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

June 1, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Jun-01 (PDF)

L090 - Mon 1 Jun 2015 / Lun 1er jun 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Monday 1 June 2015 Lundi 1 er juin 2015

Introduction of Visitors

Wearing of hockey jersey

Contempt of Parliament

Oral Questions

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Services for the disabled

Privatization of public assets

Class size

Transportation infrastructure

Privatization of public assets

Air-rail link

Labour dispute

Teachers’ labour disputes

Visitors

Members’ Statements

Tourism

Jimmy Velgakis

Spring Bird Festival

Aggregate extraction

Injured workers

Kayla Baker

Business improvement

Carassauga

Gala de l’Express Étudiant

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs

Motions

House sittings

Committee membership

Petitions

Curriculum

Privatization of public assets

Environmental protection

Agri-food industry

Hospital funding

Water fluoridation

Hospital services

Privatization of public assets

Municipal restructuring

Hydro rates

Orders of the Day

Order of business

Order of business

Transportation Statute Law Amendment Act (Making Ontario’s Roads Safer), 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne le transport (accroître la sécurité routière en Ontario)

House sittings

The House met at 1030.

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

Prayers.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to introduce Bill and Sharon McClure. They’re actually from the riding of Huron–Bruce but are here today to tour the Legislature and have lunch with me today.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I want to introduce Diane Crawshaw and John Whitmore, the parents of page captain Dale Whitmore, from the great riding of Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Westdale. They’ll be in the gallery this morning. And I’m looking forward to having lunch with Dale Whitmore as well today. Welcome.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I would like members to help me in welcoming a staff member from my constituency office, Carol Clarke, and her partner, Brian Barber.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It’s my pleasure to introduce my partner, Shawn Kerwin, and our friend, visiting from England, Mary Phillips. Welcome to the Legislature.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Please help me welcome some individuals sitting in the east members’ gallery from Rotary Cheshire Homes and the Canadian Helen Keller Centre: Cindy Accardi, the executive director; Jennifer Robbins, administration and facilities manager; Mélanie Gauthier-Perley, provincial programs supervisor; Betty-Jean Reid, board chair; and Philip Corke, director, on the board. They are having a reception today in room 228 following question period.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: It’s my pleasure to welcome, as they arrive in the House today, grade 10s from F.E. Madill Secondary School, their teacher Mr. Wilhelm and their other teacher Ms. Payne, whom you might remember because she participated in your Teacher’s Forum earlier this year.

Mr. Bob Delaney: On behalf of page captain Megan Sweetman I’m pleased to introduce her mother, Catherine Norris, who is in the members’ east gallery this morning.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I am very happy to introduce my family here with us today in the Legislature. In the members’ east gallery we are joined today by my wife, Utilia Amaral, our daughters, Talia and Grace, and my parents, Margaret and Ben Del Duca.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: I’d like us to give a warm welcome to Robert Heckbert’s—our page from Ottawa–Orléans—father, who is here today in the Legislature, Stephen Heckbert. Thank you and welcome to the Legislature.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Joining us shortly is Jessica Bell from TTCriders, CUPE flight attendant Tracy Rowan, and the class of Perth Avenue public school and their teachers, to celebrate the winners of a 12-school, 400-student colouring competition to protest the UP Express and demand clean electric transit.

Mr. Arthur Potts: I have particularly good reason to smile today. My dentist is here, Dennis Marangos, his wife, Nadine—both proud Kiwanians—and their son Matthew.

I’d also like to introduce Heather Bellmore, mother of my assistant, David, who is a proud Ontarian but a Cape Bretoner at heart.

I’d finally like to introduce Gerald Teahen, who you all know as Tom’s father. It’s lovely to have all of you here today.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I’ve got a few folks to introduce today. Luke Woolcock is one of the pages here, from my community of Etobicoke Centre. We have a number of folks visiting him today: his mother, Vita Peri, and his aunt, Franca Peri. Also, a number of his colleagues from his class at St. Gregory Catholic School are here with us today in the gallery, led by homeroom teacher Edward York. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: We’re joined in the members’ east gallery today by the mother of my legislative assistant, Andrea. It’s Anne Ernesaks who is here with us today.

Also, Ram Ahuja is the page captain today, from my riding. His mother, Parul; father, Kamal; and other family members, including Uma and Rea, are visiting Queen’s Park today.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I would like to welcome to Queen’s Park today, Mike Berry. I’m not seeing him at the moment. He is the recipient of a double lung transplant after being diagnosed with systemic scleroderma. Welcome.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Two interns have joined me at the Ministry of Labour this summer. Please welcome Olivia Pineau and Prabjit Malhi to the chamber.

Wearing of hockey jersey

Ms. Jennifer K. French: A point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A point of order, the member from Oshawa.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I rise on a point of order because last night was an epic journey with a fantastic, happy ending for the Oshawa Generals, who won the Memorial Cup. Following a record-setting season with 51 wins, the Oshawa Generals won the Memorial Cup in a thrilling overtime victory last night. It was their first Memorial Cup in 25 years and fifth in their history, following their OHL championship last month.

Mr. Speaker, since this is such an exciting day for my riding, I would ask for unanimous consent to join in the celebration by wearing my Oshawa General’s hockey jersey today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I did it when the Brantford Blast won the cup.

The member from Oshawa is seeking unanimous consent to wear the jersey of the Oshawa Generals. Do we agree? Agreed.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Hometown pride is nothing to laugh at. Congratulations.

Contempt of Parliament

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On a serious note, on May 26, 2015, the member from Leeds–Grenville, Mr. Clark, rose on a point of privilege with respect to a report of the Ombudsman of Ontario concerning Hydro One’s billing practices and the timelines and effectiveness of its process for responding to customer concerns.

The government House leader, Mr. Naqvi, also made a submission in response and both the government House leader and the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington, Mr. Hillier, also provided me with subsequent written submissions.

Having reviewed these, and the relevant precedents and procedural authorities, I am now ready to rule.

The member from Leeds–Grenville pointed to the

section of the Ombudsman’s report in which the Ombudsman recounted the contact his staff had with that of Hydro One during the course of his investigation, and the Ombudsman’s very scathing analysis of Hydro One’s lack of co-operation and forthrightness, on the one hand, and its extreme defensiveness and evasiveness on the other.

The Ombudsman cited a litany of complaints and criticisms of the conduct of Hydro One toward his office. The Ombudsman, likewise, aimed similarly strong criticism toward Hydro One with respect to the way and extent to which the Minister of Energy was given information and kept briefed by Hydro One on its management of both its billing problems and of the Ombudsman’s investigation of this issue.

The member from Leeds–Grenville stated that the issue being investigated by the Ombudsman—apparently serious, systemic billing-system problems on the part of Hydro One—was also a matter in which many MPP offices were involved on behalf of their constituents. This was noted in the Ombudsman’s report.

The member asserts that, in raising these matters either directly with Hydro One or via the minister’s office, MPPs were entitled to expect honest and open dealings in order to facilitate the resolution of genuine errors and mistakes on the part of Hydro One. However, Hydro One’s method of response, according to both the Ombudsman and the member from Leeds–Grenville, appears to have been virtually identical to the way it dealt with the Ombudsman in the course of his investigation.

Moreover, the Ombudsman asserted in his report that the minister was intentionally given a less-than-completely forthright “don’t worry” soft sell by Hydro One about the problems, a response the minister apparently accepted and repeated in the House. By misinforming the minister, who then passed that misinformation on to the House, the member from Leeds–Grenville asserts that Hydro One has committed a contempt of the Legislature both by obstructing members in their duties and by being the vehicle by which knowingly incorrect information was conveyed to the assembly.

Lying to the House is a serious matter. To make a misleading statement, to know while making it that the statement is incorrect, and with the overt goal of deceiving the House, is Parliament’s cardinal sin. These are the compound of motives and actions that constitute the so-called McGee test. If established that such a sequence of events has occurred, there can be little doubt that the Speaker would find that a prima facie case of contempt had been made out. The member from Leeds–Grenville mentions this test with respect to Hydro One’s allegedly dishonest dealings with the Minister of Energy.

However, the test is not directly applicable in this case. First, this test applies to statements made by members of the House, in the House or another proceeding in Parliament. The source of the misinformation, in this case, was an outside actor. It is alleged that deceptive information was conveyed to the House by a minister, perhaps thus providing a vicarious link to the McGee test.

That is, had it been established that the Minister of Energy believed the information he was stating in the House to be untrue, and had he nevertheless provided it and with the intent to mislead the House, then a prima facie case of contempt would be apparent. However, both the Ombudsman and the member from Leeds–Grenville absolve the Minister of Energy for his statements in the House because they both assert that Hydro One was disingenuous in informing the minister, who then passed on that information to the House. No one asserts that the minister intentionally set out to mislead the House.

Moreover, the Minister of Energy, who, as the government House Leader correctly pointed out in his written submission, ought to be the one to do so, has not raised a point of privilege on the grounds that he was intentionally misled by anyone, with that person’s foreknowledge and their intention that the minister would then give that same incorrect information to the House.

The member for Leeds–Grenville cites the 1978 case from the Canadian House of Commons in which a prima facie case of contempt was found on the basis that an official had given false information to a minister, who then repeated that information in the House of Commons. This case is too detailed and nuanced to go into at any length here, but a key facet was that objective evidence—sworn testimony before a royal commission—was available to make the case that the minister had been misled. I do not have that same calibre of evidence before me in this particular case.

I will turn now to the assertion by the member from Leeds–Grenville that Hydro One obstructed members of this assembly in their duties by failing to fully co-operate, in good faith, with members who were seeking to deal with Hydro One on behalf of their constituents who had fallen victim to Hydro One’s billing problems.

It may be that Hydro One was in fact a bad player when it came to its dealings with members of this Legislature. The Ombudsman’s report does not equivocate on that view. However, it is well-established that parliamentary privilege does not extend to the constituency or other non-parliamentary work that a member does.

The second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at page 117, cites a ruling by Speaker Sauvé that very eloquently explains this principle, as follows:

“While I am only too aware of the multiple responsibilities, duties, and also the work the member has to do relating to his constituency, as Speaker I am required to consider only those matters which affect the member’s parliamentary work. That is to say, whatever duty a member has to his constituents, before a valid question of privilege arises in respect of any alleged interference, such interference must relate to the member’s parliamentary duties. In other words, just as a member is protected from anything he does while taking

part in a proceeding in Parliament, so too must interference relate to the member’s role in the context of parliamentary work.”

This view has been taken numerous times by Speakers of this House as well. For instance, Speaker Carr on April 26, 2001, stated:

“Speakers have consistently found—supported by the procedural authorities and a multitude of precedents—that privilege attaches only to a member’s parliamentary duties, and not to subsidiary duties away from Parliament.”

I therefore cannot find a prima facie case of contempt has been established with respect to Hydro One’s dealings with MPPs concerning their constituents’ complaints.

Though the member for Leeds-Grenville does not explicitly address this aspect, he does so by inference, and this is the crux of the argument made by the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington, so I will address the possibility of contempt of the Legislature arising with respect to the obstruction or interference by anyone with one of the assembly’s parliamentary officers.

Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice states that: “Generally speaking, any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.”

A prima facie case of contempt on these grounds was established in this House in 2000, on a point of privilege raised in response to a report from the Information and Privacy Commissioner. In that report, the commissioner reported that in attempting to conduct a certain investigation, her office was disregarded, discounted and thwarted to the extent that she was “unable to conduct a full and complete investigation.”

The Speaker found that, “In official business dealings with an officer of this House, individuals owe an obligation of accountability to Parliament. That our own officer advises that the opposite was the case is sufficient cause in my mind to find that a prima facie case of contempt of Parliament has been made out. How could it be otherwise? The privacy commissioner’s sole loyalty is to this House, manifested in her trusted discharge of the role and functions assigned to her, by us, in the act.”

While the Ombudsman dedicates a portion of his report, under the title “Obstructing the Ombudsman,” to a description of his many frustrations in dealing with Hydro One, and its posture of alleged disingenuousness, the Ombudsman does not ultimately argue that he was unable to complete his investigation, and make findings and recommendations.

For all of these reasons, I do not find that a prima facie case of breach of privilege or of contempt has been established.

I thank the member from Leeds–Grenville, the government House leader and the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington for their submissions in this matter.

Point of order, the member from Leeds–Grenville.

Mr. Steve Clark: Speaker, I guess, as a point of clarification, I’m just a little concerned. The Ombudsman, on page 35, had a

section called Keeping Outsiders in the Dark. It had four sections: Obstructing the Ombudsman, Obfuscating the Ontario Energy Board, Mollifying the Minister’s Office and Befuddling the Board of Directors.

Are you saying that the Ombudsman was lying to this House in this report?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank the member from Leeds–Grenville for his subsequent question, although I’m not going to engage in a debate. My ruling was that the Ombudsman, in my opinion, did not show cause for not being able to complete his report. I will not debate this further. The ruling has been made.

It is time for question period.

Oral Questions

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is to the Premier. This morning, our party and our leader, Patrick Brown, laid out our concerns with the Hydro One fire sale, a sale that the PCs knew was wrong in 2002, and we know it is wrong today.

This morning, you heard Patrick Brown talk about the first demonstration of Hydro in 1910. The demonstration lit up a sign for all to see above a street in Kitchener, and that sign said, “For the People.” Because of this government’s mismanagement and its desire to sell Hydro One to pay its debts, the utility will no longer be for the people.

Premier, will you stop the Hydro One fire sale and keep the majority of it for the people?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just say to the member opposite—and he can deliver the message to his leader—that the reason we are in the process of reviewing assets, the reason we have made a decision about Hydro One, is that we know that investing in transit and transportation infrastructure is critical to the economic life of this province and the opportunity to grow.

I know that the interim Leader of the Opposition is not supportive of investing in transit; they’ve made that very, very clear. But the reality is that we ran on a platform of economic growth and investment in this province, in people’s talent and skills and in infrastructure, and the infrastructure component was backed up by a review of assets. That’s the investment we committed to, and that’s the investment we’re making.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Back to the Premier: The misguided actions of the government mean that Hydro One will no longer be for the people. Sadly, the sale isn’t about the people, and the sale isn’t about infrastructure. There is nothing new in the government’s recent budget about infrastructure that wasn’t already laid out in last year’s budget, and it didn’t include the sale of Hydro One at that time. The sale is about paying the government’s debts: debts they can’t keep under control. The Premier and the Liberal Party are not looking out for the peoples’ interests.

Premier, if you were looking out for the people of Ontario, you would allow the auditor and the Financial Accountability Officer to review the sale to make sure we are getting the best value for the people. Will you at least commit to that today?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just remind the member opposite, as I have said many times in this House, that our plan to invest in infrastructure, whether it’s roads or bridges, whether it’s Connecting Links in communities around the province, or whether it’s transit infrastructure, that plan always contained, as part, a review of our assets, because we knew we were going to need that funding to be able to make those investments.

I will also remind the member opposite that as a backdrop to our decision around Hydro One we used the sale of the 407 as an example of how not to sell off an asset, because the way the 407 was sold off, there was no ongoing return to the people of Ontario, there was no targeted investment in the future of the people of Ontario and there was no accurate assessment of the value of that asset before it was sold off. We are not doing what the party opposite did on the 407. We’re investing in the people of Ontario.

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

Interjections.

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: Premier, how do we know that anything you just said is true? There will be no accountability after the budget is passed this Wednesday. You are selling Hydro One to a shell company that won’t be subject to oversight from the Auditor General, freedom of information, the Financial Accountability Officer, the Ombudsman—none of the officers of this House.

You are telling us to believe that the $15-billion total value is the true value of Hydro One, yet there are no independent studies, there is no cost-benefit analysis; there is nobody but you and your hired hack that tells us that we’re to take your word for it.

You have already spent the $4 billion you are going to get in terms of $2 billion for smart meters, $1.1 billion to cancel gas plants, $83 million—we just learned—in terms of the Hydro One billing scandal. Premier, why should we believe anything you say?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: If you look around this province, you can see infrastructure projects being built around the province. You can see shovels in the ground, and you can see projects being completed. That is the experience that we are building on in our investments going forwards.

But I would say to the member opposite, I don’t know where this party is coming from. The leader of the official opposition seems to be a little confused about where he stands.

Patrick Brown, on May 5 of this year, said, “I generally believe that the private sector can do a better job than the public sector. I generally think market conditions would be helpful for a lot of government agencies.” That was Patrick Brown on May 5.

In their most recent paper on energy—that was in 2012—they suggested opening both Hydro One and OPG to investment.

What I would say to the member opposite: They don’t support investing in transit and transportation infrastructure. We understand that. We do: We know that is necessary. We said all along that we needed to review assets. That is what we are doing—

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

New question.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is to the Premier as well.

“Generally” does not mean the sale of Hydro One.

Premier, this morning we outlined three key points that worry our caucus about the Liberals’ fire sale of Hydro One: first, the secrecy that is associated with this sale. The decision to sell Hydro One was made without public input, and now, with the government’s recent budget amendment, we find that it will be done in complete secrecy: no information for the public on who is making offers to purchase it, no information on the price that is being offered and no information on the conditions attached to the purchase.

Premier, why won’t you come clean with your true motives behind this fire sale?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: We have said consistently the true motive is to reposition assets that we have to invest in infrastructure. There are tremendous infrastructure deficits across the province and across Canada, and it’s important that we invest in those. The proceeds from this sale—a significant amount of them—will go in to build infrastructure without raising taxes, without raising more debt and without cutting programs. It is the right thing to do. That is why we are proceeding with it.

We said in our budget 2014 that we were going to reposition our assets. We identified the energy agencies, as well as others. We are going ahead with our agenda. We are making a difference for people in this province. We are creating economic development, and we’re creating quality of life with our investments in infrastructure.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: In February 2013, you said it was the wrong idea. It’s no wonder nobody believes a word they hear from that side over there.

Secondly, the sale of Hydro One is a bad policy decision. Whether the government owns 40% or 14%, the fact remains the same: It is not a majority stake, and they will no longer have control. The majority will do what is in the best interest of their bottom line, not the best interests of Ontarians.

Hydro One is a natural monopoly. There is no alternative. People don’t have a choice if they don’t like their service, but people will pay what the majority owners demand.

Premier, why won’t you stop the fire sale and make sure that the sale of this natural monopoly does not harm Ontarians?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: We’ve taken tremendous care to protect the interests of the ratepayer and the taxpayer—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek and the member from Nepean–Carleton, come to order.

Finish, please.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, there are allegations that are made without basis. The structure, going forward, is to ensure that no other shareholder will have more than a 10% interest in Hydro One. We’ve put protections in, in terms of the board of directors, in terms of protecting the appointment of the directors and requiring a two-thirds vote, which will include the provincial government in all significant major decisions.

They will choose to ignore almost everything that’s in the legislation, and they will spin items that have no relevance at all with respect to the way we are proceeding. They have a policy that would privatize OPG and Hydro One. They have a new leader who wants to privatize government agencies. They can’t have it both ways.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: The minister has had more positions on the sale of Hydro One than there are police investigations going on in that party.

Our caucus has brought this up time and time again: The problems created with the lack of independent oversight are frightening. Public oversight of Hydro One ends this week, not when a majority is sold, but in fact before a single share is sold. As the budget is written, all public oversight disappears the day the budget receives royal assent. Clearly, that is wrong. No more investigations into the billing complaints, no more information on your smart meter boondoggle. The details of this sale are being hidden, and so will all the problems that come with Hydro One.

Premier, don’t you agree that the public has a right to know what’s going on with the sale of Hydro One? I’ll ask you once again: Will you not remove this bad sale and any reference to it from your budget bill?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: It’s interesting to note that in their version of privatization, they said quite clearly that the ratepayer would be protected by the Ontario Energy Board; rates will be protected. The reality is: Moving forward, we have protections for the ratepayer. Furthermore, they know very, very well that, moving forward, there will be an opportunity for Hydro One to expand business—to be a growth business—at the same time as they are protecting ratepayers. We will always have a 40% interest.

We have Denis Desautels, the former Auditor General—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Denis Desautels, the former Auditor General of Canada, is overseeing the implementation of an ombudsman in the Hydro One corporation. They also know, particularly some in the front benches, that the Ontario Securities Act and the Ontario Securities Commission have tremendous protections for all companies, public companies, publicly—

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

New question.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Hydro One isn’t the Premier’s to sell. It belongs to Ontarians. I believe that Ontarians deserve a say. Will this Premier agree to hold a referendum so that Ontarians can have their say on their Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m happy to answer this question again; I’ve answered this question many times in this House.

We were very clear in our budget, in our platform and in our budget again, that in order to make the investments in transit and transportation infrastructure around the province, we needed to look at the assets that were currently owned by the people of Ontario. We need to leverage those in order to be able to make investments in new assets that will work for people over the coming generations. That is what we have done.

We asked Ed Clark and his group to look at the assets. We made it very clear which assets we were looking at. The decisions have been made. We need to make those investments in transit and transportation infrastructure, and part of the way we need to do that is to recycle the value of current assets into new assets. That is what the investments are about.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This is not her decision to make. Ontarians deserve a say on this Premier’s wrong-headed decision to sell Hydro One. The Toronto Star says, “Rushing this risky deal into law is wrong.” The Toronto Sun says, “This proposed sale of Hydro One doesn’t make sense.”

Interjections.

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

Please finish.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Globe and Mail says the scheme is based on “wishful-thinking accounting.” The most important question is what Ontarians want for their Hydro One.

Speaker, I ask again, will this Premier give Ontarians a say and hold a referendum on the sell-off of Hydro One?

Interjections.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: There are various decisions that are made by government that some members of the media and members of the opposition either agree with or don’t agree with. That actually cannot be the deciding factor in a decision that is made by a government, whether a particular media outlet or a particular member of the opposition chooses to take a different position. What we have to do as government is, we have to take a position, which we did in our platform and in our budget. We have to explain that position, and then we have to move forward.

Mr. Speaker, in our budget we said it a number of times. One quote: “The government will look at maximizing and unlocking value from assets it currently holds, including real estate holdings as well as crown corporations such as Ontario Power Generation, Hydro One and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.”

On page 164 of our 2014 budget, we said, “Valuable assets include large and complex government business enterprises ... such as the LCBO, Hydro One and OPG.... the government will launch an in‐depth review process.”

It was quite clear we were looking at these assets, Mr. Speaker, to—

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

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, it’s not about my opinion or some other opposition member’s opinion; it’s about the opinion of Ontarians, which this Premier should get before she sells off Hydro One.

On top of not making sense, being risky and being based on wishful thinking, the Premier’s plan to sell off Hydro One is being called “a con job of astronomical magnitude” by a man who actually knows about financial sector cons first-hand, Speaker. He says it’s a con job because it’s such a great deal for banks and investors and such a bad deal—such a bad deal—for the people of Ontario.

Will this Premier give Ontarians a say and agree to hold a referendum on Hydro One? It’s their right to decide whether to sell it, not hers.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, what I would just say to the leader of the third party is, she just cannot have it both ways. She can’t rewrite history. She can’t say on the one hand that we didn’t talk about what we were going to do, in the face of all of the material that we put forward—including her own statements. On July 9, 2014, the leader of the NDP said, “The budget says in black and white that the government is looking at the sale of assets, ‘including ... crown corporations, such as Ontario Power Generation, Hydro One and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.’”

Mr. Speaker, we said we were reviewing assets. We said we were looking at leveraging those assets in order to invest in new assets. That is what we are doing. We are putting protections in place so that the regulatory controls, the price controls, will remain in place with the new company.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Premier. That is exactly why New Democrats voted against that terrible budget not once but twice. That’s why.

Ontarians are paying some of the highest hydro bills in this country. They cannot afford to pay more—

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

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

Please finish.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: They can’t afford to pay more, Speaker. Even Bay Street fraudsters think that the Premier’s numbers are fishy. Once the Premier starts down this road, there is no going back.

Before the Premier makes yet another wrong decision for the people of Ontario, will she give them a say through a referendum?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It is very important to recognize that, as government, there are many things that have to be tackled at once. The budget that the leader of third party is talking about did include the review of public assets. We said we were going to do that, and we said we were going to do that because we know that investing in transit and transportation infrastructure is what is needed right now.

All across this country and in North America, there are jurisdictions that are looking for ways to build infrastructure. They know that if we are going to compete—we in North America—with other jurisdictions around the world, we have to make those investments. So, that was part of our budget. But also part of our budget was an increase in wages for PSWs, it was an increase in money for developmental services, and it was an increase in the minimum wage. The leader of the third party voted against all of that as well.

Interjection.

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Selling Hydro One hurts middle class families and struggling Ontarians. It hurts moms and dads who need to pay the bills. It hurts young people looking for jobs because it’s hurting businesses that want to hire those young people. It hurts health care. It hurts education. It hurts every corner of our province. This is the wrong decision, end of story.

Will the Premier do the right thing—will she finally do the right thing—and give Ontarians a say on the sell-off of their Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I would say to the leader of the third party that you can’t on the one hand say that we talked about maximizing assets, selling off some of the assets that are owned by the people of Ontario in order to be able to invest in new assets, which is what she has said repeatedly, and then at the same time say that we didn’t talk about this and that somehow it is a surprise to people that we said we were going to review assets in order to be able to invest in new assets. The fact is, we said we were going to do this.

This is not an easy decision; this is not an easy decision for the people sitting on this side of the House. But what is an important decision is that we make the right investments in 2015 so that in 2020 and 2025, we have the infrastructure that’s needed so that businesses can move their goods, so that people can move and so that those families that the leader of the third party is talking about can get to their children’s daycare and get to their jobs in a decent amount of time.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier can’t pretend that she was upfront with the people of Ontario during that election campaign. But New Democrats know the Premier’s ways—we know the Liberal ways—and that’s why we were so concerned.

But there is still one fundamental question that needs to be answered by this Premier: Why will this Premier not bother to hear from the people of Ontario by putting the sale of Hydro One to a referendum? Why will she not do that, Speaker?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The reason that we were so explicit in our budget and in our platform and then in our budget again—the reason we were explicit about how we were going to pay for transit and transportation infrastructure was that we knew that those were going to be difficult decisions. So we made it very clear that we were looking at OPG, we were looking at the LCBO, we were looking at Hydro One, we were looking at real estate that is owned by the people of Ontario, and that we needed to recycle, we needed to leverage those assets in order to make those investments.

We have made a set of very difficult decisions in order to make the investments that we know are necessary, because we know that if we don’t upgrade our transit, if we don’t invest in Hamilton, in Kitchener–Waterloo, in Ottawa and in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area—if we don’t do that, if we don’t build the connecting links in our rural communities, if we don’t repair those roads and bridges and build new ones, we will not be able to compete. We must make those investments.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is as well to the Premier. On February 2, 2013, her energy minister said to sell off Hydro One was a “failed plan.” In fact, not only did the Premier campaign against the sale of Hydro in every single election since she entered politics, she and Dalton McGuinty said that it was bad for families, it would cause power rates to go up, and it was just “plain wrong.”

The Premier has changed her policies and beliefs over the past year on anti-SLAPP legislation, on government advertising laws and on a publicly funded documentary starring herself, but the Hydro One about-face is the biggest, most dishonest flip-flop we have seen to date.

She now says the fire sale won’t cost us more, and dismisses any concern of a lack of oversight. I have a question. Was she lying then or is she lying now?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member will—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ll take care of the judgment here. The member will withdraw.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m sorry. Excuse me—I didn’t hear it.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Withdrawn, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And if the member says it again, she will be named.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I guess it’s the last week in the Legislature, Mr. Speaker.

I would just say to the member opposite that I’ve been very clear. Actually, from the time I started to run in the leadership race, I was very clear that investing in transit and transportation infrastructure was a priority. I’d had the experience of being the Minister of—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I actually had the experience of being the Minister of Transportation for two years, and I had travelled the province. There was not a jurisdiction in this province that didn’t—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville and the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke will come to order.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: There wasn’t a jurisdiction in this province that wasn’t suffering from underinvestment in infrastructure—the underinvestment that we inherited when we came into office in 2003. We’ve been working on that, but we know that if we don’t make those investments going forward, we won’t be able to thrive economically, and so we’re going to make those investments.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Her changing position on Hydro One’s sale is not the only flip-flop with respect to this file. Take what she’s going to do with the money and the profits. The Premier said the profits from Hydro One would pay for infrastructure. Then she said it would go toward the debt when she was reminded—and only when reminded—that it was the law. Now she’s bargained off shares of the company before it has been sold to prevent a strike in the energy sector. She has spent the profit three times already, and the company hasn’t yet been sold. This isn’t a coherent plan for an asset sale in the province of Ontario and it’s not an appropriate way to manage the energy sector in this province.

The two opposition leaders have asked you to withdraw this piece of legislation from the budget. Will you do it, or is your pantsuit on fire over there?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member will withdraw.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Withdrawn.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, we’ve stated it very clearly all along, consistently, since 2013, and in our budget 2014 we did so twice. We put it in the platform of our election. The people spoke and reaffirmed their desire for us to move forward. We introduced it again in the 2015 budget. It is a very pragmatic and deliberate way to maximize the valuations of a substantial crown corporation while at the same time holding the majority shares of that corporation for the benefit of the public. It’s going to be one of the largest growth companies. We’re doing it in stages: only a 15% tranche in the first stage.

It will then determine its true maximized value. We will do so to protect the public interest in the best interest of our public, and it will be broadly held as a result.

More so, the member opposite and that party were actually proposing a full, 100% sale of that corporation, which we are not—

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

New question.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question to the Premier: Not a single Ontarian voted to sell Hydro One—not a single Ontarian. For months the Premier and her ministers insisted that was never the plan. They stood in the Legislature and insisted that Hydro One was staying public.

Now they’ve changed their tune and the Premier is insisting a sell-off was the plan the whole time. This is a mess. While the Liberals are making a 180-degree turn, Ontarians are sending a clear message: Stop the sell-off.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Eglinton–Lawrence will come to order: second time. I don’t need the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek to tell me.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Will the Premier give Ontarians the chance to have their say on Hydro One in a binding referendum?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Let’s examine exactly what’s happened since 2013. Pre-election 2013 we had a budget which indicated that we were going to assess all of our entrepreneur assets for repurposing to invest in infrastructure.

After the election, we had a budget that was approved—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Timmins–James Bay.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: —based on specifically reviewing, among other things—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Timmins–James Bay: second time.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: —energy agencies in terms of repurposing those assets.

Coming forward—before the last election, in April 2013—we appointed Mr. Clark and the asset council to review. They studied that for almost a year. They then provided an interim report. They did further analysis. They provided a report. Everybody in this province who was paying any attention knew where we were going—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Actually, many of them read that interim report saying that it shouldn’t be sold off. They knew where it should be going.

Ontarians own Hydro One. It’s clear they were kept in the dark. For months, the Liberal government insisted that Hydro One would stay public. Ontarians want a say. They don’t want to pay the price for this wrong decision.

Will the Premier give Ontarians a say on Hydro One by putting this to a full public referendum?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: There have been a lot of major decisions and major initiatives that have taken place in this House, some of the most important in the history of this province. They did not go forward with a referendum. We have made this very much part of our agenda since 2013. We’re moving forward with an agenda that makes sense.

The idea of broadening the ownership of public agencies is not new. The NDP in Manitoba introduced a balanced budget bill—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The two-way conversations have to stop. I need to focus.

Just finish. Wrap up, please.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I’ll wrap up, Mr. Speaker, with that final comment. It’s called the Balanced Budget, Fiscal Management and Taxpayer Accountability Act, introduced by the NDP government in Manitoba—

Interjection: NDP.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: NDP, for sure—where they want to consider the privatization of Manitoba Hydro, the Manitoba Public Insurance corporation and others—

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

New question.

Services for the disabled

Mr. Chris Ballard: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. You may know that June is Deaf-Blind Awareness Month in Ontario and, as of last week, was declared by the Canadian Senate as Deaf-Blind Awareness Month across Canada. June is the birth month of Helen Keller, who was a champion to people who are deaf-blind. Her courage and determination is an enduring example of how, despite enormous challenges, individuals of all abilities can achieve great things.

For someone who is deaf-blind, communication barriers can seriously limit their access to activities most of us take for granted. Greater independence is achieved through better access to the community and its services.

Minister, your ministry provides funding to the community agencies that support individuals who experience deaf-blindness. Can you please give the House an overview of the community agency network which supports the deaf-blind community?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Thank you to the member for Newmarket–Aurora for the question.

My ministry’s goal is to build greater independence for people living with disabilities, including, of course, those who are deaf-blind. It is the work that our community agencies and professional intervenors do for people who are deaf-blind that really assist in building a more inclusive Ontario.

Intervenor services delivered by 21 community agencies across the province enhance communication between individuals and their community through tactile sign language, Braille and American Sign Language, with the goal they can live as independently as possible.

I had the great privilege of visiting both the Canadian Helen Keller Centre and the Rotary Cheshire apartments in Willowdale earlier this year. On my visits I met several of the staff, who every day bring the world to life for people who are deaf-blind. I want to thank and celebrate those individuals for their skillful work and dedication.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Chris Ballard: Making Ontario a more inclusive province is a responsibility we all share. There are many people to credit for the advances the deaf-blind community has achieved.

As you said, Minister, it is those dedicated individuals in the intervenor profession who work hard to open the doors of opportunity for people who are deaf-blind. Also, a lot of momentum has come from the work of the leading partners in the deaf-blind community, who have raised awareness and worked closely with the government to build a better system. This government believes that every Ontarian should have the opportunity to participate in the life of their community as much as they are able.

Ontario is now a leading jurisdiction in the world for intervenor services and this government has tripled funding for that program since 2003. Minister, can you please detail some of the work your ministry has been doing to better support the deaf-blind community?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: I’m proud to say that Ontario has set an international standard for service delivery and is emerging a world leader in policy development for programs and services for people who are deaf-blind.

We are currently developing a new funding framework that will result in a consistent approach to funding that is fair, equitable and accountable.

Our government has increased the minimum hours of service for all individuals who are deaf-blind so that those who require these services receive a minimum of 10 hours per week. Also, we fund an emergency intervenor service that provides support to deaf-blind individuals should an emergency ever arise.

Last year we invested an additional $3.84 million over three years in interpreter and intervenor services to help support a stable and well-trained workforce. Together we will build a stronger, more inclusive Ontario where people who are deaf-blind can participate to their fullest potential.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Thank you and good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. Much like your scrapped documentary, you’re going to unprecedented lengths to keep the public in the dark about your Hydro One sale. Even before all our MPPs had a chance to speak to the budget, you closed off debate. Then you rammed it through committee, sitting only four days and only in Toronto.

You turned down every one of our amendments that would have given businesses, families and seniors a fighting chance. Worse than that, you put forward a surprise amendment that immediately transfers Hydro One to a new corporation, one that you control; and now it’s that corporation that will sell off its pieces to shareholders and remove scrutiny immediately. Premier, what is it that you’re so desperate to hide from us this time?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, I wonder what it is that he’s so desperate about that he won’t look at the facts. The facts are that in 2000, when Premier Harris restructured the electricity system, all of the LDCs, all of the utilities and Hydro One then and Hydro One today were set up with a holdco and an operating company. It already exists. It was a technical correction to describe what is now. We have a holdco now, we’ve had it for the last 15 years and we’re going to continue to have one moving forward. It was an amendment to correct the record. I don’t know how he doesn’t know that. He should.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I guess we could have talked about it over a cup of coffee. This amendment that they snuck in is the most serious piece of paper that this government has ever put forward. It transfers the largest asset owned by the people over to a corporation that you control, but you didn’t do it here in the Legislature. Last Thursday it was snuck in as an amendment, a minor change to the budget. You just heard the minister call it that.

This minor change now immediately takes away the power of the Auditor General, the Financial Accountability Officer, freedom of information and the Ombudsman. They’re cut out of the entire deal immediately. We have now no way to know which insiders they’re paying to do what or even if Ontario is going to be getting a good deal.

This is an affront to democracy. Premier, will you tell Ontarians what is so bad about the deal that you went to such drastic lengths to sneak this by us?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, almost all public utilities, and public companies, for that matter, have holding corporations. Most corporations, be they crown-owned—similarly, the federal government and other provinces that have tried and have maximized some of their holdings in the same format have used holdcos. In fact, the Conservatives proposed the very same holding corporation when they were looking at this very venture.

This will help maximize the value of all of our shares, of which the province continues to hold 100%. More importantly, it helps protect public ownership as we proceed forward so as not to dilute the overall shares held through the holding corporation.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: No, it helps to protect you from telling the truth.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Nipissing will come to order.

New question.

Class size

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: My question is to the Premier. We know that keeping class sizes manageable is fundamentally important to student success. We also know that the Liberal government is aware of the fact that all research points to the importance of class size caps to ensuring the best learning environment for our students.

Just a few years ago, the Liberals said, “We know smaller class sizes allow students to get more of the attention they need to learn to read, write and do math at a high level.” So what happened? Our schools are already in chaos because of more than a decade of chronic underfunding of education in Ontario. Bigger class sizes will only make the problems worse.

My question is simple: Will the Premier make the chaos in schools even worse for our kids by allowing class sizes to increase this fall, yes or no?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: As I’ve said repeatedly to the member opposite, in fact, the funding model this year provides $22.5 billion, just like the funding model last year provided $22.5 billion, despite the fact that there are fewer students projected to be in the schools in September, which means we’re actually spending more per student. If you were to look at the details of the funding model for next year, you would find that the class size generators in our grants are exactly the same next year as they are this year. I’m not sure why the member thinks that we are trying to change class sizes.

That’s not something that we are trying to do. The class size generators and the funding model are exactly the same now as they were last year.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Speaker, here we go again with the Minister of Education playing the blame game and refusing to take responsibility for the mess her cuts have made to education. We all know that—

Interjections.

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

Please.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: We all know that class size caps are on the table. I find the Liberals’ change of heart on class size caps very perplexing. It is clear that the Minister of Education has lost control of the situation and is now trying to force students to pay the price for her ill-informed cuts. All evidence suggests lower class size caps are important to preserving quality education for our kids.

The Premier and her government pay lip service to evidence-based policy, but when it comes down to it, it’s obvious that they are not committed. The Premier and her government are clearly out of touch with what matters to most families.

So I’ll try asking the Premier again: Will the Premier maintain current caps on class sizes and preserve the quality of children’s education, or will she let class sizes increase this fall and force students to pay the price?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I want to make it clear that we remain absolutely committed to negotiating collective agreements with all of our partners, both the teachers’ unions and the education workers. We have three months between now and next September. I fully intend to be at the bargaining table over the next three months and to reach those collective agreements.

But I must repeat: We have not cut education funding. In fact, if you look at education funding since 2003, the per-pupil funding has actually increased by over $4,000. The per-pupil funding has gone up by 59%. That’s not blaming anybody; that’s just simply providing accurate information.

Transportation infrastructure

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. As the member for Barrie, I know how important transit and transportation is for those living in my community.

Time and time again, I have constituents tell me that we need to continue to invest in critical infrastructure projects that will keep Ontario moving. They are frustrated by sitting in traffic. They are tired of gridlock. They are upset that they are spending time, that could be spent with their loved ones, parked on Highway 400. They want to know that our government is making investments that will keep them and their families moving efficiently and reliably across this province.

Mr. Speaker, could the minister please tell members of this House how our government is planning to invest in transit and transportation infrastructure across the province, to keep Ontario families moving?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I want to begin by thanking the member from Barrie for her advocacy on behalf of the people living in her community.

Like many living and working in the GTHA—and, frankly, in communities right across Ontario—I have felt the frustration of gridlock. Successfully fighting our congestion challenge requires strong leadership, the kind of leadership that Premier Wynne is showing, and an ongoing and consistent commitment to making the right decisions, even when those are not necessarily politically convenient.

Families across this province are asking us to be bold, to build, to put shovels in the ground and to ensure that more transit and transportation options come into actual service, giving them and their families real choices.

Last June, they gave us a mandate to put progress ahead of politics and to deliver results instead of more rhetoric. That’s exactly what we are doing, with critical investments being made in every corner of Ontario.

I’ll provide an additional update in the supplementary answer.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: I want to thank the minister for his response. I know that those living in my community will be excited to hear that we have such a strong vision for building transit and transportation infrastructure across this province. I’m pleased that the investments we are making will help those living in my community of Barrie. As an example, regional express rail will provide better and more reliable service for those travelling along the Barrie GO line.

But I am sure that members of the House will be interested in knowing exactly how we are delivering our vision. Can the minister please tell members of this House what investments our government has and will be making to deliver our transit and transportation vision for Ontario?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: We are delivering on our plan to move Ontario forward. Because of our $13.5-billion investment, weekly trips across the GO rail network will increase from 1,500 trips to nearly 6,000 in 10 years.

We were first at the table to support the construction of the Waterloo and Ottawa LRTs and will be there again to offer significant support for phase 2 in both communities.

We have built the Union Pearson Express, which comes into service this Saturday, connecting Pearson airport to Union Station.

Here in the GTA, and the area around the GTA, we are and we will build LRTs in Hamilton, along Finch and Eglinton in Toronto, and in Mississauga, Brampton and Peel region.

We’ll continue to make critical investments through our $31.5-billion Moving Ontario Forward plan.

If I can say, listening to the question posed this morning by members of that party, particularly the member from Nepean–Carleton, I almost pity poor Patrick Brown, because he has to lead that crew, and they’ve made it clear why they have lost four—

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

Interjections.

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

New question.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Randy Hillier: My question is to the Premier. Premier, you offered an outrageous lump-sum payment—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Premier, you offered an outrageous lump-sum payment and stocks in the soon-to-be-privatized hydro utility, to get the Power Workers’ Union on board with your fire sale.

This weekend, I came across a quote from June 2012: “We’ve been pretty clear: We’ll keep Ontario Power Generation and Hydro One in the public’s hands, as they should be....”

Premier, that was your Minister of Agriculture and his thoughts on the sell-off of Hydro One. Will you be open and transparent and tell this House what you offered your minister to get him on board with your fire sale?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: This corporation will be one of the fastest-growing corporations in Canada. It’s going to be one of the largest ones here in Ontario, based right here in Ontario—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Charles Sousa: It will be broadly held. No one person can have more than 10% of this corporation, meaning that there will be more opportunities for retail and public investors to have ownership of the corporation, and we will do so in a very pragmatic and diligent manner to maximize the valuations for the entire public.

More importantly, we’ll enable greater value of the corporation and reinvest some of the proceeds into another very important public investment, to generate even higher value for the entire public. That’s in keeping with the public good, and we’ll continue to do so.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Clearly, the Premier doesn’t take the agriculture and rural Ontario minister very seriously. I’m not surprised that you’ve ignored your minister’s objections.

However, I would think that you would take the concerns of the dean of the Legislature and your chair of cabinet seriously when he expressed the following: “I think anyone who looks objectively at Hydro One, the transmission grid in this province, would recognize that it would naturally be something that is best kept in public ownership and public hands.”

Premier, after 38 years in this Legislature I would think there was nothing left you could offer your chair of cabinet. Premier, what did it take to get him to contradict himself and throw away his Liberal principles?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: We’re maintaining ownership of Hydro One. We’re maximizing its value for the public good. We’re reinvesting further into transmission as well as into other public infrastructure like public transit, which is important to the people of Ontario.

Interjections.

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

Hon. Charles Sousa: More importantly, this is not about selling an entire corporation. What we are doing is retaining at least 40% of that corporation, and at the start we’re maintaining 85% ownership—

Miss Monique Taylor: Last time I checked, 40% wasn’t a majority.

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

Hon. Charles Sousa: —in order to assess and maximize our values to the public. That’s exactly in keeping with what we said we should do, and it’s in the public good.

Interjection.

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

One wrap-up sentence is available.

Hon. Charles Sousa: The member opposite—for what he stands for—I’m shocked by his question in the first place. We are retaining ownership, and we’re doing so for the—

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

New question.

Air-rail link

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. The Union Pearson Express will begin exclusive diesel train service for business-class travellers this Saturday. This is the only new rapid transit service the Liberals have delivered in Toronto since the flurry of transit promises that were made way back in 2007. This government is keeping a promise it made to business-class travellers, but it’s breaking the promise that it made to the communities throughout which this dirty—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The Minister of Energy with withdraw.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Withdraw, Speaker.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It is breaking the promise it made to the communities through which this dirty and noisy diesel train will run.

Can the Premier tell us exactly when the last diesel train will run on the Union Pearson Express?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I’m always delighted to have the opportunity to stand in my place, or be anywhere in the GTA, to talk about the extraordinary success that is and will be the Union Pearson Express. I mentioned it earlier; it comes into service this Saturday.

It’s a train that will finally connect two of Canada’s busiest transportation hubs, Union Station and Pearson airport, with trains running—25 minutes long is the actual trip itself. We had the chance to try it out. These trains will be running 19.5 hours a day.

It’s being delivered on time, it’s being delivered on budget and, most importantly, it’s being delivered on time for the Pan Am/Parapan Am Games, which will be starting a little bit later on.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: In 2007 the government promised Torontonians that it would build two new subway extensions and eight new light rail lines. Then, before the last election campaign, the Premier declared the downtown relief line—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The member from Trinity–Spadina is warned.

Carry on.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Before the last election campaign, the Premier declared the downtown relief line to be a top transit priority.

But since 2007, they’ve cut $4 billion from transit funding. They’ve cancelled five of the light rail projects, deferred the Sheppard East LRT until at least the next decade, and there is no sign of the two subway lines, including the downtown relief line, that the Premier promised to prioritize just a year ago.

Why should Torontonians believe that the government will not again delay and defer its promise to electrify the Union Pearson Express?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Everywhere that we go in the GTHA, and also in communities like Kitchener-Waterloo and Ottawa, people see very clear evidence of the extraordinary investments that we are making to build transit and transportation.

Here in the city of Toronto: If the leader of the NDP took the opportunity to travel around this city, she would see that the Eglinton Crosstown LRT is under construction—the single largest public transit project in this province’s history; she would see that the Toronto-York Spadina subway extension is currently under construction—the first time the subway will run into the 905; she would see, again, as I mentioned a second ago, that the Union Pearson Express will be operating this coming Saturday. She would also note that over the last decade we’ve invested $11 billion to build up GO Transit—23 million more people using GO Transit today than were 10 years ago.

Unfortunately, what that leader doesn’t say—

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m reminding the minister: I stand, you sit.

New question.

Labour dispute

Mrs. Laura Albanese: My question is for the Minister of Labour. The workers at Crown Metal Packaging have been on strike for 21 months. The employer has been using replacement workers at the site to keep up production and continue their very profitable business.

Minister, you’ve made it clear that the ongoing labour disruption at Crown Metal was concerning to you and you said that the dispute does not follow the norm in terms of labour relations in our province.

It’s not just concerning to the minister, Mr. Speaker; it is also concerning to the entire labour community. They’ve sent thousands of letters urging for greater action, and I’m sure that you would be aware that labour leaders are here at Queen’s Park this morning for a press conference on this very situation, pressing for action.

Minister, you appointed an industrial inquiry commission in April but you’ve heard nothing since. Speaker, through you to the minister: When can we expect a resolution on this matter?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you to the member for asking another question on this. The member from York South–Weston is paying the attention that this issue deserves.

The member is right; the ongoing dispute at Crown was concerning enough that we took action and we appointed the industrial inquiry commission. We’re trying to get to the bottom of the remaining issues and advise on a path forward. This is unusual in Ontario, but on this side of the House we believe that the best deals are negotiated right at the bargaining table.

Sometimes that relationship breaks down. Further action may be required from time to time. That’s what’s happened at Crown metals. The process is unfolding with the assistance of Mr. Mitchnick. I’m pleased to report that since the appointment of the inquiry the parties have resumed talking and negotiations are continuing. But while they’re at the table, it’s important that we let the discussions happen and continue to hope that an agreement will be—

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

Supplementary?

Mrs. Laura Albanese: The employees at Crown need answers and they need them sooner rather than later. They’ve been out on the lines for 21 months. They’re tired of walking the line, and no one seems to be listening. We need to let them know that someone is listening. It’s time that the workers know that our government has their back and that we won’t let their struggle go unnoticed.

Crown employees want the minister know that the clock is ticking. They want to know that they will be able to return to their jobs. The minister has said that he has appointed Morton Mitchnick as the head of an industrial inquiry commission, and the commissioner has had nearly two months to resolve the ongoing dispute. Speaker, through you to the minister: What else can the government do? When can we expect to receive the advice of the industrial inquiry commission?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thanks again to the member for York South–Weston for continuing to bring this issue forward on behalf of the working people in this province.

The Ontario Labour Relations Act, 1995, grants a few special powers to the Minister of Labour to intervene during a labour dispute of this nature. Under

section 37 of that act, I’ve already appointed an inquiry commission that is led by Morton Mitchnick. His job is to look into and report back on the dispute, with recommendations as to how we can move forward. He’s a well-known and respected mediator. He’s a very good arbitrator. I’ve got full confidence in the ability of this individual to provide this House and me with sound and reasonable advice on a path forward.

It’s essential to understand that the best deals are the ones made at the table. While the parties remain at the table, it’s essential that we let them continue.

I can inform this House, Speaker, that I anticipate Mr. Mitchnick’s report will be here on—

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

New question.

Teachers’ labour disputes

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: My question today is for the Minister of Education. Minister, you know now that because of virtually no bargaining taking place at either the central or the local level, the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario has escalated their work-to-rule campaign effective today.

Minister, the clock is ticking. We both know that a little over 800,000 elementary school students and their families are impacted by this escalation. Now, with just 99 days left before the students return from their summer recess, you have the potential of education turmoil on your hands. Minister, when will you actually get serious about the non-bargaining that’s taking place and the turmoil that is building in the education system?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I want to emphasize that there are three months remaining before the next school year starts. In fact, bargaining has been going on at various tables. As I’ve mentioned many times, we actually have nine central tables, and just because bargaining isn’t happening at one in a particular week doesn’t mean that bargaining isn’t happening at another table in a particular week. Central bargaining is ongoing. We are gradually working towards resolution on a number of issues. I am certainly committed to being at the table over the next three months, and I would hope that everyone would be there.

Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, on a point of order.

Mr. Bill Walker: I’d like to welcome Paul Rosebush, CEO of South Bruce Grey Health Centre. He’s here to meet with Ministry of Health staff in regard to the Chesley restorative care unit.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Windsor–Tecumseh, on a point of order.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Speaker, with your indulgence, I have two friends here this morning from the Windsor region representing the Windsor Construction Association. They arrived after the start of question period. President Steve Koutsonicolas is here, and the executive director, Jim Lyons. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Speaker, they invite you all to the reception at 6 in the dining lounge put on by the construction association of Ontario later today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): There are no deferred votes. This House stands recessed until 1 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1153 to 1300.

Members’ Statements

Tourism

Ms. Laurie Scott: This week is Tourism Week in Canada. From Sunday, May 31 to Saturday, June 6, the tourism industry is celebrating in every province across the country, and Ontario is no exception.

With the summer season set to begin, I know our tourism operators are busy preparing to welcome visitors from around the world to our great province.

According to the World Tourism Organization, tourism is growing globally at a rate of 5% per year. Here in Ontario, we need to strive to keep pace with that rate of growth.

Tourism is a vitally important industry for Ontario’s economy, as it represents 149,000 businesses, more than 305,000 employees, and brings in $28 billion each year in receipts. The tourism industry touches every riding across Ontario, including my own, of course, of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, where it helps drive the local economy. For every additional $1 million of visitor spending in Ontario, the provincial economy yields 13 new jobs, $845,000 in GDP and $173,000 in provincial tax revenues.

This week, the Tourism Industry Association of Ontario is meeting with industry representatives to talk about ways in which they can continue to grow Ontario’s tourism sector beyond the $22 billion in visitor spending it currently receives and increase the number of international visitors who choose to make Ontario their destination of choice.

On behalf of Ontario’s tourism industry, we invite you to join us in celebrating Tourism Week in Canada.

Jimmy Velgakis

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Mr. Speaker, I stand here in honour of Jimmy Velgakis. You don’t know Jimmy, but he’s the elderly Greek gentleman who’s out front of Queen’s Park every day for a few hours, and he’s on a hunger strike. This is his third hunger strike. He’s an injured worker and has been since the 1990s. He worked for the city. With the very first one, we got a commitment from WSIB to open his case just to have a hearing. He’s not asking for a ruling, just a hearing. It never happened.

I did his second hunger strike with him. Together, we went without food for 10 days. That was in 2013. Again, we got a promise from WSIB that they would open a tribunal for him. Again, nothing came of it.

Now he’s back again.

Today is Injured Workers’ Day, so I’m saying this in honour of Jimmy and also in honour of all injured workers. All he’s asking for is justice. He knows he can’t control the outcome of the tribunal. He just wants his day in court. He just wants justice to be done.

We’re calling on the city, because they were his employer, to help this process, and we’re, of course, yet again calling on WSIB to do the right thing, the humane thing, and give this elderly Greek gentleman his day in court while he’s still with us.

Again, I would encourage all members here to say hello to Jimmy. He’s out there, and he will be out there until he gets justice.

Spring Bird Festival

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn: I’m pleased to rise in the House this afternoon to speak about my riding of Etobicoke–Lakeshore. We’re very fortunate to be a waterfront community, and many of my residents are great stewards of Lake Ontario. Today, this beautiful waterfront sanctuary boasts a diversity of environments—wetlands, woods, shoreline and meadows— that provide food, habitat and protection to many plants and animal species, including fish, painted turtles, beavers and, of course, birds.

Mr. Speaker, recently, I was fortunate to visit the sixth annual Spring Bird Festival in Sam Smith park. The city of Toronto, in partnership with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, the Humber Arboretum, Citizens Concerned About the Future of the Etobicoke Waterfront and Friends of Sam Smith Park organized this annual free public festival to create awareness about the importance of bird habitats.

It’s a wonderful family event which boasted hourly guided bird walks, children’s activities, bird-nesting-box workshops, displays and bird-viewing stations with telescopes.

Toronto has been referred to as a songbird superhighway because at the height of the spring bird migration, five million to 10 million birds pass over Toronto in a single night.

Mr. Speaker, I invite everyone in this House and all my constituents to enjoy birdwatching along Etobicoke’s waterfront this summer and to join my community at next year’s Spring Bird Festival in Etobicoke–Lakeshore.

Aggregate extraction

Mr. Ted Arnott: Mr. Speaker, the licensing and approvals process for new pits and quarries continues to be controversial in Ontario today. Nearby residents are often concerned about the impact that a proposed quarry or gravel pit will have on their groundwater, the environment and property values, as well as the impact that the gravel trucks will have on their local roads and infrastructure.

Local municipalities often have no choice but to spend hundreds of thousands of ratepayers’ dollars responding to these applications. They rightly question the huge cost of dealing with applications, including appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board. However, the reality is that if we’re going to build anything in Ontario, whether it’s schools, hospitals, roads or bridges, we need the aggregate that is extracted from pits and quarries.

On April 22, I wrote to the Minister of Natural Resources, urging him to update the Aggregate Resources Act and strike the right balance between our need for resource extraction and our concomitant need to protect our environment. In my letter, I wrote that the approvals process should be scientifically based, open and transparent; should ensure that people have a meaningful say; and that the adjudication of disputes is independent, impartial and not cost-prohibitive.

I also outlined a number of suggestions that I believe can improve the process, following up on many of the recommendations made almost two years ago by the Standing Committee on General Government in its review of the Aggregate Resources Act.

This is an important issue for many people in Wellington–Halton Hills. I urge the minister to carefully review my letter and tell this House when he will proceed with the changes he has promised, consistent with the recommendations of the standing committee.

Injured workers

Ms. Cindy Forster: It’s an honour to stand on behalf of New Democrats and our leader, Andrea Horwath, to recognize the 32nd Injured Workers’ Day in Ontario. I want to start by saying that I wish we didn’t have to commemorate this day and that I wish I didn’t feel we have to quantify the raw data—but that’s important.

According to the WSIB’s own data, on-the-job fatalities have increased by 40% over the last five years—and we could be doing more and better.

The grim reality is that each year, more than 80 workers die in traumatic workplace accidents, 300 more workers die an even slower death as a result of occupational illness, and over 200,000 are maimed or injured on the job.

The reality is, the Liberal government is not doing enough for workers.

Worse, WSIB has been found to be publicly under-reporting its numbers, specifically covering up 1,150 fatalities over the last nine years. This is the agency tasked with compensating workplace victims, and yet it’s trying to erase a third of all those lives lost. That is unacceptable and a blatant injustice for the families.

In the words of Justice Meredith, the founder of our workers’ compensation system, our standard must be one of “full justice, not half measures.”

The Dean report and the Arthurs report are sitting on a shelf somewhere, collecting dust.

On behalf of the NDP and New Democrats across the province, I reaffirm our commitment to fighting for workers across the province of Ontario.

Kayla Baker

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: This past Saturday, May 30, I participated in the third annual Run aLung event in my community of Cambridge. It was at last year’s run that I met the organizer, Susan Tremblett. Run aLung was created by her inspirational daughter Kayla Baker, at age 14. Kayla’s dream had always been to run, but she was unable to because she was waiting for a double lung transplant.

At age 2, Kayla was diagnosed with cancer. She was treated with chemotherapy and surgery to remove the tumour. Kayla became a young ambassador for the SickKids Foundation, appearing in a fundraising video.

Unfortunately, Kayla developed pulmonary fibrosis as a consequence of the chemotherapy, and she needed to wear an oxygen mask all the time while waiting for a lung transplant.

Kayla captured the hearts of our entire community as she raised awareness of the importance of organ donation.

The green ribbon campaign in support of Kayla was a sight to see. Thousands of green ribbons adorned trees, poles and homes in Cambridge.

Kayla received her left lung transplant in April 2013. Sadly, after a long battle and inspiring journey, she passed away at age 15 on January 1, 2014.

Her mother, Susan, with support from the Ontario Lung Association, beadonor.ca and the Run aLung committee, keeps Kayla’s dream alive by bringing awareness about organ donation and raising thousands of dollars for SickKids Hospital, leaving an indelible mark on those of us who walk and run in Kayla’s memory.

Business improvement

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Today I would like to highlight some outstanding business initiatives happening in Perth–Wellington.

In Wellington, several communities have collaborated to launch the Renew Northern Wellington program. The town of Minto, the township of Mapleton and the township of Wellington North have launched this downtown revitalization program which will partner new business with empty storefronts. This program will help entrepreneurs get exposure and grow their businesses by providing low-cost access to a storefront location. Renew Northern Wellington has the added benefits of stimulating employment, generating economic activity and invigorating their downtowns, making them more desirable to visit, shop, dine and invest in.

I would like to recognize everyone involved in this program, including the municipalities, the chambers of commerce and the Mount Forest Business Improvement Association.

The county of Perth has another exciting new initiative to attract entrepreneurs and businesses to our area. They’ve launched a new video series featuring local employers doing interesting and innovative things in their businesses and talking about what it takes to grow. These videos will help raise the profile of Perth county, showcasing it as a place that is truly cultivating opportunity.

I want to congratulate everyone involved in this project, including the county of Perth and the Perth County Visitors’ Association.

I welcome you all to visit Perth–Wellington and see for yourselves our outstanding business talent.

Carassauga

Mr. Bob Delaney: Mississauga’s vibrant cultural diversity was on display in May at the Carassauga Festival of Cultures for 2015. What began in 1986 with just 10 countries hosting pavilions—has grown to 30 pavilions displaying one of the world’s most culturally diverse cities, right in our city of Mississauga.

Always a non-profit volunteer organization, Carassauga celebrated its 30th anniversary this year. The festival has become Mississauga’s annual premier cultural event, the largest of its kind in Ontario and second-largest in all of Canada. Visitors attending this year’s event could sample signature food items from more than 72 countries. Your 2015 Carassauga passport allowed visitors to document each pavilion that they visited.

I began my annual journey, as usual, at the Portuguese Cultural Centre of Mississauga in Streetsville for the opening, and the same evening I also visited the Chinese, Canadian, Turkish, Croatian, African, Korean, Pakistani and Filipino pavilions, to name just a few.

The three-day event featured many cultural performances, authentic international cuisine and evocative cultural displays that showcased the multicultural diversity across Mississauga.

A must-attend event in Mississauga, Carassauga offers a glimpse into global diversity without ever leaving the comforts of our city.

Gala de l’Express Étudiant

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: I’m so proud to see the francophone youth of Orléans and Ottawa involved in their schools and recognized for it.

Il est tellement important que notre jeunesse s’implique dans leurs écoles et puisse mettre leur talent d’écrivain de l’avant. Je suis fière de l’initiative du journal l’Express d’Ottawa, qui a organisé cette année leur 13 e édition du gala de l’Express Étudiant le 21 mai dernier. Plus de 300 reportages des journalistes-étudiants provenant de 22 écoles francophones ont été remis, et 15 700 $ en bourses ont été distribués afin de féliciter ceux et celles qui se sont distingués dans 18 catégories.

Les grands gagnants de la soirée furent : Ann-Lin Lagacé de l’école Béatrice-Desloges, récipiendaire du prix de la Plume de Bronze; Ronel Kaboré de l’école Garneau, qui a gagné la Plume d’Argent; Candide Uyanze de l’école Béatrice-Desloges, qui a reçu la Plume d’Or; alors que Rosalie Lemay, également étudiante de l’école Béatrice-Desloges, a été honorée de la plus haute distinction, soit la Grande Plume.

Félicitations à tous les participants, et félicitations aux conseils scolaires qui les guident vers un avenir prometteur.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank all members for their statements.

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs

Ms. Soo Wong: I beg leave to present a report from the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs and move its adoption.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Tonia Grannum): Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 91,

An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact and amend various Acts / Projet de loi 91, Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre les mesures budgétaires et à édicter et à modifier diverses lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed? I heard a no.

All those in favour, say “aye.”

All those opposed, say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1316 to 1321.

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

Ms. Wong moved a report from the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs on Bill 91, as amended.

All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Albanese, Laura

Anderson, Granville

Baker, Yvan

Balkissoon, Bas

Ballard, Chris

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bradley, James J.

Chan, Michael

Chiarelli, Bob

Colle, Mike

Crack, Grant

Damerla, Dipika

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Dickson, Joe

Dong, Han

Duguid, Brad

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fraser, John

Gravelle, Michael

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

McMeekin, Ted

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milczyn, Peter Z.

Moridi, Reza

Naidoo-Harris, Indira

Naqvi, Yasir

Orazietti, David

Potts, Arthur

Qaadri, Shafiq

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Sousa, Charles

Takhar, Harinder S.

Thibeault, Glenn

Vernile, Daiene

Wong, Soo

Wynne, Kathleen O.

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

Nays

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Arnott, Ted

Bailey, Robert

Bisson, Gilles

Clark, Steve

Fedeli, Victor

Fife, Catherine

Forster, Cindy

French, Jennifer K.

Gates, Wayne

Gélinas, France

Gretzky, Lisa

Hatfield, Percy

Mantha, Michael

Martow, Gila

McDonell, Jim

McNaughton, Monte

Miller, Norm

Miller, Paul

Natyshak, Taras

Nicholls, Rick

Pettapiece, Randy

Sattler, Peggy

Smith, Todd

Tabuns, Peter

Taylor, Monique

Thompson, Lisa M.

Vanthof, John

Walker, Bill

Yakabuski, John

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 53; the nays are 30.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I declare the motion carried.

Report adopted.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Pursuant to the order of the House dated May 13, 2015, the bill is ordered for third reading.

Motions

House sittings

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I move that, pursuant to standing order 6(c)(ii), the House shall meet from 6:45 p.m. to 12 midnight on Monday, June 1, 2015, for the purpose of considering government business.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mr. Naqvi moves that, pursuant to standing order 6(c)(ii), the House shall meet from 6:45 p.m. to 12 midnight on Monday June 1, 2015, for the purpose of considering government business.

Do we agree? I heard a no.

All those in favour, say “aye.”

All those opposed, say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1325 to 1330.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mr. Naqvi has moved that, pursuant to standing order 6(c)(ii), the House shall meet from 6:45 p.m. to 12 midnight on Monday, June 1, 2015, for the purpose of considering government business.

All those who agree, please stand, one at a time, to be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Albanese, Laura

Anderson, Granville

Arnott, Ted

Bailey, Robert

Baker, Yvan

Balkissoon, Bas

Ballard, Chris

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bradley, James J.

Chan, Michael

Chiarelli, Bob

Clark, Steve

Colle, Mike

Crack, Grant

Damerla, Dipika

Del Duca, Steven

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Dickson, Joe

Dong, Han

Duguid, Brad

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fraser, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoggarth, Ann

Hoskins, Eric

Hunter, Mitzie

Jaczek, Helena

Kiwala, Sophie

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Marie-France

Leal, Jeff

MacCharles, Tracy

MacLaren, Jack

Malhi, Harinder

Mangat, Amrit

Martins, Cristina

Martow, Gila

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McDonell, Jim

McGarry, Kathryn

McMahon, Eleanor

McMeekin, Ted

McNaughton, Monte

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milczyn, Peter Z.

Miller, Norm

Moridi, Reza

Naidoo-Harris, Indira

Naqvi, Yasir

Nicholls, Rick

Orazietti, David

Pettapiece, Randy

Potts, Arthur

Qaadri, Shafiq

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Todd

Sousa, Charles

Takhar, Harinder S.

Thibeault, Glenn

Thompson, Lisa M.

Vernile, Daiene

Walker, Bill

Wong, Soo

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Yakabuski, John

Yurek, Jeff

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

Nays

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Bisson, Gilles

Fife, Catherine

French, Jennifer K.

Gates, Wayne

Gélinas, France

Gretzky, Lisa

Hatfield, Percy

Mantha, Michael

Miller, Paul

Natyshak, Taras

Sattler, Peggy

Taylor, Monique

Vanthof, John

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 69; the nays are 14.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I declare the motion carried.

Motion agreed to.

Committee membership

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding the membership of the Select Committee on Sexual Violence and Harassment.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The government House leader is seeking unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice.

Do we agree? Agreed.

Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I move that Ms. Jones replace Mr. Hillier on the membership of the Select Committee on Sexual Violence and Harassment.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mr. Naqvi moves that Ms. Jones replace Mr. Hillier on the membership of the Select Committee on Sexual Violence and Harassment.

Do we agree? Agreed.

Motion agreed to.

Petitions

Curriculum

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’m proud today to stand on International Children’s Day and present a petition signed by 185,000 people. The petition reads as follows:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas in 2010 the Ontario Liberal government promised to consult with voters before implementing a revised sex education curriculum which many parents felt was age-inappropriate and too explicit; and

“Whereas since 2010 the Ontario public has not been given adequate opportunity to provide feedback on proposed sex education changes; and

“Whereas in late October 2014 the Ontario Liberal government announced that more revisions to the sex education curriculum would be implemented in time for the following school year; and

“Whereas the announced plans to consult only one hand-picked parent per school does not constitute broad public feedback on the curriculum, and therefore, the Ontario Liberal government is breaking its 2010 promise to consult the people of Ontario;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“Repeal the sex education component of the health and physical education curriculum planned for September 2015 and start over with a meaningful parental consultation process that actually gets buy-in from parents across the province of Ontario.”

Speaker, I’m proud to support this petition and will be signing it.

Privatization of public assets

Miss Monique Taylor: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Privatizing Hydro One: Another wrong choice.

“Whereas once you privatize hydro, there’s no return; and

“We’ll lose billions in reliable annual revenues for schools and hospitals; and

“We’ll lose our biggest economic asset and control over our energy future; and

“We’ll pay higher and higher hydro bills just like what’s happened elsewhere;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To stop the sale of Hydro One and make sure Ontario families benefit from owning Hydro One now and for generations to come.”

I couldn’t agree with this more, Mr. Speaker. I’m going to affix my name to it and give it to page Jessica to bring to the Clerk.

Environmental protection

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas microbeads are tiny plastics less than one millimetre in diameter which pass through our water filtration systems and get into our rivers and the Great Lakes; and

“Whereas these microbeads represent a growing presence in our Great Lakes and are contributing to the plastic pollution of our freshwater lakes and rivers; and

“Whereas the scientific research and data collected to date has shown that microbeads that get into our water system collect toxins and organisms mistake these microbeads for food and these microbeads can move up our food chain;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“Mandate the Ontario government to ban the creation and addition of microbeads to cosmetic products and all other related health and beauty products; and

“The Ministry of the Environment conduct an annual study of the Great Lakes analyzing the waters for the presence of microbeads.”

Speaker, I agree with the petition, affix my name and give it to Katie to bring down.

Agri-food industry

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m very pleased, as I shared with the Premier just moments ago, to share a petition on behalf of a grade 10 civics class from F.E. Madill Secondary School today. It reads as follows:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Ontario provincial agri-food sector has grown more than 10% since 2002; and

“Whereas Ontario’s agri-food sector contributes approximately $34 billion to the province’s economy and supports more than 740,000 jobs across Ontario; and

“Whereas Ontario’s food exports hit a record high of $10.8 billion in 2013; and

“Whereas Premier Kathleen Wynne recognized excellence in agri-food innovation today and challenged the sector to double its growth rate and create 120,000 new jobs in Ontario by 2020;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To add a compulsory component to the grade 10 careers course (GLC20), which will allow students: to research career information about various careers in the agri-food sector, and identify the job opportunities/trends available in the agri-food sector. In addition, the province should financially support the Ontario Agri-Food Education program, to ensure that every careers classroom will have a teacher ambassador (from OAFE) visit their classroom to discuss career opportunities in agriculture.”

I thank F.E. Madill very much for their petition; I totally agree with it. I’ll affix my signature and send it to the desk with Duncan.

Hospital funding

Ms. Cindy Forster: A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the decision to close the Welland general hospital was made without consultation with the residents of south Niagara, and without regard for potential social and economic impacts of this closure; and

“Whereas the recommendations to the government contained in Dr. Kevin Smith’s report on restructuring of the Niagara Health System included no evidence to support the closure of the Welland general hospital; no needs assessment for the residents of south Niagara; no costing of the entire restructuring plan; and no proposals to mitigate the impact of reduced hospital access; and

“Whereas the catchment area of the Welland general hospital includes four municipalities, with a population of over 90,000, including a high percentage (+25%) of seniors and people living in poverty;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“

(1) Stop the planned closure of the Welland general hospital;

“

(2) Conduct a proper third-party evidence-based study to assess the present and projected health care and hospital services requirements of residents in the catchment area of the Welland general hospital;

“

(3) Hold public consultations, not only during the assessment process, but also on recommendations resulting from this study.”

I support this petition, affix my signature and give it to page Megan.

Water fluoridation

Mr. Bob Delaney: I’m pleased to present this petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly. It’s one of a continuing series, signed by thousands of Ontarians. It’s entitled “Fluoridate All Ontario Drinking Water,” and it reads as follows:

“Whereas fluoride is a mineral that exists naturally in virtually all water supplies, even the ocean; and

“Whereas scientific studies conducted during the past 70 years have consistently shown that the fluoridation of community water supplies is a safe and effective means of preventing dental decay, and is a public health measure endorsed by more than 90 national and international health organizations; and

“Whereas dental decay is the second most frequent condition suffered by children, and is one of the leading causes of absences from school; and

“Whereas Health Canada has determined that the optimal concentration of fluoride in municipal drinking water for dental health is 0.7 mg/L, a concentration providing optimal dental health benefits, and well below the maximum acceptable concentration to protect against adverse health effects; and

“Whereas the decision to add fluoride to municipal drinking water is a patchwork of individual choices across Ontario, with municipal councils often vulnerable to the influence of misinformation, and studies of questionable or no scientific merit;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“That the ministries of the government of Ontario amend all applicable legislation and regulations to make the fluoridation of municipal drinking water mandatory in all municipal water systems across the province of Ontario.”

I am pleased to sign and support this petition, and to send it down with page Star.

Hospital services

Mr. Norm Miller: I’ve received hundreds of further petitions with regard to health care in Muskoka. This came from the corporation of the Town of Bracebridge, and it’s to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare.

“Support of Acute Care Hospital Services at Both the South Muskoka Memorial Hospital in Bracebridge and the Huntsville District Memorial Hospital.

“Whereas the continued delivery of acute care services at the South Muskoka Memorial Hospital in Bracebridge is crucial to the long-term sustainability of the community and the continued provision of adequate health care services for the residents of the town; and

“Whereas the provision of a full range of emergency, in-patient and surgical services at both the South Muskoka Memorial Hospital in Bracebridge and the Huntsville District Memorial Hospital by Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare (MAHC) is vital for all of the communities in the Muskoka region; and

“Whereas it is recognized that small changes in health care funding and service delivery methods could have potentially devastating impacts over the long term for some key hospital sites; and

“Whereas it is understood that hospitals are key community assets and their importance to ongoing community sustainability needs to be recognized in any long-term health system capacity planning process undertaken by the province; and

“Whereas Bracebridge and Huntsville strongly support the development and implementation of a long-term provincial health care strategy that allows for multi-site delivery of comprehensive (acute care) services including emergency, in-patient and surgical services.

“I, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare as follows:

“

(1) That the province of Ontario ensure that the changes to the health care delivery system currently being implemented to improve hospital efficiency do not negatively impact access to services and the quality of care in Bracebridge and the entire Muskoka region;

“

(2) That the province of Ontario ensure that the changes undertaken by the province recognize the unique and important role that smaller hospitals, such as the South Muskoka Memorial Hospital and the Huntsville District Memorial Hospital, have in promoting economic development and creating sustainable communities in Ontario;

“

(3) That the province of Ontario and Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare take appropriate steps to ensure the continued delivery of comprehensive acute care hospital services on a multi-site basis at both the South Muskoka Memorial Hospital in Bracebridge and the Huntsville District Memorial Hospital.”

I support this petition and will give it to Jessica from Milford Bay in my riding of Parry Sound–Muskoka.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that is called “Privatizing Hydro One: Another Wrong Choice,” and it reads as follows:

“Whereas once you privatize hydro, there’s no return; and

“We’ll lose billions in reliable annual revenues for schools and hospitals; and

“We’ll lose our biggest economic asset and control over our energy future; and

“We’ll pay higher and higher hydro bills just like what’s happened elsewhere;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To stop the sale of Hydro One and make sure Ontario families benefit from owning Hydro One now and for generations to come.”

I proudly affix my name to this petition and will give it to page Megan to send to the table.

Municipal restructuring

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas the government of Ontario created the ‘new city’ of Hamilton on January 1, 2001, under the City of Hamilton Act, 1999 by amalgamating six lower-tier municipalities including the town of Flamborough and a single upper-tier municipality;

“Whereas on April 13, 2000, a press release from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs announced, ‘The new city of Hamilton is one step closer to lower taxes as a result of legislation (amalgamation) introduced today by the minister,’ and on July 14, 2000, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Tony Clement, announced that to prevent taxes from skyrocketing for Flamborough taxpayers, Flamborough will stay in Hamilton.

“Thirteen years since Minister Clement’s announcement, taxes for Flamborough have skyrocketed. They have increased 57.3%; and

“Whereas Bill 26, the Savings and Restructuring Act of December 1999, and the City of Hamilton Act, 1999, were adopted to achieve the stated purposes of “fewer politicians while maintaining effective representation; lower taxes; better service delivery; less bureaucracy; better accountability.”

“In fact, over the past 13 years, none of the above has been achieved. We have now bigger, more costly and more bureaucratic government. Staff personnel pre-amalgamation totalled 3,657 excluding police (O’Brien report 11/99). As of December 20/12, the employee count has increased to 7,559, excluding police, library and HECFI; and

“Whereas in December 2003, March 2005, November 2005, September 2006 and September 2008 independent surveys were held in Flamborough, all of which showed a very high degree of dissatisfaction with our present form of government; and

“Accordingly,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to set up a commission for an independent study and report which would cover the fiscal and social impact of amalgamation upon the citizens of Flamborough. It should compare the average cost per household of most core services, general government, fire and public works both before and after amalgamation as well as a comparative analysis of taxation per household and the size of bureaucracy.”

I sign my name to this petition, I give it to page Luke and I support this petition.

Hydro rates

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Good afternoon. This is a petition to lower hydro rates.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas household electricity bills have skyrocketed by 56% and electricity rates have tripled as a result of the Liberal government’s mismanagement of the energy sector;

“Whereas the billion-dollar gas plants cancellation, wasteful and unaccountable spending at Ontario Power Generation and the unaffordable subsidies in the Green Energy Act will result in electricity bills climbing by another 35% by 2017 and 45% by 2020; and

“Whereas the Liberal government wasted $2 billion on the flawed smart meter program; and

“Whereas the recent announcement to implement the Ontario Electricity Support Program will see average household hydro bills increase an additional $137 per year starting in 2016; and

“Whereas the soaring cost of electricity is straining family budgets, and hurting the ability of manufacturers and small businesses in the province to compete and create new jobs; and

“Whereas home heating and electricity are a necessity for families in Ontario who cannot afford to continue footing the bill for the government’s mismanagement of the energy sector;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately implement policies ensuring Ontario’s power consumers, including families, farmers and employers, have affordable and reliable electricity.”

I agree with this petition and I will send it down with page Dale.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Unfortunately, that concludes the time we have available for petitions, but we’ll be back tomorrow.

Orders of the Day

Order of business

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 28, 2015, on the amendment to the motion to apply a timetable to certain business of the House.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): When we last debated this motion, the member for Timmins–James Bay had the floor. I see he’s in the House. I recognize the member for Timmins–James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It just occurred to me, a bit of a conundrum: The Speaker or a member of the House is not allowed to say somebody is absent, so if you got up and said what you said and I wasn’t here, you would be out of order.

Hon. Liz Sandals: But he’s the Speaker.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: No, they’ve got to live by the rules as well. It’s just something that occurred to me as I was standing up to start off the debate.

As I was saying the last time we had a chance to debate this, first of all, I want to put on the record that we’re not going to slow this down. We’re not opposed to any of the bills that are contained within this essentially omnibus time allocation motion that was put into a substantive motion.

There are four bills listed in here, all of which New Democrats have said we support. As I said last week, if the government were just to allow the bills to go their natural way, those bills would probably pass faster. Should the opposition decide to hold up the substantive motion, we would actually be able to slow these bills down longer by way of your substantive motion than if you hadn’t introduced it, which leads me to the question: Why is the government doing this? Maybe they were looking for a fight.

Maybe the government wanted to make it look as if the opposition was slowing things down, and they had a bit of a strategy to try to embarrass the opposition on bills they support. Because clearly, New Democrats, on every one of these bills—and I’m going to go through them.

Bill 9, the environmental protection act with regard to the banning of the use of coal—we haven’t used coal in this province for a while. It’s a bit of a moot bill, but New Democrats have said we are in favour of that particular legislation.

An Act respecting Invasive Species—I’m the critic for that and MNR. I thought I was pretty clear in my opening comments in debate at second reading that New Democrats would be supporting that particular bill, Bill 37.

Then there’s the anti-SLAPP legislation, Bill 52. New Democrats have stood in the House and said we support that bill as well. In fact, Andrea Horwath, the leader of our party, has actually moved such a bill in this House and was the first one to bring that issue here, I believe, two Parliaments ago.

And Bill 66,

An Act to protect and restore the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin, is a bill that we spoke to that we actually support.

New Democrats, and I believe Conservatives, have agreed to most of these bills. I know New Democrats have agreed to all four. The government, if they wanted to allow these bills to continue down the regular course of debate, would have had these bills pretty shortly, because all but one are at six and a half hours of debate, or pretty darned close, at which point the government could have time-allocated.

But you wouldn’t even have to time-allocate. We had indicated to you that we had no interest in debating these bills beyond the regular six or seven hours we take to debate a bill. We had no intent to slow these things down.

We wanted members who wished to do so to be able to put on the record what they thought about these bills, because these bills will go to committee, and I think it’s important for this Legislature to give the committee a little bit of direction when it comes to opening comments at second reading so that they are able to think about that and the public can think about that when it goes into committee, so that when we do our hearings and we finally get to clause-by-clause, we’re able to have amendments that deal with the concerns that, number one, the public has raised, and number two, that members have raised in this Legislature.

So why is the government time-allocating an omnibus time allocation motion with this substantive motion when they could have allowed these bills to go their regular course? The only thing I can come up with is that the government decided, “You know, it’s not good that the opposition New Democrats are supporting our legislation. We would rather,” said the Liberals, “have the opposition New Democrats oppose it so that we can go to the stakeholders and say, ‘Oh, my God, look at this.

The NDP is holding things up.’” The government says, “Well, since the NDP is not holding these things up and are actually in favour of these bills, maybe we can find a way of creating a crisis by which we can say the NDP is holding things up.” So they come forward with an omnibus—and I’ve got to say, it’s the first time since I’ve been here that a government has done this type of thing on their own. Normally, a programming motion is done with the agreement of all three parties.

This government is trying to write a programming motion in the singular self and themselves move this motion as a way of being able to move these bills forward. I think the government thought, “Well, you know what? We can go to the environmental stakeholders and we can say to the environmental stakeholders, ‘Look at that: The government is trying to do the right thing for your bill, and the opposition is holding it up. Those New Democrats—imagine that. They have the gall to stand in the House and to debate and to hold this thing up.’”

And I say, where’s the government coming from? The reality is, New Democrats said at second reading, where we’re at with all of these bills, that we support them. We don’t intend to slow them down. We only intend to use the regular time allotted normally to debate at second reading so that we can put our comments on the record and, as we’ve done with other bills, allow the bill to collapse naturally and to go into committee so the committee can then decide what the best approach is when it comes to hearings on the particular bill, rather than have the House prescribe how much time the bill will have in committee.

I think the motive—and I think I’ve latched on to this pretty correctly—of this particular motion is the government saying, “We’re going to create a crisis that makes it look as if New Democrats are opposed so that we can whip up the stakeholder groups to let them know the NDP is not in favour of passing these particular bills that deal with the environment.” And I just say to the government: Shame on you, because what you’ve actually done is harm the process by which people who care about these bills would have been able to deal with this in committee.

Let me give you an example. If one of these bills or all of these bills had naturally gone into committee, as they should have, and which we as New Democrats have told you we will do—I’ve gone to House leaders’ meetings, and I know my colleague is here with me who is on the House leaders’ team for the New Democrats, and I’ve said it to the Tory House leader and I said it to the Liberal House leader: We are not going to hold up these four pieces of legislation. We will allow these bills to die naturally within the House, and that means just end the debate at between six and seven hours.

Our members are going to stand up, and there are some people who want to speak to them, but we think that these bills should go to committee and people should have the right to be heard.

This government plays a bit of a game to make it look as if there’s a crisis where none exists; it tries to set it up that New Democrats are slowing up these bills when we’re not. So they slow up their own bills, and then what do they do? They time-allocate the committee process in the time allocation motion. Now, if I’m a person who cares deeply about the St.

Lawrence basin and about the Great Lakes Protection Act, if I’m a stakeholder who cares a lot about anti-SLAPP, for or against, because I know there are two sides to that issue, or if you are somebody who cares passionately about the end of use of coal and the other bill, you now are limited to how much time you’re going to have in committee, because the government is time-allocating the committee process by way of this motion.

So the members of the assembly are not going to have an opportunity to be able to speak— it’s not that the members won’t have the opportunity. In fact, it’s not the question that the members are not going to have the time to speak to it; the public is going to have less time to be able to come to committee to be able to present to the bill.

I think you’re doing the people of Ontario and those groups that care about these bills and those people who are opposed to these bills a great disservice because you’re not allowing the bills to travel and you’re not allowing the committee to determine how long they should be in committee. These things should go to committee. They should be allowed, based on the input as far as how many people want to present, to determine how long we need for public hearings and where we need to go.

Let me give you an example—I’m going to do them in order.

We have ending the use of coal. We don’t use coal anymore, but we’ve stopped the use of coal by practice of what we’ve done by way of policy in this province. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that every party in this House has the same position. Conservatives, New Democrats and Liberals all agree that we should not use coal. That’s where we’re at now. We all had similar things in our platforms to end the use of coal. But I think it would be important for the people in the Sarnia–Lambton area and the people in the Atikokan area, where coal was being used and has been taken away—and we no longer use coal in Thunder Bay, for example. It would have been important for people there to have their say t