaningful work and a good living.

If you walk into a manufacturing plant today, you will find people from every walk of life. You will find managers who are hard-working first-generation Canadians who didn’t have formal education but who have made their way up the ranks and can now provide a good life and better opportunity for their children. You will find scientists, MBAs and engineers alongside skilled tradespeople. You will find women doing everything from driving forklifts to working in management. You will find second- and third-generation owners, and employees who aren’t just co-workers, but friends and neighbours.

You will find people who take pride in building something here in Ontario that is better than what you’ll find anywhere else in the world. You will find innovators and creators, people developing the most eco-friendly technologies available.

This government loves to talk about innovation, but seems to only recognize the sort of innovation that is theoretical and comes out of labs where everyone wears a white coat. There is no recognition of applied research and development, of that front-line innovation that happens when people refine and modernize the processes and products they actually engage with every day.

Most of all, what you will find when you visit an Ontario manufacturer today is people working hard and struggling to keep their plants open, even when they know it makes financial sense to move their operation, but because they care about their employees and their community, they are fighting to remain here in Ontario. These are companies who have, by and large, cut their management and staffing to the bone. They have made serious investments to make their operations as energy-efficient and environmentally friendly as possible. In fact, many are leaders in developing new technologies to help other companies the world over become more efficient and sustainable.

They have done everything they can to keep their businesses viable in Ontario, but this Liberal government, far from offering relief, keeps creating roadblocks for them. They keep stacking the deck with new challenges that hand their competitors the competitive advantage. Businesses keep getting thrown Liberal curveballs, giving no measure of stability or predictability to Ontario’s economy.

Cap-and-trade and the high cost of hydro are certainly big issues for businesses, but the cost of regulatory compliance is also taking a heavy toll. Time, as well as money, is a precious resource, especially for small and medium-sized businesses. No one can remember a time when more resources had to be poured into keeping the government happy.

Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised. This government and this Premier have made it clear that they’re not interested in helping manufacturers, and that despite the tremendous role this sector has and continues to play, it has no place in Ontario’s future. In fact, I believe Premier Wynne and this Liberal government see the private sector, and manufacturing in particular, as sunset industries.

Their agenda is one of big government—more intrusion and more interference—and a belief that government knows best.

While service jobs and tech jobs are great, the Premier is setting up a false choice when she says it has to be either these jobs or manufacturing jobs. We can and should have both in Ontario. We must have both to create a strong and growing middle class in this province.

When the Premier says we can’t have traditional manufacturing or that manufacturing is being “sunset” in Ontario, it may in fact be true, but only as a result of the policies of this Liberal government.

If the best that this government can do to alleviate the burden on business is to reduce regulatory costs by 0.2%, especially when they’re facing record high hydro rates and the massive cost of cap-and-trade, then I think it is clear that this is a government not interested in true economic development and growth. I will venture even further and say I don’t see the evidence that this government is interested in sustainable economic development.

I visited one manufacturer who wanted to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in new machinery to increase productivity and decrease their environmental impact, which sounds exactly like what this government would want them to do. But it turns out that Liberal policies tell a very different story. This Liberal government, which claims to promote advanced manufacturing and green technology, held the process up, forced this family-run business to gamble with significant sums of money, and refused to give them answers about the approval process, preventing them from bringing this machinery into operation for almost three years.

The ministry and the TSSA just didn’t have the internal systems in place to accommodate this innovation, so it wasn’t clear how regulations should be applied. The result was a company being asked to lay out a lot of money to procure a machine that the government couldn’t tell them whether they would be able to use or not.

Speaker, this is a story that we continue to hear at almost every manufacturing facility that we visit.

When this is the reality of how this government deals with innovative and green technologies, why should anyone believe that this Premier has a real plan for sustainable economic development? Why should anyone believe that this government is serious about getting regulation out of business or fostering innovation?

This government was very proud that this omnibus bill was making over 150 amendments to 11 ministries, but it’s time we start talking about quality, not just quantity, when it comes to red tape, because this bill does not make the sort of comprehensive changes that would have a real impact on the private sector’s red-tape burden.

This is a bill that fixes a lot of little things. It updates things that should have been updated many, many years ago—in fact, far in advance of red tape and over-burdensome regulations costing Ontario’s economy $14 billion. That’s why it’s making a small step, as I said in the beginning, of saving businesses the very small amount of $31 million.

We will be supporting it, based on that premise, but I would encourage the government to go a heck of a lot further. Start getting government out of the way of business, free up the free market and allow entrepreneurs, job creators and businesses to create jobs and focus on growing their businesses in the province of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Further debate.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: It’s a pleasure to rise this morning and speak once again to Bill 27, the Burden Reduction Act, which is essentially a fulfillment of the government’s obligation under previous trading agreements and obligations through other measures. It is an omnibus bill, with 17 schedules that affect various ministries. The majority of the mechanisms and content in the bill are left to regulation. It is miniscule in its scope in terms of actually lessening the burden on businesses and communities in Ontario. It does very little to address the whole picture in our communities.

We know some of the economic struggles that exist; one of them is certainly the skyrocketing cost of hydro and the need for businesses in our communities to deal with that. They cannot escape the use of hydro in the province. Despite doing everything that this government has asked—conserving and implementing new measures, even going as far as throttling production to match the peak demand and off-peak demand cycles that the government has arbitrarily imposed—they still are being crushed when performing their businesses and trying to make a dollar out there.

It seems as though this government has come to some final realization. We are anticipating—waiting with bated breath—the Premier’s announcement today on how she will finally address the skyrocketing cost that’s existed under the Liberal government. We hear that it’s going to be an extension over 25 years of some of the financing for some of the private contracts that they’ve highlighted and contracted out. That’s simply kicking the can down the road. That’s leaving a debt to future generations. That is not dealing with the systemic issues of generation, privatization, distribution and the good stewardship of what used to be a really viable and healthy public service.

But to the bill—New Democrats aren’t afraid to call this what it is: It’s window dressing. We aren’t scared of empty phrases like “burden reduction.” Anyone who reads the scope of this bill understands that, again, the parameters of the changes are miniscule and don’t do anything.

However, there are two what we would call, and what members would understand in here to be, poison pills built into this bill. Those poison pills open up the sale and privatization of Ontario Place. Just down the road from here lies a wonderful public space that had been in operation for years, that provided entertainment and cultural activities for families across the province: Ontario Place, a wonderful lakefront setting that has been bought and paid for by taxpayers in this province.

Speaker, if you’re in the real estate market and you’re looking for good value for money as an investment, lakefront property is always a spot that you can be assured isn’t going to depreciate in value, for the simple fact that they’re not building any more lakefront property.

What this government has done through

schedule 16 of this bill is allow Ontario Place Corp. to “dispose of land, buildings and structures, or any interest in land, buildings and structures, by sale, lease or otherwise,” subject to the approval of the government. This is another clear cash grab on the part of a desperate government that is searching for revenue in every corner that it can. Whether it’s the sale of Hydro One, the sale of Ontario Place, the potential sale and privatization of the LCBO, the privatization—or, they would say, the modernization—of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp., these guys are broke and looking for every dollar they can to funnel into, hopefully, public services, but we won’t hold our breath.

We know that many of their initiatives have failed. I’ll highlight one where the competency of the government when it comes to economic development has to be called into question. Just a couple of weeks ago, in my riding of Essex, a story emerged highlighting an investment made by the government in 2014, a $3-million investment into a private canning facility in my riding, Thomas Canning.

The details of the $3-million grant are really impossible to find. We don’t know what the parameters of that grant were or are because they refuse to share it with us. We know that at some point in time, Thomas Canning was identified as a potentially good investment to increase tomato processing in southwestern Ontario, and at that time, when Heinz was shuttering its operation in Leamington, it made sense.

What you would expect and what you would hope is if the government is embarking on economic development initiatives with private sector businesses, there would be some concrete accountability and transparency measures built into that. Well, lo and behold, two years later, there has been $4 million worth of tomatoes left rotting in the field because Thomas Canning can’t or hasn’t fulfilled its contracts with those growers. So not only has the province delivered $3 million to a private company to hopefully increase their capacity; they haven’t, and we’ve lost good, quality food that rotted on the vines.

That’s a shame, when people are hungry in this province—just the nature of wasting food. How is that possible? Yet that’s the type of scrutiny and transparency that this government attaches to its economic development policies.

If this is a continuation of that, it doesn’t breed much confidence in myself or our party that they have the best interests of our partners in the private sector, or our taxpayers who are ultimately paying the price of these types of initiatives, at heart.

There’s more than simply their failures of initiating good economic development policy to be highlighted. The bill contains within it what we all know in this place as a massive political flip-flop. In this House, we’ve all become aware of the important role that the professional engineers of Ontario play in Ontario. They are our fail-safe. They are the ones who are independent and provide the scrutiny on infrastructure projects and mechanical engineering projects. They are the professionals that tell us how things work, how things should work and why, if they’re not done correctly, they won’t work. We rely on them. They are professionals.

We acknowledge that so much that the Liberal government—and I want to remind the Liberal government that the designation “professional engineer” actually means something. They are our professionals. But what the government has done is, within the context of Bill 27, they’ve removed the industrial exception. What that means is that no longer will that fail-safe need to be put into place to scrutinize projects around the province. Companies will no longer need to have that third critical eye on different initiatives.

Engineers have raised the flag on this, not only on its impact on productivity and quality, but on public safety. If you can imagine that a company is contracted to build a bridge and isn’t required to have third-party, independent validation of the drawings or the processes through professional engineers, that’s going to call into question the reliability of that bridge, and that’s as simple as it is.

They are eliminating this requirement with the hope that it’s going to save money. Yes, you know what? Maybe if you don’t have to pay engineers to provide their expertise on certain critical jobs, yes, that might save you some money within the project. But ultimately, when that fails and people are harmed, how much does that cost? Isn’t it reasonable to put in every fail-safe mechanism that we know exists, that is proven to ensure the protection, the safety and the value for money, that we can?

They’ve turned their back on the professional engineers of Ontario, and that’s another reason that New Democrats will not be supporting this bill. We stand proud to ensure that we protect public safety and put it as paramount. Ultimately, that is our role here in whatever we do. It should be our foremost thought. Sure, it’s good public policy, and sure, it might be politically expedient, but does this ensure the protection of the people of our province? That’s what our number one goal is. I see it as that. Evidently, it’s not a priority for the government.

Speaker, again, the bill is an omnibus bill. It’s a housekeeping bill. The majority of the content in here is so minuscule that for the government to claim that it’s actually lessening red tape or regulatory burden on businesses is just laughable. When businesses in this province set up and they make their economic case and all of a sudden they are hit with massive increases in hydro rates, there’s something wrong here. The government has a real opportunity to address the exodus of good-paying manufacturing jobs, good-paying agricultural jobs and those in processing.

They have an opportunity to do that, but this is tinkering around the edges. As far as I see, it provides no confidence in our business community that they are actually serious about supporting economic growth in Ontario.

I’ll tell you what they could do. They could use this opportunity to work diligently with our business community to knock down those energy costs and provide stability.

Interjection: We are.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: They say they are, Speaker, but their word is as good as mud these days. All you have to do is open up your local newspaper or read an editorial or read the comments section. Nobody believes them. It could be because we’ve heard it all before. We have heard that these contracts were going to provide good value for money. We have heard that putting in smart meters was going to reduce consumption. We have heard that we were going to get a 15% reduction in auto insurance. It’s called a stretch goal—again, laughable.

Speaker, what they really could do is work with our communities, work with our municipal leadership who need and who have identified where investments can be made in all measures, but certainly in support through municipal initiatives, through infrastructure projects on the ground, not simply pet projects that are politically expedient. But there is nothing like that in this bill. There is nothing that facilitates that or streamlines that process. There is no single window, as exists in Michigan and Ohio, where businesses who want to set up walk in and can deal with one single regulatory mechanism.

Mr. James J. Bradley: How about Michigan?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Yes, in Michigan. You walk in, you open it up, and you talk to a dedicated representative who will guide you through the process and make that process of opening up a business so easy and so supportive of compliance that you’ve got businesses popping up each and every day—let alone a very competitive electricity rate. They forget that that’s the jurisdiction with which we are competing. There’s so much that they could do, but I guess they go for what’s politically expedient rather than what is necessary and what actually takes a little bit of hard work. But they have had 14 years to do that.

You would ask, and it’s fair to ask, “What took you so long?” or “Why, at this point, is this as far as you can go?” Again, it’s a shame.

Speaker, we have an opportunity, as I see it, in the manufacturing sector, and given the climate of trade in North America and international trade and the uncertainty that has unfolded, it would be great if this government came out strong and loud with some plan, a strategy, a strategy that we have called on for decades around manufacturing. Where is our provincial manufacturing strategy that actually streamlines and highlights what this government is able to do and can do and is ready to do to facilitate new manufacturing in the country? It’s an ad hoc process that lends no continuity and certainty to businesses that are looking to expand or to even start anew in this province.

There is one aspect that this government could have potentially infused into this massive omnibus bill. What about a strategy around agriculture production, so that we don’t get into these types of issues where $4 million worth of tomatoes are rotting in the field? What about if we actually had a strategy that supported growers, supported farmers’ markets, supported domestic production and domestic processing? Why not?

Interjection: That would be great.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Wouldn’t that be great?

Imagine if this government took agriculture production in the province seriously and formed a standing committee on agriculture and rural affairs, where an enormous amount of value is left unlocked, simply because we grow it and get it out of the province. Why not add value to those products and sell it?

More and more people are wanting to know not only where their food comes from but what’s in it and who made it. They want to know it was John and Sally from down the road, who grow their tomatoes in a holistic—in an organic way. They want to support their local industries. That’s where the market is going.

This government doesn’t see those opportunities because it’s too blinded by ideology and, again, political expediency, blinded by what they need to do to stay alive and to survive, rather than what they need to do to ensure that Ontario thrives.

That all rhymes. If you caught that, that was almost a poem, and it was really good.

Mr. John Fraser: I like holistic tomatoes.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: That was wrong. I didn’t mean holistic. I mean eating organically. I apologize.

Mr. Randy Hillier: John is a big consumer of holistic tomatoes.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: But you get what I’m saying here, Speaker. You understand what I’m saying.

Specifically in agriculture production, we had the unfortunate event of Heinz leaving its business in Leamington, and leaving hundreds of workers without a job, after over a hundred years of operation in Leamington. That left our community reeling, and the uncertainty and the anxiety was palpable. However, a new company came in to operate in that facility, and they have contracted out with French’s ketchup.

Why is that an important story? Well, Speaker, if you look at what has ensued after that—French’s has contracted and has committed to using 100% Ontario-grown tomatoes for their products. Their sales exploded because, again, people want to know where their food is coming from.

These are opportunities that exist in our economy right now. This is where we would like to see the government focus any initiatives that go towards supporting and bolstering our economy. But they’re missing the mark. Again, every day that goes by, we see businesses fleeing our communities, and leaving communities wondering how they’re going to survive.

I think I have made the case here that there’s a lot to be desired from this bill, and a lot that is obviously left out that could have presented an opportunity. But also, in a sense, it’s another indication of this government’s desperate need to find money wherever it can by selling publicly owned resources and publicly owned facilities like Ontario Place for—who knows? To pay down the enormous debt that has accrued over the 14 years? To try to buy back some good faith in the communities that have struggled under their tenure? We don’t know. But we know that if it’s the Liberal government that’s at the helm, most likely we’re heading in the wrong direction.

I thank you very much for your time, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Further debate?

Mrs. Cristina Martins: I’m pleased to rise as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Economic Development and Growth. I want to start off by thanking the minister for his remarks and for being such a champion in cutting red tape.

I know from my constituents in Davenport and from my own career in business how important it is to have a modern, streamlined and efficient business climate. It’s what helps to attract new businesses to Ontario and helps those that are already here to get products and services to consumers more efficiently and create more opportunity to invest in jobs and growth. This bill is full of measures to reduce unnecessary red tape. Each measure looked at on its own may not be earth-shattering, but looking at this package of up to $31 million in cost savings and approximately $200 million in cost avoidance—to me, that’s quite impressive.

That being said, I’d like to take this opportunity to highlight some of the burden reduction initiatives that are contained in this bill. We have taken a holistic approach across government to find efficiencies for businesses and other stakeholders. As the minister pointed out, we are doing that while also protecting environmental and health and safety standards. We know that some regulations are, of course essential, and in areas like our agri-food sector, regulations can even be a competitive edge. So it is important to understand what we are talking about.

Cutting red tape is not about deregulating; it’s about improving interactions between business and government to ensure we achieve our regulatory goals in the least costly and most efficient manner possible.

The following are some of the key changes this bill would enact. Retaining the industrial exception in the Professional Engineers Act would allow businesses to have work performed on their own equipment by qualified technicians rather than professional engineers. This is not the government turning their backs on professional engineers. The proposed industrial exception would continue to protect worker health and safety, provide greater certainty in the sector and avoid unnecessary costs, resulting in an estimated savings up to approximately $200 million per year for the manufacturing sector.

You know, Madam Speaker, it is absolutely shocking to me that, when this measure came up to a named vote in committee, the PC Party didn’t support it. It’s one thing to rise in the House and talk about the importance of manufacturing and of reducing red tape; it’s another thing to stand up and take action. In terms of supporting manufacturers and reducing red tape, the PC Party is all talk and no action. I strongly encourage them to support this bill on final reading because there is so much in here to cut red tape.

On that note, I’d like to highlight some more measures contained in this bill.

Repealing the outdated Bulk Sales Act that was established over 100 years ago: Creditors now have access to a number of more effective ways to protect their interests, and the old legislation is expensive to administer. Ontario would join all other Canadian jurisdictions in eliminating the statutory requirement.

This bill would enable the incorporation of recognized standards for international business dealings into Ontario’s law. It would modernize our rules for commercial arbitration, making Ontario a more attractive jurisdiction for resolving cross-border disputes.

The proposed amendments to the courts of justice and justice of the peace act would help the court system function more efficiently and effectively. For example, the process for making court rules and provincial offences would be simplified, providing flexibility to address changes in technology.

Other measures in this bill will propose minor changes and administrative updates to four acts in the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry that enable electronic communications between the ministry and their clients. These outdated rules have impacts on government and business, so making these changes saves us all time and money.

The Ministry of Labour has also made changes to cut red tape, amending the Protecting Child Performers Act with regard to overnight travel expenses, the number of hours a child performer may work in a day and rules relating to breaks and requirements for individualized adult supervision. All of these proposed changes are intended to align the act with current industry practices while still maintaining child performer safety.

The

schedule also amends the Registered Human Resources Professionals Act to provide the authority for the Human Resources Professionals Association to regulate its members who conduct workplace investigations.

I’ll now take a minute to highlight some changes at the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. The bill proposes minor changes that would make it possible for more business activities to move to the Environmental Activity and Sector Registry, the online self-registration system available for low-risk activities, reducing the number of face-to-face meetings required in compliance checks. Instead, inspectors would be able to request information through calls or emails when appropriate, improving service delivery and cutting costs associated with compliances.

The Ministry of Government and Consumer Services will also see red tape reductions proposed through measures such as modernizing the Business Corporations Act and amending the Business Regulation Reform Act.

The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport will also see red tape reductions, changing the Ontario Place Corporation Act to better support the province’s vision for Ontario Place as a year-round, vibrant waterfront destination. The proposed amendments simply lower the cost and complexity of agreements, so that third-party partners can invest in Ontario Place.

Madam Speaker, the New Democrats are constantly standing in the way of this, but they need to understand the importance of allowing government to work at the speed of business. Had they attended the multiple offerings to the briefings for this bill, they would understand that clearly. Yes, the proposed amendment would allow for third-party investors, but we have been clear that our government has not and will not be considering the sale of this historic jewel in the province.

Amending the Highway Traffic Act will allow for non-police escorts to ensure the safe movement of oversize and overweight loads that require traffic control. This was a key ask we heard from our business community in southwestern Ontario, who needs to move large goods to domestic and international markets. I’m pleased to say this bill would make that easier to do.

Madam Speaker, the amendments in this act are intended to reduce regulatory burdens to save businesses time and money. However, it seems that the PCs don’t either want to support us in cutting red tape or they just don’t care enough about the Ontario economy to support a Liberal government bill. Their members not only abstained from voting on one or two amendments; the fact of the matter is they didn’t support this whole bill, a bill that contains amendments that would save up to $200 million for the manufacturing sector, and up to an additional $31 million for the broader Ontario community.

We urge the opposition and third party to think about the impact these measures would have on fostering a more competitive business climate in Ontario, and vote in favour of this bill later today.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Further debate.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Speaker, it’s been a pleasure listening to the debate this morning on Bill 27, the Burden Reduction Act. Most of the people speaking this morning have been speaking about the big picture of red tape and the burden it imposes on society. I’d like to refocus the debate a little bit and talk about how the big picture of red tape impacts the little guy, the individual. What does the little guy see about the big picture of red tape?

To illustrate this, I want to speak about a gentleman named Mr. Simourd. Mr. Simourd purchased a waterfront building lot on Farren Lake in Lanark county four years ago. It was a four-acre waterfront, recognized, registered, residential building lot. He has done four site-plan agreements so far, each one done by a professional planner; each one understood to incorporate all the requirements of the provincial policy statement on land use. Each one was denied, then reformed, revised and denied once again.

He has also undertaken three costly environmental assessments on this property, each one done by a professional consulting engineer, at great cost. He has done two biodiversity studies to look for gray ratsnakes, loggerhead shrikes, five-toed skinks and any other endangered species. They have not found any.

I want to just put this out, as well: There are no provincially significantly wetlands on this property. There are no areas of natural and scientific importance. It’s a recognized residential building lot. It’s been four years and he hasn’t got a shovel in the ground. He hasn’t got permission yet. That same four-acre lot here in Toronto would support 32 single detached homes on 50-foot lots. And I can tell you, it wouldn’t take four years in Toronto to get approval for 32 homes.

But there were not only the four site plans, the three environmental assessments and the two biodiversities; he also spent three days at an OMB hearing just a couple of weeks ago—lawyers on each side—for a single-family retirement home in rural Ontario. He has now spent more money in the approval process than he did for his lot. He has spent more money on professional planners, on consultants, on regulations than he did for his building lot. Isn’t this astonishing? That’s what red tape actually looks like for the little guy, for Mr. Simourd.

I want to extrapolate that somewhat, Speaker, because it’s not just a cost for Mr. Simourd, at the end of the day, it is a cost for all of us. I’ll just reference—I know some people in this House don’t like the Fraser Institute, but they do a professional job measuring, and objectively measuring, and quantifying economic performance.

The Fraser Institute put out an analysis of Ontario’s economic performance earlier this year. It’s quite clear that rural Ontario has underperformed in all categories as compared to our urban counterparts. Urban Ontario has recovered from the recession in 2008. However, Ontario’s rural economy still has less employment today than we did in 2008. Urban Ontario has recovered; rural Ontario has not.

Everybody is aware about rural school closures that are under way. In my riding alone, 40 elementary schools were slated for closure. That’s an astonishing number: 40 rural schools—elementary—in my riding. Much of that can be viewed in the lack of economic performance, the red tape that this province imposes on rural Ontario, on Mr. Simourd and so many others like Mr. Simourd. We cannot have an Ontario that is prosperous if rural Ontario is stagnant.

I ask all members in this House: We all know that we are here to represent the constituents in our ridings, but we also have an obligation to hear those representations and understand how the various perspectives impact people. The decisions being made—and I’m glad to see that we have members of the cabinet here, because this message is really for the executive of the province, how their decisions that are focused on urban Ontario are impacting, harming and hurting rural Ontario.

Speaker, we talked about this burden reduction, and let’s be objective about this: 150 amendments to a regulatory regime that has 400,000 is not a substantial impact. It’s an improvement, without a doubt. To see some amendments that will possibly save up to $30 million, that’s an improvement. But when compared to the cost of near $15 billion—that’s what the regulatory cost is in Ontario—$30 million really is miniscule.

Again, it’s in the right direction, but I would hope it wasn’t a burden for the government to come up with 150 improvements out of 400,000. I have confidence in saying that there are quality people on the other side of the aisle here who could find a few more amendments than 150 out of those 400,000 regulatory improvements.

But I’ll just, again, take it back to Mr. Simourd, rural Ontario and the provincial policy statement, and so many others. As I was going through that list—the environmental assessments, the biodiversity assessments, the site plans—we can go back to a provincial law that imposes that condition on the municipality. With the provincial policy statement, the Endangered Species Act, the source water protection act, we can go back and see that the genesis of all these things is provincial law.

I’m asking members of the government to seriously reflect and look at how these provincial laws are hurting people in rural Ontario, how they’re contributing to the loss of our rural schools, because we know that if people can’t build, if we can’t grow, if we can’t develop in rural Ontario, we can’t have schools that are full. It’s just a fact. We understand that.

What we have to understand is what we can do about it. Do we have the political will, do we have the resolve, do we have that courage to actually listen to the other side and fix the problems? However noble, however well-intended, however righteous those regulations might be, do we have the political will to look at the impact and make the changes necessary so that everybody in Ontario can be prosperous, everybody in Ontario can grow, and all our communities can have a school?

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Pursuant to the order of the House dated February 21, 2017, I am now required to put the question.

Mr. Duguid has moved third reading of Bill 27,

An Act to reduce the regulatory burden on business, to enact various new Acts and to make other amendments and repeals. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

I hear a no.

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

All those opposed to the motion, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

Third reading vote deferred.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Orders of the day. I recognize the Minister of Economic Development and Growth.

Hon. Brad Duguid: No further business, Madam Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): We will recess until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1003 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise to welcome important guests from the great riding of Oxford who are here today to share their expertise on the aggregate act at the committee this afternoon. In the gallery, from the township of Zorra, are Mayor Margaret Lupton, Councillor Marie Keasey and the CAO, Don MacLeod. Welcome to Queen’s Park. Thank you for coming.

Mr. Han Dong: Joining us this morning in the members’ gallery—she’s not here yet, but she will be—is Dr. Sara Diamond, president and vice-chancellor, and Ms. Carole Beaulieu, vice-president at OCAD University. OCAD celebrates its 140th anniversary this year as the largest and most comprehensive art, design and digital media university in Canada, and it’s in Trinity–Spadina. I want to welcome them. They’re joining us in the gallery right now.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I would like to take a moment to recognize Gérald and Fernande Beaudry, Jean Beaudry’s in-laws, who are seated in the gallery this morning. They own and operate one of Ontario’s 52,000 family farms, which is located in the great northern town of Verner.

In fact, I am honoured to inform this House that the Beaudrys are celebrating 75 years as farmers in this beautiful province. It is the hard work that farmers like the Beaudry family put in each and every day that powers this province’s vibrant agri-food sector. Gérald and Fernande, welcome to Queen’s Park today.

Hon. Liz Sandals: Our page captain today is from Guelph, McGowan Weddig. He has some guests here today: his mother, Sarah Thomson, and grandparents, Karen and Terry Thomson. Welcome.

Hon. Reza Moridi: It is my pleasure to introduce the members of the Boswin Robotics Team, SeaLevel, winners of the FLL provincial champions award. They will be going to the Arkansas Razorback Open to compete against 72 teams. The members are Emma Zhang, Michelle Zhou, Kevin Feng, Sharujan Mutu, Andrew Tang, Ryan Ma and Eddy Ji. Please join me in welcoming them to the Ontario Legislature.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: We have with us today about 50 representatives comprised of elected presidents, directors and managers of the Growmark system of Ontario. From my own riding is the president of the board for Lucknow District Co-op, Dave Gibson; the general manager of the Huron Bay Co-operative, Jeff Hurst, who is accompanied by his wife, Ann; and David and Marion Kuntz.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s my pleasure to welcome Carolyn Ferns, Alana Powell, Nayung Cho and Lena Forte from the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care, advocates joining me today for my private member’s bill. Welcome.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I’d like to welcome to the gallery today Jeff Garrah from Kingston and the Islands. Thank you and welcome.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I’m very pleased to welcome to the members’ gallery today Damon Lee from Toronto-Dominion Bank Financial Group, Darcy Kimmett from the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law, and Andrew Vittas from Queen’s University industrial relations. Welcome. I’m so glad to see you three.

Aujourd’hui, jour pour jour il y a 20 ans, le 2 mars 1997, on se mobilisait pour sauver l’Hôpital Montfort, que le gouvernement progressiste-conservateur voulait fermer. On a chanté Notre place. Je dis merci à tous ceux qui se sont mobilisés pour sauver l’Hôpital Montfort. Merci beaucoup.

I would like to say thank you to all those who participated to save Montfort 20 years ago. Merci.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): An interesting introduction.

Mr. Jim Wilson: In the gallery visiting us today is the father of page Nolan Campbell, Mr. Trent Campbell.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I’m pleased to introduce the guests of page captain Quinn LeFort: his mother, Sherri Hutt, and his father, Jean-Guy LeFort. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Good morning, Speaker. This might be them coming in right now. We have students from Gandatsetiagon Public School. We call it Gandy public school in Pickering. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Laurie Scott: From the Sunderland Co-operative in my riding, I’d like to welcome Blain Thompson to the Legislature.

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: It gives me great pleasure to welcome Carolyn Ferns, who is with the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care, and also Alana Powell, who is here from Ryerson. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: I would like to introduce in the House Mr. John Sobey, vice-president of the Ottawa Professional Fire Fighters Association, on behalf of the Ottawa caucus. Welcome, John, to our Legislature.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I would like to also introduce two constituents from the great riding of Parkdale–High Park: Janet Riggs and Judy Riggs. Welcome.

Oral Questions

Energy policies

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. The Premier acknowledged this morning that she made a mistake. At least six times, she used the word “mistake” or “mistakes.” We know the cost of the mistake is $42 billion. The Premier just signed off on $42 billion in interest payments alone to pay for this government’s mistakes.

Mr. Speaker, whether you pay today or whether you pay tomorrow, eventually the Liberals are going to go back to raising rates. Hydro bills may go down temporarily, but eventually ratepayers are going have to pay this back. The question is, how long and how soon is that going to be?

Interjections.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, the reason the people on this side of the House are standing and cheering is that the people of Ontario who pay for electricity are going to see a 25% reduction by this summer. That’s why they’re cheering.

Interjections.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: And—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Time’s up.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Okay. Time’s up. That’s all I needed to say.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Your decision to continue while I’m standing is making me decide whether or not I’m going to move to warnings. I might have to do that anyway. So if I warn somebody, it’s because you’ve been warned that you could be warned.

Interjection.

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

Start the clock. My message has been sent. I will be insistent.

Supplementary. Leader.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, rehearsed applause for a $42-billion mistake—$42 billion in interest that Ontario ratepayers are going to pay.

Interjection.

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

Anyone else? It could end up being a long list or a short list. Your choice.

Finish, please.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, $42 billion to make up for a mistake—$42 billion in interest payments—and the incredible thing is, this government is proceeding tomorrow with more of these bad green energy contracts. You would think they would learn. Paying more to pay for these bad contracts—and they’re proceeding tomorrow.

My question is: Given that you’ve said this morning six times you made a colossal mistake, are you still going to proceed tomorrow with these additional bad contracts for generation we do not need? When does it stop?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Speaker, let’s just get the facts on the table. What we’re talking about is spreading the costs of the investments that have been made as a result of neglect that was in the system from all governments—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Huron–Bruce is warned. Any more proof needed? I’ll give it.

Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: For 50 years, investments were not made. All governments, Liberal, NDP and Conservative, have to answer for that. We’re talking about spreading those costs over 30 years, and over those 30 years we’re talking about a $25-billion cost. I don’t know where the member got $42 billion. It’s $25 billion over 30 years so that people across those 30 years will share the costs of those investments that had to be made.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: This scheme does nothing to end the unmitigated disaster of the Green Energy Act. It doesn’t touch the generators. The taxpayers will pay in the end.

Why does this scheme do nothing to end the bad contracts—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The Minister of the Environment and Climate Change is warned.

I’ll do this all question period, and I may choose to go to naming. It’s time.

Please finish.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, why is there nothing being done about the Green Energy Act and the bad contracts? Is the reason that the government is still proceeding with more of these contracts, is the reason they’re not touching any of these old bad contracts—is it because of the $1.3 million in donations to the Ontario Liberal Party from companies that benefited from these bad contracts?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Here’s what we’re doing. We’re putting in place relief for everyone, because what we have all heard is that everyone across the province—whether you live in the north or the south, whether you live in urban or rural Ontario—everyone has seen electricity prices go up too far, too fast. That, on average, 25% reduction will be for everyone.

We also heard that people who live in some of the more rural or remote areas—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —are paying distribution costs that are exponentially higher than people who live in denser areas, so we are providing relief for those people as well. For people who live on low incomes, we’re expanding the Ontario Electricity Support Program to help them. We’re making structural change, sustainable change, because people need relief right now, and that’s what we’re delivering.

Energy policies

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. This scheme is simply robbing Peter to pay Paul, but in this case, both Peter and Paul are taxpayers. Paul may pay less next month, but Peter will be paying—hear this—$1.83 billion a year and $42 billion in interest for decades to come because of the mistakes of this government.

Is this scheme about making all of Ontario pay more in interest payments simply to save this government politically in the short term? Is this about their own self-interest? It absolutely is.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The changes that we’re bringing in which will spread the costs of assets and investments that have been made that were absolutely necessary to upgrade the electricity system—we are going to spread those over a 30-year period. That will be about $25 billion over the 30 years. Again, we need to deal with the numbers that are real, and that is the number.

We’re doing this because people need relief right now. The investments that have been made were necessary. Having clean energy is necessary. Having clean air is necessary. We are not backing away from those decisions.

But what we are saying is that people need to pay now, but they also need to pay into the future. There needs to be a sharing of those costs over a longer period of time. That’s fair, and that’s why our plan is being brought forward.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, again to the Premier: This is simply another Liberal shell game. We saw it in the fall with Liberal hydro plan number 17, where they just shifted the clean energy rebate with the HST. This is again simply another shell game. It’s a shift. This government is not getting at the root causes.

I will ask again, why does this government not—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The Minister of Agriculture is warned.

Finish, please.

Mr. Patrick Brown: I understand why the government doesn’t want to hear this: It’s not in their self-interest. But the reality is, they’re not looking at these bad contracts. They’re still proceeding tomorrow with more bad contracts. When you have this massive surplus, when we’re giving it away to our competitors in the United States, I can’t understand why they’re going ahead tomorrow with more bad contracts.

The Premier said this morning she made a mistake. She’s making more mistakes tomorrow. How can you really be remorseful when you’re going to do the same thing tomorrow? Do the right thing. Stop signing these bad deals and actually help ratepayers. That’s what we need to do.

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Really helping ratepayers is exactly what we’re doing. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I will be very honest with everyone in this House and in Ontario. We looked at everything. We looked—

Interjection.

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

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We looked at every possibility. Mr. Speaker, you know, the notion of renegotiating contracts was something that we absolutely looked at. The reality is, there are hundreds of contracts. To renegotiate every one of those, first of all, would be incredibly expensive and, secondly, would take an enormous amount of time.

Finally, as someone—an academic—said to me, “Why don’t you just legislate the cancellation of those contracts?” That would put a chill on doing business with Ontario for decades to come. The reality is, we were not going to go down that path.

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, again to the Premier: I had hoped that in this Liberal hydro announcement, they would have at least said—okay, maybe they don’t have the courage to look at these bad contracts because they’re their friends; they’re their donors. But I at least would have hoped they would say on Friday, tomorrow, that they’re not going to sign more. They’re still proceeding.

Okay, so the government doesn’t want to look at the bad contracts. They don’t want to take on their friends; I get that. But will they at least rein in the executive salaries? There’s nothing this morning about these offensive executive salaries. We pay sometimes 10 times the amount in hydro salaries for executives that other provinces do.

If you’re not going to look at the bad contracts, can you at least look at these $4-million salaries? Can you at least have some empathy for ratepayers that can’t pay their hydro bills?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Mr. Speaker, we are reducing rates by 25% for every ratepayer in this province. I don’t know why the Leader of the Opposition can’t hear that, so let me say it again: 25% for every ratepayer in this province. Our plan provides fast, substantial, widespread and long-lasting relief.

I know the PCs are struggling to agree with one another on their own schemes. On their biggest idea, of ripping up those energy contracts, let me be clear: This will lead to increased rates, lawsuits and penalties. Even the Leader of the Opposition’s own energy critic knows this. Yesterday, what did he say on radio in Ottawa? “It’s going to come at a huge cost to taxpayers and we’re”—

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

Interjections.

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

To the minister: I stand, you sit.

New question.

Energy policies

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Premier. The Premier has a very bad record of saying one thing to Ontarians and doing the exact opposite in reality. She promised to lower auto insurance rates by 15% before an election. But after she got re-elected, guess what? That turned out to be a stretch goal.

How can the Premier expect Ontarians to believe anything that this government says when they promised to do the right thing before—

Interjections.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: How can the people of Ontario expect to believe anything this Premier says when this Premier and this government say one thing before—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The minister responsible for seniors’ affairs is warned.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: How can the Premier expect Ontarians to believe anything that this government has to say when they promise to do the right thing before an election, but then they break that promise right after they get re-elected?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We said that we were going to reduce people’s electricity bills by 8%. That is happening. We have brought forward a plan to reduce people’s electricity bills by 25%. People will see those reductions by the summer. We’ve said further that people who live in remote and rural areas will see a further reduction because they will see their distribution charges reduced. They will see those results.

It is extremely important to me that we recognize that this is about people’s needs. This is about the reality of electricity prices across the province. We’ve brought forward a plan that will give people relief in the immediate term, and that is more than I can say for the third party.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: The Premier also promised not to sell off a vital public asset before an election, but guess what happened after the government got elected? We all know where we are right now. We know this government broke that promise.

Making promises to the people of Ontario and then breaking them once they’re re-elected does nothing more than make people cynical about the government. How can the Premier honestly believe, after so many broken promises, that the people will have any faith in what this government has to say?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’m very pleased to rise and respond, because the first thing I get to say is that we are reducing rates for every ratepayer in this province by 25%.

Also, this is more than just a proposal; this is an actual structural change that’s going to see these rates continue to stay low for the next four years. We’re going to continue to bring forward a long-term energy plan that will continue to make sure that we take costs out of the system.

When you look at the NDP proposal and what they were talking about, their biggest idea is to re-buy Hydro One shares. That will not take one cent off of any of the bills. That’s why—

Interjections.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: It doesn’t take one cent off electricity bills. And it’s not just us who are saying this; the Toronto Star editorial goes even further to say, “There’s no evidence that keeping it public would make this particular problem any better.”

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

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: The reality is, this proposal doesn’t do anything to address the mess in the hydro system, and Ontarians are right to be cynical about it. They know that, come June 8, 2018, if the Liberals win, the hydro rates will go right back up. That’s what they know and that’s what they expect to happen.

In fact, the Premier refuses to address the real issues. They’re not going to stop the sell-off of Hydro One, they won’t address the unfair time-of-use pricing, the bad contracts or the fact that we oversupply electricity and then pay foreign, private companies to purchase that oversupply.

This is a quick political fix to a problem the Premier ignored and her party ignored. They only care about it now because there’s an election looming and the Premier has such bad polling numbers. That’s the reality. Ontarians know that.

Will the Premier admit today that this plan will only end up costing ratepayers more in the long run?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I know the honourable member outlined quite a few points, but let us outline quite a few points.

First thing: The relief we’re talking about will be substantial relief—25% right across the board for every ratepayer. For those who are living in rural parts of our province, in northern parts of the province—800,000 households—they’ll see that number jump up between 40% and 50%. That is significant.

As I said, there are many things that we’re doing. The important thing is that this relief will be lasting because it’s built on real change—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Essex is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: It’s built on real change. It’s not looking at making sure we might possibly be able to have a conversation in a few years down the road with some group that we may want to make up.

We’re looking at plans. We’re bringing forward relief. This 25% is coming, and it will help everyone in this province.

Energy policies

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question again is to the Premier. Let’s be honest here. Ontario families will not be fooled by this desperate—

Interjections.

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

Please put your question.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: We all know that, if the government is re-elected, we’ll be right back here in this same mess with hydro bills so high that small businesses are shuttering their doors and families are forced to choose between heating their homes and putting food on the table.

The Premier has had 14 years in this government to fix the problem, and four years as a Premier to fix the systemic problems with the hydro system, but she hasn’t done that and her party hasn’t done that.

When will the Premier stop kicking the problem down the road and actually address the systemic problems with the hydro system and actually help Ontario families and businesses?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know, when families see their bills in the summer, they are going to see a reduction of, on average, 25%. I believe that that is going to make a huge difference to families across the province.

In addition to that, families who are living in more rural and remote areas, who have been paying exorbitant and exponentially high distribution charges, are going to see a further reduction. That is a structural change.

As well, what we’ve said is that there were some costs that were being borne by ratepayers that need actually to be borne by the whole group of Ontarians, by taxpayers. That’s a structural change that we have made.

In addition, financing the payoff of those assets over 30 years: That’s a structural change. Those were the structural issues that were driving costs. Structural change is exactly what we’re delivering to Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Mr. Speaker, this is just a plan that doubles down on a bad plan and extends it for a long period of time. That’s all it is.

The people who will be the happiest with this plan are the Premier’s small group of well-connected friends. They’re the ones who are going to be happy about this. The Premier is hoping this plan will help her Liberal Party, but she knows certainly this is going to help her banker friends.

It doesn’t actually address the systemic problems with the hydro system and it doesn’t actually permanently lower the bills. It just makes people cynical, and that’s absolutely the wrong thing.

A short-term fix is not enough. A plan that doesn’t make the real, concrete changes to address the systemic problems with our hydro system is nothing more than a desperate attempt from an unpopular government to cling on to power. That’s all it is.

Will the Premier show Ontarians the respect they deserve, and actually come up with a real plan that addresses the real problems to permanently lower the cost of hydro in this province?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I know the honourable member mentioned our small group of friends. That small group of friends is every single ratepayer in this province.

It’s a 25% reduction that they are going to see in the very near future. It’s not a bumper-sticker plan, like they brought forward, that talks about just a number they brought out of air that they could maybe work with if they can get this group put together.

We have substantial structural changes that we have brought forward. We are bringing forward significant changes to the RRRP. We are upgrading the OESP program.

In their plan, low-income individuals were on the last page, and they were told to sit and wait. We’re not waiting to help low-income individuals. We’re even creating a new affordability fund that low-income individuals can access on top of the HAP program, and it’s going to help many, many people get out of the perpetual cycle of not being able to pay their bills.

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

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: The problem with the Liberals’ hydro system is, they continue to sell off our public asset—they’re selling off Hydro One. They continue with an unfair time-of-use fee. They’re doubling down on bad contracts. They’re paying private, foreign companies—they’re paying them for the energy we overproduce. These are the problems, and guess what? None of these problems are being solved by this plan; none of these issues are being addressed by this government.

Ontarians can’t trust this Premier with their hydro bills. They don’t believe that stretching out the payments is in any way addressing the root cause of the problems.

Will the Premier show that she’s serious about tackling the mess that her government and her leadership have created, and implement a plan that will develop a real solution to this problem and permanently lower the cost of hydro in this province? The people deserve that.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: So, we’ve done exactly that. We’ve made sure that rates are coming down by 25% for every single ratepayer in this province.

When it comes to those who are living in our rural remotes or even some of our smaller communities—that’s 800,000 households—800,000 households will see even more than that. They’ll see more than that. For those who have a hard time even paying their bills when it is a 25% reduction, we have now programs in place that will actually help them, and help more of them.

The one thing that we are also very proud of is making sure that we have a new on-reserve First Nations rate, Mr. Speaker, helping out 21,500 First Nations people across our province.

We will continue to listen to and work for the people of Ontario. That’s why we have this 25% reduction plan.

Energy policies

Mr. Todd Smith: My question this morning is for the Premier. Thanks to this morning’s Liberal scheme, we now know that Ontarians are going to be on the hook for another $42 billion in brand new interest costs in Ontario. The Premier said this morning she can’t even guarantee long-term relief for ratepayers. That’s because they’re pushing even more of these expensive FIT contracts onto the grid tomorrow. These are the same types of contracts that got us in this mess in the first place.

If you’re spending $42 billion of today’s money to pay for yesterday’s mistakes, how much more are we going have to pay for the mistakes that you’re about to make tomorrow?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Obviously, the honourable member hasn’t actually really looked at the plan, because he would then understand that what we’re talking about is $25 billion over 30 years. We’re making sure that one generation does not pay for something that will be used by many generations. We’re off-loading those costs and making sure that everyone will pay their fair share because we’re making the system fair—a 25% reduction right across the board for every ratepayer.

I know he keeps talking about our FIT contracts and all of those bad contracts that he likes to frame. But I know that yesterday, when he was talking on CFRA’s show in Ottawa, out of his mouth, Mr. Speaker, he said, “Ripping up these contracts would come at a huge cost to taxpayers.” We agree. We are making sure that we have a fair system in place, one that is helping 25%—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Todd Smith: You know, on a radio interview a couple of weeks ago, the energy minister for the Liberals called London listeners “dumb.” That’s what he’s done.

It’s $42 billion in new interest costs and the big power company friends who gave $1.3 million to the government aren’t going to be out of a dime. Sixty-four per cent of the costs in the electricity sector come from generators, and guess who’s not going to be affected? Their Liberal friends. The generators are not going to be affected as a result of this scheme today. In fact, a bunch of them are getting new approvals for plans tomorrow to build more of these things.

Six times in her press availability, the Premier said that she made a mistake. But if you keep doing the same thing, it’s not a mistake; it’s negligence, and it has been negligence from this government for years now.

Will the government fix the underlying problem, or are we going to continue robbing Peter’s grandkids to pay Paul’s grandkids by 2030?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: It’s actually this government that is making sure we look after Peter’s grandparents and Paul’s grandparents and their grandkids by reducing rates and eliminating coal. They forget about that. There are substantial reductions we have made to ensure that our children have clean air to breathe. That’s something that they never worried about. They actually left the system in tatters. When they are talking about renewable energy, they completely forget about 42,000 jobs that were created in this sector. They forget about billions and billions of dollars that were made in investing in this province.

Of course, we have now brought forward a plan that will make sure that we have an affordable system, that we have a clean system and we have a green system, something that is the envy of not only this country, but the world.

Child care

Ms. Catherine Fife: Over the last 14 years, Ontario has made so little progress for families who need and deserve quality child care. Currently there are only enough licensed spaces for one in five Ontario families. We know people in Ontario pay the highest child care fees in Canada. We know people in Ontario have the poorest access to quality care for their children. Experts in the field continue to say we do not even have a child care system in the province of Ontario.

By default, your government has left the creation of these spaces to the private market, Premier. Later today we will be debating my private member’s bill, Bill 92, which will ensure that child care in Ontario is high quality, accessible and affordable.

My question is simple: Do you really believe that child care in Ontario should be delivered by for-profit operators?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The minister responsible for early years and child care.

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I want to thank the member opposite for this question. I want to make sure, as we transform and really deliver the child care that Ontarians need in our province, that we are doing our best to help all Ontarians—all Ontarians—across the province. What that means, after consulting with thousands of Ontarians around the province, is that they want choice. They want choice and they want affordability. The forms that comes in is many different forms, not just one option.

So absolutely, when it comes to not-for-profit child care spaces, we understand how important that is. That’s why our past capital investments have only gone to school-based not-for-profit child care spaces. We also understand that 77% of licensed child care centres that are out there are either non-profit or operated by First Nations. We want give parents in rural areas and remote areas choice when they don’t have those options, and we want to make sure we’re doing the right thing.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: This minister was quoted today as saying she believes not-for-profit child care is ideological. Only this Liberal government could say that 30 years of research and study on child care is ideological. Those 30 years of research show that child care delivered by not-for-profit and public models offer greater quality of care than a market-driven approach. When you remove the profit motive, there is more funding for special-needs children and subsidies to improve access. It leads to lower fees for families. We could even pay ECEs the salaries they deserve. We strongly believe that child care is a public service, not something that should be traded on the stock exchange.

Again, will the minister commit to supporting public not-for-profit child care, or does the minister believe that child care should be provided by for-profit companies where quality care is compromised?

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Again, I want to thank the member opposite for this question.

I will tell you that transforming the way we deliver child care in this province is a priority. That’s why the Premier created this space and made me the minister responsible for this: because we understand that families need support. We are doing our best to build the system up and do the right thing.

One of the things we did is, we went around the province and talked to thousands of families, either in person or online. Here’s what they told us: They told us they needed access and they told us that they needed affordable care. We need to build that into the system. We need to give families in the north and in remote areas the options that they need. Sometimes some of these areas only have for-profit centres. We need to ensure that we’re creating those spaces there. We also need to ensure that we’re creating spaces and the support in urban areas. All Ontarians will be getting the child care that they need.

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

Interjections.

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

Hydro rates

Mrs. Cristina Martins: My question is to the Minister of Energy. I would first like to congratulate the Premier for listening to Ontarians, caring enough to act and make people’s lives better. That’s what leadership is.

Mr. Speaker, over the course of many, many months, families and businesses in my riding of Davenport have expressed concern over the rising cost of hydro. They don’t understand why hydro rates have gone up, and they’re frustrated by the bills delivered to their door. People are worried about the price they’re being asked to pay and the impact it is having on their household budgets. For some of them, it’s reached a point where they are choosing between keeping the lights on and keeping food in the refrigerator. This is unacceptable. I know you’ll agree that that’s unacceptable.

North or south, rural or urban, this issue affects us all. While I know our government has already taken concrete steps to help, we all agree more is needed. Can the Minister of Energy tell us about what we’re doing to ensure electricity prices are fairer for Ontario families and businesses?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I want to acknowledge the member for her important question and, of course, her hard work in her constituency. I know, Mr. Speaker, that electricity is an essential part of our life.

Everywhere I was able to travel in this capacity over the last eight months, I heard from people worried about the price they pay for electricity. Over those past few months, I know the Premier, myself and many of our colleagues, MPPs, have made a point of connecting with those individuals. We’ve either gone to visit them or we’ve called them.

People want to know three things: First off, that substantial relief is on its way, and it is; second, that that relief will go to everyone, and it will; and third, that the relief will be lasting, because it is built on real change, that bills won’t just jump back up in a couple of months or a couple of years. I was very pleased to join the Premier this morning in making that announcement. I will start doing so by making sure those bills come down as soon as possible.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: I would like to thank the Minister of Energy for his response. I believe most of us are aware of today’s announcement and are keen to learn more about what it means for families and businesses. I know that this is especially true for my constituents in Davenport.

Earlier this week, the NDP released their own proposal for addressing hydro costs. Ontarians are still waiting on the Conservatives to produce a realistic proposal to bring down rates. While we welcome new ideas on ways to help people struggling with energy rates, I believe it’s important for Ontarians to understand the differences between these approaches. My question to the Minister of Energy is, can you provide more details on our plan and how it compares to the others?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: We’re moving forward with the largest cut to electricity rates in Ontario’s history. We are tripling the size of the cut we’re making to people’s electricity bills from 8% to an average of 25%. For those living in rural communities or with low incomes, the break will be even greater.

How does this compare to the opposition parties, Mr. Speaker? Right now, neither party has a credible approach to dealing with rising electricity costs. While our plan provides fast, substantial, widespread and long-lasting relief, the PCs are struggling to agree with one another on their own one-off schemes. Their biggest idea, ripping up energy contracts, will lead to increased rates, lawsuits and penalties. The other idea, halting the broadening of the ownership of Hydro One, won’t take one cent off of electricity bills. Meanwhile, we’re actually acting. We’re reducing bills and we’re helping people right across this province.

Forest industry

Mrs. Gila Martow: I would say to the member from Davenport: start by stopping signing contracts.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You will tell us who your question is directed to, and then make your comments.

Mrs. Gila Martow: My question is to the Minister of Energy. John and Virginia Fuda and their three children live in my riding of Thornhill. Unfortunately, John has recently had to switch jobs, resulting in a pay cut, and his wife Virginia is on a medical leave from work. John and Virginia are working hard, but their electricity bills are almost as much as their mortgage. Recently, their utility threatened to leave them in the dark. They were told that if they don’t have the money by April 1, they could be disconnected. If they don’t have the money for their prior electricity use by April 1, is this minister planning to play a vicious April Fool’s joke on this family?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: The one thing that is important to recognize is that that’s why we acted, Mr. Speaker, bringing forward this 25% reduction and changing the OESP program to make sure that they actually get some help.

When it comes to possible disconnections, the OEB acted and said that there are not going to be disconnections until April 30. So they have an opportunity now to work with their local utility to make sure it doesn’t happen. There are payment plan options in place. There are many things that the LDCs are doing to ensure that they’re working with customers and helping customers make sure that they don’t get disconnected, especially—and I would encourage my honourable colleague to tell them to talk to the LDC, because if there are health issues at risk, the LDC needs to know that. They will act to ensure that they can help in every way possible.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from Niagara West–Glanbrook.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: My question is to the Minister of Energy.

I know the Liberal Party really appreciated the $1.3 million dollars they received from big, green energy companies before signing the preferential green energy contracts with them, but the people of Ontario in Niagara West–Glanbrook would really appreciate answers for a change.

Will the minister acknowledge that the Green Energy Act was a mistake, apologize for forcing industrial wind turbines on my constituents and ask the Premier to pay back the $1.3 million the Liberals received from big, green energy companies?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I know the honourable member stands up—but let’s talk about the jobs that were created by the green energy contracts: 42,000 in the sector that we are now doing by putting a wind turbine, coming from Tillsonburg, going to Hamilton, getting on a boat and going over to the UK, where they can build wind turbines over there. We have created a sector that is creating jobs in this province.

But when it comes to ripping up contracts, I know that that will cost billions of dollars. It will actually have penalties. It will actually make rates go up even more. That’s why we’re not doing that—and maybe they should talk amongst themselves because they seem to be arguing over that. Obviously, they don’t have a plan. The only thing that we’re hearing from them is that they want to change their name from PC to “pro coal,” because that’s the only way that they’ll be able to figure out how they can lower rates. We are actually lowering rates by 25% for every single family right across this province.

Hydro rates

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Premier. Jeff lives in Hamilton and is behind on his hydro bill. Had he listened to the Premier, Jeff might have thought he was now safe from winter disconnections. But Jeff pays his hydro bill to a private company that sub-meters his apartment building. The Minister of Energy said on Tuesday that the OEB’s winter disconnection ban included such companies, but yesterday the OEB said the exact opposite, stating in an email that “the OEB’s decision and order does not apply to unit sub-metering providers.”

Can the Premier explain what’s going on?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’m pleased to stand and rise and answer that question—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton Mountain is warned.

Finish, please.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Once again, I’m pleased to stay standing and rising to address this issue.

We are going to work with the OEB to address this, because we do recognize that this is something that needs to be addressed. When we talked about no winter disconnects right across the province, we meant everybody. So we’re going to continue to work with the OEB on this.

When it comes to where we have seen these issues arise, we recognize that some families, some individuals, were having a hard time paying their bills. That’s why today we’ve announced that we’re reducing all rates by 25%.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Paul Miller: Well, Speaker, Jeff allows ODSP to manage the payment of his bill, so he can handle it. But Jeff’s hydro bill has been going up so quickly over the last year that ODSP, through no fault of their own, can’t keep up. They pay a predetermined amount each month, based on Jeff’s typical hydro costs. But it hasn’t been enough because bills are going up so quickly. Each time they increase, the monthly payment falls behind. They’re still behind the curve, and arrears are spiralling. Jeff’s neighbours are in the same situation. Many in Hamilton are. Today’s announcement won’t help Jeff or his neighbours.

I’d like to announce today that I’m taking out a second mortgage on my house so my grandkids can pay their hydro bill. What will this government do to help people climb out from the hole that is being dug by this province and this Premier?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: The plan that we announced today is actually going to help families and individuals like the honourable member mentioned. The affordability fund, for example, will actually help these individuals get out of that perpetual cycle of always being behind because of many reasons.

Let’s say they have electric heat and they haven’t invested in insulation or upgrading their windows, because they haven’t had the necessary pocket money to do that. This affordability fund will allow them now to access those dollars, to making the necessary upgrades to their home. That way, they will see their bills lower even more by conserving, which then, on top of that, has a benefit for everyone across the province, just like the benefit that we announced today, Mr. Speaker. That 25% reduction that everyone will be getting across the province is something that we should all be proud of, because we’re helping every family in this province.

Forest industry

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. Recently, the opposition has been accusing our government of not paying attention to our forestry industry. All too often, we hear accusations from across the floor that we’re making lives harder for people in Ontario. Speaker, surely they are mistaken.

Can the minister please tell our government what we are doing to look out for the people who are working in Ontario’s forestry sector?

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: I’d like to thank the member from Kingston and the Islands for her question. Making sure that we make life better for people across the province is a major priority of our government. Our government understands how important a strong forest products sector is to Ontario’s economy, the key job creator role it plays in over 260 communities across Ontario, and the 172,000 direct and indirect jobs it supports. It is why I am constantly engaged with members of the forestry sector.

Over the course of the last month, I’ve written to federal ministers about softwood lumber; I’ve travelled to Ottawa to meet with my provincial counterparts and the federal ministers. We’ve discussed challenges that the forest industry has been facing.

I am part of the Ontario-US trade negotiation committee, as well as the Federal-Provincial Task Force on Softwood Lumber, and just this morning, I met with our forestry industry to discuss challenges that they are facing, so I don’t know where the members opposite are getting their information from.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I thank the minister for her answer. I am very pleased to hear that as a government we are so engaged with the forestry industry.

The forest sector is extremely important for our province’s economy, including my own region of eastern Ontario. Forestry generates $15.5 billion worth of economic activity annually, which is up from $12.9 billion in 2013, and not, in fact, the $11 billion that was claimed by the Leader of the Opposition in his speech yesterday to the OFIA.

Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition gave many alternative facts yesterday during his speech, including—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Thank you. I’ve indicated previously I don’t want those kinds of terms used in this House. Make it uplifting. I am going to ask the member to withdraw.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Then I’m going to ask her to stay focused on government policy.

Carry on.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister please clarify what exactly is going on in this case?

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: I would like to thank the member for her question, and she’s quite right. Over the last five years, two new mills have opened, seven have restarted, and two are in various stages of expansion. Companies in Atikokan, Kenora and Timmins have made significant investments here in Ontario, creating jobs and supporting these restarts, expansions and creation of brand new, modern facilities, so, in fact, Ontario has a number of new mills.

We’ve launched the forestry growth program to help the sector to increase production capacity. The first recipient, Lavern Heideman and Sons Ltd., will be receiving $4 million over five years, in support of a total investment of $16.9 million. The support allows the company’s fast-growing Eganville mill to expand business, increase efficiency by modernizing and purchasing new equipment, and maintain 90 existing jobs. That’s the story of our forest sector: growth and job creation.

Energy policies

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is to the Minister of Energy. I received a copy of a bill from one of my constituents this past week who paid $295 for electricity, but at the same time was charged over $2,000 in global adjustment fees. The high global adjustment fee is directly related to their green energy policy, which is bankrupting Ontarians.

The government today is forcing the municipality of Dutton Dunwich to accept a wind farm, even though 84% of the population voted against it. This wind farm will add to the skyrocketing global adjustment fees all Ontarians are paying.

The minister has made a mistake. He’s announced it previously. Will he announce another mistake today and cancel the Dutton Dunwich wind turbine farm?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’m very pleased to rise and talk about green energy and the importance of green energy in making sure that we have clean air to breathe. We haven’t had a smog day in this province since 2014, and that’s thanks to the investment that this government has made in green energy.

I know I’ve talked a lot about the 25% reduction when we’re talking about residential families, but let’s talk about that 25% reduction for those mom-and-pop shops on Main Street. They’re part of the retail price plan. They’re also going to see this reduction when it comes to the global adjustment. We’re actually helping many of our small businesses right across the province.

On top of that, the one thing that the opposition hasn’t talked about is the important and successful ICI program. We’re making that even bigger, even greater, by lowering that threshold to 500 kilowatts, having thousands of more businesses qualify to save a third on their bill.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from Sarnia–Lambton.

Mr. Robert Bailey: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Minister, Liz Clarke in my riding has been pushed to the brink by Kathleen Wynne’s hydro prices. She can’t afford this government’s—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Referring to names is not permissible in the House, so let’s get it right.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Minister, Liz Clarke has been pushed to the brink by the Premier’s hydro prices. She can’t afford this government’s energy shell games anymore. Ms. Clarke, who is 83 years old, lives alone in her home in Courtright, Ontario, the only home she has known most of her life. She has no TV, no computer—only the basic necessities.

All winter long, she keeps the temperature in her home below 16 degrees Celsius, but Ms. Clarke has electric baseboard heating in rural Ontario, so she regularly sees hydro bills between $500 and $600. Ms. Clarke has emptied her savings to pay her bills, but she still finds herself hundreds of dollars in arrears, and now has nothing to put away for a rainy day.

Minister, what do you have to say to Ms. Clarke today? How is it acceptable in this day and age to treat seniors like this in Ontario?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I hope the honourable member tells this fine woman that her bills are going down 25% at a minimum. It’s going to be going down more, because he mentioned she lives in a rural area, and depending on if she’s an R1 or an R2 customer—with Hydro One, I’m assuming—those rates are going to go down even more.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ll carry on. The member from Prince Edward–Hastings is warned.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: And she would obviously qualify for the OESP program, which has been enhanced.

But it’s not just us now who is talking about the significant reductions that we’ve announced today. Let me quote Francesca Dobbyn, the executive director of the United Way of Bruce Grey: “This shows that the Premier’s government is listening to people. With these positive changes, our rural community will now truly benefit from the low-cost power it produces.”

I agree with her, and so will everyone in this province.

Hydro rates

Mr. Percy Hatfield: My question is to the Premier. Good morning, Premier.

Speaker, I’d like to tell you and the Premier about my constituent Ron. Ron contacted my office recently because he was under the impression that the Premier and her Liberal government were actually going to do something about his skyrocketing hydro bill before. So imagine his surprise come January 1 when he saw the promised temporary 8% rebate on his bill, but the bill was actually higher than it was the month before.

Why doesn’t the Premier get that people like Ron—people from all over this province—can tell when she puts forward solutions that only address the Premier’s sticky political situation and don’t actually fix the mess that she has made in our hydro system?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’m very pleased to rise and address the concern that the honourable member brings forward. Of course, it’s great when we all can talk to our constituents and talk about the issues that are affecting them and the programs that are out there to help them. Knowing the honourable member, I’m sure he told them about many of the programs that we do have out there.

That 8% reduction did take effect January 1, but depending on how their bill structure was in place, that will change. As now we’re moving forward, that would come into full effect.

But let’s not forget, Mr. Speaker, 25% is what this individual will now see when he gets his bill, come summertime—a reduction of 25%. That is something that is very important. That is a significant reduction for people like Ron, and everyone like Ron across the province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Yesterday, it was immediate relief; now it’s in the summertime.

It’s not just people like Ron who are suffering under this government’s political manoeuvres. The Greater Essex County District School Board saw hydro costs increase by $50,000 in 2015 and $431,000 in 2016.

How can the Premier honestly say to this school board that the plan she released today will actually keep their hydro costs down permanently? Speaker, doesn’t she understand that people like Ron and school boards all across this province see this plan for what it actually is: a desperate party playing political games with a hydro system that they made a mess of in the first place?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: We had to clean up the mess that was left by previous parties when they were in power, never investing in the system, never investing in conservation, using cheap power with coal. We’ve made sure that we’ve made those investments.

When it comes to the substantial, structural changes that we have made by taking all of these social programs that we’ve talked about—we’ve taken that and pulled it off the rate base and now put that onto the tax base, where it should be, and rightfully so. That will now see our rates reduced for all of those types of schools and arenas. Those will be a significant cost reduction for these organizations and these facilities as well.

In the announcement that we made today, when they finally read it all, they will see that there are reductions for every person and every business in this province.

Waste diversion

Ms. Daiene Vernile: My question is for the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Waste diversion in this province has been an issue under successive governments. Simply put, we’re producing too much waste and we’re not recycling enough.

In November 2015, the government took a leadership role by introducing the Waste-Free Ontario Act. Having listened to business and stakeholders, and with all parties voting on-side, the government is confident that the Waste-Free Ontario Act is the best path forward.

Yesterday, the Strategy for a Waste-Free Ontario was announced. The vision calls for a zero-waste future, where waste is seen as a resource and can be recovered and reused.

Speaker, could the minister please speak about the aims of the strategy and how this is going to benefit everyone in Ontario?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I want to thank all of the members who have supported this legislation. I also want to thank the member for Wellington–Halton Hills, who joined us yesterday for the launch and spoke quite eloquently about this as well. I want to thank the member for his support.

This is a fundamental shift. We’re the first jurisdiction in the Americas to go to a circular, zero-waste economy. We will be at 80% waste-free by 2050. That is world-leading.

We’re introducing a market mechanism called extended producer responsibility, which was asked for by industry, which makes them responsible for the end-life of the product, which means that more products will be developed to be durable and to last, to have zero waste and to be re-inputted into the economy.

This is the most innovative waste program in the Americas and follows in the leadership of my friend from St. Catharines, who introduced blue boxes to the world.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: I’d like to thank the minister for his answer and for showing great leadership on this issue. This strategy marks an exciting next step toward our zero-waste future. I know that this is very important to the constituents of Kitchener Centre. It’s also important for the province in embracing a move toward a circular economy.

We know that these initiatives will improve resource efficiency and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. We also know that this new strategy is going to help increase productivity and create jobs. For every 1,000 tonnes of waste diverted from landfill, seven full-time jobs are created. This new network is going to foster economic growth and help to reduce local government spending on waste management.

Speaker, could the minister please explain to this House how a producer responsibility framework is going to help support this?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Let me just go through some of the good news that follows from this. We’re uploading $117 million of costs from municipalities and municipal taxpayers, making Ontarians’ lives in municipalities easier. We are going to create more jobs from this than most environmental initiatives we have. Every tonne that we reduce creates another job, because those become material inputs.

But Mr. Speaker, I’d very briefly like to take a few seconds to tell you a small story that tells the bigger picture. An innovation out of the University of Guelph created a coffee pod made out of the waste parts of coffee plants and a resin which was developed by a company called Club Coffee, which was bought by Loblaws. This means that those plastic coffee pods that are filling our landfills and our oceans are no longer required, because these coffee pods go back to farmers’ fields as compost, and help retain water and improve agricultural productivity. That’s the circular economy. That’s innovation.

Hydro rates

Mr. Toby Barrett: To the Premier: During pre-budget hearings, Canada’s iconic Maple Leaf Foods told the finance committee that their company’s electricity bills skyrocketed 18% last year to $19.7 million across all their Ontario plants. As a result, Maple Leaf calculated its potential electricity costs if it were to move to other jurisdictions; savings ranged from $7.5 million to $12.8 million a year. If they moved to Manitoba, a 65% savings on electricity; if they moved to Alberta, a 60% savings. Maple Leaf could move their 5,100 employees to New York state and save 47% on electricity. Canada’s leading retailer of packaged meats could go to Michigan and save 39% on hydro.

Premier, the numbers don’t lie. How can you argue with these figures?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Exactly: Numbers don’t lie. That’s why the reduction in the ICI program from one megawatt to 500 kilowatts is going to help Maple Leaf Foods exactly. They’re going to save up to one third of their electricity costs, and that will ensure that they have money to again create jobs.

I know the Minister of Economic Development and Growth has been talking about how well our province has been doing with foreign investment and creating new jobs. I know they don’t like hearing about that, but on this side of the House, we are doing everything to create a business climate that now has very affordable electricity rates.

When it comes to all people and all businesses in this province, we’re reducing rates by 25%, and we’re making sure significant reductions are happening for businesses as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary, the member for Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound.

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is to the Minister of Energy. You made the mess; now you’re only cleaning up a portion of it, and you want to be the hero. It doesn’t work. Life is getting harder and harder under your Liberal government, as skyrocketing hydro bills are pushing hospitals and other public institutions deeper and deeper into debt.

Grey Bruce Health Services, in my riding of Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, saw its hydro bill rise by $350,000 a year, a 40% increase in just one year. Sadly, because of your disastrous energy schemes, Grey Bruce Health Services may have to make bold cuts, such as to close the operating room in the Meaford hospital, and other cuts to surgical services.

I want to know, Speaker: Will the minister guarantee here and now that your newest hydro shell game will prevent such dangerous cuts to patient services?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: As I’ve said throughout questions, residents are going to see their rates cut, and all other businesses and institutions are going to see rate cuts. That’s something that we made sure as a government to look at all aspects of.

But I know the member from Bruce-Grey is talking about individuals in his riding often. I know Francesca Dobbyn, the executive director of the United Way there, has been a very vocal critic of the government. It’s now great, when we come forward with this plan, that she’s quoting: “The changes announced today, along with the changes already announced, along with the changes that are still coming will go a long way in addressing the affordability issue that people in this province are seeing.”

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

The member for Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington on a point of order.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Speaker, just on a point of order, to the Minister of Energy: Is today’s hydro announcement not a contradiction to all those statements that we have a competitive energy price range in Ontario?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s not a point of order.

Canadian Black Caucus

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Children and Youth Services, on a point of order.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I just wanted to take a moment, on behalf of Gwyn Chapman and the Canadian Black Caucus, to invite all MPPs to rooms 228 and 230, between 11:30 and 2 o’clock today, to come out and meet some inspiring young kids.

Correction of record

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Energy on a point of order.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Mr. Speaker, I just need to correct my record. When I said the new ICI threshold was 500 kilowatts, I meant to say 500 megawatts. I’d just like to correct my record.

Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Beaches–East York on a point of order.

Mr. Arthur Potts: I just want to take the opportunity to welcome my daughter Robin Buxton Potts, who is here in the House with her colleagues from OCAD University.

Notice of dissatisfaction

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Pursuant to standing order 38(a), the member from Haldimand–Norfolk has given notice of his dissatisfaction with an answer to his question given by the Minister of Energy concerning Maple Leaf Foods’ energy comparisons. The matter will be debated Tuesday, March 7, at 6 p.m.

Deferred Votes

Time allocation

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We have a deferred vote on the government notice of motion number 7 relating to the allocation of time on Bill 92,

An Act to amend the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act, 2014, and make related amendments to other statutes.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1142 to 1147.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All members please take your seats.

On March 1, 2017, Mr. Naqvi moved government notice of motion number 7. All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Albanese, Laura

Anderson, Granville

Baker, Yvan

Ballard, Chris

Bradley, James J.

Chan, Michael

Chiarelli, Bob

Colle, Mike

Coteau, Michael

Crack, Grant

Damerla, Dipika

Del Duca, Steven

Delaney, Bob

Des Rosiers, Nathalie

Dhillon, Vic

Dickson, Joe

Dong, Han

Duguid, Brad

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fraser, John

Hoggarth, Ann

Hoskins, Eric

Hunter, Mitzie

Jaczek, Helena

Kiwala, Sophie

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Marie-France

Leal, Jeff

MacCharles, Tracy

Malhi, Harinder

Mangat, Amrit

Martins, Cristina

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGarry, Kathryn

McMahon, Eleanor

Milczyn, Peter Z.

Moridi, Reza

Murray, Glen R.

Naidoo-Harris, Indira

Naqvi, Yasir

Potts, Arthur

Qaadri, Shafiq

Rinaldi, Lou

Sandals, Liz

Sousa, Charles

Takhar, Harinder S.

Thibeault, Glenn

Vernile, Daiene

Wong, Soo

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All those opposed, please rise—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Carry on.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Bailey, Robert

Barrett, Toby

Bisson, Gilles

Brown, Patrick

Cho, Raymond Sung Joon

Coe, Lorne

DiNovo, Cheri

Fife, Catherine

French, Jennifer K.

Gélinas, France

Gretzky, Lisa

Hardeman, Ernie

Hatfield, Percy

Hillier, Randy

Jones, Sylvia

MacLaren, Jack

MacLeod, Lisa

Mantha, Michael

Martow, Gila

McDonell, Jim

McNaughton, Monte

Miller, Norm

Miller, Paul

Munro, Julia

Natyshak, Taras

Oosterhoff, Sam

Pettapiece, Randy

Scott, Laurie

Singh, Jagmeet

Tabuns, Peter

Taylor, Monique

Thompson, Lisa M.

Vanthof, John

Walker, Bill

Wilson, Jim

Yakabuski, John

Yurek, Jeff

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Interjections.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I recognize a point of order—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Please be seated.

To bring clarity, I cannot interrupt a vote with a point of order. However, I will provide you with some clarity. The clarity was, when it was asked, “All those in favour,” one of the members that initiated the continuation indicated that “we are in favour.”

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): When it w