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

May 2, 2019

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2019-May-02 (PDF)

L100 - Thu 2 May 2019 / Jeu 2 mai 2019

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 2 May 2019 Jeudi 2 mai 2019

Orders of the Day

Protecting What Matters Most Act (Budget Measures), 2019 / Loi de 2019 pour protéger l’essentiel (mesures budgétaires)

Fixing the Hydro Mess Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 pour réparer le gâchis dans le secteur de l’électricité

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Municipal finances

Public transit

Public transit

Flooding

Education funding

Taxation

Child care

Hospice care

Autism treatment

Government spending

Taxation

Health care funding

Government services

Tree planting

Agriculture industry

Visitors

Correction of record

Legislative Protective Service

Visitors

Notices of dissatisfaction

Deferred Votes

Protecting What Matters Most Act (Budget Measures), 2019 / Loi de 2019 pour protéger l’essentiel (mesures budgétaires)

Introduction of Visitors

Correction of record

Members’ Statements

Lyme disease

Battle of the Atlantic

Health care

Peel Learning Foundation

Labour dispute

Hate crimes

Toronto Blockchain Week

Access to justice

Ed’s House

Peter Tinsley

Visitor

Introduction of Bills

Getting Ontario Moving Act (Transportation Statute Law Amendment), 2019 / Loi de 2019 pour un Ontario en mouvement (modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne le transport)

More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 pour plus de logements et plus de choix

Jennifer’s Law (Retail Sales Tax Amendment Act Respecting HST Rebates for Medical Supplies), 2019 / Loi Jennifer de 2019 (Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la taxe de vente au détail concernant le remboursement de la TVH sur les fournitures médicales)

Motions

Committee membership

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Museum Month / Mois des musées

Petitions

Affordable housing

Guide and service animals

Legal aid

Toronto Transit Commission

Long-term care

Health care

Legal aid

Legal aid

Toronto Transit Commission

Legal aid

Autism treatment

Student work experience

Injured workers

Order of business

Private Members’ Public Business

Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Right to Repair Electronic Products), 2019 / Loi de 2019 modifiant la

Loi sur la protection du consommateur (droit de réparer les produits électroniques)

Closing Oversight Loopholes for Home Care Clinics Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 visant à combler les lacunes dans la surveillance des cliniques de soins à domicile

Democratic Participation Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur la participation démocratique

Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Right to Repair Electronic Products), 2019 / Loi de 2019 modifiant la

Loi sur la protection du consommateur (droit de réparer les produits électroniques)

Closing Oversight Loopholes for Home Care Clinics Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 visant à combler les lacunes dans la surveillance des cliniques de soins à domicile

Democratic Participation Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur la participation démocratique

Correction of record

Correction of record

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Let us pray.

Prayers/Prières.

Orders of the Day

Protecting What Matters Most Act (Budget Measures), 2019 / Loi de 2019 pour protéger l’essentiel (mesures budgétaires)

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 29, 2019, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 100,

An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact, amend and repeal various statutes / Projet de loi 100, Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre les mesures budgétaires et à édicter, à modifier ou à abroger diverses lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Pursuant to the order of the House passed May 1, 2019, I am now required to put the question.

Mr. Fedeli has moved second reading of Bill 100,

An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact, amend and repeal various statutes. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard some noes.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members—no, it’s automatically deferred until after question period. I apologize. Thank you.

Second reading vote deferred.

Fixing the Hydro Mess Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 pour réparer le gâchis dans le secteur de l’électricité

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 1, 2019, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 87,

An Act to amend various statutes related to energy / Projet de loi 87, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne l’énergie.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I understand that when we last debated this bill, the member for Barrie–Springwater–Oro-Medonte had given his presentation. We now go to questions and comments related to the presentation that was given by the member for Barrie–Springwater–Oro-Medonte.

Questions and comments? The member for Peterborough–Kawartha.

Mr. Dave Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let’s give a little history first on why we have a need for Bill 87. Back on August 14, 2003, we had a blackout that took in most of Ontario and the northeastern and midwestern United States, and that was leading up into an election. The election was in October of that year. There was also a promise to close the coal-fired power plants, election promises by both the Liberals and the Conservatives at the time.

Interestingly enough, it was the Liberals who ended up adopting the Conservatives’ plan and closed them at the timeline that the Conservatives had said. Then the Green Energy Act came in in 2009, where we were paying 81 cents per kilowatt hour for electrical generation done green. The global adjustment fee in 2016—interestingly enough, the global adjustment fee, GAF: a gaffe. Growing up, I always thought that a gaffe was a mistake, so it’s very well, aptly named. In 2016, it was 7.9 cents per kilowatt hour that the average residential homeowner was paying to fix that mistake that the Liberals had made.

Then the Liberals went ahead and decided they were going to try and bury those costs. They borrowed the money through Ontario Power Generation. It’s going to cost Ontarians billions of dollars to try and fix that mistake. We’re left with all of that history now, and we need to fix it.

We’ve started that process with Bill 87, fixing the electrical mess, because it is a mess that the Liberals left to us. It’s going to take us some time but we’re starting on that path right now. We’re making the right moves. We’re going to be seeing that kind of relief for the people of Ontario, and I’m proud to support the bill.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further questions and comments?

M me France Gélinas: I represent the good people in Nickel Belt, 33 little communities. Most of us do not have access to natural gas. For many communities in my riding, they don’t have access to propane or oil delivery. We live in northern Ontario; the winters are long, are dark. We need heat and we need light, and that means electricity.

Many of my constituents were hoping to decrease their electrical costs by making changes, such as finally being able to purchase new windows for their homes, or putting in a heat pump, or being able to reinsulate some of their homes, so that they would save on their electrical bills, because the cheapest electricity is the one that you don’t use. Unfortunately, the government pulled the plug on this after many of my constituents had already signed deals.

I have the story of Catherine and Richard Gagne, who are from my riding. They wrote to Minister Phillips and the Minister of Energy, and explained to them the hardship when you live in a small community of northern Ontario. They were not on the priority list to get as many jobs done as possible, so they never got their windows installed on time. They are out $5,000 that they do not have. The same thing happened with Julie and Ronald Denomme from Hanmer in my riding. They’ve also written to explain the hardship—and Sheila Renton and Yvonne St. Denis. The list goes on and on.

People need help to lower their hydro bills. This bill will do nothing for my constituents.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further questions and comments.

Mr. Paul Calandra: The member opposite is partially right, because this bill isn’t designed to lower hydro rates. What this bill is designed to do is to disentangle the mess that was brought about by the Liberal-NDP coalition of the last 15 years that brought in a scheme—the Auditor General called it a scheme—to hide the cost of the green energy plan. That’s basically what this is about, Madam Speaker. We’re disentangling it. We’re doing what the FAO asked us to do. We’re doing what the Auditor General asked us to do.

We’re doing what the opposition, at one point, when they were the third party, asked the previous members of their coalition government to do. That was to make it accountable, so that people could see it—transparent. That’s what this bill does.

That’s why I guess I’m now starting to learn more and more why the NDP are voting against it: because they don’t understand what the bill is really about. They’re advocating for a 25% increase in hydro rates. That’s what they’re advocating for. They want homeowners and small, medium and large job creators to pay more immediately. They’re against the transparency, because they voted against every single clause in this bill that would have made the Fair Hydro Plan transparent. They voted against that.

I can appreciate that some of the parts of the bill they might not have agreed with, and they could vote against those aspects of the bill in committee. But they voted against transparency. They voted against a reduction of $4 billion for taxpayers. That’s also what this bill does: It reduces the cost of the Fair Hydro Plan by $4 billion. They voted against that. Instead, they advocate to continue to hide the true cost. And now we’re hearing that they’re advocating for a 25% increase across the board in hydro rates. I don’t think that’s affordable.

It is part of our next steps. We’ll bring rates down, and I hope the members will—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further questions and comments.

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: I’d like to start off by saying that this topic, fixing the hydro mess, is something each one of us can agree on. It is a mess. And we can relate because all of us pay hydro bills. We’re all affected when prices rise. It’s something that needs to be reformed.

When Ontarians are forced to use Hydro One or its distributors, we need to ensure we’re doing our best to control the prices we pay. We are trying to move into a greener society, pushing for electric vehicles and greener energy overall. Well, that means that energy needs to be affordable for everyone. We need to implement rebates to entice Ontarians to want to switch over.

Speaker, this government is simply adopting 14 years of the Liberals’ ideologies and their previous hydro plan—absolutely zero consultation with Ontarians. Just like the Liberals, in my opinion, this government is so far gone and so out in left field when it comes to connecting with the people, knowing what they want and analyzing the issues they face day to day when it comes to hydro. How does their new plan even differ from the past? How is it going to work to make changes, make even a slight difference in people’s lives?

I don’t believe that this government has any intention to please people. It’s about pleasing their own agenda and getting this bill approved as soon as possible to avoid any public backlash.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I return to the member for Barrie–Springwater–Oro-Medonte.

Mr. Doug Downey: I want to thank the members from Peterborough–Kawartha, Markham–Stouffville, Nickel Belt and St. Catharines.

I was trying to figure out how I can explain what we’re dealing with to some of my friends who don’t follow politics as closely, and it dawned on me this morning as I was leaving my place. I often listen to a podcast, and I grabbed my headphones. My headphones were all wrapped up in themselves. It took me a couple of minutes; you dangle it, and you try to untangle it, and you feed the earpiece through that. It happens every morning. As I was doing that, I was thinking about this file, and I was thinking about the mess that we were left and the options that we have.

You either take a few moments and you untangle those headphones so that they work the way that you expect them to, or you get an extension and you just plug it into the end and pretend that that knot is not there. That’s what the Liberals did—they put an extension on, and they kicked the problem down the road for somebody else to fix when they came along. They didn’t actually get to the nub of the problem.

What we’re doing in this bill is, we’re stopping and we’re untangling so that we can make the system work the way it was supposed to work. It will work better. It will last longer. The Ontario Energy Board reforms alone will cause a benefit to Ontarians. Sometimes you get a benefit from something that didn’t happen, and so it’s a little bit hard to measure that. But we’ve seen what’s happening in the OEB on a number of files and we need to stop that. We need to stop some of the—to use somebody else’s term—nonsense. We need to get back to basics. Businesses and consumers need things that are predictable and straightforward.

I look forward to supporting this bill when it comes to the vote.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to stand in the House today to talk about this bill. As we’re probably well aware, little has changed with this bill since second reading, frankly. The bill, the public consultation and the clause-by-clause were jammed through the Legislature with the usual haste by the government.

The government accepted no amendments to the bill, listened to none of the suggestions made by people, who ranged from previous legal counsel to the Ontario Energy Board, the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario, Toronto Region Board of Trade, regulatory specialists—all of those people who came in and said that there are substantial problems with the bill and things have to be addressed. They were ignored.

This bill continues the disastrous course set by the Liberals of borrowing money to keep hydro rates low, with no end in sight, no plan to phase out this borrowing, no plan to take this burden off the backs of those in Ontario who pay the bills, and instead continue the cover-up that the Liberals engaged in. To simply say that you’re going to load $2.5 billion a year onto the backs of people in Ontario who pay taxes and not actually get to the root problem for the hydro system is profoundly irresponsible. It sets us up for problems for decades to come.

The changes to the Ontario Energy Board don’t envision any requirement that the adjudicators have the training or background in dealing with energy that are necessary to actually have intelligent, informed, critical assessment of rate applications by generators or distributors who come before that board. It does, however, mean that former Conservative candidates and operatives who suddenly find themselves unemployed, wandering in the wilderness, have the opportunity to be looked after. In the end, what this will mean is a gravy train packed with Conservative Muppets who have at last found a warm place in from the rain. That’s what we’re talking about here.

All the damage the Liberals did—and they did a lot of damage; let’s be very clear on that—a hydro mess that was driven by privatization, is untouched by this bill. Not a word about either phasing out privatization in the future, renegotiating contracts, looking after the people of Ontario, looking at the need for fundamental reforms—not touched in this bill.

The Liberals approached the whole hydro system in a self-serving way. They were looking after themselves and their lobbyists; no doubt about it. They drove a self-serving political agenda with the hydro sector. They had a reluctance to use the lowest-cost source of electricity—that’s conservation—something that the Conservatives have decided they will continue. They’re going to continue everything the Liberals did: privatization; large-scale borrowing; setting aside conservation, which would be the cheapest way to provide Ontario with electrical support.

They have replicated, with little change, what the Liberals put in place. In short, the Conservative government has done some tidying, they’ve rearranged some of the deck chairs on the hydro Titanic, they’ve made sure that the tumblers of gin were brought to the lip fully charged, and they’ve decided to plow full speed ahead into the iceberg. That is an extraordinary thing for a new government to do.

Many others on that side of the chamber might take exception to my words. In fact, I had a chance to look at Mr. Calandra’s comments from yesterday—always fascinating. But I will just—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I’m sorry to interrupt. Stop the clock. We refer to members by their ridings or their titles, please. Thank you.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Ah, my apologies. The parliamentary assistant—

Interjection: Markham–Stouffville.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: —from Markham–Stouffville.

I’m just going to quote the good old Toronto board of trade, not noted as a bastion of left-wing thought, not even as a bastion of centrist thought—much more on the conservative side. I’ll just quote them:

“Unwinding the Fair Hydro Plan in the 2017 energy playbook, the board acknowledged that the Fair Hydro Plan lowered prices for current customers,” which is true, “but at a significant cost to future ratepayers,” which is also true, and which the Conservatives knew when the Liberals brought this bill forward in 2017. “Bill 87 continues with this rate reduction structure but funds the cost from the tax base instead of future ratepayers....” So the burden is just moved around; those people who were paying higher rates before will pay higher taxes in the future or get less services, one or the other. “[I]t may undermine the board’s other main priorities of sustainability and reliability.

The government has stated its intention to reduce costs in the electricity sector.... At this time, however, system costs are forecast to increase by more than the rate of inflation, particularly with the need to renew important energy infrastructure. If bill increases are held to inflation for the foreseeable future, this could increase the amount the government spends on electricity cost relief programs (already more than $4 billion per year), prevent needed infrastructure from being built”—blackouts, anyone?—“or lead to sharp price increases in the future.

To avoid future price shocks, the board urges the government to update the long-term energy plan price forecasts for at least the next 10 years, including expected government spending on rate subsidy programs.” The Toronto board of trade recognizes that it is not sustainable to be borrowing billions of dollars a year to reduce hydro rates.

What needs to be done is a reform of the structure of the hydro system, an end to privatization, a ramping up of conservation and a search for lowest-cost, environmentally sustainable energy production. That’s what is needed. That is not what is happening with this government and not what is happening with this bill.

We tried to amend this bill. We brought forward more than 20 amendments. Now, I know that politicians have to atone for their sins, but this morning I’m not going to make that atonement fully play out, because I’m not going to go through every amendment we brought forward. But I want to touch on some of them because, in terms of transparency, in terms of the ability of Ontarians to understand what’s going on in the system and to hold politicians and decision-makers to account, this bill is a step backwards.

One of our first amendments was to have the Independent Electricity System Operator, the body that actually oversees the operation of the system, publish an updated cost outlook showing expected annual payments to be funded with public money with respect to the amounts that this government will be subsidizing rates. Speaker, that was rejected by the government in committee.

Now, I have to tell you, Speaker, we couldn’t even get the cost of the Premier’s trip to New York City released publicly. What’s that going to be? Half a million dollars? A million dollars? Since I don’t know, I’m guessing. I would say, “Release the numbers then I’ll stop speculating.” I’ll leave it at a million bucks for now. So we can’t even get that cost. We can’t even get the basis of calculation for the cuts to public health authorities throughout this province; it’s not happening. A lot of spin, but none of the calculations.

So when you say the IESO, the Independent Electricity System Operator, has to publish, on an annual basis, the amount of money that’s going out to subsidize the system, that seems entirely reasonable to me. Now, this government is notoriously tight with figures and replicated that in their decision at committee. They decided that the people of Ontario don’t deserve to get that information.

Another amendment we made was that, within a year of the day subsection 4 of the

schedule comes into effect, the ministry should publish on a government website its plan for the repeal of this system, and plans should include expected impacts of the repeal on the monthly electricity bill of a typical household ratepayer. They have said before that they can reduce hydro bills by 12%. Well, bring it in. Bring it forward. Reduce the need to borrow $2.5 billion a year. When I talk to people in my riding, I say, “You know, the government is borrowing $2.5 billion a year to reduce your hydro rates.” They’re a bit taken aback. They sort of thought that structurally things had been dealt with.

Now, they don’t follow it very closely. But the reality is that, right now, this government is making no commitments to actually phasing out this program. So what are the government plans? What are they going to do? Do they have any plans at all? That requirement to show a phase-out, to show the cost, was rejected.

One of the things that came up pretty regularly with those who deputed before us in the committee—the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario and vulnerable power users—they emphasized the need to protect intervenors coming before the board. The reality is that the OEB is not as tough as I think it needs to be when it comes to rate hearings, and intervenors—the citizens, the businesses of this province—have been pretty tough at OEB. They get a chance to intervene, produce evidence, question the witnesses and probe evidence to see whether or not increases are justified. They’re worried that the tenor of this bill is going to undermine intervenors.

That, Speaker, is a huge problem and we decided to try to ensure there was protection for intervention. We moved “To enable the participation of intervenors representing the interests of consumers in proceedings before the board” to make that an important tenet of the whole process.

The reality is that the government rejected that. It says it wants to protect ratepayers against higher prices, but it wouldn’t protect one of the mechanisms that has been critical to fighting high rate increases; wouldn’t support it. If, in future, intervenors are cut out and bills rise sharply as a result, this government will have to explain why it took away, or did not protect, one of the key mechanisms for protecting the public from high rates. Maybe this government thinks it’s going to be in power forever.

Speaker, I’ve been around here for a while. I used to say to the Liberals, “You know, the stuff you’re doing today you’re going to hate when you’re in opposition, because you won’t be running things. You won’t be able to see the things that you want to see done.” They didn’t believe that they would ever lose power.

I’ll say to the Conservatives today: Assuming that you will be in government forever is not a thoughtful or reasonable assumption. It has no relationship to reality. You’re doing things that will undermine the ability of you and future opposition, or the citizens of this province, from protecting themselves.

We also asked that “The appointment of the chief executive officer shall be subject to review by the Standing Committee on Government Agencies.”

The Legislature has an important role in overseeing the behaviour and actions of government. It’s critical. The standing committee on agencies has this opportunity to interview those who will be appointed. That is a vital transparency mechanism. This government had no interest in making sure that was there. They voted that down. So in the future, the ability for this Legislature to have any impact on that appointee, to have any impact on the government’s thinking that someone being appointed might be hugely problematic when they’re questioned, will be gone, not there.

We also moved that “The selection process for the appointment of commissioners shall be a competitive, merit-based process and the criteria to be applied in assessing candidates shall include the following:”. Just to be clear to people, the commissioners are those who actually sit in on the rate hearings and adjudicate, who assess the evidence, who check the law, who make a balanced decision on how, in fact, rates should be set.

Fairly standard in this government of Ontario over the years have been a number of criteria. They’re set out in the Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability, Governance and Appointments Act. So it’s not something that we made up. It’s something that is in existing legislation, put there to protect people from non-competent adjudicators. They have to have experience, knowledge or training in the subject matter and issues over which the board has jurisdiction. They have to have an aptitude for conducting impartial hearings and determinations. They have to have an aptitude for applying adjudicative practices and procedures that may be set out in the board’s rules.

In other words, this is an anti-Muppet clause. We want people who sit on that commission who actually know what they’re talking about, who actually are familiar with the issues and have the skill set necessary to do the work.

As you might guess, Speaker, that amendment was voted down. Who can guess why? Who knows what goes through the minds of Conservatives in these committees? In any event, they were a no on that.

We also suggested that those commissioners go through the Standing Committee on Government Agencies, just as the CEO would go through—again, because we’re talking about people who need a fairly high level of technical knowledge. It’s an open-government move, and it was rejected.

There was another motion that we put forward. These were all good motions. I’m sure that this evening, you’ll just go through them in your mind, thinking, “Man, that was good writing. I love wonderful legislation.”

We moved that any person who meets all the applicable eligibility criteria—in other words, someone who actually has the skills set out in that previous motion—can transfer from the existing commission to the new commission. In fact, there are people on the existing commission who have none of those skills. A former staffer in the Premier’s office, for instance, who was appointed to a $197,000-a-year job, without any background in adjudication or energy, is on the commission now and, without a review, without these skills, will simply be moved over.

We think it’s reasonable that you actually have to have skill to sit on an adjudicative panel. I think most people would understand that that’s a reasonable approach. I think it’s a reasonable approach.

Next amendment—again, Speaker, I’m sparing you. There were so many amendments, and they were so good, but I just picked the best. One of the concerns from the board of trade, from the Association of Major Power Consumers and from George Vegh, previously legal counsel to the OEB—he said in his comments that the powers given to the CEO made him effectively an energy czar for Ontario. I don’t know about you; I’m not a big fan of czars. I think that it’s a good idea to have a system within which a CEO—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): The member from Markham–Stouffville, come to order again.

Interjections.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It’s pretty extraordinary—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Stop the clock. Sorry; just a moment, please.

We’ve been doing well. We’re all appreciating the hour lead that the member has the opportunity to give. I would ask that we keep the tenor appropriate and parliamentary. We can all look forward to question period later. Thank you.

Please resume.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: One of the things that all those bodies had to say and all of those people had to say was that, before the approval of a rule that changed the energy system, the board should consider the risks, costs and benefits of the rule with respect to the interests of consumers, satisfy itself that the benefits will outweigh the costs, and analyze any alternatives to the proposed rules. That was at the recommendation of the business-oriented presenters at committee.

I want to point out, Speaker, that if these rules had been in place, it would have been very difficult for the Liberals to justify smart meters, because they didn’t do a business plan; they just jammed it through, at a cost to Ontarians of about $2 billion. That was a lot of money. If there had been a cost-benefit analysis done, a business case done, then we would have had a very different approach on this matter. But we didn’t have that.

The Conservatives are setting things up so that in future, once again, the smart meter approach can be part of government policy.

The same thing with the sale of Hydro One: A cost-benefit analysis was not done, the impact on Ontarians is substantial, and the reality is, this government doesn’t want to have a cost-benefit analysis—something that, typically, businesses like. One of the members of the committee said, “We just assume that it will be there.” I have to tell you, I’ve watched governments in this place. Assuming that a cost-benefit analysis will be done and not simply a self-serving political agenda imposed is a real stretch. I think it’s reasonable to say, “You have to do an analysis.

You have to show the public the basis for your decision”—extraordinary. Anyway, you won’t be shocked to hear that that one lost, even though it was a great motion.

It was also recommended by the NDP that the cost-benefit analysis be posted on the website of the OEB so the people of Ontario could look at the basis for the decisions. I don’t think that’s terribly wild; I think that’s pretty conventional. I would say that the Conservatives, prior to the last election, would have voted in favour of that. Why? Because they understood that transparency was an aid to the people of Ontario and an aid to openness and democracy. But this is a different breed, and they shut it down—no doubt about it. That’s pretty extraordinary to me.

Speaker, we also brought forward a motion to put in place—what can I say—regulation of sub-metering companies. These are companies that install and run meters on individual units—something that the Liberals failed to do. They brought in legislation and never proclaimed it. There’s an opportunity with this bill to actually get at this problem.

You’re well aware, Speaker, and others are well aware, of a situation that came up recently in Oshawa where a sub-metering company was charging people in an apartment building sub-metering charges—the cost for the meter, delivery charges and administration charges—when the meters hadn’t been installed at all. They didn’t exist. People were somewhat upset, as you can imagine. If, in fact, sub-metering companies had to go to the Ontario Energy Board and provide evidence of the existence of sub-meters and evidence of the cost of providing them, those people would have been protected.

At Brock University, students in student housing, living four to a shared apartment, were being charged four times the cost of the power in that unit. Instead of dividing the cost of power by four, it was multiplied by four. You know, I think regulation would be a good thing, but this government was not interested in regulating that, not interested in protecting tenants. not interested in protecting power consumers. So when it says that it’s here to protect people from high hydro rates, what about unit sub-meters? What about tenants—a big part of Ontario’s population? No—thrown to the side; irrelevant; a waste of their time.

We also moved that Ontario Power Generation—which is running the now-truncated Fair Hydro Plan, or Fair Hydro Trust—should actually have to publish statements about what’s going on there. I heard from one member on the government side, “Well, of course it’s going to be in the notes appended to the financial statements.” I’ve read a lot of financial statements around here over the years, particularly related to energy. Openness is not a given with this; it is not a given at all. Requiring openness is to the advantage of the people of Ontario, and the people in Ontario who are paying hydro bills. That was rejected by this government.

Two other amendments: that “Every year the minister shall publish on a government website,

“(

a) the planned amounts of financial assistance ... with respect to relevant classes of consumers”—because there’s not just homeowners; there are apartment buildings, there are industrial, there are commercial; there are very-large-volume consumers and very-small-volume consumers, so how much money is going to each class;

“(

b) information about how long relevant classes of consumers will continue to receive the financial assistance ... and

“(

c) an updated long-term cost outlook showing the expected impact of the financial assistance ... on the financial position of the province of Ontario.”

These are reasonable amendments. We’re not talking about $100, or the Premier’s trip to New York City. We’re talking about multi-billion dollars per year of consequence, and a lot of sins can be hidden in a one-line statement. What you need, actually, is a full explanation of what’s going on, where the money is going to, where it’s going to come from, and what its impact is going to be in the future. It’s a reasonable thing to ask, and as with all reasonable things, it was rejected.

The last amendment was that there should be no partisan messages on hydro bills. Now, Speaker, I raised that in part because I was here for the Liberals and their partisan messaging. I was here as well when Conservative members in the opposition opposed partisan messaging on utility bills, as they were right to do. As I said at committee the other day, “You spoke against partisan messaging on utility bills when you were in opposition. Now that you’re in power, you can make sure it doesn’t happen in the future. Are you going to do it?”

Doughnuts to dollars, you can win a bet by trying to determine how they voted on this one, because I suspect, Speaker, that you too would have thought, “No, they’re not going to support this.” And you would have been right: They didn’t support it. They liked the idea that the door is left open to partisan messaging on hydro bills in the future. That is a profound problem for us in Ontario, a profound problem.

So, Speaker, I’ve reviewed the amendments and I’ve given you some high-level stuff, but I want to talk about why, in some greater detail, we’re in this mess that we’re in with regard to hydro. What’s the context? I canvassed some of this when I gave my speech in second reading, but the notes hold up well.

First of all, we did have a good hydro system in this province. Prior to Mike Harris, we had one that, overall, was affordable and made a difference to us. At the beginning of the 20th century, there was a huge move, at the centre of which were the industrialists of Ontario, to set up public renewable power—hydro power—as opposed to the coal barons who were trying to flog their power. The coal barons had a really big setback in 1905, when we had the great coal famine in Ontario.

There was a big strike in Pennsylvania, the source of coal for Ontario’s electricity plants, and that was a signal that not only did we need cheap, renewable power, but we needed to have power that we controlled within Ontario. We needed to be free from the hands of those in other jurisdictions. That’s really the heart of what became, initially, a non-profit co-operative, the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario, to provide Ontario industry with the power that would allow it to compete with industry in the United States.

That is why we became an industrial power, because we had access to this low-cost renewable power. Those industrialists were not lefties. They weren’t even Liberals. They were Tories. But they understood that buying wholesale was a lot cheaper than buying retail, and they drove that agenda.

Now, the parliamentary assistant, the member for Markham–Stouffville, when we were discussing this at second reading, talked about our stable, solid electricity system. Well, we did have one until Mike Harris decided to break it up, privatize it and start selling it off. That was a huge problem for Ontario. That was the beginning of the great instability. He decided that the market was the best approach. He took all of the debt out of the nuclear power plants, because he was going to sell those, but he knew that they wouldn’t be competitive if they had to pay for their debt as well. He took the debt away.

People remember the stranded debt on their bills, the debt retirement fund. That was a gift from Mike Harris. That was us paying down that debt.

People were furious at that debt retirement charge. I used to have people come to me and say, “Why am I paying for someone else’s retirement?” And I would say, “No, this is the nuclear debt that Mike Harris put on your bills.” That’s the reality. He privatized Bruce nuclear and turned over the ownership of the Bruce plant to a private company.

Those changes put us into a very difficult position. Don’t forget: Ernie Eves tried to privatize Hydro One. He lost in court on that. He realized it was too close to an election to go ahead, and then we had Dalton McGuinty elected. McGuinty was elected on a platform of stopping privatization, because people understood what had been going on. They understood that this was bad news. But the reality is—and no one in this chamber will be surprised—that Dalton McGuinty took that Mike Harris agenda and just ran with it.

Virtually everything new that was built from 2003—all the gas plants, except for one, the Portlands Energy Center, which is co-owned by Ontario Power Generation—was privately owned.

So we had this ramp-up of profits being sucked out of the system by private companies and a ramp-up of private interest in building more electricity generation than we needed because there were profits to be made. That’s the core of the heart of the hydro mess here in Ontario. But the government doesn’t address any of that, not one iota. If you don’t address those root causes, then you can’t in the end contain the increase in costs.

You know, Speaker, there were a lot of lobbyists in this building during the time when all the gas plants were being built. I can imagine now that in the next few years we’ll see a lot more lobbyists coming back for a lot more construction—no doubt about it, because, again, this government has decided not to actually deal with the fundamental problems that we have with the system.

Dalton McGuinty was followed by Kathleen Wynne, and Wynne made very strong statements that she would never privatize Hydro One. I think Charles Sousa, her finance minister, said that they were going to “sweat” the assets—whatever that means. But the reality was, they set in process the privatization of Hydro One. I remember Andrea Horwath asking Kathleen Wynne, “Are you going to privatize Hydro One?” “No, no. You’re foolish. You don’t know what you’re talking about.” And then—

M me France Gélinas: “Fearmongering.”

Mr. Peter Tabuns: “Fearmongering”—exactly. And that was followed by the sale. I have to say, Speaker, that led to her political demise. It changed people’s sense of who she was. It changed people’s sense as to whether or not her word could be taken as accurate, as true. It changed their sense of what her political orientation was, because she had just decided to continue the Mike Harris-Dalton McGuinty trajectory of turning the whole system over to private hands. Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne just put their foot on the gas when it came to privatization.

So that’s the situation we’re in. Has the government addressed it? Does this government, does the Premier, plan to take Hydro One back into public ownership? No indication of that with this bill, and no indication of that from any speeches that have been made.

When private power contracts come up, will the government be buying them out, saying, “We’re going to take it over so that in future we don’t have to pay profit as part of our hydro bills, and we don’t have to be subjected to lobbyists constantly trying to build more and more generation”? No, no indication of that.

Does this government plan to use conservation to drive down the need for new transmission and distribution lines or generation, the cheapest form of power? No, just like the Liberals, they want to keep conservation on the side. Because the Liberals understood that the more you conserve, the less demand there is for those private power stations. They didn’t want to see a drop in demand. Well, we need to see that drop if we’re going to have affordable prices.

Did this government do a cold business case analysis of the refurbishments at Darlington and Bruce? Did they say that this power will be the least expensive, the most sustainable? They didn’t do those analyses. They relied on the Liberal analysis. I have to tell you, Speaker, I wouldn’t rely on a Liberal analysis of the power system. I don’t know why they do, but I certainly wouldn’t. I certainly didn’t when they were in government, and I’m not going to take it for granted that they were accurate now.

Is the government going to look at importing power from Quebec? I’ve heard rumours that there are some discussions going on between the government and Quebec. We will see if, in the end, they can actually negotiate a deal that’s to our advantage.

But in the end, Speaker, almost all the substantial things that you need to do to bring hydro prices under control are not being done. We’re continuing multi-billion-dollar borrowing with no plan to get out of it, one that is necessary. If you’re actually going to phase out that borrowing, you have to phase in those changes so that people don’t see their bills go up. That’s critical. This government doesn’t seem to understand that.

The Liberals buried their plan, or tried to bury their plan, by putting all of the operations under the balance sheet of Ontario Power Generation. That was very expensive. We opposed that. We opposed that because of the $4 billion extra in cost, in interest, that came from all of that financial shenanigan that they’ve put together. But this plan leaves us on the hook for far more than $4 billion. We’re talking tens of billions of extra costs. That is hugely problematic.

It’s one thing, Speaker, to observe someone who steals from your wallet silently; but then there are people who are brazen and say, “I’m going to steal from your wallet,” and then steal from your wallet. Those who are silent and sneaky are bad, but those who are brazenly stealing from your wallet are equally bad. I don’t think one’s better than the other. I think they’re both grim and they both are a problem.

We’ve got a government that has a short-term focus, is not thinking about where we need to go with hydro, what needs to be done, how we deal with this mess. It’s just playing around the edges. As I said at the beginning, they’re tidying up, they’re topping up all the glasses of gin, they’re driving that Titanic straight toward the iceberg, because there are huge costs involved if you don’t actually come to grips with the issue.

Speaker, because the government has mentioned it many times, I want to mention it as well. The government’s only analysis of what’s happened with hydro prices is that green energy drove up the cost. The reality is, Speaker, when you look at bills, about 15% of our bills is related to green energy. Hydro prices, from 2006 to 2016, went up 100%. Speaker, having bills go up 85% or 90% outside of the green energy program would have provoked a crisis in Ontario.

There are a lot of things going on. We have a huge number of gas-powered electricity plants that produce very little power. They’re being held back for the day when the nuclear reactors are undergoing refurbishment, so we’ve got this huge reserve sitting there. It’s very expensive to keep thousands of megawatts of power largely sitting there. We have power plants just for peaking whose use could be reduced or eliminated if we were to invest enough in conservation. This is not a direction this government wants to go in.

All of these fundamental costs that are there, that are driving up the bills—the privatization, the oversupply of generators—are not being addressed in this bill or, as far as I can tell, in any plan that this government is talking about. This government is not looking for the most cost-effective way of providing electricity to the people of Ontario.

On March 21, the Minister of Energy put out a media release saying that he was going to be cutting—I think his term actually was “refocusing and uploading electricity conservation programs to the Independent Electricity System Operator,” which is a long way of saying “cutting the operations of conservation in this province.”

The Toronto board of trade also spoke out about that. Again, not particularly lefty, not particularly centrist, but in terms of cold, hard numbers, they looked at the attacks on the conservation programs. They wrote:

“Conservation programs

“Bill 87 enables the government to fund conservation programs out of the tax base.... However, the bill’s announcement was accompanied by the cancellation of the Conservation First Framework, with the” Independent Electricity System Operator “taking responsibility for all programs until December 31, 2020. While this provides ... opportunity for increased efficiency in program delivery, it will incur costs and complications in changing the delivery approach. The decision to cut conservation funding in half is also of significant concern.

Conservation is an important resource to meet Ontario’s energy needs and help customers reduce their electricity bills. The board supports efforts to ensure strong value-for-money across all conservation programs, and appreciates a continued focus on serving business customers. However, it is discouraging to see programs that have benefited both customers and the system be eliminated. The board asks the government to publish additional details on the programs that were maintained and those that were eliminated, including cost-benefit ratios.”

Ah, yes, cost-benefit: something that the government said would be done automatically when it came to the Ontario Energy Board. If, in fact, it was done, no numbers have been put out and no assessment has been made public, if one was actually done. So the ability for the public to tell whether or not this was to people’s advantage or not is an open question. The government says it will save many hundreds of millions of dollars over a number of years. The question would be, Speaker, how much will it lose? How much extra cost will be incurred by not doing these conservation programs?

There is a cost, and there is a benefit. If one analysis was done, it has not been made public, which is one of the reasons we tried to amend this act so that an analysis would be done and the public would have an opportunity to see what that analysis was.

The board of trade understands that conservation is vital to containing costs for the system and for individual ratepayers, and this government has recklessly cut those programs. It is a bad move. It makes the mess in hydro worse, not better. It doesn’t fix it.

What’s also of interest is that most of the programs that were cut were those that served middle-class people: programs that helped reduce the cost to install high-efficiency cooling equipment and high-efficiency heating—those things that would reduce people’s energy bills in the long term, help with climate change and reduce demand for new generation, which is always going to be very expensive. Those were the programs that were cut.

One of the things that was also cut was the Business Refrigeration Incentive. That was to help small businesses with refrigeration. In the 1990s, when I was on Toronto city council, I started something called the Better Buildings Partnership. It’s the city of Toronto’s program to provide energy conservation support for commercial buildings. One of the things we looked at was small businesses, corner stores, because their energy costs are really high.

The thing that was striking to us when we actually talked to those people was, they were cash-strapped to the max, so they bought the cheapest refrigeration equipment they could get because that’s all they could afford. They had to have refrigeration to run a store, so that’s what they bought, but they were mortgaged up to the hilt. They could not put in high-efficiency refrigeration equipment. We weren’t in a position to give them a subsidy.

What I learned from that was that if you’re going to help all those small mom-and-pop outfits, you better be prepared to put cash in—which was a program that existed and has now been cancelled.

So if you’re in fact trying to help small businesses with their operating costs, reduce their environmental footprint, reduce the push to burn more gas, which increases climate impacts, you should have been helping them, and yet this program was cut.

The cost of peaking power—the cost of power needed when there’s maximum demand—from gas plants is about 31 cents a kilowatt hour. That’s really pricey. The Independent Electricity System Operator says that you can provide energy efficiency to cut those cooling demands by two to six cents a kilowatt hour. Take your pick. Do you want to pay two to six cents or 31 cents? In terms of businesses and in terms of the system, it’s much better to invest in conservation. That was cut.

They cut back on help for new construction to make new construction more energy efficient. The cheapest point to make a building energy efficient is when it’s under construction. Going back later to fix it up after it has been built is much more expensive. It’s still less expensive than building new generation, but it’s a lot cheaper to help new construction be energy efficient. That was cut.

Speaker, if you avoid making investments in the lowest-cost energy infrastructure, then you are doomed to have to pay the highest cost. That’s the simple reality. So don’t be surprised if prices continue to go up. Don’t be surprised if the $2.5 billion the government is borrowing today goes to $3 billion, to $4 billion, to $5 billion if they continue on without an exit plan that allows a smooth transition to keep people’s bills affordable and end this large-scale borrowing. That is a huge issue.

When you look at the cost of power, you need to look at figures put out by the Independent Electricity System Operator. Most people aren’t familiar with it. It’s a body within Ontario that runs the whole system. They’re the ones who buy power, allocate power, make sure the power gets to all our communities. They’re a critical operation. They looked at the cost of different forms of power. New conservation: two cents a kilowatt hour—really cheap. New wind power: seven cents a kilowatt hour. New natural gas: eight cents a kilowatt hour. New nuclear: 12 cents a kilowatt hour. That’s the system operator for Ontario.

I had the opportunity to look at the remarks from the member for Markham–Stouffville, the parliamentary assistant, after my last speech: “He talks about nuclear. Nuclear is at 6.8 cents. He keeps bringing this phantom 12 cents—17 cents.... Wrong.” Well, I suggest he turn to the Auditor General’s report on the Darlington nuclear refurbishment project, page 130. We were both in public accounts a few weeks ago when the Auditor General made her presentation.

In her document that was on our desks she noted that the rate for power from Darlington in 2019, as approved by the Ontario Energy Board, is 7.7 cents per kilowatt hour. She further noted that Ontario Power Generation has estimated the cost of their power from Darlington at 17.2 cents per kilowatt hour in 2024-25.

Mr. Paul Calandra: What else did she say? Keep going.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Order.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, that was a very large lump for a python to eat—a very large lump.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Order.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: So if he has evidence showing that the Auditor General was wrong, then produce the evidence. If he doesn’t have it, then he should follow the numbers for the Auditor General, because, Speaker, when power hits 17 cents a kilowatt hour, how much are we going to be subsidizing power in Ontario? How much? If he doesn’t read the Auditor General—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I am standing. Stop the clock.

All members have the opportunity to present their arguments, and all members have the opportunity to make questions and comments at the end of that presentation. I look forward to that discussion at that time.

For now, I will return to the member from Toronto–Danforth. The member from Markham–Stouffville will do his best to come to order.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I’ll just take this opportunity now, Speaker, because I can predict what the member is going to say later, and that is that, very simply, the OPG thinks that their price is going to come down from 17 cents after that. I don’t believe it.

Mr. Paul Calandra: That’s what she said.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I don’t believe it. In any event—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): The member from Markham–Stouffville is warned.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: —the whole approach of conservation cuts is not only going to raise hydro prices in future; it’s also going to result in more system privatization. Right now, local utility companies—the Peterborough utility commission; Alectra; Oshawa’s public utility commission; Waterloo’s, Hydro Ottawa, Windsor’s and St. Catharines’s—those utilities have people now delivering conservation programs. What this means is, those people are going to be laid off, and many of them have gotten their layoff notices. The system operator, the IESO, doesn’t staff this sort of work; they contract it out.

So you can be sure that American companies like CLEAResult and Nexant, who are contracted to the IESO, will have more work, but the people in Peterborough, Windsor, Kitchener-Waterloo and Oshawa will have less. They will be laid off. That’s the simple reality.

Speaker, on top of all that, in the past, the IESO would assess the work of the local utilities to see if it actually met the government’s needs. They were the supervisor. IESO won’t have that supervisor in future. That’s a problem. Whether or not they’re delivering on what we need is still an open question, but eliminating a system where you have local people delivering programs supervised by the system operator is a mistake. It’s a further privatization of the system. I’m sure that’s entirely consistent with their approach, with their ideology, but it’s bad for the people of Ontario.

What could the government have done to clear up this mess? What could it have done rather than borrowing $2.5 billion a year? In 2017, the NDP came forward with a plan to reduce hydro prices called Pay Less. Own More. A useful plan—it didn’t require borrowing billions of dollars a year. It didn’t have a plan that would have cramped the financial room for the province of Ontario. It was opposed to the Liberal strategy—which is now the Conservative strategy—of borrowing presumably tens and tens of billions of dollars to deal with the mess, because they won’t go and look at the fundamentals.

This government could have phased out this borrowing and brought in its own plan to reduce hydro costs, and we would be further ahead. But there’s none of that in this bill. None of this is in the bill at all.

We pointed out the opportunity to end mandatory time-of-use billing because, when you look at the IESO and the OEB and their assessment, most people on time-of-use billing would see their bills drop by 10%. And we say: Make it voluntary rather than mandatory because there are a lot of people who work long hours who aren’t home in those peak periods. I leave home early in the morning; I come home late at night. I miss the peak periods. Most of my power is overnight.

I’m happy to stay with time-of-use, but a lot of people—seniors at home all day, people at home because of illness, moms home with young children and occasionally dads home with young children—are using a lot more power in the day and paying a lot more. We said: Bring an end to that mandatory time-of-use.

Start to bring Hydro One back into public hands. At the rate the government is going with undermining the credibility of Hydro One, I’m sure it will be really cheap in a while. Bring it back. Use the profits from Hydro One to pay for the acquisition and ensure that we have a utility that works in our interest, cuts our costs, and isn’t pressing for constantly rising prices to make its investors happy.

We said we would re-establish the transparent, independent public oversight of Hydro One by bringing back the authority of the Auditor General, the Financial Accountability Officer, the Information and Privacy Commissioner, the Ombudsman, the Integrity Commissioner—and we even said the French-language commissioner, which was here until two days ago.

A lot of things have changed, but the reality is, if you’re going to control the system, you have to have substantial public control. This government is not interested. It’s continuing on the Liberal course, making sure that the Liberal agenda of borrowing, privatization and high-cost power is preserved. That is their whole strategy.

I’ll note that with the privatization of Hydro One, Hydro One is now paying federal taxes. That wasn’t the case before. All that money stayed with Ontario. Why on earth would you keep a system where we’re paying the federal government taxes out of people’s hydro bills? Either reduce hydro bills or put the money into public coffers. But because they’re not willing to restore public ownership of Hydro One, we are in a situation that will require us to pay the feds for years to come instead of having the money for our own uses.

Speaker, we propose to cap profit margins. Companies that want to increase rates to cover costs for new investments get to claim the cost of borrowing plus a 5.5% return on equity. In Manitoba, it’s 3%, not 5.5%. I don’t see any of that in this bill. There’s nothing about limiting the profits that can be taken on the system.

There’s no regulation of new generation. That is an opportunity that the government has missed.

Speaker, we had presentations by a communications regulator looking at situations around the world where, in fact, governments had renegotiated private power contracts to reduce costs. And it is not without difficulties, it is not a fast process, but it is a doable process. There’s not a word of that from the government. That was in our party’s energy platform, that renegotiation, so that we got a deal that made sense for Ontarians. It’s not something they want to do.

There is one other thing I want to speak about, and that’s the $2.6-billion tax break that Hydro One was given by the Liberals when the company was privatized—$2.6 billion. The Ontario Energy Board has said, “Oh, a portion of that should go back to the customers.” No, Speaker, 100% of that should go back to the customers. It’s our money. It’s the money of the people of Ontario who pay taxes. Why should it stay with the investors? It should be going back to the people of Ontario.

This government could give direction to the Ontario Energy Board and say very simply, “Tax breaks go to the customers; they don’t go to the investors.” That is not part of this bill. We calculated that having that $2.6 billion put back into the hands of customers would reduce rates by about 3% for four years. That’s consequential. People would appreciate that, but it’s not part of what’s before us.

Speaker, what the Liberals tried to do was bury a political problem in a mound of $20 bills. It was a crazy strategy. It didn’t work for them in the last election. The Conservatives who opposed the Fair Hydro Plan in opposition simply took it on as their own child in the last election, and are perpetuating it now. It is a good thing to be borrowing the money directly rather than through Ontario Power Generation because there is a savings in interest, but there is still a bill that will compound into the tens of billions. That is the critical question, and not one being addressed by this government, not one being addressed by this bill.

Speaker, it’s clear from this legislation that this government is not prepared to take on the issue and not prepared to protect Ontarians in the long run, but is prepared to look after itself in the short run. It was interesting that in the questions and comments after my second reading speech, the member for Kitchener–Conestoga talked about how he thought this bill was wonderful and how it was terrible that the Liberals were going to borrow billions of dollars just to protect themselves politically in the next election, tens of billions of dollars that would be on the backs of their children.

I don’t think the member from Kitchener–Conestoga read his party’s platform, because effectively, this government simply has done the same thing. They’ve decided to borrow tens of billions of dollars in an effort to look good politically and to put off a day when they actually have to deal with hydro system reform not happening.

The other thing that’s really important—and I only have a few minutes—is that the whole of the landscape for electricity is changing. I had an opportunity to speak about a month ago with some local distribution utilities, and they’re working on their rate filings. Typically, they amortize; they spread the cost of things like hydro poles over 40 years.

But they said, “The technology is changing so quickly, we’re not sure if we’re going to have hydro poles in 15 or 20 years.” The reality is that the cost of solar and storage, the cost of energy efficiency, is dropping to the point where there’s a real risk that large numbers of people will drop out of the system. It’s certainly a concern that the head of Quebec hydro has voiced, certainly a concern that senior hydro people have said is in the northeastern United States.

Speaker, the northeastern United States and Quebec don’t have the best solar regime. It is a huge issue in places like Arizona and Hawaii, where there’s a lot of sunshine. Increasingly, utility companies are finding that people just say, “Bills are too high, I’m bailing, and I can afford to do it in my own home.” Government is showing no evidence that they understand where things are going. I remember, in the early 1980s in the Globe and Mail, stories about these new cellular phones that were coming along and a lot of questions as to whether or not cellular phones would catch on or whether it was just a fad.

I notice that, in fact, those who invested heavily in land lines in the 1980s probably didn’t get the return that they were expecting, and those who invested in cellphones did get a great return. Here in Ontario, if we don’t understand that the electricity landscape is changing fundamentally, we are going to be locked into high-priced power that we subsidize at the price of our hospitals, our schools, our child care centres, our infrastructure. This government has decided that’s their agenda; that’s where they’re headed.

I’m sure in questions and comments you will hear all kinds of marvellous and amazing things. For a government that’s not willing to deal with the fundamental problems with electricity, one can fluff off those comments, because they don’t actually speak to the heart of the issue.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Seeing the time on the clock, this House stands in recess until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Chris Glover: It’s my pleasure today to welcome to the House Norm Di Pasquale, the Catholic school trustee from my area; Domenico Paglia from CUPE 3155—he’s the president—and the vice-president of CUPE 3155, Mirella DiPonio.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I have the great privilege of welcoming to the Legislature today a few constituents: Ian Barrett, Sarah Holmes, and their daughter, Taylor. Welcome to Queen’s Park. I look forward to giving you a tour after question period.

Ms. Jill Andrew: It’s my pleasure to welcome all educators, education workers and trustees from the Toronto Catholic District School Board. I would like to give a special shout-out to the trustee from Ward 9, Norm Di Pasquale. Thank you so much for everything you do for students in Toronto–St. Paul’s.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It gives me great pleasure to introduce two good friends of mine from the municipality of Chatham-Kent: the director of economic development services, Mr. Stuart McFadden, and the general manager for the municipality of Chatham-Kent, Mr. John Norton. They’re in the east members’ lobby. Congratulations. Thank you for being here.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Good morning. I’m pleased to share a warm welcome to the students, language instructors, CUPE representatives and trustees from the Toronto Catholic District School Board, including board chair Maria Rizzo, as well as Annalisa Crudo-Perri, president of the Ontario Association of Parents in Catholic Education.

I’m going to list off all of the trustees: Teresa Luiz; Joe Martino; Teresa Lubinski; Ida Li Preti; Norm Di Pasquale; Garry Tanuan; Caroline Morgan Di Giovanni, who’s a former chair of the Toronto Catholic District School Board; and Luca Buiani, chair of the international languages extended day program for the York Catholic board.

Thank you so much for being here. They’re here to see us at work and to promote the important international languages program at the Toronto Catholic District School Board.

Mr. Doug Downey: I’d like to highlight and thank my friend and my colleague, my constituency assistant Duncan McDonald, who has joined us here at Queen’s Park today.

Miss Monique Taylor: It gives me great pleasure to welcome back, once again, Michau van Speyk, Amanda Mooyer, Amy Moledzki and Faith Munoz. Welcome back to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Dave Smith: I’m honoured today to have the privilege of introducing seven members of the Royal Canadian Navy. From Her Majesty’s Canadian Ship York, we have Commander Walter Moniz, Chief Petty Officer Second Class Robert Shirran, Petty Officer Second Class Joan Emode, Sub-Lieutenant Ciara Murphy, Sub-Lieutenant Kevin Vuong, Master Seaman Diego Ortiz and Leading Seaman Angus Ho. Thank you for coming today.

Mr. Faisal Hassan: I would like this afternoon to welcome students from St. Bernard in my great riding of York South–Weston, and also the school trustees of the Toronto Catholic school board, headed by the chair of the board, Maria Rizzo. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Rod Phillips: It’s my pleasure to welcome the family of Trenyce De Gannes. She is the page captain today. Her mother, Martha, and her aunt, Shae, are joining us today. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: I’m proud to welcome students, instructors and educators from Venerable John Merlini and St. Wilfrid’s, as well as all the trustees named who are here in the chamber today. Welcome.

Mr. Vijay Thanigasalam: I would like to welcome my friend the Catholic school board trustee for ward 8, Garry Tanuan. He is also joined by international language instructors from St. Ignatius of Loyola, Hannah Li and Maria Regala; also students James Regala, Andrew Sabarello, Jhastine Villafuerte and Sherrise Funclara. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I am delighted to welcome Jennifer Krische and Brenda Holland, who have travelled to Queen’s Park today from London for the debate this afternoon on my private member’s bill. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Lindsey Park: I’d like to welcome my former law colleague Éliane Lachaîne. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: I’m delighted to welcome Sheryn and Donald Gummer, who are the grandparents of page Caleah, today to question period. Welcome.

Mr. Stephen Crawford: I’m pleased to introduce to the Legislature Mr. Harry Shea, who is vice-president of the Bronte Village Residents Association, from ward 1 in Oakville. Welcome to Queen’s Park, Harry.

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: I’d like to welcome Toronto Catholic school board trustee for ward 4, Parkdale–High Park, Teresa Lubinski. Thank you.

Oral Questions

Municipal finances

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Premier. Municipal leaders across Ontario have been speaking out against the Ford government’s cuts to everything from child care to public health to flood management. Ministers in the Ford government, meanwhile, insist that they want to have a respectful dialogue, but they also state that the cuts will proceed, no matter how reckless and poorly planned they are.

How can the government claim to be having a discussion when it appears that all the decisions have already been made?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Thank you very much, Premier.

I will talk about the municipal issues but I want to pick up on what the member said about a respectful dialogue. We need to address what happened on the lawn yesterday—quite an event took place. The NDP had at least two members at a protest, the member from Davenport and the member from Windsor West. At the same time, mass protesters brought a bloodied guillotine to the grounds of Queen’s Park, and do you know what they did? They beheaded an effigy of the Premier. This is disgusting and it is a sick act that has been condoned by the opposition.

I am asking the members opposite to condemn yesterday’s protests and apologize for their attendance at yesterday’s event. But it’s important to know that this is the real NDP. We have seen it in the attacks against the Minister of Labour’s office and the accosting and attacking of me, resulting in OPP protection for members of our cabinet. They care more about activism and protesting—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. We all know we have free speech in this Legislature. We have certain privileges as members of the Legislature to participate in debates, but the language and the comments have to be considered to be parliamentary.

I’m going to caution the members at the outset that the language has to be parliamentary or we will quickly have to go to warnings and, following that, of course, the option of naming members is within the purview of the Speaker.

We’re going to have a question period today and I hope we can have a reasonable dialogue on the issues facing the province.

Start the clock. Supplementary?

Mr. John Vanthof: Earlier this week, the mayors of Ontario’s 28 largest municipalities pleaded with the province to reverse budget cuts to child care, public health, flood management and more.

Smaller municipalities are speaking up as well. The town of Prescott has called on the province to stop cuts to public health and library services. The mayor of Dryden said his community has been treated like “a financial punching bag for the province.”

This doesn’t sound like people or municipalities who feel respected. Will the government listen to municipal leaders, reverse these cuts and have an actual discussion about how Ontarians are being impacted?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I’d like to refer back to the Premier.

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for her comments. You know, I normally don’t get concerned too much about the activist protests outside on the front lawns of Queen’s Park. We’re here to represent the real people—the real people that can’t afford to take the day off or can’t afford to get paid to go protest, the people that are working in the back of the factories, the people that are working in offices across this province, trying to make ends meet. Those are the people that we’re here for.

But yesterday went a little too far. My friends, any time a politician, no matter what party it is, has a guillotine out there, I think that goes a little too far. As a matter of fact, it goes way overboard. The difference is, that’s what the opposition believes in: supporting folks like that. We support the people that are out in the factories and the offices trying to make ends meet, paying their taxes and wanting services.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock.

Restart the clock. Final supplementary.

Mr. John Vanthof: The sad fact is, the Ford government doesn’t want to hear anything from anyone other than obedience, whether it’s the Acting Premier insisting that she’s not even willing to consider pausing cuts to public health care or the Premier taking out his frustrations on the man who beat him in Toronto’s mayoral elections.

The people of Ontario need different levels of government to work together. Instead, we have one side scrambling to provide everything from school breakfasts to flood protection, and a Premier who seems to ignore their complaints. How does that help the people of Ontario?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: Do you know who got us in this position? The NDP put us in this position and the Liberals put us in this position with a $15-billion deficit, with a $347-billion debt, the largest sub-sovereign debt in the entire world. That’s who put us in this position.

We’re driving efficiencies. We’re putting more money, $700 million more, into education. The Minister of Education is doing an incredible job. The Minister of Health is doing an incredible job ending hallway health care by putting $1.3 billion into health care, making sure that we have 15,000 long-term-care beds. We’re well over 7,000 long-term-care beds.

They worry about jobs. Again, the people in the factories that I was speaking about earlier, these people are working 10, 12 hours a day—a day—trying to pay their taxes, trying to pay their mortgage, trying to put food on their table. That’s what people are concerned about. They want the economy to get going, and that’s what this government is doing by lowering taxes, making sure we create an environment for companies to thrive and prosper and—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Thank you.

Restart the clock. Next question.

Public transit

Ms. Sara Singh: My question is for the Premier. Later today, the Ford government will be tabling legislation to begin their takeover of Toronto’s transit system. The Premier has made it clear that his plan is going ahead no matter how much delay it causes or what anyone else in this province has to say about it. If the province has already made up its mind, what are they hoping to accomplish with their negotiations with the city of Toronto, then?

Hon. Doug Ford: The great Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Jeff Yurek: I thank the member opposite for that question. You know, last June, we won an election based on the fact that we would upload the TTC and expand service for all the people utilizing the TTC in the GTHA, creating a regional, integrated transportation network.

Mr. Speaker, in August we appointed Michael Lindsay as our chief special adviser to negotiate with the city of Toronto on bringing the upload into reality. In February we signed a terms of reference that set out provisions of how we will work together with the city through discussions and how the upload will go forward.

On April 11, we announced a $28.5-billion expansion for the city of Toronto in their subway system. There are a lot of people excited about it. We need to make that happen. Mr. Speaker, the legislation we’re tabling today will enable the government to take over the expansion and growth of the TTC network, and we’re going to continue those talks with the city of Toronto.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Sara Singh: The city of Toronto has actually put forward 61 key questions about the Ford government’s transit plans, including basic requests like how they arrived at their cost estimates and who was paid to prepare them. Has the province answered any of those questions, and if so, when do they intend to share this with the public?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: We are continuing our negotiations with the city of Toronto. Michael Lindsay meets on a regular basis. I have conversations with Mayor Tory. Everything has been positive.

I’m not sure what’s going on with the opposition. They’re a little inconsistent in their messaging. On one hand, they’re saying, “Don’t download things.” On the next hand, they’re saying, “Don’t upload things.” I don’t know where they stand on any issue, Mr. Speaker, other than saying no, no, no to anything this government does towards balancing the budget and delivering great transit projects—historic transit projects—to the city of Toronto.

Mr. Speaker, we are in good conversations with the city of Toronto with regard to the expansions. Minister McNaughton and the Ministry of Infrastructure are in constant talks with the federal government. Hopefully they’ll put the money forward to support our historic expansion of the transit system within this province.

We will continue the discussions with Mayor Tory and his staff, but at the end of the day, the system isn’t working for the riders of the TTC, and we made a pledge to make it better. That’s what we’re going to do.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Final supplementary.

Ms. Sara Singh: The people of Toronto deserve transit solutions that get them out of gridlock. Instead, they have a government that is ripping up plans and is unwilling or unable to answer basic questions as they attempt a hostile takeover of the subway system. Instead of plowing ahead with a scheme that will add costs and delay Toronto’s transit system, why won’t the Ford government stop dismissing the concerns that people are raising in this province and answer some key questions about their plan?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: On April 11, we announced the historic vision that we see for the city of Toronto as we move to expand transit opportunities. The people of Toronto have been waiting decades for the relief line to be built, but it only gets stopped, because there is continual bickering and returning to the table year after year with different councils. They just can’t get it done. The system isn’t working, Mr. Speaker.

What we’re going to do is upload that responsibility to the province, and we’re going to get this job done. We’re going to make the Ontario Line all the way from Ontario Place up to the Ontario Science Centre. We’re going to build subways into Scarborough for the first time ever. Those people have been waiting decades themselves for a subway—not just one stop, three stops. That’s what the people deserve.

We’re going to extend the Eglinton West. We’re going to take it out, underground, into Etobicoke and hopefully join it up with the airport. Finally, we are going to connect Richmond Hill and Newmarket to our subway system. We’re going to get the economy going by getting people moving in this province.

Public transit

Ms. Jessica Bell: Today the Conservative government is introducing its bill to begin the takeover of the TTC, despite the fact that the province is still in negotiations with the city of Toronto regarding the upload. There are numerous outstanding questions that the Premier has refused to answer.

Mr. Speaker, how can the Premier claim to be negotiating with the city in good faith when he is going behind their back to push through this hostile takeover?

Hon. Doug Ford: She didn’t say who it was for.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Is someone going to respond on behalf of the government?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: I’ll do it.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I recognize the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can reiterate what I just answered previously. We’ve been working with the city of Toronto since November, with our special adviser appointed in August, on working towards creating a new partnership between the city of Toronto and the province of Ontario. We both know the current system isn’t working to get subways built in the city, and we’re stuck at gridlock. People aren’t utilizing the transit system like they should because it’s not offering the opportunities for them to go from point A to point B, to get from home to work and back home and be with friends and families. That’s just not happening.

It’s unfortunate that the opposition party is pushing back so hard on this when the people of Toronto, the people of the GTHA, want proper transit. It’s not getting built, unfortunately, and we are able to do it. That’s why we’re working with the city of Toronto through our negotiations, through our terms of reference that we put forward to build and grow the TTC and create the integrated, regional network that the people of Toronto and the GTHA deserve.

It’s going to be great news for the people of Toronto when this is done.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question.

Ms. Jessica Bell: Back to the Premier: Yesterday, the Minister of Transportation admitted that some of the work the city has already completed for the downtown relief line is no longer usable. That means millions of dollars and months of work that went into the planning and developing of that line are essentially being thrown out and replaced with a back-of-the-napkin plan cooked up by the Premier.

We all know what happens when transit plans are ripped up. There are more delays, there’s more uncertainty and it makes it even less likely that transit will be built. How can the Premier justify throwing out the city’s work on the downtown relief line and the delays and additional expenses that are going to result?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: To the Premier.

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the local member from Rosedale: What an insult you just gave to all the bright minds at Infrastructure Ontario—some of the smartest people in the world—saying “back-of-the-napkin.” They came up with the plan. Leading the charge was the Minister of Transportation and MTO—insulting all MTO; insulting everyone at Metrolinx, who could, honestly, Mr. Speaker, run circles around anyone in the opposition when they talk about transit.

They know what they’re talking about. They know what a world-class subway system is. They came up with an incredible plan, and the crown jewel is the Ontario Line, running from Ontario Place up to the Ontario Science Centre, and actually running through a lot of the NDP ridings. I’m sure their constituents would be more than happy to utilize the new subway system that the Minister of Transportation is putting in the GTA.

Flooding

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: My question is for the Premier of Ontario. For over a week now, we have been experiencing floods in many parts of the province, including my city of Ottawa. Our hard-working first responders have been hard at work to prevent damage to communities and homes in coordination with our emergency management partners. Our government understands the impact and severity of the flooding and we take the safety of our communities seriously.

I know that people in my riding of Carleton were reassured to see the Premier visit several of the municipalities currently under a state of emergency, in order to see the conditions first-hand and to assist our hard-working first responders with relief efforts. Through you, Mr. Speaker: Can the Premier please update the House on what measures the province is taking to respond to this ongoing situation?

Hon. Doug Ford: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the great MPP from Carleton, an absolute champion. I was up in Carleton. You want to talk about a popular MPP? When I was up there, I went and visited a seniors’ home, and they love the MPP from Carleton. Incredible job.

Do you know who we love as well, Mr. Speaker? We love the first responders and the military folks. Look at those champions up there—absolute champions. I absolutely love you. You’re one of the best things in the world.

When I was in Ottawa, it was like the cavalry coming over the mountain when we saw the military. They came in. They were sandbagging, helping people, because people in Ottawa were exhausted. I just got off the phone with Mayor Watson, making sure and reassuring him that he has the province’s—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. Supplementary question?

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Thank you to the Premier for that response, and thank you for your kind words and for visiting the care centre.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, while our government is hard at work responding to floods, the opposition continues to fearmonger about the ability of Ontario’s conservation authorities to respond to flood events.

I’d like to read them a quote from Rhonda Bateman, the general manager of the Sault Ste. Marie Region Conservation Authority: “We are not going to cut the maintenance and flood control program. That can’t be done.” Perhaps the member from Thunder Bay–Atikokan was not aware that managing water-related hazards is part of the programs and services conservation authorities are mandated to provide.

Can the Premier please clarify our government’s proposal to make conservation authorities more efficient and effective?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: Again, I want to thank the MPP from Carleton. We went up—

Mr. Paul Miller: Another all-star.

Hon. Doug Ford: They’re all all-stars; you’re right. Unfortunately, you don’t have any.

Anyway, through you, Mr. Speaker: As I mentioned, I talked to the mayor of Ottawa. He appreciates the help from the Solicitor General, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Natural Resources. It’s all hands on deck, no matter if it’s Ottawa. I’m speaking to the mayor of Huntsville—I’m going to be heading up to Huntsville and Bracebridge. I spoke to the mayor of Muskoka Lakes. They’re so grateful for our support.

We’re sparing no expense. As a matter of fact, we’re putting in five million additional dollars to protect the watershed up in Muskoka. Again, I’m travelling up there tomorrow to see first-hand how we’re progressing.

Once again, the first responders and the great military are up in Muskoka working their backs off. We want to thank them. Thank you, thank you, thank you—absolute champions.

Education funding

Ms. Marit Stiles: I want to start by again acknowledging all the amazing education workers and students and parents and trustees from the Toronto Catholic District School Board who are here today.

My question is to the Minister of Education. Mr. Speaker, educational assistants, custodians, clerical workers, library staff and language instructors all play a crucial role in supporting Ontario students and keeping our community schools safe. Yet so far, we have at least 2,500 education worker positions in jeopardy because of this government’s cuts to our schools—and that’s just the beginning.

Will the minister set aside her talking points and admit that the government’s radical changes to class sizes and cuts to programs will mean lost jobs and less support for our students?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. Government side, come to order.

The question is to the Minister of Education.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Well, first of all, I would like to stand in this House and sincerely request the member opposite to absolutely condemn the actions of the protesters yesterday afternoon here at Queen’s Park that she was with.

Interjection: Show some leadership.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I ask her to stand up, show some leadership, show some respect for the institution known as Queen’s Park and show respect for the elected officials in this House.

Her actions have been absolutely disgusting. I feel very strongly that we need to see leadership from this member opposite. She needs to condemn yesterday’s actions, that she was actually out observing and possibly participating in, and quite frankly, she needs to stand up and take responsibility for incenting this type of activity.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Order.

Restart the clock. Supplementary question.

Ms. Marit Stiles: I can see that the minister doesn’t want to answer the question, but I’m going to go back at her again—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. Order.

The member for Davenport has the floor.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is about more than numbers on a balance sheet; this is about the programs and the people who make our schools the absolute heart of our communities. This is about the services and the supports that help our children learn and thrive. But this government’s actions will remove thousands and thousands of caring adults from schools, shutter programs and courses, and leave kids with a bare minimum.

Some of these students and workers are here in the gallery with us today because their international languages program is at risk. They deserve to know, Minister: Will the minister reverse her education cuts and start investing in our kids?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. The member for Mississauga East–Cooksville must come to order. The member for Eglinton–Lawrence must come to order. The Minister of Children, Community and Social Services must come to order.

Start the clock. The Minister of Education to reply.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m sure this is your House. I am sure you were devastated to see what different types of personalities have brought to this institution. To the students who are here in the public galleries today, I hope you understand that this is not the norm. This is not the way it has been in the last eight years that I have been in this House. It is unacceptable—

Interjections.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: —of behaviour that has been happening. But trust that I am going to lead by example. I say this to all of you, because we care about—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to ask the minister to make her comments through the Chair. I’m going to ask the member for Niagara Centre to come to order.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Through you, Speaker, to the people in the audience today in the public galleries and everyone watching: We’re going to get education back on track. We know education is absolutely imperative to enhancing the learning environment in every single classroom in Ontario. We are going to stand by them and make sure that not only the GSN will be appropriately applied to enhance the learning environment in the classroom for teachers and students, we’re going to make sure—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock.

Start the clock. Next question?

Taxation

Mr. Michael Parsa: My question is for the Minister of Finance. In our budget, we made it clear that we’re putting people first. From day one, our government has put the people at the centre of every decision we make. Whether we’re putting more money in people’s pockets by reducing licensing fees, providing relief for child care expenses or giving a tax break to low-income earners, we will always focus on directly improving the lives of the people of Ontario.

Our proposed changes to the estate administration tax reflect this commitment once again. Could the minister please explain how our proposed changes to the estate administration tax put people first and provide support and compassion to Ontario families and individuals?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Thank you to the member from Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill. Last week, we were pleased to join the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing in Brockville to highlight the changes we’re proposing to the estate administration tax.

Our plan to make life easier and more affordable for the people of Ontario starts with giving people relief, particularly in times of worry and grief, when they need it the most. That is why our legislation, if passed, would eliminate the estate tax on estates under $50,000 and provide a tax cut of $250 on all larger estates.

Our proposed changes are about compassion and respect for families and putting people first during a very difficult period in their lives. We intend to provide relief for families during their greatest time of need. Their government should be working for them, especially at this time, not against them.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question?

Mr. Michael Parsa: Thank you to the minister for his response. It’s clear that this is the compassionate thing to do, and the right thing to do. I could not be more proud of a government that is supporting people in their most difficult times.

As part of our plan to put people first, we’re also making it easier for people to interact and work with the government. The current requirements for filing the estate tax are burdensome and unfair. Our government has put forward another step to support families dealing with the death of a loved one. Could the minister please explain how our government intends to make it easier to file the estate tax?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: We intend to make it easier to file estate tax returns by extending the filing deadlines. If passed, our legislation would extend the filing deadline from 90 days to 180 days, so that grieving families will have more time to respond to the death of a loved one. The deadline for filing amendments to the returns would also be extended from 30 days to 60 days.

The last thing a family should worry about after losing a family member is red tape and taxes. Unfortunately, that is something the previous government, backed by the NDP, just did not understand when they changed that. Our proposed changes back would offer compassionate support to families during these very difficult times. We’re also exploring options to include tax relief for charitable donations.

Child care

Ms. Doly Begum: My question is to the Minister of Education. Yesterday, we learned that 44 municipalities out of 47 will have their general allocation funds for child care cut in 2019. General allocation funds pay for the day-to-day operating costs of child care centres and for subsidies to low-income families.

With child care costs spiralling to as much as $20,000 a year for some families, parents are at a breaking point trying to find affordable child care. So why is this government choosing to make cuts to child care that will make life more expensive for families and parents?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Speaker, I absolutely reject the premise that came from the member across the floor because, quite frankly, we’re making life more affordable for parents across this province.

We have to make sure that people watching—through you, Speaker, to everyone watching and listening today: What the member opposite was talking about was one-time funding to clean up a knee-jerk mistake that the former Liberal government made. They increased the minimum wage by 20%. They realized the disastrous impact that that would have on daycares across Ontario, so they had to put a Band-Aid on the gouge they made in daycare through this $50-million fund.

I want to share with you, Speaker, a quote from the Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario: “From what we can tell, the $50 million in fee stabilization support was simply handed to municipal governments, which then were left to develop their own systems for administering it. Not only was the funding stream poorly designed by” the Liberal government, “in many cases, it was extremely poorly delivered by the municipalities involved. So much so”—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. Stop the clock.

Supplementary question. Restart the clock.

Ms. Doly Begum: Back to the minister. Minister, through the Speaker, I think we agree on one thing: The Liberals did have a lot of band-aid solutions. But you’re making it even worse. You’re taking it back even more and making it worse for families and definitely not making it affordable.

The government is also changing cost-sharing requirements for municipalities and eliminating fee stabilization funding. All of these cuts actually add up to $90 million taken from our child care system this year. This government promised parents a tax credit that doesn’t even come close to covering the cost of child care. Then, they eliminate the funding that controls child care fees. Parents deserve so much better than this shell game.

Will the minister commit right now to reversing these cuts and instead choose to invest in our child care for our future?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I would like to share a little bit of advice to the member opposite: Stop the fearmongering because you are losing credibility within the sector. Because the Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario actually said, “It’s important to put this news in the context of the recent provincial budget announcement about the CARE tax credit,” which is going to help 300,000 families. “The CARE tax credit is great news for families. It’s a simpler, more child-centred approach to funding that helps almost every family with young children. It gives parents more choices, with very little added administrative cost, and no municipal red tape.”

People like what we’ve done. Accept it.

Hospice care

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. I want to begin by thanking the minister, the Premier, the finance minister and the government for the support of both the Alliston and Collingwood hospitals in the recent budget. It’s fantastic. Notwithstanding the two questions I’m about to ask you, we are grateful.

Minister, as you know, Hospice Georgian Triangle in Collingwood continues to wait for operational funding for four of their 10 beds. These four beds have been sitting idle, at the direction of the LHIN, and are not allowed to be used even if the hospice wants to fund the beds themselves. Minister, does the government have any plans to fund these empty beds? If not, can you please explain to my constituents why that can’t be done at this time?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I thank the member very much for the question. I want to assure the member and all Ontarians that our government is committed to supporting high-quality palliative and end-of-life care services for anyone in Ontario who needs it.

These services are provided by people across the province in hospitals, hospices, home and community care settings, long-term care and other places. That is why we were very proud to announce last year that our government is investing $33.6 million to move forward with 193 new hospice beds across the province, which includes over $20 million annually for annual nursing support and other support services that are required.

The specific question that you’ve asked me about, I understand, is still under discussion with the ministry. We will continue those discussions and we will have an answer for the people of your riding very shortly.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Thank you very much to the minister.

Minister, Matthews House Hospice in Alliston sent you a cost-saving analysis back in January to show the overall savings that investments in hospice care can have, particularly with respect to community services. Matthews House Hospice not only provides residential care, as you know, for people at the end stages of life; they also provide community programs to help those who are not able to go to hospice. This can include things like pain and symptom management and expanded pediatric and mental health supports.

The hospice wants to do more. Will the government provide the additional funding so that the hospice can provide more community services?

Hon. Christine Elliott: There is no question that hospice care or home care that can be provided in a home for palliative and end-of-life services is certainly more cost-effective than a stay in hospital. It’s also more patient-centred. That’s what we’re doing with our transformation, with our modernization of our health care service—to make sure that we centre care around the patients, families and caregivers. That’s what we want for people who are ending their last days—to be able to be in a non-clinical-care setting, a home-like setting as much as possible, if not in their own home with their family and friends around them.

I want to really thank everyone who works in our hospices and the many wonderful volunteers who come forward to help them for their exemplary care. They go to great lengths to make sure that people can spend their last days in comfort with the things that are most familiar surrounding them, including especially, of course, their families.

We will continue those discussions with respect to those additional hospice beds in your community.

Autism treatment

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Honourable Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

We inherited a broken Ontario Autism Program that left 23,000 children languishing on a wait-list. A further 2,400 children were waiting for a diagnostic assessment through Ontario’s five diagnostic hubs. Throughout it all, we have listened to families who asked for additional enhancements, and we will continue to listen, as our motivation has always been to ensure that every child with autism receives support from their Ontario government.

Can the minister please tell the House how our government is listening and acting to better support all children with autism?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I want to say thank you to the member opposite from our party, who has been a strong advocate for the people of his community, particularly for children with autism.

Speaker, as you’re aware, my primary motivation has been and always will be to clear the 23,000 children who are languishing on a wait-list and get that cleared so that they can get support from their Ontario government.

Three out of four children were not receiving support. That’s why we doubled our investment into the diagnostic hubs and we provided choice for what parents want to use in terms of supports for their children.

Last night, over 400 people participated in a telephone town hall to tell us how we can best approach a needs-based system with an additional $300 million that was provided to us through the treasury and by our Premier. We have also over 600 people who have already applied to our online survey at ontario.ca/autism. And next week I’ll be appointing an expert panel who will work directly with me and provide advice on how we can have the best Ontario Autism Program in the province’s history.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question?

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: Thank you, Minister, for affirming your commitment to listening and taking action to support families of children with autism.

Minister, since day one, you have been working tirelessly to support all families of children and youth with autism. Your work has reformed the Ontario Autism Program to provide funding directly to parents to choose the services that are right for them. I am pleased to know that a full list of eligible services is now available online and has been expanded to include speech-language and occupational therapies.

I will continue to seek input from families in my riding of Mississauga–Erin Mills to help inform additional enhancements to the Ontario Autism Program.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister please explain why the government launched those consultations, starting off yesterday?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Speaker, I’m very proud that we were able to not only increase the investment from $256 million to $321 million but then add an additional $300 million so that we could go to a needs-based system and consult with the people who matter most. That’s moms and dads, clinicians and those who work in the field. That’s why next week I’ll be appointing the expert panel. I’ll continue to work with the Minister of Education and the Minister of Health as we leverage a whole-of-government approach to support those with autism in the province of Ontario.

Last week, I was in Saskatoon with provincial, federal and territorial ministers of social services and children, and I added my voice to a call for a national autism strategy. But I’m really looking forward to additional town halls. We do have one coming up for northern and rural communities as well as for francophone communities. I encourage all parents who have children on the spectrum to participate in these telephone town halls, and I invite all MPPs, regardless of political affiliation, to participate as well with their own round tables.

Government spending

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Premier. Earlier this week, the Premier and Minister of Finance took their partisan entourage down to New York City, all expenses paid by the public. When pressed about this issue, both the Premier and the minister refused to reveal who exactly went on the trip and how much it actually cost the people of Ontario.

If the Premier is so sure that his expenses on this trip are above board, why does he continue to stonewall the actual media and hide the costs from this Legislature?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Thank you, Premier, and thank you very much for representing Ontario so very, very well in New York City this week. It was an absolute honour to join you in New York. I know the investors and the companies that are hoping to move to Ontario heard the positive message that you delivered at all of the meetings that we had: that Ontario is open for business and open for jobs.

In fact, over the course of the last two weeks, Ontario, which has our bonds out in the marketplace, brought in $4.6 billion of the $36 billion that we need in our bonds. Fascinatingly, half of that money was in US dollars. This is a huge success for the province of Ontario. They are thrilled with the fact that Ontario is open for business and open for jobs. They told the Premier and I, “We haven’t heard a solid message like that from Ontario in 15 years.”

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Those investors also value a strong public education system and a strong health care system, which you are currently undermining.

The yet untold costs of this trip are just the latest in a pattern from this Premier of using public dollars for his personal priorities, all while claiming that the province can’t afford to provide essential services to Ontarians in need. The Premier claims that we don’t have enough money to fund flood prevention in the midst of record flooding, that we can’t keep teachers in classrooms and that we have to start charging people for health care coverage. But when he spends public money on himself, he thinks Ontarians don’t deserve transparency or accountability. If the Liberals did this, you would be crying out loud.

Interjection.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Listen, you owe the people of this province the facts on these issues.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Government side, come to order.

Start the clock. Response?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: We are borrowing $36 billion this year so that we can have the money to put into health care and have that money to put into education. That’s why we need to continue. Between 20% and 30% of all of that money has to come from outside of Canada, Speaker. I can tell you that they heard a message that we are transforming. We are modernizing. We are digitizing government. They heard the story of how you can go online now and get your driver’s licence and get your health card. They saw that we’re saving $33.5 million by doing that.

They heard that we’re saving four cents on every dollar—and, as it turns out, we’re saving almost eight cents on every dollar. They absolutely love the fact that we’re returning $26 billion in relief to families, through child care programs and through low-income tax incentives. They said to us the situation is better now in Ontario than it was 10 months ago.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Order.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Show us the money.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Member for Waterloo, come to order.

Restart the clock. Next question, the member for Niagara West.

Taxation

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: My question is for the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. Speaker, despite the people of Canada making it clear in multiple provincial elections that they can’t afford more new taxes, the federal government moved ahead with their Trudeau carbon tax, a tax that’s going to raise the cost of everything. The Trudeau Liberals may claim that their new tax will, in turn, put more money back in people’s pockets. Well, Speaker, let’s be very frank: Anyone who tries to say that taking a tax will put more money in your pocket should have you thinking twice.

It’s been a full month since the imposition of the Trudeau carbon tax. I’m wondering if the minister can tell the House what the true cost of the Trudeau carbon tax is?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member from Niagara West, thank you for the question and thank you for the great work you do representing your constituents.

The federal Liberals have gone to a great extent to say two things and to try to convince Ontarians of two things. One is that the only way to fight climate change is with a carbon tax, and we know that our made-in-Ontario climate plan proves that is not true. The second is that a carbon tax will make people better off financially. Mr. Speaker, we learned some more about that this week. The federal Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that the Trudeau carbon tax will take $6.2 billion out of the pockets of the people of Canada and confirmed that 90% of that is going to come from individuals, from families, not from big polluters.

The PBO’s findings—the PBO in his interview, when asked how we know that money will go back to the people Ontario, to the people of the provinces, said, “We just have to trust the Liberals.”

Mr. Speaker, this is a party in Ottawa that promised the budget would be balanced by this year. There are 18 billion reasons not to—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Thank you to the minister for his answer.

Listen, Speaker: Many of my constituents already struggle day to day with the cost of living, even before this tax came into effect. Now it’s going to be even harder for them to make ends meet. This tax jeopardizes the future of our economy and our families’ prosperity. I am happy to be part of a team that puts the people of Ontario first with every decision that we make.

Speaker, my question to the minister is whether or not this tax is going to hit our families where it hurts the most. We see already the cost of gas is rising, the cost of home heating, the cost of food. Can you explain to the people of Ontario how much this carbon tax will really cost them?

Hon. Rod Phillips: I thank the member for his question. Let’s be clear: The carbon tax will raise the cost of everything. The Parliamentary Budget Officer—and I’m quoting him here and I want to get it right—confirmed that a lot of the burden is going to fall on final consumers and households, 90% of the burden. Families and seniors on fixed incomes will have to pay more to heat their homes. We’ve already talked about $27 million of costs for hospitals, $20 million for colleges and universities, $3.4 million for security services like the OPP and the people who support us.

Mr. Speaker, Ontario doesn’t need the Trudeau carbon tax. We have a made-in-Ontario plan that will make sure we hit the targets the Prime Minister set. We’re at a 22% reduction in emissions now. We’ll get to 30% and we’ll get there without Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax.

Health care funding

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Speaker, this week the minister said that when her government removes out-of-country OHIP coverage, Ontarians should simply get their own insurance. She stated that this can be purchased very inexpensively to cover medical needs.

Well, Speaker, Cathy Du Val lives in London West and contacted me to say that she can’t get private insurance. She has renal failure and, like many people with chronic kidney disease, she requires hemodialysis three days a week. She said there are no insurance companies in Ontario that provide coverage for hemodialysis because of a pre-existing condition.

Why is the minister forcing Cathy and others like her to pay entirely out of pocket for health care services if they must travel out of country?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I am certainly very sorry to hear about Cathy’s situation. However, I think it’s also important to be honest with the people of Ontario about what this program, first of all, costs and the level of coverage they would be getting. This is a program where a third of the cost of the program was spent on administration. That’s not good value for taxpayers. That’s not good value for anybody in Ontario.

The other issue to be considered here is that this poor woman has a significant condition and she would only receive, under the existing program, $400 in coverage. If she had a significant issue while she was out of the country, she would have thousands more in costs that would not be covered.

It is really important that we speak honestly to people of Ontario about what would have been covered and what would not have been covered. That $400 is nothing compared to the costs that this woman could receive if she were having to be treated outside of the country.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Windsor West has to come to order.

Supplementary question.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Refusing to reimburse out-of-country dialysis creates yet another hardship for people with kidney disease who are struggling to maintain some semblance of normal life. The Kidney Foundation of Canada says that eliminating out-of-country OHIP claims will literally handcuff dialysis patients to their machines, preventing them from travelling for personal, professional or emergency reasons.

The Canada Health Act guarantees that every Ontarian should have access to publicly funded health care, whether they are at home or temporarily outside of Canada. Will the minister abandon her callous plan to deny OHIP coverage to Ontarians when they travel out of country?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Government side, come to order.

To the minister to reply.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Mr. Speaker, through you, I would say to the member opposite that we need to be realistic about this situation. If someone has a dialysis issue, they need to receive dialysis treatment several times a week. It’s difficult for them to travel in any event, and the coverage they would receive under this existing program would be nothing compared to the cost it would actually cost them.

We have to be honest with the people of Ontario and not give them false hope that when they travel, they’re going to have every single cost covered, when it’s only $400. To someone with significant renal problems needing dialysis, there’s a real concern that there might be something that goes wrong when they’re travelling. It’s difficult to travel and do dialysis. I acknowledge that. But to suggest that $400 is going to make a difference and allow them to travel—that is giving people absolutely false hope, and I am not going to do that. I have a responsibility as Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, and I’m going to fulfill my responsibility to the people of Ontario.

Government services

Mrs. Amy Fee: My question is for the Minister of Government and Consumer Services. This past Tuesday, the minister announced our government’s digital plan for simpler, faster, better services. The goal of this plan, he explained, is to modernize government services to improve service delivery. I know that the constituents in my riding of Kitchener South–Hespeler are very happy to hear this. Many of my constituents have had to deal with delays in birth certificate processing or have complained about how few services are available online.

Our government is dedicated to putting people back at the centre of everything we do, and I know that this act will do just that. Could the minister update this House on how this plan will improve service delivery for all Ontarians?

Hon. Bill Walker: I want to thank my honourable colleague the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler, Amy Fee, for her great work on behalf of her constituents and for this question.

Ontarians are used to banking and shopping online, making restaurant reservations and buying movie tickets on our phones. We’re used to this because business recognized long ago that bringing services online better meets customer needs.

Unfortunately, this is not the case for Ontario. For far too long, out-of-date, overly bureaucratic processes reduced the quality of service delivered to the people of Ontario. As part of our 2019 budget, our government introduced the Simpler, Faster, Better Services Act, which, if passed, would significantly improve how government works, its digital outlook and the services it delivers to the people and business of Ontario.

Digital First does not, however, mean digital-only. What we’re doing is expanding access to meet people’s expectations for service delivery across the province. Mr. Speaker, Ontarians have been living in the digital age for a while now. It’s about time our government did the same.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question.

Mrs. Amy Fee: Thank you to the minister. I’m certainly looking forward to voting in favour of the Simpler, Faster, Better Services Act, and I know my constituents are very excited to see that provincial government services will actually enter the 21st century. As the minister rightly said, far too many Ontarians are inconvenienced by the lack of online services. I