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

May 7, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2015-May-07 (PDF)

L081 - Thu 7 May 2015 / Jeu 7 mai 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 7 May 2015 Jeudi 7 mai 2015

ORDERS OF THE DAY

2015 Ontario budget / Budget de l’Ontario de 2015

Introduction of Visitors

Order of business

Privatization of public assets

Oral Questions

Winter highway maintenance

Teachers’ labour disputes

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Children’s mental health services / Services de santé mentale pour enfants

Winter highway maintenance

Nuclear waste

Apprenticeship training

Justice of the peace

Northern Ontario

Forest industry

Highway safety

Children’s mental health services

Leader of the Opposition

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Lyme disease

Correctional facility employees

Mother’s Day

Connor Ross

Labour disputes

Community services

Concord Food Centre

Canada-Netherlands Friendship Day

BlackBerry

Introduction of Bills

Protecting Victims of Occupational Disease Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection des victimes de maladies professionnelles

Motions

Private members’ public business

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Children’s Mental Health Week / Semaine de la santé mentale des enfants

Asian Heritage Month

Children’s Mental Health Week

Asian Heritage Month

Children’s Mental Health Week

Asian Heritage Month

Correction of record

Petitions

Hydro rates

Gasoline prices

Water fluoridation

Demonstration at Queen’s Park

First responders

GO Transit

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Special-needs children

Student safety

Health care funding

Hospital funding

French-language education

Private Members’ Public Business

Improving Mental Health and Addictions Services in Ontario Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’amélioration des services de santé mentale et de lutte contre les dépendances en Ontario

Safeguarding our Communities Act (Fentanyl Patch for Patch Return Policy), 2015 / Loi de 2015 pour protéger nos collectivités (politique d’échange de timbres de fentanyl)

Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Amendment Act (Anti-Fracking), 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant la

Loi sur les ressources en pétrole, en gaz et en sel (anti-fracturation)

Improving Mental Health and Addictions Services in Ontario Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’amélioration des services de santé mentale et de lutte contre les dépendances en Ontario

Safeguarding our Communities Act (Fentanyl Patch for Patch Return Policy), 2015 / Loi de 2015 pour protéger nos collectivités (politique d’échange de timbres de fentanyl)

Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Amendment Act (Anti-Fracking), 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant la

Loi sur les ressources en pétrole, en gaz et en sel (anti-fracturation)

Orders of the Day

Ending Coal for Cleaner Air Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’abandon du charbon pour un air plus propre

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

2015 Ontario budget / Budget de l’Ontario de 2015

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 6, 2015, on the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): When we last debated this issue, the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke had finished his speech. We are now moving into questions and comments. The member from Timmins–James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’m sure it was the most electrifying speech that the Legislature has seen in some time, because we know that the member from—where?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke is always an animated debater when it comes to this Legislature.

I’m sure that he talked about what I think a lot of Ontarians are talking about with regard to this particular government budget. In the last election, we all ran and understood what we thought the issues would be coming into this particular session. I don’t know about you guys, but I don’t ever remember the Conservatives—the Liberals, I should say. I call the Liberals Conservatives because they’re actually outflanking the Conservatives on the right, but that’s a whole other issue.

I don’t ever remember the Liberals running in the last election saying, “Vote for me and I’m going to privatize your hydro system.” I don’t ever remember Kathleen Wynne going to any political event or any media event and saying that she was going to privatize hydro. She talked about unlocking the assets of some things, but she never talked about privatizing hydro.

Nobody thought in a million years that the Liberals, who said they were progressive, would do what ultimately not even Mike Harris or Ernie Eves did, because, quite frankly, even they understood it was a very bad idea.

But the Liberals, who as always run on the left when they’re running for election and are all the way on the right now that they’re in government, have decided they are going to privatize Hydro One. It’s not bad enough that our electricity price has gone up by 320% since the Liberals have taken office, mostly because of their failed policies when it comes to privatization on the generation side with all of this private power. They’re not happy that we had a 320% increase in electricity; they’re not happy that we’re going to get another 30% increase over the next couple of years.

They want to drive it up even more. What in Sam Hill’s name are these Liberals up to when it comes to privatizing hydro?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Ms. Soo Wong: I’m very pleased to follow the member from Timmins–James Bay and speak in support of the proposed budget. I want to remind the member opposite that in the proposed budget, we are making a commitment to the largest infrastructure investment in the province’s history, more than $130 billion over 10 years in dedicated funds for Moving Ontario Forward.

Every dollar that we receive from part of the ownership of Hydro One will be placed in the Trillium Trust—that the member opposite does not want to talk about. It’s being dedicated to roads, transit and bridges under Moving Ontario Forward.

Every region, every riding in our community, has a bridge. I know, in my riding of Scarborough–Agincourt, right now as we speak, we are improving the 401 and Victoria Park. We just finished the improvement of Warden and the 401. I know the members opposite will be travelling along the 401, and there are bridges in every riding in this province. So, as outlined in the 2014 budget, Moving Ontario Forward, it is a priority of this government to invest in public transit, transportation and other priority infrastructure in Ontario.

The member opposite somehow forgot how many hospitals we have built and how many universities and colleges we have improved. Somehow they have this selective memory loss.

The other piece here is that they don’t have to say that we’re not doing it. They have evidence to prove that we’ve been doing it. Across Ontario, we are improving the infrastructure because for the last 25 years we haven’t done any improvements, resulting in congestion. I remember listening yesterday to my colleague from Etobicoke, in this particular debate, talking about how much financial cost is due to congestion, but he did not even talk about the health care costs.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Gila Martow: I’ll be speaking much later and more in depth on the budget, but I just want to mention about what budgeting means. I think the families at home really understand what it means to balance the home budget and to prioritize their expenditures.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Would they sell the furniture to pay the hydro bill?

Mrs. Gila Martow: That’s exactly what I was going to say.

I was just going to say that, when they want to invest in their home’s assets, perhaps renovate their house—they always say an up-to-date kitchen or washroom can add value to a house. The fact is, they’re not going and maxing out their credit cards, putting on a second mortgage—I certainly hope—just to renovate their kitchen and then calling it an investment, because then we all understand that they have to pay interest upon interest and they can’t dig themselves out of the hole.

We do see people retiring with debt. That’s part of the problem with retirement income: It’s not just the actual income from a pension, it’s also the debt that people are carrying. We have to set an example, as leaders in our communities and leaders here in the Legislature. We have to show the public that we do understand what investment means: It means that you put away money in good times, and then you have it to invest to do job creation and invest in infrastructure in bad times.

I think we need to focus on prioritizing. We need to focus on finding those real efficiencies, not just talking about them. We can’t just keep creating new government bureaucracies every time we have a new government program. We have to look at the government bureaucracies and programs that maybe don’t need as much staff because of computerization or because of off-loading to other administrators like the LHINs.

Thank you for allowing me to just focus on the importance of the big picture of what it means to budget and what it means to actually invest.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Wayne Gates: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. It’s always nice to rise again to talk about the budget. I talked a little bit yesterday about the tourist sector in Niagara Falls, where I got a call from the hotel owners. Now, think about this: The hotel owners are calling me. Their hydro has gone up twice as much, from 8 cents to 16 cents during peak times. So they said to me, “Well, here’s the problem we have: We can’t shut the lights off.

We have 12 million people coming to Niagara Falls.” They start coming really in May until September, maybe October, and then it kind of spreads out over the winter months even though they still come. He said, “What are we going to do? Do we have to pass on the cost of hydro to people coming to visit Niagara Falls?” What are you thinking here? So now what do you do? You make this thing—we’re going to sell Hydro. We all know hydro is going to go up. It makes absolutely no sense.

What it is, it’s 3%. Now, if you take a look at 3% of the total cost of your infrastructure over a period of 10 years—and I’m not sure the government will be here in 10 years, but that’s a whole other debate for another day. What do we do? We’re getting $387 million in profit from Hydro One this year.That works out to almost $4 billion that you’re going to get over 10 years.

What have we got from that over the last number of years? We got money that we used for what? The Liberal Party should listen to this: Over the last number of years, from the profits from that, we spent that money in health care, we spent that money in transportation and we spent that money in education. If we continue to do that, we wouldn’t have to force teachers out on strike today. You could have reinvested in schools. It makes absolutely no sense.

I’m going to finish my last 20 seconds on selling the GM shares. It makes absolutely no sense. We need to be at the table. At General Motors, the workers there are doing their job. Their productivity is high, they’re highly skilled, our dollar is down—82 cents, although it should be around 78 cents—and in 2009, we—I’m done? Thank you.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I now return to the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I want to thank the members from Timmins–James Bay, Scarborough–Agincourt, Thornhill and Niagara Falls for their comments.

I want to touch briefly—I wish I had a lot of time; I wish I had a week—

Mr. Todd Smith: So do we.

Mr. John Yakabuski: —but I do want to touch briefly on the comments by the member from Scarborough–Agincourt. We hear over and over again how this government is saying, “But we’re investing in infrastructure—$130 billion.” You’d think they were the first government in history to invest in infrastructure. But you know what, Speaker? If they hadn’t messed it up so badly over the last 12 years, they wouldn’t have to trade away the family inheritance in order to pay for infrastructure. But that’s what they’ve had to do because they have mismanaged it so badly—

Ms. Soo Wong: What about the 407?

Mr. John Yakabuski: You’re not in your seat, Soo. Go back to your seat.

They’ve spent the last 12 years lining the pockets of Liberal friends with their Green Energy Act fiasco, taking away money from the people of Ontario. Now their backs are against the wall, and what are they doing? They’re going to sell off Hydro One. We don’t even know where it’s going to end, I say to my friend from Timmins–James Bay. What will be left when this government is done the fire sale? When they’re done the fire sale, do they start the yard sale, and then do they start the bankruptcy auction?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Order.

Mr. John Yakabuski: What comes next under this Liberal government for them to raise enough money to get back into investing in infrastructure after they’ve paid off all their Liberal friends in the energy sector? That’s what has happened with the Green Energy Act. That’s what has driven up those hydro bills.

I got a letter from Ottawa today—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I would ask you to withdraw.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Withdraw.

I got a letter from a lady from Ottawa complaining to the Minister of Energy: 600 and some dollars to pay for hydro in a month in a small home. That is disgraceful in this province, and it is this government that has driven it through the roof.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Now that we’ve come to order, I would ask everybody to be a little bit civil, and if we could remove the personal attacks in some of the comments, I’d appreciate it, too.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Point of order, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Point of order.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Speaker, it is clear that the speaker from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke needs more time. I ask for unanimous consent for another 20 minutes.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I heard a no.

Further debate?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, maybe you’ll say no to him, but I’ve got 20 minutes. Let me see what I can do.

First of all, I want to say that I don’t take any particular pleasure in having time to debate this particular motion today, because what the government is doing, quite frankly, is pretty catastrophic when it comes to what this is going to mean to people back home and across this province.

Before I get to hydro, I just want to say a couple of things in response to what I’ve heard from the government side. This government is trying to make it look as if there’s nobody in the history of the province of Ontario who has ever invested in infrastructure. They’re trying to make an argument that by selling Hydro One for $9 billion and keeping $4 billion to build transit, they’re going to do something that Ontarians had never done before, and that is to make important investments in transit.

Well, I’ve just got to say, my God, the furthest thing from the truth is what the Liberals are putting forward, because governments in this House over the last 100 years have been investing in all kinds of infrastructure, everything from highways—

Interjection.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: There goes the government member who used to be the one responsible for infrastructure saying, “Not true.” Did we not build bridges in this province? Did we not build highways in this province? Did we not invest in subways in this province? Did we not buy transit cars in this province? Did we not buy buses in this province? We have been investing in infrastructure for years in this province.

I would argue, is it enough? Probably not. But we have been investing in this province for years, and we’ve built up a system of transit and a system of roads that, quite frankly, is not a bad one. Could it be better? Absolutely, nobody argues that it can’t be better. You can always improve on what you’ve got. But they’re trying to create this narrative that you absolutely have to sell Hydro One or else the world is going to come to an end because we’re not going to be able to build any more transit.

Well, I’d just say, first of all, what have governments done in the past to pay for things like subways? I was a member of the NDP government that was building two subway lines in the city of Toronto, the crosstown Eglinton line and the line that’s north by Steeles. We did that not by selling Hydro; we did that not by selling the public assets of Ontario; we did that by doing what everybody else does in the world, and that is to borrow the money over time and to pay it back. You pay it back by the increased ridership that you get from those particular lines, and you get it back from the taxes we all pay across this province.

So this argument that the only way that you can build transit in the city of Toronto is for us to sell one of our crown jewels and to sell the assets of Hydro One to the tune of 60% is a preposterous argument. Every government in the world that invests in transit, roads, inner-city rail, airports and others does so by either having the money up front, if they’re lucky enough to have that money, or they borrow to do it.

What do you think towns and municipalities across Ontario have done when it comes to building arenas in their communities, when it comes to building facilities of any type in their cities or building roads? They take out a debenture; that is, to borrow money. That’s how this is done.

This government argues that the only way they can build transit in the city of Toronto is by selling Hydro. It’s a silly argument. In fact, if they sell Hydro, we’re going to lose about $700 million a year in revenue that we currently get from Hydro, because they pay money back to the province from the business they do in the province of Ontario. We’re going to lose a big chunk of that, which means we’re going to lose over time much more money than the $4 billion they’re going to get to put into transit. It’s a really, really dumb argument.

I’ve just got to say to the government across the way that if somebody had come to me and said, “You know what? The government is going to sell Hydro,” and they told me that a year ago, I would have said, “The Liberals aren’t stupid enough to do that. There isn’t a government in Ontario that would be stupid enough to sell Hydro.” Why would you sell something that, quite frankly, is an important economic development tool in this province, as it used to be when electricity was being sold at cost before we did the privatization on the generation side? The political capital that they would have to pay as a result of selling Hydro would be enough for them to stop.

I remember; I was here when Mike Harris mused about privatizing Hydro and Ernie Eves then did some actions when he became the Premier of Ontario. They didn’t just back down because CUPE brought them to court. Yes, that was a big part of it, but they backed down because the people of this province said, “Are you nuts? You’re going to privatize what? I don’t want you to privatize Hydro One, because I understand that if a business owns Hydro One, they’re going to want to make a profit, and that profit will come by way of higher rates.”

So the government of Ontario of the day said, “No, we’re backing off the selling of Hydro.” Even the Conservatives understood that, and if anybody was going to sell Hydro One, it should have been the Conservatives. At least we understand—I don’t agree with them—but they’re the party of doing everything private sector, business kind of stuff, and they would see this as a way of being able to give the private sector yet more business opportunity. I would have understood the Conservatives doing it.

I wouldn’t have liked it; I would have opposed it; I would have spoken against it; and I would have fought it, as we did back in the 1990s when Mr. Eves was trying to do that. But in fact, it’s the Liberals that are doing it. I’m saying, “My God, what is going on?”

I remember the speeches of members on the government side, like the honourable Mr. Bradley. The honourable Mr. Dalton McGuinty was here at the time and others—I don’t know the ridings, I’m sorry, Speaker. I wish I knew everybody’s ridings, but after 25 years, it’s not something that comes easy to me. I know the names. I know all your names—

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I’m from Vaughan. Vaughan.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Steve, you’re a good guy. I get along with you quite well.

My point is that it’s the Liberals who are doing it. They were the guys, I remember, in opposition to the Tories when the Tories talked about doing it. They were going apoplectic on the opposition benches, as if somebody had taken a knife and stabbed them in the heart. They just couldn’t believe that the government was going in that direction, and they were just swinging from the chandeliers.

I still think there are finger marks up on top of that chandelier from some of the Liberal members who were swinging off that chandelier when Ernie Eves was trying to privatize hydro. I think, if you went up there, you’d find the fingerprint marks on that chandelier.

But now you’ve got the right-wing Liberal Party. They’re like Jim Prentice in Alberta. Really; they are Jim Prentice in Alberta when it comes to privatization. I listen to the government front bench heckle during question period when our leader, Andrea Horwath, stands in her place every day, day in and day out, and fights against privatization. They’re using the same lines that Jim Prentice tried to use in Alberta. I just warn you: What happened in Alberta, my friends, could happen to you quite easily. People understand and smell a rat when there’s rat. And this is a rat. They just don’t like this thing, and they understand that you can’t survive more hydro increases.

It used to be in Ontario that Ontario Hydro was one public utility that generated electricity at cost. We decided many years ago that having one public utility generate electricity at cost meant our rates would be cheaper. We had among the lowest hydro rates in all of Canada here in Ontario. We were there because we understood it wasn’t just a question that our residents needed to have affordable electricity, but it was also a question of economic development.

All of those plants in southwestern Ontario, all of those mining and forestry operations in northern Ontario—large industrial users of electricity—they situated themselves and invested in Ontario. One of the reasons they did that was you were able to have access to safe, affordable, dependable electricity in the province of Ontario. So they invested billions of dollars to build plants, mines, paper mills—you name it—in Ontario, because one of the advantages was that Ontario advantage: Electricity was affordable and reliable.

Along comes a Liberal government, which was opposed to the Tories’ musing on privatization. The Tories had started to do some privatization on the generation side by doing private power contracts. The Liberals swung on the chandeliers; their thumb marks are still up on that chandelier, I swear to God. And they were—

Mr. Han Dong: Not mine.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Not yours; you weren’t here, in fairness. I can tell you Rosario’s are up there. I can probably still see his particular thumb marks up there because he was pretty apoplectic about it.

Mr. Han Dong: Yours were there.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Mine were there for darn sure, I’ve got to tell you.

Anyway, my point is, what we ended up with is that the Liberals, who were opposed to privatization, started privatizing on the generation side by signing all kinds of private power deals in order to build new electricity generation in the province of Ontario. As a result of that, the price of electricity in Ontario has gone up by 320%. That means if you were paying a hydro bill of $100 a month 12 years ago, that $100 hydro bill is closer to $400 today. How does that make any sense to the consumer? And now these guys are saying, “Trust us. We did such a good job the last time. Trust us. We’re going to privatize hydro.”

Look what happened when they privatized winter road maintenance in this province. Granted, it wasn’t the Liberals who started the privatization of winter road maintenance. It was started under Mike Harris and the Tories. They decided to get rid of the Ontario—

Hon. Steven Del Duca: It didn’t start under Harris.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: It started under Harris. I was there. I know it was under Harris. You weren’t here; I was.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: It was 50-50 under you guys.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: It was always 50-50.

See, the Minister of Transportation should understand the history of Ontario. Our winter road maintenance system in this province was a very good system. MTO had snowplows, sand trucks and others, and then they would augment that by hiring contractors if they needed that extra help cleaning our highways. It was a good system because Ontario didn’t have to keep all of the snowplows and trucks that it doesn’t always use on the fleet. They had a very big fleet of sand trucks, plows and others, but they would augment using the private sector. The difference was that MTO was the one that decided when the snowplow would go out and when the plowing was to take place.

My point is this: The Tories started privatizing by getting rid of all of the government’s snowplows. They got rid of all the snowplows. The Liberals stood in opposition to that. I remember because I had Mr. Bartolucci running around the province with me condemning the Conservatives for the privatization and the sell-off of MTO equipment when it came to winter road maintenance. We predicted together, “My God, this is going to be a real problem when it comes to highway safety in Ontario.”

The Liberals get elected, and what do they do? They didn’t just continue the privatization of the plows; they privatized the whole damn thing. They got rid of the engineers; they got rid of the inspectors; they got rid of the patrols. The whole darn thing was given over to the private sector.

Now, during that time, we were out there, my good friend John Vanthof and I and others, saying, “Look at what’s happening on our highways. We have highways shutting down; we’ve got accidents going on.” I’m getting phone calls from the police in the middle of winter saying, “I’ve got to close down Highway 11,” or, “I’ve got to close down Highway 101,” or Highway 144 or whatever it might be, “because of winter road conditions. This is something I’ve never had to do before.”

We sounded the alarm. Give the former Minister of Transportation some credit. As a result of pressures that we put on him—mayors, myself and citizens who took the time to take pictures and videos of the condition of our roads and brought it to the minister—the minister bought some extra snowplows. We gave him full credit for that. We said, “Well, that is a step in the right direction.” There were some 50 new plows that were bought for northern Ontario and about 100 overall for the province. But we still have a problem. The problem is, we still have those third-generation contracts that are in place today.

So the auditor comes out and says, “This thing is a disaster. It’s a question where highway safety has been put at risk as a result of the privatization of our highway winter road maintenance system.” And then the government stands in this House and says, “Trust us. We’re going to privatize hydro. It’s going to be great. It’s going to be better. We’re going to still have control.” Give me a break. We saw what happened with the OPG privatization. We saw what has happened with the winter road maintenance. It doesn’t work. It costs us more money, and in the end we have less control and the quality goes down.

So what’s the upside for the province? Ms. Wynne, the Premier, stands in this House and says, “You know, we need to sell Hydro because the only way we could ever build infrastructure in this province is to sell off Ontario Hydro.” What a silly, silly argument from a very smart person, I’ve got to say.

You want to build infrastructure and you want $4 billion extra—which is only about 3% of what we have to spend on transit, by the way. Well, there are ways of doing it. The first thing is what we’ve always done, which is to borrow. Borrow what you can afford. Don’t borrow more than you can, and pay for it over time.

The government, in way of its HST inputs and changes to the HST, has given corporations $1.5 billion to $2 billion in gifts when it comes to this new HST policy that’s now being enacted. It means to say that we, the taxpayers of Ontario, will be taking our tax dollars of working-class people and we’re going to be transferring them over to the corporate sector to the tune of $1.5 billion to $2 billion a year so they can wine and dine people when they take them out on business meetings somewhere. Is that good for business? Is that good for the people?

Is that a way of being able to responsibly spend the dollars of the people? You would expect Mr. Prentice to do that, and that’s exactly what Mr. Prentice was doing. This Liberal government is doing exactly what Conservative governments have done in Alberta and are doing in Ottawa.

So the government says, “How do I find $4 billion to be able to invest in transit?” You’re talking about one $4-billion hit in one year. I’m telling you right now that New Democrats have shown you where you can make $1.5 billion each and every year to be able to offset the cost of transit: a moderate increase in corporate taxes. Our corporate taxes in this province are among the lowest in North America. I’m not arguing, as Jim Prentice would argue, as he did in the debates, that we have to raise corporate taxes to record numbers. No, no, no. Nobody here is arguing that.

New Democrats understand you can’t raise corporate taxes and let them rip, because there is a reality that we do compete with other jurisdictions. But when you’re the lowest tax rate when it comes to corporations, how about we just raise them to the rate of Alabama? Why don’t we try that? You think that raising our corporate tax rate to the same level as Alabama’s is going to scare the heck out of the business community? I know they’re not going to like it. I know they’re going to rail about it.

I know there’s going to be four or five business executives sitting down on Bay Street talking about how they won’t be able to donate to hospitals and how they have their own mortgages to pay and how brutally wounded they’re going to be if they have to share some of the responsibility for building transit in this province. I understand that. I understand they would take full ads, if we were the government in Ontario, and they would fight us for five years, as they did when we were in government, because those guys, some of them—I’m not saying all of them.

The more radical, right-wing ones are the ones we hear from. We don’t hear from the reasonable people in the business community. We hear from the radicals, like my good friend O’Leary, whom I turn off every time he comes on TV because he nauseates me.

Seriously, there are ways of being able to do this that doesn’t mean we have to sell off Hydro. If we were to have a small increase on the corporate taxes, if we were to eliminate the HST input break that you’re giving to corporations, we would have more than enough to be able to invest in transit, not only in the city of Toronto, not only in the GTA, but we would also have money to invest in northern Ontario. And here’s the great thing: It wouldn’t be one $4-billion hit, it would be money that we’d have each and every year to make some good decisions about how we invest in transit.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Hear, hear.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I heard “Hear, hear” from my good friend the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I’m trying to be supportive.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’m being very supportive. I’m giving you some ideas about how you can probably raise about $3 billion a year each and every year to invest in transit.

But here’s the other one: When you’re investing, there are other places in Ontario called central Ontario, southwestern Ontario, southeastern Ontario and northern Ontario, which also—

Mr. Wayne Gates: Niagara.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, that’s the region I just mentioned.

They are the other places we need to invest in. We have infrastructure deficits in those communities—and the former Minister of Transport would know this—at a pretty serious level, and we need to find some way where we make sure that those communities are getting the assistance they need.

I give the city of Timmins as one example. We have a highway going through our municipality, Highway 101, which is called Algonquin Boulevard. It used to be a provincial highway. Mike Harris downloaded it to the municipality, along with a whole bunch of other highways to municipalities in northern Ontario and across this province. It used to be, when they would fix that road, it was a 90-10 split on what they called the Connecting Link Program. The province would pay 90%, the municipality would pay 10%. We now pay 100% of that money as a municipality to be able to fix that road.

I invite the Minister of Transportation to please take his ATV bike and run up Algonquin with me because that’s what you’re going to need pretty soon. That road is in such rough shape, it is horrid. We’ve actually got pylons along this four-lane highway where people are not able to drive because the road is in such bad shape. The municipality wants to make the investment that they need in order to fix the pipes underneath and to fix the road, but it’s $70 million. For a municipality, that’s one hell of a hit.

I can say to the minister across the way, he has re-announced some Connecting Links dollars, but it’s not—what is it, $5 million?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: It’s $15 million, like it was before.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: It’s $15 million? Well, that project alone—

Hon. Steven Del Duca: It’s $15 million, same as it was before.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: No, no. It used to be 90-10. Listen, it was 90-10. I was here. I know. I delivered the cheques myself when we were in government. It was 90-10, 90% province, 10% municipalities.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Order, please.

I would ask the member if he would address the Chair and not the minister.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: That’s okay. He’s trying to argue something that is not.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Don’t get him into the argument.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: But the point is, the municipalities are not able to front that bill alone, because these were provincial highways. They were never designed as municipal roads. They happen to be a highway that was going through your municipality that was downloaded to the municipality, and they can’t afford to pay.

So I say to this government: Your plan to privatize hydro is one of the stupidest things that you guys have come out with, and it’s going to be one of the things that is going to come back to bite you, should you proceed with it.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I think the member for Timmins–James Bay accurately put the debate between our two parties: They believe that infrastructure has always been adequately paid for in Ontario, and we say not.

So let’s actually have a history lesson, Mr. Speaker. When was the last time we spent anywhere near the amount that we’re spending, of about $13 billion, $14 billion a year? I will tell you. It was 1968. I was 11 years old and John Robarts was Premier.

As a matter of fact, we are supposed to spend, in Canada, 5% of our GDP on infrastructure if we are going to keep up with countries like the OECD countries, never mind big countries like China. We got down to spending as little as 1.5% or 2%. We are doing what a lot of other places have done, which is, revaluing assets and taking that money to attract broader investments in those assets, and repurposing it. That’s $4 billion, Mr. Speaker, directly into infrastructure. Do you know that that is more than two entire years of infrastructure spending under Mike Harris’s Conservative government? Just on that alone.

We went through years in Ontario when we didn’t build any highways; we built no subways; we didn’t repair bridges. Kenora has 19 bridges. I think we’re the first government in 30 or 40 years to actually replace and start rebuilding bridges, thanks to our excellent Minister of Transportation. We barely broke $3 billion or $4 billion.

I would ask the member to take five seconds, go to a computer, press Google, “Canada’s Infrastructure Gap” by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. You can see, since 1955, that you barely broke $3 billion or $4 billion or $5 billion in infrastructure. We are now three times that.

That’s the reason they’re the third party: because their facts are wrong, their analysis is wrong. We’re very proud to be doing it. Now, if the federal government would ever come back to the level of spending that we had in the 1960s and 1950s, we wouldn’t have an infrastructure problem anymore in this country.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Todd Smith: I’m pleased to bring some comments on the fine presentation by the member from Timmins–James Bay. I was actually looking at some old footage from question period back in 2006, and he hasn’t changed a bit, I must say.

You know what? There have been some good arguments here on both sides, but the fact of the matter is that this government has done very, very little over the last 12 years when it comes to infrastructure. Now they’re trying to make up for it, but at what cost? Spending has gone up dramatically and the debt has increased substantially in the province of Ontario, up to $325 billion. At what cost are they dangling these carrots in front of municipalities, saying they’re going to fix their infrastructure? Well, we know, because we’ve talked to the Auditor General.

The Auditor General has reported back to this Legislature what the cost is. You can’t build your way out of the economic recession that we’re in right now with infrastructure. You have to manage your finances properly. The AG has said just that.

If you continue to spend more than you’re taking in year after year after year, you have to pay for it somewhere. We’re seeing it now with the crowding out of services that the province is supposed to fund. In our health care system, we have physiotherapy gone; diabetes test strips gone; registered nurses, 58 of them at Quinte Health Care, gone. We’re seeing the crowding out of the services that this government is supposed to be providing at the cost of dangling infrastructure dollars that haven’t even started to flow yet in front of municipalities. They’re empty promises.

They announced $130 billion in their budget this year. They did that last year, and what has happened? Nothing. This is all a charade. It’s all a shell game. Until they start to manage their funding and their finances properly, we’re going to keep digging the hole deeper in this province—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I’m going to say to all the members on the government side that the noise is very loud, and I’m going to start singling people out.

Questions and comments?

M me France Gélinas: It was quite interesting, listening to my fellow northern MPP. What he’s saying is true. Come and see Highway 144 just outside of Chelmsford going towards Dowling and Cartier; it is unbelievable. You cannot drive in your lane. The potholes are so big, and they all happen to be about three feet from the right margin. So you can’t go right, because you will be in the ditch. There is no shoulder on Highway 144—it’s not a road like down south, but it is a provincial highway. So you have no choice but to go left. What happens when you go left, Speaker?

Well, then you’re in the lane of traffic of the people coming the other way. This is the main road for all of the mines that are in the northwest part of my riding; they all take Highway 144. You have those great big trucks—double tandem trucks—full of ore, coming down this highway non-stop. The highway is so bad that every day I get worried people; they are worried for their lives. Do we need infrastructure money up north? Absolutely, but not by selling Hydro One. This is the wrong way to go. Hydro One is only 3% of the infrastructure money that you are making promises on. This is the wrong way to go.

Hydro One gives us dividends. It helps us by hundreds of millions of dollars every year to reinvest in infrastructure—in hospitals and roads.

When we see in the budget things like “money will flow in areas that have population growth,” what does that mean to me, representing a northern riding? It means none of that money will come to Nickel Belt. There is no growth in the northern rural regions of Nickel Belt. Sure, Sudbury has growth but not Nickel Belt.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments? The Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Speaker, for recognizing me. I’m very happy to speak to the budget motion.

The budget motion talks about building Ontario up. Let me tell you why I support this budget motion: For me, it is building Ottawa up. I have the great privilege of representing the great riding of Ottawa Centre. It’s the second-largest city in the province of Ontario. We have a lot of infrastructure needs in my community. What this budget means is that we’ll continue to invest in the critical infrastructure that we need in the second-largest city of this great province, the nation’s capital.

Our government is already spending $600 million in building phase 1 of the light rail transit system, the Confederation line. It’s a state-of-the-art rail system that we are building that will be running through my riding of Ottawa Centre to the riding of Ottawa–Vanier and will be connecting our two universities together with the downtown core. We need to continue with that momentum in Ottawa. We need to build the second phase of our LRT, which will go into the great ridings of Ottawa West, Ottawa–Orléans and Ottawa South, so that our entire city, from the airport to the train station to our two universities, is connected to our downtown core.

The only way we are going to be able to do that is by supporting this budget, by making the very important infrastructure investments that we are talking about in this budget to ensure that we’ve got that public transit infrastructure that is so needed, because it’s critical for our economy in Ottawa and it’s critical for our quality of life. I support this budget because it is building Ottawa up.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): We return to the member for Timmins–James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I just have to say, it’s very disappointing to listen to the government. I don’t think either the Conservatives or New Democrats are saying they’re opposed to investing in infrastructure. We have all, as governments, had to invest. I was part of a government that put two subway lines into the city. Unfortunately, the Tories cemented the one on Eglinton. But we did that how? We did that in a thoughtful way by doing what other governments have done in the past: finding the money within our budgets or borrowing the money to do it.

I’ve said to the government that there are options for them. They don’t have to sell Hydro. You can stop the HST inputs—a billion and a half dollars. You can look at a modest increase to the corporate tax rate, at least to the rate of Alabama. That would at least give you, between those two initiatives, about $3 billion a year. Well, the government is saying, “No, no. The only way we can do this is to sell Hydro once, and we’ll have $4 billion”—once.

What are you going to do the second year, the third year, the fourth year? Are you going to have to sell everything and have nothing left to even get close to what you need to spend on infrastructure? It’s a bad fiscal decision. Selling Hydro is not the way to build infrastructure.

I encourage those people who are watching: What they should be doing is writing to the Clerk of the finance committee, Katch Koch, by email, asking to have the finance committee come to their community when it comes to hearings on the budget so that the public can express its views about this government’s policy when it comes to the privatization of hydro. All you have to do to register and be in committee is to send an email to Katch Koch: kkoch@ola.org.

That will allow you to come to committee and tell these Liberals across the way, who campaign like New Democrats and govern like Prentice Tories, that they’ve lost their way and they have to stop doing what they’re doing with the privatization of hydro.

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

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I’ll be sharing my time with the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade, as well as the member for Ottawa–Orléans.

This has been very instructive to understand why those of us on this side of the House brought this budget forward, believe in it, will vote on it, and why the members opposite won’t. It’s been an abject lesson.

I’m going to be using a lot of the material in Hansard to help my constituents better understand the NDP and the Conservatives in their own words.

Let’s take the member for Prince Edward–Hastings, who’s a very thoughtful guy, and I quite like him; he’s an excellent member here. But I have a feeling he’s a little lost today. He talked about how he thought infrastructure was important. Then maybe he can explain to us—and this is also true for the period of time the New Democrats were in power. During that entire period of time, studies done by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity—their friends, one left- and one generally right-of-centre policy group.

They point out that during the Rae government and during the Harris government, we spent in Ontario two and a half times less on infrastructure than the other provinces.

As a matter of fact, since I was born, in 1957, that was the lowest period of spending in the history of Ontario. The member for Prince Edward–Hastings might like to know that in the last year of the Conservative government, which was the closest indication to me of how they behaved, they spent $1.9 billion. That was the smallest infrastructure spend in Ontario history.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: They shut the lights.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: We had rolling brownouts. We had infrastructure problems—potholes popping up like potatoes. It was a state of disrepair.

As a matter of fact, you have to go back to the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s to see total government spending in Canada at 3.5% of GDP. At the same time, through most of this period of time, the Europeans, the Chinese, most of the major, strong economies were spending 4%, 5% and sometimes 6% or 7% of their GDP. We are up to about 2.5% to 3% of GDP in Ontario, just on the provincial spend alone.

I want to give a shout-out to municipalities. I remember in 1989, when I first took my seat as a city councillor, my very first speech when I started my first day as a politician was on the need to get back to 5%-of-GDP spending. It was 26 years ago that I started that. We did the deal with the former Liberal government. We got five cents of the gas tax transferred to municipalities. That was one of the biggest permanent infrastructure investments, which we’re very proud of, and we’ve continued to protect that and build on additional programs with our municipalities.

I’m very proud of our Minister of Infrastructure and our Minister of Transportation, who have been a very dynamic team, who are ensuring that we’re getting good value for our tax dollars through innovative programs, like our AFP program and many of our investment programs, and the restoration of Connecting Links.

During the period from about 1968 to 2003, we saw a steady decline. As early as 1970, two years after we abandoned this high level of investment—the year I started my first year in high school—we were already down to less than 1% of GDP being spent. They actually got to what was an effective rate, when you use the actuarial system, in about 2000 or 2001. When you look at the accrual or the—

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Amortization.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: —amortization of costs and the lack of investment and decline, the Centre for Policy Alternatives actually has their chart on infrastructure in Ontario going into the negative for the first time.

The problem we have is that when we were in surplus, which we will be back to in two years, we started reinvesting in infrastructure. We went from the $2 billion the Tories were spending per year, up to $3 billion, to $4 billion. By 2006, we were at about $8 billion. By 2010, we were up to about $10 billion, $11 billion, and then up to $13 billion and $14 billion, where we need to be and where we need the federal government to make an equivalent commitment, because they should be paying as in most countries, like the United States, where they pay for 100% of the national highway system, and unlike Canada, where we pay for 100% of the Trans-Canada system.

Ontario is picking up almost half of the entire infrastructure spend annually in our province, and municipalities the other half. You’re getting from the federal government, depending on the year, 5% or 10%, if we’re lucky, and less than that in some critical areas.

This is completely unsustainable. If the Conservatives actually really believe in infrastructure, why aren’t they jumping all over the federal government to start matching us? Why can we not find, since John Robarts—they tease us that we go back to John A. Macdonald. I have to actually go back to John Robarts to find a Conservative Premier who spent more than 1% of GDP on infrastructure.

Interjections.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I will send the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock both studies that were just completed. I’m happy to share them with you. You want to argue with the experts who have no political agenda and certainly don’t tilt towards our party.

Finally, I want to make the point of the problems that we have right now. For 50 years in Ontario, prior to the 2004-05 period, two problems occurred. We spent—they estimate in Ontario—about $24 billion less than we should have total between all governments annually. That accrued over time to become a very big problem, and it became a very big problem in many ways. If you go to Vaughan, or you go to Oshawa, or you go to Ottawa–Vanier, or you go to Glengarry–Prescott–Russell or Kitchener, you’ll find that each of those communities have highways that should have been built in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and widened, and needed transit systems that should have been built 30 or 40 years ago.

When every other province in Canada was spending 250% more per year than we were based on population, they were building those things. Montreal has a great subway system. Vancouver has a great LRT system. They built highways and roads. We did not build because we were spending at a two and a half times lesser rate of investment. That means that for 50 years, we actually doubled our population but we did not double our infrastructure. We barely, barely, barely kept up. We didn’t keep up with population growth. We have entire communities that don’t have the basic infrastructure that other Canadians and Americans have.

The second piece of that is it’s all old. Stuff that was built in the 1950s, like those of us who were born in the 1950s, need new bits and new pieces, and a little bit of an uplift and a tuck here and there. So all of this stuff, because 80% of our infrastructure out there was built in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s—80% of it is all aging at the same time.

My friend the Minister of Transportation, my friend the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure and the Premier would all tell you, and any member of this House will tell you, that we have an infrastructure crisis in this country; that we are the first government to stand up and address that problem, because almost all of the infrastructure in this province is underinvested in.

Interjection.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: The member from James Bay continues his mythological view of the world, that somehow he thinks that they actually spent more than 1%. So I will, after I speak, send him a copy of the report so he can see it himself and acquaint himself with the facts.

Finally, not only do we have this huge repair bill—the underinvestment—now we’ve got climate change. That’s the third leg of the problem. We spent 50 years underinvesting by as much as $24 billion a year. We spent 50 years not doing the basic repair work, so it all—we have a huge backlog of repair on bridges, culverts, roads and transit. The third problem now is, we have climate change.

So if you’re in Pembina or if you’re in Burlington, what you would know is this: You would know that your sewer system, built to a one-in-a-hundred-years flood event, as in Burlington, has had two one-in-a-hundred-years flood events in 24 months. I think that makes it a one-in-one-year flood event that that sewer system has actually been built for, effectively, if you look at the last two years. So we now have to address climate change, which is a bigger challenge than any other government has.

Those three challenges we are taking on. We are spending at levels not seen since John Robarts, and we’re darn proud of it.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade.

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

Today’s subject for me to speak about is the budget. I think this is very important to Ontarians and to Ontario. In the budget, you will notice on page 104 that the budget talks about international trade.

Recently, in April, I was away—not on holiday—I was away on a couple of trade missions. One to China—I came back for one day, and then I went to Mexico for another trade mission that lasted five days. I spent the majority of April out of the country, trying to do something good for Ontario and for Ontarians.

Allow me to talk a bit about the trade missions, and I’m going to get back to why I talk about them. I had the fortune to co-lead the trade mission to China with Minister Leal, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. We spent about nine days in China. We visited Beijing and a province called Shandong, and after that we went to Nanjing in Jiangsu province, which has a 30-year trading relationship with Ontario. After that, we went to Shanghai, and after that, our last stop was in Hong Kong.

We were in Beijing, and we did a lot of things. For example, we had a grand presentation telling the Beijingers how good Ontario is and the reasons that people from China should invest in Ontario. At the same time, we had a smaller-sized meeting—we call it a round table—where we prequalified about eight entrepreneurs and had them come to a meeting room and do some really hard selling, in terms of trade and in terms of investments, and, again, persuading these people, so hopefully one day they will come to Ontario and look at Ontario—look at our products—as well as look at the investment opportunities that we may have provided for these people.

There’s one supermarket, which is a very famous supermarket in Beijing. It’s called the Beijing Hualian Group. Last year, I think, they set up a head office in the Toronto area. The reason for that is really having people in Ontario go to every corner of Ontario and purchase products from Ontario, and very specifically agricultural products.

After Beijing, we went to the province of Shandong. By the way, Shandong is one of the three leading economic provinces of China. Also, Shandong ranks number one in terms of agriculture. We went there, we had a very successful time because Mr. Leal was able to attend one of the largest—I think it’s the largest—vegetable shows in all of China. There were billions of people—really a lot of people—there that morning.

There were only three speakers, and Minister Leal was able to speak for a few minutes and tell billions of people how good Ontario is and how good our agriculture and environment is for growing, for food processing and all that. So Minister Leal did a fantastic job in terms of promoting trade in Ontario.

At the same time, again, we had the round table in Shandong with about eight to 10 people, and we talked to these people. The good news is, after the meeting, at the end of this month, in May, a majority of these 10 people will be coming to Ontario. They’re actually committed to a reverse trade mission to Ontario at the end of this month, so that they have the opportunity to look at us and fund our products—perhaps a project for investment there.

Leaving Shandong, we went to Nanjing—as I mentioned before—the capital of Jiangsu province. Jiangsu has a 30—oh no, the time is running out and I haven’t touched on anything here. Anyway, I was in Nanjing, and then I moved on to Shanghai and Hong Kong.

Let me talk about Mexico, Mexico City. I can tell you, yes, Mexico has challenges. At the same time, Mexico has tremendous potential for Ontario to expand into that market because, after all, Canada, America and Mexico are the three amigos of NAFTA. There is tremendous potential there. That’s my observation.

After Mexico City, we went to Guadalajara, the city that hosted the last Pan American Games.

I have people now pointing at me and telling me to stop. Maybe I’ll find another opportunity. I’m going to sit down and allow my colleague to speak for five minutes.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Ottawa–Orléans.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: It gives me actually great pleasure. Je me lève aujourd’hui avec fierté pour parler de notre budget, un budget dont le but ultime est de favoriser l’essor de notre extraordinaire province, l’Ontario.

Our government is committed to making the important and tough decisions in order to help Ontarians, including my constituents of Ottawa–Orléans. This budget contains many measures that ensure Ontarians continue to succeed and thrive. This legislation is all about building Ontario up and helping all of our communities.

This budget addresses the issues that face all Ontarians. I want to take the opportunity to talk to you, when I read the budget, about a few aspects where I think the people of my riding will actually—although Ottawa–Orléans is not mentioned, do you know what, Mr. Speaker? In several aspects, my residents, my constituents, will benefit from this.

If I look at one aspect, I was very happy to see our renewed investment of $250 million over two years in our youth strategy fund. That fund previously helped over 200 students or new graduates in my riding. So I was very happy, très fière de voir qu’on avait renouvelé notre investissement dans la jeunesse. Donc, merci aux gens qui ont pris cette décision-là.

I know that my constituents also want access to mental health care outside the clinical hospital setting. They want services that are in the community, closer to home. This is why, again, I was happy to see a $138-million investment that we will be making over the next three years to expand community mental health services.

I must say, I had prepared about seven minutes of debate here, so I have to reduce my time a little bit.

One thing, and I’m going to look at my minister right across from here, right beside me: Over the past decade, the east end of Ottawa, particularly in my riding of Ottawa–Orléans, has seen a housing boom. Our government has put in place a lot of apprenticeship programs. Again, we have renewed that investment of $55 million to support apprenticeship training.

Another aspect of this budget that I found most interesting is the aspect where—you know, governments sometimes have to make tough decisions, and in the past few weeks we have made some very tough decisions so that our government can build the infrastructure our province and our economy need to stay competitive. We will invest $130 billion over the next 10 years, including dedicated funds for Moving Ontario Forward. This is a record investment, not just for Ontario, but for Canada.

I want to take this opportunity to talk about our Moving Ontario Forward strategy. This will invest $31.5 billion over the next 10 years in making our roads better, investing in cutting gridlock and making sure Ontarians arrive home faster and safer so they can spend more time with their family.

Une majorité d’Ontariennes et d’Ontariens doivent se déplacer pour se rendre à leur lieu de travail, que ce soit en voiture, en train ou en autobus. Croyez-moi, je sais ce que cela veut dire. Je représente une circonscription qui se déplace en grande majorité pour aller travailler, donc je sais que cette infrastructure et ces montants alloués vont permettre possiblement à ma communauté d’Ottawa–Orléans de bénéficier.

Je crois que mon collègue d’Ottawa-Centre a fait les références. Nous avons désespérément besoin d’infrastructure dans Ottawa–Orléans—la phase 2 du train léger—donc, je vais continuer de discuter de ça ici dans la Chambre.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Gila Martow: I have to commend people across the room for speaking positively about the budget, because it takes a lot of talent to spin that you’re somehow making an investment whenever you spend money. That isn’t always the case.

Most of us here are homeowners and we can certainly understand, now that we’re starting to see—certainly in Vaughan, my city—secondary suites become legalized. People are starting to invest in their homes to build these secondary suites, which are often basement apartments, but they could also be an apartment over a garage. That is an investment. Why, Mr. Speaker? Yes, you’re spending money on your home, but you’re going to get income from it. You’re going to rent it out to a family or an individual, and then that will provide you with income. So in terms of investing in our province, “investment” means there’s going to be some kind of income.

We do not believe that maintaining our highways is going to somehow bring income and prosperity to our province. Yes, we have to maintain our roads, and yes, we have to invest in developing better transit and infrastructure and building more bridges, but we also have to focus on the fact that we have to work within our budget. That’s what we’re here to talk about. We’re here to prioritize our spending, to focus on the things that will bring investment into the province. I think that we have to speak to those future investors and we have to ask them, “What will help you to invest in our province?”

We just heard last week, a few days ago, that GM is not investing in Oshawa. It’s very simple. Let’s talk to GM. They’re going to say the high hydro costs that this government is wearing is the cause of them moving out of the province. The future pension plan—these are all things that are costing us revenue.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It’s my pleasure to rise and add some comment to the discussion around the budget.

There’s been a lot of talk about having money to build infrastructure. One of the solutions from the other side, from the government side, is to privatize hydro. I can tell you that I’ve not had one single constituent in my riding, or in any of Windsor-Essex county, who have supported selling off Hydro. In fact, time and time again we’re hearing that they already can’t afford to pay their bills. So if we’re looking at selling off Hydro, the price of hydro is going to go up even more, and the people in my riding aren’t going to be able to use the roads.

They’re probably not even going to be able to afford to get to work. They’re not going to be able to afford public transit, they’re not going to be able to afford a vehicle, so they won’t be able to afford the roads that they’re suggesting they’re selling off Hydro for.

It’s clear that the people in my riding are saying that the government’s not listening to them. I think that’s a clear message across Ontario. The government’s going to do whatever it is they want to do. They say they’re listening, but—my father-in-law has this wonderful saying: “Just because we’ve spoken doesn’t mean we’ve communicated.” What that means is, just because you’ve heard me doesn’t mean you’re listening. I think that’s the motto from the other side: We hear you, but we’re not really listening.

Another important thing: When we’re talking about the money that we actually make as a province from hydro that can be invested back into Ontario, one of the big issues right now is education. I know the minister stands up all the time and says that we’re holding the line on education. It’s stable. But in their own budget, page 230 of the budget, “Summary of Expense Changes Since the 2014 Budget,” they brag about saving $248 million on education. They’re spending $248 million less. They’re bragging about it. Yet we have infrastructure in education. Renewal costs haven’t gone down.

The cost of hydro: not going down, and it’s going to go up even more if they sell Hydro. Cost of transportation: not going down, and special education needs are going up. That’s money that could have gone back into the system to support the students and the families.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: With the two minutes that I have, I want to begin by congratulating the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade and of course our colleague from Ottawa–Orléans for the enlightened contribution that they made to this morning’s discussion around the budget. Of course, it is unfortunate that members across the way from both the PC and NDP caucuses have chosen yet again to express what I would argue is a somewhat confusing and mixed message with respect to how we should be moving the province forward.

I would say to the member from Thornhill, my neighbour in York region, that I can’t think of many other regions in the province—and I say this somewhat proudly—that are benefiting in terms of economic productivity because of our infrastructure investments over that which is occurring in York region.

Specifically around job creation, I would let that member know that the investments we’re bringing forward through our Moving Ontario Forward plan, the investments in transit, transportation and other critical forms of infrastructure across this province, are actually helping to create and sustain 20,000 jobs annually. That’s not just 20,000 jobs; that’s 20,000 families that are benefiting directly because they have that ability to improve their quality of life to afford so much more, specifically because of our ambitious plan.

Of course, all morning I’ve had the opportunity to hear members from the NDP caucus, including the member from Windsor West who just spoke, but more interestingly the member from Timmins–James Bay, who spoke at length this morning on the budget. I’m sure that people watching at home, whether they’re from Timmins–James Bay or my riding of Vaughan, when they see that member from Timmins–James Bay speak, could be forgiven if they thought instead that they were tuning into the Alberta legislative channel.

But having said that, on this side of the House, whether we’re representing communities like Markham or Toronto or Glengarry–Prescott–Russell or Kitchener or Davenport or Ottawa, the north, the southwest, the east, on this side of the aisle we are supporting this budget because it will help every single corner, every single region of Ontario. Let’s support the budget. Let’s keep building our province up.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Julia Munro: I’m pleased to add a couple of comments. I’m conscious of the fact that most people bring to the table a vast array of numbers. I believe there are only two numbers that you need to understand. One is the fact that the debt of this province is close to $300 billion and the interest that it requires to be paid is $11 billion. Those are the two numbers.

Normally, in a more healthy, balanced system, a government would use its revenue to pay for infrastructure. That’s actually what people think we’re doing. What they don’t understand is the impact of $300 billion worth of debt and the $11 billion that goes to service it. If you take that $11 billion, it could actually be spent on the kind of infrastructure that we’re all talking about.

No one disputes the nature of the need for any economic unit to have infrastructure. What we object to is the fact that this is like selling the car and you now can’t get to work, or looking at selling something that makes money, which is Hydro One, but you’re going to prevent that revenue from being generated. And it’s all because of the lack of proper, balanced funding.

When you look at the accumulation of this almost $300-billion debt, it has accumulated exponentially under the Liberals. And when you look at $11 billion—individuals know about paying interest on personal debt. Can you imagine what this province could do with $11 billion? A lot of infrastructure.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I now return to the Minister of the Environment. You have two minutes to respond.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I would like to thank the members for Thornhill, Windsor West and York–Simcoe, and the Minister of Transportation for their insightful comments.

Maybe I should just pick up from the member for York–Simcoe. First of all, when you last left office—if you’re going to be critical of us, one should be prepared to have the mirror held up back again—you had a $5.6-billion deficit and you were spending $1.9 billion on infrastructure that year. That was the lowest infrastructure spend and, I’ll remind you, it was a deficit that we got rid of. We’re now getting rid of a second deficit that was at the end of a global tech boom.

Through the period of time when the New Democrats and Conservatives were in power from the mid-1990s to the beginning of the last decade, Ontario was spending two and a half times less on infrastructure per person than every other province in Canada, and it was the record low.

Then the deficit: Well, every province in Canada and the federal government went into deficit after 2008. We all did that together to rebuild.

We committed, as we were coming back to balance, that one of the things we would not cut was infrastructure. So we continue to build. The $13 billion: The last time we saw that level of spending, as I said, was in 1968 under John Robarts. That was the last Premier of this province who actually made that commitment to at least 2.5% to 3% of GDP going to infrastructure.

It is the oldest and most Conservative notion in Ontario—when you weren’t the second party, and had 50 or 60 seats—that you used to believe in. I would say to both parties opposite, if you embrace this idea, this very long Ontario tradition of spending at least 2.5% of GDP on that and working to get the federal government to do that—Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a shout-out to municipalities which have consistently been investing about 2.5% of GDP in Canada and across the province.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you very much.

Debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1016 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Speaker, with your indulgence, I’ve got a good group of people here visiting Queen’s Park today. With the Unifor national skilled trades council, we have Dave Cassidy, Joe Elworthy, John Breslin, Phil Fryer, Ray Hamel, Mike Aquilina, Nelson Gagné, Bill Dickson, Paul Renaud and Ashok Venkatarangam.

As well, I have great friends, corrections officers, who are here with their daughters: Randy Simpraga, who is the president of Local 135 with OPSEU, and Carsten Schiller. They are joined by their daughters Sydney Simpraga and Briana Schiller. I’d like to welcome them to Queen’s Park here today.

Hon. Michael Chan: I have two individuals who have been stalking me for the last three days. Luckily, they are my interns. They are in the members’ gallery. Their names are Alexis Green and Mitchell Stein. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: It’s my pleasure to welcome to the House Lori and Rob Gordon. They hail from the Belgrave area, and they’re here with their daughter Clarissa, who will be participating in the Minister of Education’s forum today.

On behalf of Bill Walker, I’d also like to welcome Matthew Milencoff, a student from St. Mary’s High School in Owen Sound, and Phil Dodd, executive director of Keystone Child, Youth and Family Services.

Hon. Reza Moridi: It’s a great pleasure for me to introduce two interns of mine, Gazal Amin and Carly Byberg, sitting in the members’ gallery. They are the most enthusiastic and hard-working interns I have ever had. Please join me in welcoming them.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I’d like to welcome Mackenzie Bass-Simpson, with the Nipissing–Parry Sound Catholic District School Board and my alma mater of St. Joseph-Scollard Hall, who is here participating as well.

Hon. Jeff Leal: It’s with great honour that I introduce three people in the east members’ gallery: Mr. J. Murray Jones, the outstanding warden of Peterborough county; His Worship Mayor Daryl Bennett, mayor of the city of Peterborough; and Jay Amer, who is Ontario’s representative for New York state and Governor Andrew Cuomo.

I’d like to welcome everybody from 11:30 to 1, room 228 to 230, for the annual Peterborough Day here at Queen’s Park.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am delighted to welcome two interns who are working in my office this summer: Meg Cormack and Domenic Bitondo. Welcome and enjoy.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: I am delighted to introduce the family of page captain Ethan McCready-Branch, from the great riding of Kitchener Centre: mom, Estelle McCready-Branch; dad, Greg Branch; sister Brianna; sister Eliza; brother Brent; brother Eli—it’s a big, happy family—and grandmother Margaret McCready. Welcome.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park David Houston, Tom Sears and Pietro Pantarotto Perego, a Rotary exchange student from Brazil. Welcome.

Mr. Bob Delaney: On behalf of the member for Mississauga–Brampton South and page Thomas Atkinson, I’d like to welcome to the Legislature Thomas’s mother, Cindy; his sister Angie; and his godmother, Denise Edwards. They will be in the public gallery this morning. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. Arthur Potts: It’s a great pleasure to introduce Evan Conover, who’s a son of a good friend of mine and the nephew of my sister Diana, and an aspiring cabinet minister. Welcome Evan.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further introducetions? I have my own introduction. I’m glad no one stepped on it this time.

In the Speaker’s gallery is my lovely and long-suffering wife, Rosemarie.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): She has also been known to jump from higher places in defence of her family.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Just thought I’d offer. Just saying.

Order of business

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On a serious note, members will be aware that, on today’s Orders and Notices paper, there appear two notices of an opposition day to be debated next week. Under standing order 43(c), the Speaker is required to select one of these notices for consideration.

As occurred in November 2013, once again we have a situation where only four out of the possible five opposition days in the spring sessional period will take place. Each of the opposition parties is entitled to designate another opposition day, but only one is available. Therefore, I will be applying the same principle in selecting one of the notices today as I used in 2013.

Standing order 43(a)(iii) provides that five available opposition days in a sessional period are to be allocated between the two opposition parties on the basis of the membership of their caucuses relative to each other. In applying that same formula to the total of four opposition days instead of five, the result is that the third party is mathematically closer to being entitled to two out of the four opposition days than the official opposition is to being entitled to three of the four. Therefore, I decide that the motion standing in the name of Ms. Horwath is the one that will be selected for debate next week.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Congratulations, Gilles. Two wins this week to the NDP.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And one check for the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Just a notice that I’m listening.

Privatization of public assets

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On a very serious note, on May 5, 2015, the member from Timmins–James Bay, Monsieur Bisson, rose on a question of privilege concerning tentative settlements in labour negotiations between Hydro One and OPG, and a union representing their employees.

Relying on media reports and statements by government ministers in the House and to the media, the member submits that a provision in the settlements would grant Hydro One shares to those employees. The member indicated that this provision undermines the authority of the House because it anticipates a reorganization of Hydro One and the passage of Bill 91, thereby amounting to a breach of privilege and a contempt of the House. The House leader of the official opposition, Mr. Clark; and the government House leader, Mr. Naqvi, also spoke to the matter.

Having reviewed various procedural authorities, our precedents and the oral and written submissions of all three members, I am now ready to rule.

I will deal first with the threshold issue. The government House leader raised a concern about the time lag between giving the requisite notice of the question of privilege and the incident giving rise to the notice. He pointed to my April 21, 2015, ruling where, acting under standing order 21(d), I exercised my authority without hearing from any member because of the unacceptable time lag in giving notice to the Speaker.

I do not have concerns about the timeliness of the notice here because,

whereas the April 21 situation dealt with a single pre-planned incident which was complained about only four days later, this one deals with a series of interrelated pieces of information in an evolving public policy matter. This is not to give permission to members to delay raising a matter of privilege when they first perceive the possibility that one exists, but rather to accept that there may be circumstances when it could validly take some time on an evolving matter before any implications for parliamentary privilege are sensed.

I therefore remind members that if a matter is serious enough to warrant a question of privilege, it should be raised in a timely way, in the manner outlined in standing order 21(c).

Turning now to the substance of the member’s claim, I will deal first with the argument based on breach of privilege before turning to the argument based on contempt.

With respect to the contention that there has been a breach of privilege, no member has identified which individual or collective privilege has been violated. For example, there is no indication that any member’s privilege of freedom of speech has been compromised by virtue of anything that has happened—or been said—inside or outside the House with respect to the developments mentioned in the notice and the submissions. In fact, members have been exercising that privilege, and they may continue to exercise it when they speak in the House about those developments. Therefore, I find that a prima facie case of privilege has not been established.

With respect to the contention that there has been a contempt, the member for Timmins–James Bay referred to a January 22, 1997, ruling in which Speaker Stockwell found that a prima facie case of contempt had been established in circumstances where statements in government-sponsored advertising tended to “convey the impression that the passage of the requisite legislation was not necessary or was a foregone conclusion, or that the assembly and the Legislature had a pro forma, tangential, even inferior role in the legislative and law-making process, and in doing so, they appear to diminish the respect that is due to this House.” However, in a June 16, 1998, ruling, Speaker Stockwell approvingly cited a seminal 1989 ruling by Speaker Edighoffer indicating that “it is perfectly valid for the public service to proceed with plans based on a bill that is already in the system in order to be able to act swiftly, once that bill becomes law.” In a September 25, 2000, ruling, Speaker Carr reiterated this view and also indicated that it is “a legitimate and necessary activity” for a government to plan for changes.

The takeaway from these and subsequent rulings is that, compared to a broad publicly directed advertising scenario that anticipates the passage of legislation, a targeted or internal planning scenario that prudently prepares for the enactment of legislation is less likely to raise a matter of contempt; such plans are part and parcel of the function of government. Although a Speaker could be convinced that a prima facie case of contempt has been established in either scenario, the prerequisite of establishing either a motive to, or the effect of, undermining the Legislature’s role in the latter scenario is considerably more unlikely, as both common sense and procedural precedent confirms.

Let me now apply this to the case at hand. The member from Timmins–James Bay points to statements by the government to the effect that the tentative settlements between Hydro One and OPG and the union representing their employees provides for the distribution of shares to union members, a distribution that, according to the member, is contingent on the passage of Bill 91. The member indicates that the presence of the share provision in the settlements was premature, did not show sufficient respect for the role of the House and has pre-empted the legislative process on Bill 91.

In comparing the current matter with that faced by Speaker Stockwell in 1997, the very important difference is that Speaker Stockwell had in his hands a publicly directed advertising piece, authored by the government of the day, which in his findings explicitly diminished the role of the Legislature and presumed that the outcome of its consideration of legislation was a foregone conclusion. In the present case, there is no similar concrete evidence of that nature. The material presented to me and relied upon by the member for Timmins–James Bay is not in that same vein.

I simply have not been presented with any document or communication authored by the government that inarguably presents the arrangements complained about as a fait accompli.

These arrangements described appear to be in the nature of normal planning the affected organizations would be expected to engage in. Presumably, if the legislation does not pass, these arrangements will not be implemented.

For the foregoing reasons, I find that there is no prima facie case of contempt.

In closing, I would like to thank the member for Timmins–James Bay, the House leader of the official opposition and the government House leader for their oral and written submissions on this matter.

Oral Questions

Winter highway maintenance

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Deputy Premier. Each and every day, Carol Milojkovich wakes up and thinks about her husband, Robert, and her son Daniel. She wonders if they would be alive if the roads had been properly maintained. She wonders if they would be alive today if the Liberal government hadn’t chosen to save a few bucks and sacrifice the lives of Ontarians like Robert and Daniel.

Carol Milojkovich deserves answers from this government. Deputy Premier, will your government call for a coroner’s inquest into the wrongful deaths of Robert and Daniel Milojkovich?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I thank the leader of the opposition for his question this morning. Certainly any time, as Minister of Transportation, I hear of a fatality on any of Ontario’s highways during any season, my heartfelt condolences go out to the friends and the family of the victims involved.

The auditor’s report that was brought forward publicly last week contained eight important recommendations. I, as Minister of Transportation, accept responsibility and accept those recommendations, as was explicitly stated in that report.

Of course, the auditor’s report does follow up on the 2013 internal review that the Ministry of Transportation conducted that was undertaken or at least initially launched by my predecessor in this portfolio. There are a number of measures that were brought forward as a result of the internal review in 2013, and I’m sure I’ll have a chance to discuss those.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Back to the Deputy Premier: The Wynne government ignored repeated warnings from staff and engineers that Ontario highways were unsafe. This Liberal government knew they were putting Ontarians’ lives at risk. This Liberal government knew the contractors weren’t doing their jobs. This Liberal government didn’t act.

This Liberal government turned a blind eye for five years. The deaths of these innocent Ontarians is on this government’s hands. These families need and deserve answers.

Deputy Premier, will you call for a coroner’s inquest into these wrongful deaths?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: What I said last week, what I will continue to say and what I’ll continue to focus on is making sure that, as Minister of Transportation, I take the responsibility, as I have, to make sure that we go forward, that we continue to work with our area maintenance contractors, that we pass the budget that the Minister of Finance presented here in this Legislature last week, because that budget contains provisions that will provide us with the resources to make sure that we have, for example, additional anti-icing liquid that can be used on highways around the province, that we have additional equipment that will help in congested urban areas and also across northern Ontario.

I’ll also mention, as I’ve said before in this House, that since 2013, since we conducted the internal review at the Ministry of Transportation, we’ve added 105 pieces of equipment. We have brought additional oversight to this entire undertaking. There is more work to do. That’s the work that I’m responsible for, and we’re going to get it right.

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: Back to the Deputy Premier: On Tuesday, January 4, 2012, the families of Alyssa McKeown and Jessica Chamberland were shattered. These two women did everything right. They waited an extra day after the storm to travel on Ontario highways. They had snow tires. They weren’t speeding. They were not drinking. The only thing that went wrong was that the roads they were driving on were not properly cleared of ice and snow. That wrong-headed decision to sacrifice proper road maintenance in order to save a few bucks was made by this government. That decision shattered these families.

Deputy Premier, will your government call for a coroner’s inquest into the wrongful deaths of Alyssa McKeown and Jessica Chamberland?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Again, I thank the leader for his question and for his interest in this important issue. I know it sounds like I’m repeating myself, but I did say this in the chamber the other day. I’ve lived for 41 years in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area—my entire life—and every single day to this day, including this morning, I use highways. My wife uses highways. Everyone on this side of the aisle does and on that side, as well. Very often my young daughters are in the car with us when we travel highways. I feel a very sincere and profound responsibility for making sure that we get this right.

In addition to what we’ve done at the Ministry of Transportation since 2013, in addition to accepting all eight recommendations from the auditor, we will continue to move forward. We will add more resources. We will work with our area maintenance contractors. We will continue to improve and enhance the winter maintenance program. It’s what the people of Ontario expect and deserve.

Teachers’ labour disputes

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Education. The parents of over 800,000 elementary students in Ontario don’t know if their children will be in school on Monday. These parents don’t know if they need to find alternative child care options. Everything is up in the air.

Minister, your response to those parents was you hoped “it will be a work-to-rule and not a full withdrawal of services.”

Yesterday, when talking about negotiations, you said that you saw a light at end of the tunnel. Well, Minister, I have news for you: That light was the train. It’s coming at you and it’s going to wreck.

When are you going to get serious about negotiations before you wreck the school year for these children?

Hon. Liz Sandals: It might surprise you to know this, but I actually agree with something that you said at the beginning of the question; I don’t agree with the way you ended up. But I too am very concerned that we know that the elementary teachers are in a legal strike position. They have not informed us officially. They have not informed the boards officially as to whether it will be a work-to-rule strike or whether it will be a full withdrawal of services.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from Simcoe North.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Back to the minister: Over 800,000 children will be impacted on Monday and all you could say was that teachers have a general desire to strike. That’s simply not true.

This Liberal government introduced Bill 122 and guaranteed a clear and consistent framework that works for all parties. You know what? We know that’s not working. The Wynne government said this process has clear roles and responsibilities. Apparently, it hasn’t been clear to you. Your role is to get a deal done and your responsibility is to keep these kids in the classroom.

Minister, step down or do your job. Will you promise these kids that they will be able to finish their school year?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I repeat what I have repeated over and over again: The only way that we will resolve this situation is by negotiating a collective agreement. I actually believe that the teachers would prefer to be in the classroom, for those who are out; that those who are being told to work to rule and withdraw things like preparing report cards or refusing to do the EQAO tests, refusing to take

part in math—I believe those teachers would actually really prefer to be doing their whole job. Certainly, the children want to be in the classrooms. Parents want them in the classrooms. But the only way we can fix this is to negotiate. And unlike you, I do believe that—

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Again, to the minister: The Premier said she was going to light a fire underneath these negotiations. Well, apparently it’s not hot enough yet. The students in Peel have been out for four days, at Rainbow in Sudbury they’ve been out for nine days, and now 14 days in Durham—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Many people seem to want to give a question and answer, so let’s just settle down.

Please.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Mr. Speaker, that’s 72,000 students out of the classroom right now. By the way, it is your mess. Another day goes by, and the students are still out of the classroom.

Over 800,000 students could be affected as early as Monday. Each day is a day closer to prom and graduation, and you have to quit using these students as pawns.

Minister, why won’t you resign and let someone who is actually willing to work get the job done?

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, no, no. I will remind you that when I stand, I want quiet. No last shots.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I do need to remind the member opposite that their solution of how to manage the education system was to fire 22,700 education workers and teachers. That—

Interjections.

Hon. Liz Sandals: They seem not to believe me, but I’d like to quote from a—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’d like to remind—

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Oh, I think she’s finished.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I can get my exercise. The next person who does it will get named and I’ll make sure you hear that. Do you want to play that game? I will name you.

Carry on.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I would remind the member opposite of an exchange during the last election when the leader of their party was asked, “Will it mean fewer teachers?” The response was, “It does ... it will mean fewer teachers in our system.” I would like to remind you that that was their response.

I have a totally different response. I want to negotiate a collective agreement, but I do need people on the other side to come to the table because it takes somebody—

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

New question.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Acting Premier. Yesterday, I asked the Premier how many budget hearings she would

schedule in northern Ontario so that families and businesses from northern Ontario can have their say. She didn’t commit to hearing from northern Ontarians, in fact, not at all, not a single hour.

Why is this Liberal government shutting down people? Why are they shutting the door on people from northern Ontario who want to have their say on the sell-off of their Hydro One?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, we really believe that it’s important that Ontarians do have an opportunity to contribute to a budget and to let government know what they think should be included in a budget. They should have the opportunity to speak. We also think it’s important that members of all opposition parties have the opportunity to examine important legislation.

The government House leader has presented a plan, a proposal to the opposition parties that would increase the standard for committee consideration to six days. That’s more committee time than almost any budget has had in the last 25 years.

Let’s just compare: under the PC government in 2002, zero days of committees; in the year 2000, two days; in 1997, two days; in 1996; two days; and under the NDP in 1991 and 1992, one day of committee consideration—

Interjections.

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

Mr. Paul Miller: It wasn’t me.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I will allow someone to withdraw.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I withdraw.

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, what the Acting Premier is talking about is closure. Closure is shutting down debate and shutting down the voices of Ontarians. She’s crowing about how proud they are about closing down the debate.

Yesterday I asked the Premier how many hearings she would

schedule in southwestern Ontario so that families and businesses in southwestern Ontario could have their say. She didn’t commit to hearing from the people in southwestern Ontario either, not for a single hour.

Why is the Liberal government shutting the door on people from the southwest who want to have a say on the sell-off of their hydro system?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m sure the leader of the third party would like to know that there were pre-budget consultations in Windsor, London, Cambridge, Ottawa, Toronto and Mississauga. In addition, the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs held public hearings in Fort Frances, Cornwall, Toronto, Sudbury, Fort Erie, London and in Ottawa.

We have been very open and transparent about our plan to maximize the value of the assets. It was included in the 2014 budget. It was included in the 2014 platform, the budget that was introduced twice—noting that the NDP ran on the very same fiscal plan.

In October, the advisory council released their interim report. That final report was made public before the budget. We’ve been debating this issue in this House for months. That will continue. As I say, there will be six days—

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

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Shame on the transparent Liberals. They had all those meetings, and not one single time were they coming clean with the people of Ontario about their plan to sell Hydro One. Shame on them.

Yesterday, I asked the Premier how many budget hearings she would

schedule in eastern Ontario so that families and businesses from eastern Ontario could have their say. She didn’t commit to a single hearing being set up for the people east of Toronto, either.

Why is this Liberal government shutting down people? Why are they shutting the door on people from eastern Ontario who want to have a say on the sell-off of their Hydro One?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let me quote from the 2014 budget. The 2014 budget says, “Unlocking the value of these assets through operational improvements or asset sales gives the government an innovative revenue source to reinvest back into the economy. Net revenue gains from the divestment of certain assets will be invested”—

Interjections.

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

Please finish. Wrap up.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Even the leader of the third party said today on Newstalk 1010, “So there’s no doubt we did talk in our platform about looking at some of the”—

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

New question.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Acting Premier. Well over 26,000 people have sent the Liberals the message that they don’t want the Premier to sell Hydro One. They know it’s the wrong decision and they don’t want to pay the price.

That’s not just me, Speaker. That’s not just card-carrying New Democrats; that is Ontario families, the people who actually own Hydro One. They know that once Hydro One is gone, it is gone forever.

Why is the Liberal government refusing to listen to the people who actually own Hydro One?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We have listened very, very carefully, and what the people in Ontario are saying is they want us to invest in transportation and other infrastructure that is so vitally important to the economy and to the lives of people who are fighting that traffic every day.

This budget is all about building Ontario up. It’s about creating jobs. It’s about increasing economic growth. We’re going to build infrastructure. We’re going to invest in people’s skills and talents, create that business climate that businesses are asking for so they can flourish, and we want to move forward on building that retirement security.

We are increasing the Moving Ontario Forward fund so that we can invest in much-needed infrastructure, the largest investment in the province’s history.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’m hearing from people every day that they don’t want the Premier to sell off Hydro One. They don’t remember hearing about this plan because there isn’t a single Liberal MPP who ran on selling Hydro One.

I once again remind all the folks on the backbench that they are the ones—they are the ones—who are going to have to defend this. Those backbenchers are the ones who are going to have to explain to their constituents why Hydro One is for sale and why hydro bills are going up. I know that because those Liberal MPPs have been hearing from people through our website.

Can the Acting Premier explain why Liberals are refusing to listen to the growing—

Interjections.

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

I expect the same on both sides.

Please finish.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Can the Acting Premier explain why the Liberals are refusing to listen to the growing numbers of Ontarians who say that selling Hydro One is the wrong thing to do?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, we ran on building infrastructure, and that is what we are going to do.

I think it’s important that we listen to what the leader of the third party said on the radio just this morning. She said, “So there’s no doubt we did talk in our platform about looking at some of the physical assets that the province owns.” The leader of the third party, on the radio just this morning, admitted finally that they ran on the very same platform that we did—the same fiscal plan that we did. They took our budget. They took our assumptions. They cut and pasted and put it in their platform. Whether they know it or not, they ran on the same fiscal platform, and that includes maximizing our assets so we can build this badly needed infrastructure.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier’s plan helps out Bay Street bankers, it helps out consultants and it helps out well-connected Liberals—not surprisingly, because the Liberals are listening to Bay Street bankers, they are listening to consultants and they are listening to their well-connected Liberal friends. But they are refusing to listen to families, and families are the ones paying the price.

The Premier keeps the budget hearings in lockdown. She’s not prepared to hear from the people of Ontario. It’s undemocratic. It is not right.

Now, will the Acting Premier and the Liberal government listen to the owners of Hydro One—the people of Ontario—and stop the sale of Hydro One?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I understand that the leader of the third party is heading west today. I hope, when she’s there, she will ask the people about whether 15-minute service from Union Station to Bramalea is something that they would like to see. I hope, when she travels through the province, she will talk about regional express rail. Over 10 years, weekly GO trips will go from 1,500 to nearly 6,000 trips. That is what the people of this province are asking their government to provide.

There have been insufficient investments in the past. We are making the decision to build the infrastructure that individual people need and will benefit from in their daily lives, to say nothing of the economic benefit. We are spending billions of dollars, wasting billions of dollars, because—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Careful.

New question.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is to the President of the Treasury Board. For the past month, we’ve been talking about your government’s sale of Hydro One, and you have justified it time and time again by saying it is needed for infrastructure. But we now know you’ve decided to give away shares of Hydro One to employees of OPG and Hydro One as part of their new contracts, and I’ve sent you copies of those contracts, the tentative agreements.

You claim the deal is net zero—

Hon. Charles Sousa: It is.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Finance.

Mr. John Yakabuski: —but we know that in that deal, you’re giving away stocks to those employees. You are providing wage increases over each of the next three years. You are increasing travel allowances. You’re adding in possible lump-sum payments.

Minister, what are Ontarians getting to make this a net-zero deal?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let me just finish my last sentence. Billions of dollars are being wasted in economic prosperity, lost—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, no, no. Thank you.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Trucks are stuck on the highways, costing businesses billions of dollars. We are paying for that additional cost; make no mistake about it.

When it comes to the power workers’ agreement—and I thank you for sending over not copies of the contract but—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Tentative.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: No, actually, what you’ve sent over is what the Power Workers’ Union is using to communicate with their workers, but whatever. This is a deal that is under ratification. We are going through the ratification process. We will continue to respect the ratification. It is actually a net-zero deal. Over time, it addresses the Leech report recommendations. This is a good deal—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Very close.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, no. I will name.

Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Wage increases each of the years and shares with nothing in return sure sounds like zero to me.

Again to the Treasury Board president: You’re trying to buy labour peace with the sale of Hydro One. Minister, you’re giving away shares and massive increases funded by the sale. I’m still looking for what is net zero about these deals, as are the people of Ontario. You’re setting a terrible precedent by having a fire sale to fund labour peace.

We know that taxpayers were paying the power workers’ pensions at a ratio of about 5 to 1. In this agreement, did you at least get those pensions contributions down to 1 to 1, as is the standard across the public service? Will that make this deal net zero? Is that how it’s going to be net zero? Because we’re still trying to figure out how you get zero. We’ve got all these numbers, but they all add up to zero. You are amazing with your math over there on that Liberal side of the House.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We actually respect the ratification process. We will not be talking about details of the deal because the workers are now in the process—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The workers are in the process of ratification, and we will not jeopardize that by talking about the deal in any kind of detail.

What I can tell you is that it is net zero. I can tell you that over time it addresses the recommendations of the Leech report but, most importantly, what I’m really delighted about is that workers are being given the opportunity—we’ll see how they decide—and we are excited that the workers will actually have a stake in the success of a company.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Gilles Bisson: To the Deputy Premier: Can the Deputy Premier please tell Ontarians where in her platform or in her budget it said she was selling Hydro One shares to pay for a collective agreement?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Many, many times in this House we have talked about how we have talked about maximizing the value of our assets. It was in the 2014 budget that I just quoted. It was in our platform. It was in our second 2014 budget. It was in your platform.

We are pleased that the workers have the opportunity to actually participate in the success of their company. That’s a good thing, and I think the NDP actually would support the notion that workers would have a stake in the success of their company. We are moving forward. We are planning to move forward with the plan to build the infrastructure across this province that is so badly needed. That is why we are moving forward—

Mr. John Yakabuski: With your math, by the end of tomorrow we’ll have a surplus.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Renfrew, come to order.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: —to maximize the value of our assets.

Interjection.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: To the Deputy Premier: Nowhere in your platform, nowhere up until this budget did you ever give an indication that, in fact, there would be a selling of shares as a way to negotiate a collective agreement. That’s dollars that you’re taking away that are not going to be invested into infrastructure. It’s not going to be invested into transit. It’s not going to do anything when it comes to achieving the goals that the government wants.

I ask you again: Can the Deputy Premier explain to the people why the Liberals are giving away shares in Hydro One without ever asking the people of Ontario, who actually own Hydro One, what they think?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, Speaker, over and over and over again in this Legislature we have quoted from our budget—the 2014 budget, the 2015 budget—about the decision to actually maximize the value of the shares of our assets so that we can build the infrastructure that I think all of us would agree is badly needed.

Let’s talk about what we’re getting. We are getting electrified Barrie line weekly trips from 70 to over 200; the Kitchener line—we’ve heard that from members of your own caucus—weekly trips from 80 to over 250, quadrupling the numbers. On the Lakeshore East line, the annual ridership will go from 10 million to 32 million. The Lakeshore West line annual ridership will go from 10 million to 33 million. These are huge improvements in our transportation infrastructure.

Across the province, through Connecting Links, through the Ring of Fire, through the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund, Ontario is building up again. That’s the decision we’re making: to keep building this province up.

Children’s mental health services / Services de santé mentale pour enfants

Mr. Yvan Baker: My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Minister, I know that every year in May we celebrate Children’s Mental Health Week. Doctors, mental health workers, parents and advocates take this week to increase the awareness of the signs of children and youth facing mental health challenges in their lives, work on ending the stigma around mental health issues, and help children and youth understand the places they can go to receive treatment.

In fact, Minister, this past Monday I had the opportunity to join a number of leaders in children’s mental health from Etobicoke at an event to celebrate Children’s Mental Health Week: Ewa Deszynski from the Etobicoke Children’s Centre, Jane Bray from the George Hull Centre for Children and Families, and Barb Macdonald.

Minister, could you share with us how the government is recognizing Children’s Mental Health Week this year?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I appreciate the question from the member during Children’s Mental Health Week—fantastic.

Je suis fière de l’attention que notre gouvernement porte sur les matières de santé mentale des jeunes et des adolescents, non seulement cette semaine mais année après année.

Speaker, our government has a strong record of increasing investments in children and youth mental health services; in fact, more than $440 million last year. We’re improving treatment to children and families so they get it at the right time and close to where they live.

Just yesterday, I was at Sketch, a creative space that gives opportunities to street-involved youth, to announce our support for a program from the Toronto Homeless Youth Transitions Collaborative that will provide wraparound mental health services to some of our most at-risk youth.

All these things focus on getting children the right support where they need it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Yvan Baker: Thank you, Minister. The program you spoke about sounds like it will help vulnerable youth who may not have other supports really get the focus and care they need to get back on their feet.

Mr. Speaker, it has been great to see the interest in Children’s Mental Health Week this year. I can say that first-hand, based on the event I attended on Monday. We know that when our children and youth are happy and healthy, they have the conditions to thrive.

Could the government let this House know of any other investments it has made this week for Children’s Mental Health Week?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: To the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: First, I want to thank all MPPs from all parties who came out Monday on the front steps of the Legislature for the formal launch of the mental health bus, which is an important service for youth in York region.

I want to also talk about an event that Minister MacCharles and I joined on Tuesday to announce that we’re investing more than $5 million to support a new facility within Youthdale here in Toronto that has in-patient beds specifically targeted for teens between the ages of 16 and 19. Once construction is complete, this facility is going to provide 10 additional beds and care for approximately 175 young people who are dealing with complex mental health challenges each year. On top of that, we’re also helping Youthdale provide a day program for youth with difficult mental health challenges that will help more than 6,000 youth annually through that facility.

Mr. Spooker—sometimes, Mr. Speaker.

Laughter.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, through the mental health and addictions strategy, we’re working—

Interjections.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’m on a roll after “the member from”—

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Nickelback.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Through the mental health and addictions strategy, we’re working to ensure our children and youth have the supports they need at such a critical time in their lives.

Winter highway maintenance

Mr. Jim McDonell: To the Deputy Premier: Your government sacrificed people’s safety to save a few bucks on winter maintenance. The simple fact is that in the eastern region, you cut the number of snowplows by almost 50%. When accidents and fatalities started to mount, you blamed it on the weather. When your ministry engineers tried to tell you there weren’t enough plows, you ignored them. When contractors met with us for help—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Deputy House leader—second time.

Mr. Jim McDonell: —you punished them.

Deputy Premier, how could you refuse to act when you knew it was your maintenance policy changes that were the cause of increased accidents, personal injuries and deaths? Why did it take the Auditor General’s scathing report to finally get action? Is that why you’re now limiting her powers?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Again, I thank this member for this question. I know it’s important to people living in his community, as it is for people living right across the province of Ontario.

I’ve said this many times, and I have no problem whatsoever repeating it: The Ministry of Transportation began an internal review in 2013. It is important to note that the auditor was actually asked by the public accounts committee to come in during 2014. So prior to the auditor being asked to conduct her review, the Ministry of Transportation had taken it upon itself—as it should—to take a look at the program and to update it.

As a result of the internal review, Speaker, there were 105 additional pieces of equipment for both northern Ontario, for truck climbing and passing lanes, and also for southern Ontario, for ramps and shoulders. I remember being in the riding of Northumberland–Quinte West to make the announcement last fall with respect to the other 50 pieces of equipment that were being used—again, for ramps and shoulders—in southern Ontario.

I accept full responsibility. In fact, all eight of the auditor’s recommendations have been accepted by me, as minister, and by the ministry. We continue to look forward to working on this program to make sure that it continues to improve.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from Wellington–Halton Hills.

Mr. Ted Arnott: Back to the Deputy Premier. The Auditor General’s report on winter road maintenance should make this government hang its head in shame. In her report, the Auditor General suggested that the problems were “foreseeable and could have been avoided....” But it’s more than that. The decisions taken by this government were careless, arguably even reckless and irresponsible. Winter road maintenance is not some kind of frill service. It’s an essential government function because in the winter in Ontario, if the highways aren’t properly plowed, safety is compromised and the lives of motorists are at risk.

How does the government have the audacity to stand in this House and defend the indefensible?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I thank the member for that question. I think it’s important to recognize—I understand that it doesn’t fit entirely well with the narrative that the members opposite are trying to develop here, and that’s fine—but in that same report, the report that contained eight recommendations, which we’ve accepted, the auditor did acknowledge that the additional resources that we’ve brought to bear since the internal review in 2013 have had a positive impact.

That same report, along with other independent information, does demonstrate that over the last 13 years, the province of Ontario has ranked first or second in North America for highway safety. In fact, as I said the other day, in 2012, the only other jurisdiction in North America that had a better record for highway safety was the District of Columbia.

That doesn’t mean the work is over. In fact, following her report the other day, I asked the auditor to come back here—

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

New question.

Nuclear waste

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Yesterday, we learned that a panel has signed off on this government’s plan to bury nuclear waste near the shores of Lake Huron. Some 152 communities that share our Great Lakes are against this plan, including London, Windsor, Chicago and Toronto. Resolutions have been passed in at least five Great Lakes states to oppose this project. Ironically, this new threat to Lake Huron comes at the same time this government is introducing legislation to protect the Great Lakes.

Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change support his government’s plan to bury nuclear waste in the watershed of Lake Huron?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: We have a very good process in this country around making these decisions. This is under federal regulation and is a federal responsibility. I think it would be very inappropriate for me or other members of this House to weigh in and create any impression that there’s bias in that process.

We have nuclear storage in a province where 50% of our energy is generated by nuclear. There’s obviously an issue of nuclear waste and nuclear waste management. The government’s biggest priority is to ensure public safety and that this is stored properly and safely to the highest standards in the world, and