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

May 8, 2012

40th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2012-May-08 (PDF)

L049 - Tue 8 May 2012 / Mar 8 mai 2012

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 8 May 2012 Mardi 8 mai 2012

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO ELECTRICITY SYSTEM

OPERATOR ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ

D’EXPLOITATION DU RÉSEAU

D’ÉLECTRICITÉ DE L’ONTARIO

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MINISTER’S COMMENTS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

JOB CREATION

JOB CREATION

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

AGGREGATE EXTRACTION

CONSUMER PROTECTION

CHILDREN’S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

CONSUMER PROTECTION

HEALTHY SCHOOLS

CONSUMER PROTECTION

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

PENSION PLANS

MINISTER’S COMMENTS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

MYALGIC ENCEPHALOMYELITIS ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

EGG FARMERS OF ONTARIO

BRUCE TRAIL

OOSTER HOUSE

UNION CERTIFICATION

HEALTHY EATING

MYALGIC ENCEPHALOMYELITIS ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO

J.L. JORDAN CATHOLIC SCHOOL

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

DEFENDING EMPLOYEES’

RIGHTS ACT (CERTIFICATION

OF TRADE UNIONS), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA DÉFENSE

DES DROITS DES EMPLOYÉS

(ACCRÉDITATION DES SYNDICATS)

HEALTHY DECISIONS

FOR HEALTHY EATING ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 FAVORISANT DES CHOIX

SAINS POUR UNE ALIMENTATION SAINE

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AND INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT (ALTERNATE

INSURANCE PLANS), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SÉCURITÉ PROFESSIONNELLE

ET L’ASSURANCE CONTRE

LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

(RÉGIMES D’ASSURANCE

CONCURRENTS)

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

AND ANIMAL PROTECTION /

PRÉPARATION AUX SITUATIONS D’URGENCE ET PROTECTION

DES ANIMAUX

PETITIONS

WATER QUALITY

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

RADIATION SAFETY

TAXATION

SCHOOL FACILITIES

REGULATION OF HEALTH PROFESSIONALS

AIR-RAIL LINK

RADIATION SAFETY

WIND TURBINES

TOURISM

RADIATION SAFETY

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

OPPOSITION DAY

JOB CREATION

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO ELECTRICITY SYSTEM

OPERATOR ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ

D’EXPLOITATION DU RÉSEAU

D’ÉLECTRICITÉ DE L’ONTARIO

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 3, 2012, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 75,

An Act to amend the Electricity Act, 1998 to amalgamate the Independent Electricity System Operator and the Ontario Power Authority, to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 and to make complementary amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 75, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1998 sur l’électricité pour fusionner la Société indépendante d’exploitation du réseau d’électricité et l’Office de l’électricité de l’Ontario, modifiant la Loi de 1998 sur la Commission de l’énergie de l’Ontario et apportant des modifications complémentaires à d’autres lois.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I will be sharing some time with—

Applause.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Well, thank you. Thank you, House leader.

I will be sharing some of the time with my deputy critic from Huron–Bruce.

Speaker, I rise today to address the second reading of the Ontario Electricity System Operator Act, 2012, which amends the Electricity Act to allow for the merger of the Independent Electricity System Operator and the Ontario Power Authority.

Upon first reading last week, I expressed my doubts about the claims regarding the anticipated savings the minister expects to achieve through this legislation and said that it would actually do little to address the real problems within Ontario’s electricity sector. This bill merely tinkers with the edges, and it certainly doesn’t bring any relief to Ontario families, seniors or small businesses.

But now, as I have had time to digest the full scope of Bill 75, it is my opinion that not only is this a very bad bill, but there are very ugly aspects, as it strips a great deal of information that is public now, and only seems to enhance the culture of secrecy this government has become famous for.

This legislation is a $25-million excuse to put more power in the hands of the minister and put the minister and his closely guarded agency above scrutiny. We all know how that has played out with regard to the Samsung deal and the Ornge scandal, and we know about the Ontario Power Authority when it comes to being less than transparent and cooperative. For example, we’re still waiting to see what the costs are, related to the cancellation of both the Oakville and Mississauga power plants, which, some have estimated, put it in the billion-dollar range.

I’d like to get back to some of the comments the minister made in his opening remarks on second reading of Bill 75, Speaker, but first I’d like to take us on a little trip down memory lane. Sitting in the mayor’s chair in North Bay for seven years afforded me plenty of opportunity to interact with provincial politicians. I raised an eyebrow a few years ago when I first heard an MPP use the expression “dirty coal” at a non-energy announcement. Then I noticed that each Liberal MPP had worked that phrase into their speeches regardless of the topic.

As a lifelong marketing executive, I quickly realized they were trying to deflect the fact that it was the Conservatives who actually announced the closing of coal plants in Ontario. The Liberals in fact have failed to ever close a coal plant, but it makes a great sound bite, and the Liberals continue to suggest that wind and solar have replaced coal, something not even one person in the energy sector would ever agree to. We’ll talk about that a bit later. But this facade that wind and solar will replace coal paved the way at that time for a new program entitled the Green Energy Act.

Now, Speaker, the stated purpose was to “green” Ontario’s energy sector through conservation and renewable energy generation, an admirable goal nonetheless. To ensure the GEA promotes the desires of the alternative power industry ahead of the needs of Ontario businesses, electricity consumers and families, the government removed all municipal planning powers over the development of renewable energy generation. Now, we have one of these that’s starting in my own riding of Nipissing, Speaker, in the community of Powassan, just south of North Bay. The council there has seen exactly how their hands are tied, but again, we’ll talk a bit about that in a moment.

Speaker, when you neutralize the municipality, which is the public’s only forum to fight a rezoning; when you toss around phrases like “dirty coal,” which stifles naysayers; and put a green label on it, which minimizes the opposition, then you’ve got a perfect storm for procedural abuses, failed fiscal oversight and a gross misuse of taxpayer dollars.

I’ve spent the last seven months meeting with industry stakeholders from all sides and from every aspect of energy production. I’ve been assessing the Ontario energy sector for these last seven months, and it will be no surprise to anyone who pays a hydro bill that I believe the Green Energy Act to be a complete and utter disaster.

So how did we get here, Speaker? Well, communities have been forced to accept wind and solar farms, which are paid some of the highest subsidies in the world to generate power the province simply does not need. Then we pay the US and Quebec hundreds of millions of dollars to take our excess power, so energy prices skyrocket and force companies to close or move. The more companies move away, the less demand we have and the more surplus energy we pay to export and the endless downward spiral continues.

This government created the Green Energy Act with the stated purpose being to “green” Ontario’s energy through conservation and renewable generation. To achieve this, Speaker, the government removed—I repeat, removed—all local municipal planning powers over development of renewable projects.

But the real reason wasn’t so much to do with local city councils. By taking away the municipality’s power, the only opportunity for organized public hearings was also removed, and that is the underlying reason and that’s the real shame in all of this. So while a community may need a public zoning meeting to site a Tim Hortons, for instance, none is required to put a 500-foot-high steel wind turbine almost immediately next door.

The Liberals then also introduced the FIT subsidy, which pays unbelievably high fees to wind and solar producers—

Interjection.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: It’s a very good deal on the receiving end. Our leader, Tim Hudak, calls it the new gold rush, and I believe he’s incredibly accurate and insightful in calling it the new gold rush.

But the Liberals also granted wind and solar producers guaranteed access to the electric grid, and that’s where the real problem started. So not only do they pay an unbelievably high price, but they guarantee that whenever wind is produced, it will be bought and placed on the grid.

To accept that energy, which often comes at times we absolutely don’t need it—the wind blows predominantly at night—the government stops making some of our traditional energy. So they allow water to flow—to spill, actually—over Niagara Falls and through the run of rivers without capturing the power. Now, this is over generators that we’ve already paid for, generation facilities that sit idle for those periods, that we’ve already paid for. We allow that water to simply spill and be wasted. They also abruptly shut down nuclear plants and allow the steam to vent outside instead of powering a turbine.

So they’re spilling water, they’re venting steam and they’re draining jobs. These are very costly solutions to accommodate wind.

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s the spill, vent and drain plan.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: It’s the spill, vent and drain plan. There are a couple more plans coming up you’ll hear about.

These are very costly solutions to accommodate wind and solar, and I’m quite certain that when my colleague from Huron–Bruce arrives, she will give her 15 minutes of explaining what this has done in her riding.

To carry on with the story, spilling water is the cleanest, greenest, most reliable renewable form of energy. Spilling that water cost the province $300 million last year, in allowing that water—that clean, green, reliable, renewable water—to spill through the run of rivers and over Niagara Falls without capturing it—$300 million.

Our nuclear plants as well are not designed to accommodate variable wind generation. That means when the wind blows, we buy the power and we shut off one of the nuclear facilities, which we’ve done on many occasions. When you shut a nuclear plant down, much like a rocket launch sequence, it takes about two to three days to return to service. The head of the IESO commented not long ago that these shutdowns could indeed become regular occurrences, with the increasing frequency of periods where Ontario has surplus power.

The feed-in tariff program pays out massive subsidies for wind and solar contracts to produce power we don’t need. This continues to drive up the cost of electricity. Costs rose 26% between 2008 and 2010. Last Tuesday, families opened their hydro bill to find a new shock, and that shock was in the bottom line of their very hydro bill, which is now projected to rise 46% by 2014.

Even the Premier knew what would happen next. While serving as energy critic in 1991, he stated, “I am not going out on much of a limb when I say there is a direct correlation between Hydro’s rates and our rate of unemployment in Ontario.” And he went on to say, “As the rates go up, so will the rate of unemployment.”

Well, as a result of skyrocketing energy prices, the Premier was absolutely correct—far-sighted, some may even say—because manufacturing plants, forestry mills and mineral processors closed or moved to where they found cheap power.

Let me review once again what exactly happens. We pay these FIT operators exorbitant fees to make power we don’t need, and we make power we don’t need at times we don’t need it. Wind blows heavier in the evening. It’s just a matter of science, where the ground is cool. It’s a long process. Nonetheless, because we end up guaranteeing to take that wind power at times we don’t need it, we spill $300 million worth of water over Niagara Falls, we spend $420 million to pay the States and Quebec to buy our power cheaply, and we spend tens of millions of dollars every time we have to shut down a nuclear plant.

It was about $1 billion last year. It’s another billion-dollar boondoggle, to use one of our words.

But let’s see what this did to one specific company. Let’s bring it to a real name here, now. I’m going to talk about Xstrata Copper in Timmins, Ontario—formerly of Timmins, Ontario. Xstrata Copper was the single largest user of power in all of Ontario. With the high cost of energy, and energy being the single largest input to their cost, they let 670 employees go and moved across the border into Quebec for cheap power—power that, freakishly, we paid Quebec to take from us. “Take it off our hands. We don’t need it. We made too much. We can’t store it.

Take it off our hands and sell it to one of our own companies at a lower price so they’ll leave Ontario.” It’s a vicious, vicious circle. Not only did it cause 670 employees in Ontario to lose their jobs, and cause that company to move out of Ontario into Quebec; there were about 4,000 people, by the government’s own admission, in the supply chain to Xstrata who are also now gone.

That, of course, has created a jobs crisis in Ontario. We lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs in recent years, which, of course, has resulted in even lower demand for hydro. So now we manufacture—we create—even more power than we need, and because you can’t store electricity, as I said, we end up paying the United States and Quebec to take that even greater amount of surplus power off our hands. We’ve paid them $1.8 billion over the last six years, $420 million in the first 10 months of 2011 alone.

You wonder, when will the cycle end? These industries are using that cheap power that we’ve given them to compete even harder and more successfully against our manufacturers, and as I mentioned, the downward spiral continues.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Stop the madness.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Well, it’s hard to stop the madness, and I can tell you why: because this problem hasn’t really sunk into the GTA yet, because there are no wind turbines in their own backyards. However, last week, the effect of wind turbines hit them in their front door, and that’s when they opened their mailbox and saw that their hydro bill had skyrocketed again. So while it hasn’t hit their backyard, it has hit their front door, and now the GTA is awakening to the fact that something’s wrong with our hydro sector. A few more of those surprises in their hydro bills and the GTA folks will actually realize that this damage has caused them and their families great hardships.

Auditor General Jim McCarter delivered a scathing indictment of Dalton McGuinty’s energy policy at the end of last year. He told us in there that the FIT program loses two to four manufacturing jobs for every green job that’s created. He found that wind generators operate at 28% capacity and that wind output is out of phase with electricity demand. I’ve mentioned earlier that wind blows at night, when we don’t need that extra power.

Solar generators, he also told us, operate at just 13% capacity, and the FIT program, with its overly generous payments, will cost taxpayers $4.4 billion more than the previous standard offer.

In 2010, wind and solar accounted for 1,700 megawatts, and the target for this government is for wind and solar to produce 10,700 megawatts by 2018. We’re at 1,700 today; we’re going to 10,700 in a few years, so the very problem that has sent our hydro bills skyrocketing and gutted our manufacturing sector is about to get six times bigger.

The Auditor General is not alone in his concerns and his realization that something is rotten in Denmark. Here are some of the recent worldwide headlines: “Arrivederci Solare! Italy Cuts Solar Subsidy;” “Dutch Pull Plug on Wind Subsidies;” “UK Solar Subsidies Slashed;” “Germany Slashes FIT;” and “Spain Halts Renewable Subsidies to Curb $31-Billion Debt.”

Dr. Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace, told a gathering of farmers in southwestern Ontario—your neck of the woods, Lisa—

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: My neck of the woods; that’s right.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: —that the wind power industry is “a destroyer of wealth and negative to the economy.” He said that, Rick, in the Chatham Daily News—your neck of the woods—on January 5, 2012. Let me repeat that. This is the co-founder of Greenpeace. He said the wind power industry is “a destroyer of wealth and negative to the economy.”

Mr. Rick Nicholls: He said that at Ridgetown college.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: He went on to say at the Ridgetown college that wind farms are “ridiculously expensive and don’t work half the time”—the co-founder of Greenpeace.

Now, let’s bring it a little closer to this Legislature. George Smitherman, former Liberal energy minister and architect of the Green Energy Act, spoke out, calling for the prices paid for FIT contracts to be adjusted, and said perhaps municipalities should not have been cut out of the picture after all. Well, at the launch of the Green Energy Act he said, with much fanfare, how great this program was going to be and it could lead to a modest increase in electricity bills of about 1% annually.

He should repeat that to the 670 former workers at Xstrata Copper in Timmins and the 600,000 men and women who are out of work throughout Ontario, because we all know that the cost Ontarians paid for electricity went up an average of 9.8% last year. Without an immediate cancellation of the FIT program, look to that to continue again, as we saw last Tuesday. The total cost of power was 7.1 cents a kilowatt hour, up from 6.52 cents in 2010, and while the government keeps saying that wind is needed to replace coal, that’s clearly not what’s happening in Ontario.

There’s a reduction of coal use from 2010, but it’s not being replaced by wind energy. That hole is being filled by other power sources.

Let’s look carefully at the makeup of power in Ontario. First, in 2002, clean, green, reliable, renewable water power accounted for 25.5% of our power in Ontario. Today it accounts for 22.2%; that’s down just over 3% of the power we use. Wind, coincidentally, accounts for 3% of our power. Clearly, wind has replaced water power in Ontario.

On the other hand, coal is down from accounting for 24.7% of our power in 2002—we’ll thank our former colleague Elizabeth Witmer for that—to 2.7% of our power today, a drop in ranking of 22%. Now nuclear use is up 14%; gas is up 18%—a total of 22%. Coal has been replaced, dot for dot, by nuclear and gas. So I ask you to please quit the PR charade. Wind has not replaced coal in Ontario, and anybody who says that sounds foolish.

But now that the facts are out, it would be nice if we all tried to at least stick to the facts. One of the ugly facts is another phrase called “global adjustment.” Look for those two words on your hydro bill. Simply put, global adjustment covers the spread between the market price and the guaranteed price paid to generators; as well, it pays for conservation programs. Speaker, this will be the hottest topic in business—for those businesses that survive—for the next couple of years. One North Bay manufacturer showed me that their global adjustment, which was virtually non-existent in 2009, is now $1,700 a month.

This is a small business in North Bay that makes the famous Sportspal canoes and others—$1,700 a month. Their electricity bill is only $1,400 a month, but their global adjustment, non-existent a couple of years ago, is now $1,700 a month. This is going to cause more Ontario manufacturers to close up shop and move to cheaper locales, as we saw Xstrata Copper do.

In March of this year, the vice-president of PGI Fabrene Inc., John Spencer, was my guest here in the Legislature during question period. Fabrene is North Bay’s largest private sector manufacturer, the last branch plant of a large US multinational. They have 250 employees and produce industrial fabrics. Now, just two years ago the global adjustment charged to Fabrene from North Bay Hydro was just about 5% of their bill. It was a big number, but not a number that caused their eyebrows to raise. Today, it is a staggering $75,000 per month. Yes, that’s $1 million a year in global adjustment, an item that was not on their hydro bill only a few years ago.

I’m looking at some shocked faces here. Perhaps in all the spin we get in this Legislature, we’ve failed to realize that there is a thing now called global adjustment, and we have a company in North Bay that’s paying $1 million a year over the failed energy plan. When you go home to your ridings, ask your business community their single biggest concern right now. I’m betting you’re going to hear it’s hydro, and when you dig deeper with them you’re going to hear those two words: global adjustment.

We haven’t heard the end of it because, although we know that in its first year of existence employers paid $700 million in global adjustments, the Auditor General in November told us that global adjustment is about to increase tenfold, to $8.1 billion in 2014. You’re shaking your heads in disbelief. I can appreciate that. This is under the radar. One North Bay company, $1 million, from zero, and the Auditor General has told us it is going to become 10 times bigger. Wake up. Quite simply, the failed energy plan is bankrupting businesses, costing Ontario thousands of jobs.

But, Speaker, the hits just keep on coming to Ontario families and businesses. We haven’t even begun to talk about smart meters. The Independent Electricity System Operator has filed an application asking the Ontario Energy Board to implement a new charge to recover the cost of the $250-million central computer system to store and process smart meter data. The IESO says it is seeking to recover costs for maintenance and operation of the meters through the end of 2017. This proves what our party has said all along: Smart meters are nothing more than tax machines, and they have to go.

With this new charge your government wants to tack on, smart meters alone will be adding an additional $4 a month to the average hydro bill. That’s above and beyond what we saw last Tuesday. This is outrageous. The IESO request for a monthly smart meter charge is for 81 cents for eligible customers. That’s the extra charge. On top of that, they need a buck and a half a month for the local utilities to start to charge to recover the initial smart meter installation, and 85 cents extra now to read a meter.

In the city of North Bay, it used to cost 64 cents to read a meter the old way, when the meter reader would go to each household—64 cents a pop. Today it costs $1.75 with the new electronic smart meter system. So compared to having someone manually read it, get ready for another 85 cents a month. And then you need 90 cents a bill to maintain the towers and controllers that are needed to read those smart meters. All in, we’re in for another $50 a year on everybody’s hydro bill just for this extra little treat.

That’s a whole lot of money to spend on a system that the Environmental Commissioner says you haven’t even found a way to track the effectiveness of yet. But it’s only money, right?

For consumers on time-of-use pricing, the OEB says that the increase is about $4, or 3.3% of the total monthly bill. The on-peak pricing was about 9 cents per kilowatt hour, up to 11.7 cents. For those on tiered pricing, a monthly increase of about $5.80, or 5.1%, for a consumer using 800 kilowatts per month is expected.

The OEB is blaming this price increase on changing energy supply, meaning that FIT contracts are continuing to drive up energy costs. Our caucus believes energy policy should be based on creating an efficient supply of power at affordable prices, period. That’s why we’re calling for and will continue to call for an end to the unsustainable FIT program that is driving up energy bills.

Let’s not forget the cancellation of the Oakville power plant and the cancelling, demolishing and relocating of the Mississauga power plant. These cancellations were nothing more than political seat savers and may cost the taxpayer or the ratepayers $1 billion—maybe even $1 billion apiece. That bill will come due perhaps this year, followed by the bill for the new plant once the government figures out where to locate it. This comes at a time when industry experts are questioning the reliability of the GTA power grid itself.

The path this government is on will continue to be destructive to Ontario, period. By contrast, our party will end the unnecessary and overly rich subsidies to the few in the renewables industry. Be assured, Speaker, that our party will continue to focus on our plan to create reliable power with renewables at affordable prices. Over the course of this year, we’ll be tabling policies that will put the taxpayers first again.

We’ve seen a recent retreat by the Minister of Energy to reduce FIT subsidies and give slight—ever so slight—input to municipalities—only if they’re municipalities that are interested in wind and solar. However, to us this is an admission that the energy plan is indeed a failed social experiment. Reducing the subsidies will not solve the problem. The government will still be spilling water, venting steam and draining jobs while racking up hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. Our leader Tim Hudak’s call for the immediate cancellation of the FIT program is the clear solution to kick-start job creation and attract new investment in Ontario. But the Liberals have rejected this.

Last month, the minister announced the consolidation of the Independent Electricity System Operator and the Ontario Power Authority and claimed that it would save up to $25 million a year. Again, this is tinkering on the edges of the file. As we all know, that will be a rounding fraction when it comes to the overall cost of Ontario’s energy, if any savings are even realized at all. In fact, with the new rate hike that took effect last week, these savings, should they ever appear, would be erased in just two billing periods. This merger to create the OESO, the Ontario Electricity System Operator, simply will not realize any real savings for taxpayers or ratepayers.

It’s quite interesting that the word “independent” was specifically removed in renaming the Ontario Electricity System Operator, because it can no longer be considered such. It no longer will be independent, given that the organization responsible for the scheduling of supply and market operations will now also be responsible for the procurement and management of generation contracts at the direction of the minister.

I’ll give you a perfect example of political meddling that today we’re paying through the teeth for. Originally, when Ontario’s wind industry came online last decade, contracts said that wind generators only got paid for actual generation. The OPA’s original FIT program guidelines maintained this. But sometime during the original FIT review process, the OPA received an order to do an about-face. Now FIT generators get paid on the power they could have produced, had there been no grid constraints. The conflict this legislation creates is that the system planner is also in charge of who gets the contracts to provide the power.

This government’s inability to properly think this through has resulted in a very bad bill. Our party believes that the Ontario Power Authority should not be merged but be scrapped altogether.

Let’s take a look at how we got here. The OPA was formed seven years ago as a 15-person transitional body, created by this government to manage Ontario’s energy supply. Today, it’s a 235-person permanent entity, where 87 people earn over $100,000 and the CEO earns $570,000. In just seven years, it has burned through over $375 million in expenditures, and its expenses have risen from $14 million in 2005 to $76.4 million today. By shuffling bureaucrats down the hall and creating one super-agency, this move proves the government still doesn’t recognize the severity of Ontario’s debt crisis. The government has claimed it will save money but has yet to show us how it plans to do so.

This legislation also addresses how the minister is to go about submitting an energy plan for the province’s long-term energy needs. However, it does not set out any time frames as to how often or when the minister is required to do this. In fact, will we ever actually see a long-term energy plan?

This bill not only fails to correct a serious problem—which is the continued opportunity for undue political influence to outweigh factual evidence when it comes to decisions regarding Ontario’s future energy plans—but this actually achieves quite the opposite. It gives the minister even more directive powers and the ability to meddle in everyday energy policy, which many experts in the industry have decried as a major obstacle to achieving good, sound energy policy. Speaker, this is a step backwards.

Section 5(3) of the bill states that “the board of directors shall take such steps as it considers advisable and appropriate” to separate the functions of its market and operations from its procurement and contract management opportunities. But in reality, this is unlikely to actually take place, given that this bill allows for the minister to provide directive to the OESO on energy plans, including those items found in subsection 25.30(3): procurement referrals; determination of competitive and non-competitive procurement processes; the direct procurement of contracts; and the pricing of contracts.

It goes even further: Bill 75, if approved in its present form, will strip away the Ontario Energy Board’s ability of render meaningful input into many areas of the energy system, including long-term planning. Under this, the minister would receive input from the OEB on any long-term energy plan they put forward, but the OEB would have no real teeth or mechanism available to force any changes.

This legislation would also take away the Ontario Energy Board’s oversight of fees charged by the IESO. Again, this is just one more way Bill 75 strips away accountability and transparency.

But worst of all—

Mr. John Yakabuski: You mean it gets worse?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: It gets worse. Worst of all, this legislation alters the role of the Ontario Energy Board and moves it away from consumer protection and, instead, towards an advocacy role for the policies of the government, putting emphasis on renewables and conservation. Would the conservation programming not be best shifted to local distribution companies, who are in the best position to determine what initiatives will be most effective among their ratepayer base?

Again, here is one more example of how this bill strips away the checks and balances that currently exist in the system to allow political considerations and influence to trump technical and factual evidence in the decision-making process. I think that’s shameful.

You would think that was enough, but the legislation still doesn’t stop there. It also removes the transparency regarding decisions and will foster the culture of secrecy that not only hangs like a cloud over the OPA but this government as a whole. The veil of secrecy surrounding the OPA is well known to anyone who has ever tried to deal with them. They have balked each and every time they’ve been asked to divulge costs associated with, first, the seat-saving cancellation of the Oakville gas plant, and then the seat-saving cancellation of the Mississauga gas plant last September.

No one knows what it will end up costing for our government to get out of these contracts. No one knows how much money was wasted as construction continued for nearly two months on the Mississauga plant last fall after the announced cancellation and where or how much it will cost to relocate that facility. They’re named in a $300-million lawsuit already, Speaker, likely only the first of many. There’s no price too high to pay for political expedience as far as this government is concerned.

And if you want to talk about the culture of secrecy, what better example than the $7-billion sole-sourced Samsung contract. The government likes to tout this when compiling its job-creation numbers, but in reality, and by Samsung’s own admission, the $7-billion contract is to create 900 jobs. But how can we entrust more power to the minister, given this government’s track record?

Bill 75 is simply a piece of rushed legislation. The change it aims to achieve is like slapping paint on a rotten piece of wood. The minister would be best served by revisiting the government’s other energy policies, which the Auditor General tells us will send electricity prices skyrocketing up 46% by 2015.

Last week, as I said, we saw hydro rates rise yet again in Ontario, another $4 to $6 a month on average, depending on your pricing plan. Now there’s an application before the Ontario Energy Board that would hike costs even more to implement this government’s smart meter scheme.

This legislation, Speaker, to merge the IESO and OPA: All it does is add costs and bureaucracy. This legislation won’t do anything to reduce costs for ratepayers or taxpayers. All it does is consolidate even more power into the hands of the minister, promote the culture of secrecy this government is known for and allow for even more political interference in the technical decisions and fundamentals that should be driving energy policy in Ontario. Like this minister, Bill 75 fails to put consumers and businesses first, and I urge members it to vote against it.

Thank you, Speaker, and I’ll turn the time over to the member from Huron–Bruce.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: My friend here, my colleague the MPP for Nipissing, has shared so many relevant points as to why Bill 75 just doesn’t make sense at this time. I’m going to be speaking in support of our member from Nipissing’s direction.

Since becoming an MPP seven months ago, I’ve spoken quite often in this House about the state of energy in Ontario. Just to point to one example, I have had so much support prior to and actually after I presented my private member’s motion calling for a moratorium on further wind development until third party health and environmental studies have been completed. It was debated two months ago to this date and, Speaker, I can tell you, sadly enough, not much has changed except that more people and more communities are coming out against wind energy.

We know first-hand and we respect the fact that we need renewable energy as part of our energy mix going forward, but we need to do it in a way that’s respectful to communities and respectful to individuals, and it must make economic sense. Piling layers of bureaucracy together does not achieve this at all.

Let’s talk about some of those individuals and communities in our province. In Powassan, residents were not informed about the wind project there, even though it has been under way for two years. Why the cloak of secrecy? We know why: because people do not need or want the high electricity bills that the Liberal plan is causing them to experience. They were shocked to find out that the clearing of land—again, these are the people in Powassan—was to make room for new turbines. The community has concerns. The municipality has concerns.

But, again, because municipal input is not being allowed in the development of wind turbines in communities, they are effectively being shut out, and this wind project will be the largest in the history of that municipality.

Again, so many people across this province are standing up. There’s a writer who has a regular column in the Guelph Mercury who is known as the urban farmer. He’s also a communications professor at the University of Guelph. I was quite taken by the fact that he has taken a stand as well. He has called Liberal wind energy “the most divisive issue ever in rural Ontario.” What does that say? It says that it is not working—“it” being the Green Energy Act. The Liberal government needs to stand up and tune in.

A quote from the Toronto Sun recently said, “McGuinty’s Green Energy Act was far more draconian in taking away the rights of ordinary citizens to have any meaningful input into the location and size of industrial wind turbines and factories.

“The act eliminated the right of municipalities to any say in the planning process.” They disenfranchised local residents. “Public consultation was reduced to tokenism, the appeal process gutted.”

We could go off on a complete sidebar about the lack of public consultation that is being conducted on a variety of issues by this Liberal government, but, alas, we have to focus on green energy today and on Bill 75. But, again, I stress the point that with this Liberal government—a common thread through every ministry is the lack of public consultation.

Going back to Bill 75 and the outlook of our energy in Ontario, I have to say that companies have been misled by the McGuinty Liberals and their so-called green social policies, and guess what? Our government—the people of Ontario—is now being sued, and I’ll talk about that in a moment. Who is going to pay for these lawsuits? It’s going to be the taxpayer who’s footing this bill. Yet again, the Liberals are passing off their ill actions and their ill-conceived notions back on to the taxpayer. It’s totally unacceptable. Energy is treated like a social policy instead of the economic policy that it needs to be recognized for.

There are so many opportunities to go around the world citing different examples of how green energy has taken a step backwards, yet Ontario, the Liberal government specifically, continues to turn a blind eye to that. It’s interesting: As I said, I’m new to this wonderful historic House; I’ve been here seven months. But right from the get-go, I understand that we have a demand that is far below the supply of energy in this province. We have to recognize that there’s more power coming from the Bruce nuclear station in my riding of Bruce county and the riding of Huron Bruce, to take a larger picture of that.

Bruce Power is providing reliable, affordable energy for this entire province, and I dare say that under really good leadership, Bruce Power is meeting its business goals. I ask, is the Liberal government meeting their goals? I don’t think so.

In terms of meeting business goals, I need to share with you good news. Within the next 24 hours, Bruce Power is going to be syncing unit 2 up to the Ontario grid. This is fantastic news. They’re walking their talk; they’re making things happen in an affordable, reliable way. And guess what? We also, in Ontario, can anticipate affordable power from gas-fired plants. This is good news, but there’s a little bit of sadness to this as well, in the sense that we can’t even find space for probably the cheapest and most renewable form of energy: water.

We have to take a look at this Green Energy Act, as opposed to adding layers on top of layers, as has been proposed through Bill 75. We need to take a look and get back on track, address energy as an economic policy, as opposed to social idealism.

We have to listen to our Auditor General as well. The Auditor General just months ago said that we lost $1.8 billion exporting surplus power to Quebec and the United States. Hydro bills are expected to rise another 46% by 2015. These timelines are concerning, and I say that as well because when the FIT review results were released just a few weeks ago, it was mentioned by the Minister of Energy that Ontario, the Liberal government specifically, is going to meet its demand and its focus and focus goal of 10,700 megawatts by 2015, as opposed to 2018.

This is concerning, because there were a lot of folks looking forward to participating in a renewable energy plan. But where is the government now? How are they helping those people address their business plans in being part of that renewable mix? I’m telling you, it’s a worry, because when we take a look at the Liberals’ long-term energy plan forecast, they omit the cost of inflation, transmitting electricity to the grid from wind and solar facilities, additional costs to the surplus export subsidies and backup generation.

They’ve omitted all of this, yet they tell people who have invested their lifetime savings into renewable energy, because they were told it was the next best thing—and where are they now?

They’ve omitted real costs that are going to continue to drive up electricity, yet, I have to point out to you, there’s a huge gap here, because they are working with folks throughout Ontario who invested their life savings into solar, and they’re calling these people who cannot connect their solar panels “constraints.” These people, known as constraints to the Liberal government, to me are known as ordinary folks who actually believed in the business plan and the proposal that the Liberal government had touted out there, and now they’re losing so much. They’re being told—

Interjection.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Yes, absolutely right. They have been misled, because they were told, “Look, if you invest in solar, you’re going to receive 80 cents a kilowatt.” Well, ladies and gentlemen, the public need to know that the Liberals have totally led these folks down a garden path, and it’s not a pretty ending, because the fact of the matter is, those original contracts have expired. These poor people who have invested life savings—I know of one fellow from my riding who invested $500,000. He anticipated and penciled out his business plan on a return based on 80 cents a kilowatt. Guess what?

That contract conveniently has now expired and he’s being told, “Don’t worry. You can reapply, but you’re going to have to reapply at 44 cents a kilowatt.”

How much credibility does the Liberal government have when they totally go against their word? It shouldn’t be surprising to anyone, but it might be surprising to the Liberal government here, that there are lawsuits coming out of my riding from their solar constraints, because they have misled, and they have not held up their contractual terms. Again, as I said, they’ve led these poor people down a garden path that does not have a pretty ending.

We need to talk about my riding a little bit more. The riding of Huron–Bruce—I’m very proud to call it home—is host to some of the best prime agricultural land in this province. It’s also known as Ontario’s “west coast” because of its picturesque coastlines and thriving tourism sector. I would hate to see tourists no longer wanting to vacation in what I consider one of the most beautiful parts of this province because of a landscape that’s been altered forever and paved under concrete.

The Liberal vision is very unique for my riding. Out of the 9,000 industrial wind turbines that have been proposed as the number needed to generate the 10,700 megawatts, out of those 10,000 turbines needed to realize that multitude of megawatts, 1,800 under the Liberal vision will find their way to Ontario’s most prime agricultural land and Ontario’s most beautiful west coast under the Liberal watch.

Interjection.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: And it’s absolutely shameful. The sad reality is, no one’s had a voice in this exercise. No one has been able to stand up and say, “Yes, we’re interested in this. Let’s pursue it in an economic way that makes sense.”

The sad reality is, municipal governments and farm organizations are now calling for the Liberal government to act in the best interests of its citizens and put a moratorium on wind and solar projects. As I said, I’ve had tremendous support for them. Their asks are very similar to my private member’s motion that got voted down. Again, these folks are looking for proper health and economic studies to be done to determine the long-term ramifications on individuals, communities and our economy. We all, everyone in Ontario, have a vested interest in doing this right.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, the National Farmers Union, the Perth dairy producer committee and over 80 municipalities have all taken a stand and asked the government to take a sober second look at what the Green Energy Act is doing to rural Ontario.

In terms of rural Ontario, we also boast of wonderful access. Some of that access is realized through airports, and that could be another whole sidebar conversation in terms how the Liberal government is imposing their industrial wind turbines and nobody has a say. A true example is cited just recently in the Collingwood area. Turbines are going to make it unsafe for pilots to enter that air zone—totally unacceptable, totally shameful. Where is the access for that airport to contribute and say, “Look, Liberal government, enough is enough. Let us have some say in this so that we can plan together.”

Interjection.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Yeah, maybe that’s why they’re restricting the airspace, perhaps. Yes, maybe only the Ornge helicopters can land there, as suggested by my colleague from Renfrew.

But I can tell you as well that this issue is not isolated to Collingwood. The folks in Kincardine are very concerned. Their airport is proposed to be surrounded by 90 turbines. Again, Kincardine, Ontario’s west coast, a huge area that generates tens of thousands of jobs: That whole area is going to be constrained. There will be another constraint under the Liberal watch as 90 turbines surround that Kincardine airport.

Ladies and gentlemen, this type of action is not acceptable. You know, when we think about addressing the electricity issue in this province, layering the Ontario Power Authority on top of the Independent Electricity System Operator just doesn’t make sense at all. We need to be focused on jobs. We need to be focused on righting this economy, as opposed to clouding the issue by piling layer of bureaucracy on top of layer of bureaucracy.

I just have to shake my head, because it’s so frustrating that we’re just not breaking through. There are a lot of reasonable people who have ideas on how to move forward in terms of renewable energy for Ontario, but sadly, it seems like the Liberal stake is in the sand and they’re not swaying from it. Actually, some folks will suggest that after Ornge, the Green Energy Act is probably the next big scandal to be addressed by this province.

I have to mention that this government’s recent FIT review was a little bit of a misnomer, because it really didn’t say much at all. It did not provide any relief for families who work hard every day only to come home, terrified to open their hydro bill. Ladies and gentlemen, in the winter I stood up and spoke to the fact that, “Thank goodness for United Way.” United Way kept the lights and the heat on in so many homes in my riding of Huron–Bruce, and I really appreciate what they do. But sadly, now that winter has passed, my constituency offices in Kincardine and Blyth are being inundated with phone calls by people who are losing their hydro.

People need to wake up in the Liberal government and realize we can’t afford this scheme any longer. They need to do the right thing. It’s so frustrating, Madam Speaker. I have to stay focused on my notes or I just shake my head. It’s really, really so sad.

I want to come back to the FIT review. The first line of the FIT review document states, “Since its launch in 2009, the FIT program has helped create certainty in Ontario’s economy, attract new investment, spur jobs and economic benefits for communities, and support a healthier future for all Ontarians.” Really? That is one of the first lines out of the FIT review. Really and truly, ladies and gentlemen, I have to ask the minister, how is that working out for him? Because I know from the folks I’m hearing from in my riding, truth be known, this statement is absolutely not true.

We need to focus on jobs and our economy. This Bill 75 does not make sense and we just can’t support it.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Questions and comments?

Mr. Paul Miller: I’d just like to say that this whole hydro debacle has been going on for years. I think it all started in 1999 under a certain government at the time, when they deregulated hydro. That’s when all the trouble started, when they got the middlemen in here.

I remember Stoney Creek hydro back even as far as Hurricane Hazel. We were one of the first hydros back online. We had the cheapest hydro in Ontario. Welland and Stoney Creek had the cheapest hydro in the whole province. We had excellent hydro; we had our own Stoney Creek hydro. We weren’t involved in this—bigger is not better, folks. When we all deregulated this stuff and we all let these other people in, and now we’re doing Samsung, we’re doing everyone else—believe me, folks, Niagara Falls has been there a long time. We had Niagara Falls; we had one of the best hydro providers in the world.

And when this government at the time deregulated, it was the worst thing you did to this province, and you guys continued it. I’ll tell you right now, we’ve had nothing but escalating prices, escalating jobs, lots more CEOs. We had one guy, and one guy on our council, who handled hydro in Stoney Creek, and it ran efficiently. It was fantastic.

You go to London, England. They now have boroughs. They’ve gone back to the boroughs system.

Interjections.

Mr. Paul Miller: Would you like to speak, John?

They’ve gone back to the boroughs system. They’ve got 100,000 people now. They went back from two million to 100,000. They went back to boroughs because smaller is better.

What we’ve done in this province is we’ve created a big corporate monster with all kinds of fingers in the pie, and that’s why we’re in trouble. Why don’t we go back to the days when common sense ruled supreme in this province? It doesn’t reign supreme in this province.

I can honestly tell you that I’ve watched this mess develop for the last 25 years. Where are we today? In a big debacle, a big mess. Who caused it?

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Questions and comments?

Mr. Reza Moridi: It’s a pleasure to rise in this House and contribute to the debate on Bill 75. Madam Speaker, what Bill 75 does is basically merge the two Ministry of Energy agencies: the Independent Electricity System Operator and the Ontario Power Authority. The Independent Electricity System Operator is responsible for the operation of our electricity system, and the OPA, or Ontario Power Authority, is responsible for the planning of our electricity system. So this merger or this amalgamation will bring these two agencies together and will create more coordination among the two agencies.

Also, it will increase the efficiency and operation of these two agencies and it will eliminate overlaps, which do exist among these two agencies. Also, it will bring a more coordinated approach to the management and operation of the electricity system in Ontario. All of that will simplify the whole process for small and large consumers of electricity in the province of Ontario. As a result of all this amalgamation, the taxpayers are going to save about $25 million.

The IESO—Independent Electricity System Operator—and OPA have been created by legislation of this House. That’s why the amalgamation of the two agencies requires legislation of this House as well. That’s what we are here today talking about, debating this bill, Madam Speaker. The IESO and OPA have brought an adviser who will help them to do amalgamation and the merger process.

There are some key features in this legislation, Madam Speaker. I’m just going to briefly—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Sorry. Thank you. Questions and comments?

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s a privilege. First of all, I want to thank my colleagues from Nipissing and Huron–Bruce for the incredible work that they put in with regard to this particular project. We pride ourselves, the PC government, as being the wallet-watchers for Ontario families and businesses, and one of the things I’ve learned in life is that when you mess up, you fess up. And do you know what? This government has messed up, but on the other hand, rather than fess up and admit that they’ve made mistakes, they’re now lowering payout rates for solar. To me, that’s their backhanded way of saying, “We messed up, but we’ll never come forward and really admit that.”

We look further at this and we take a look at the impact of high energy costs and what that’s creating. I’ll tell you what it’s creating: It’s creating unemployment. We heard from my esteemed colleague from Nipissing how companies in his riding are in fact leaving Ontario, but they’re leaving Ontario in the Chatham–Kent–Essex area as well. And do you know what? When companies leave, that creates unemployment and that puts a severe stress on the social assistance programs in that particular area. That, to me, is a huge concern.

The Liberals talk about dirty coal. All this subsidy that I’m hearing—to me, that’s dirty money. That’s what they’re doing. They’re paying out. They’re paying off people. They’ve paid millions to have other areas take our excess energy; green energy, wind and solar used first so that nuclear must be released. Here’s my concern with that: What’s the impact on our nuclear power when, in fact, they have to use the solar and the wind first? Because to lower those generators and raise them back up again—what’s the impact? That’s going to cause stress. Then what’s the overall impact and cost to our taxpayers?

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Mr. John Yakabuski: I want to say, I had the pleasure of listening to the entire address of my colleagues from Nipissing and Huron–Bruce, and they got it right. The problem is, the folks that are on the governing side don’t have it right, and every time we make a good, reasoned suggestion to this government, they dismiss it out of hand. Why? Because it doesn’t fit with their governing plan, their narrative.

I like what my colleague said about the fact that they spill cheap, reliable, renewable water power, they vent steam at our nuclear plants and it drains jobs in the province of Ontario. I call that the spill, vent and drain plan of the Dalton McGuinty government.

At the end of the day, as my colleague from Chatham–Kent–Essex says, this energy plan costs jobs in the province of Ontario. As we cost jobs, the overall prosperity continues to sink. It is a terrible sinkhole that they have put us into with this so-called Green Energy Act. What it is is a farce. It is a system where a few benefit greatly financially—those that are on the receiving end of the subsidies, the Samsungs of the world, the big wind-generating farms that are springing up all across Ontario that are being paid massive subsidies.

This government talks about being opposed to subsidies now—the biggest subsidy plan in the history of this province is going on under their watch: the green energy subsidy plan for wind development in the province of Ontario. It is one that has—there is no good end to it. We’re talking today that there are 1,700 megawatts of wind. Their plan is to have 10,000. What is the price of electricity going to be when we get there and what will that mean to jobs in this province? Shameful.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Two minutes to respond—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): No, we’ve completed it.

The member from Nipissing.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I want to thank our members of the Legislature from Huron–Bruce, Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, Richmond Hill, Chatham–Kent–Essex and Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke for their thoughtful comments.

It seems that all you have to do is shroud things in a wrapper called green and people want to believe you. People want to do the right thing, they want to believe the right thing, so let’s tell them the facts from now on.

At the FIT review a few weeks ago and in this very Legislature just last week, it was stated that green energy accounts for only 5% of the increase in electricity bills. Yet in the Liberals’ own 2010 fall economic statement, it reads, “Over the next five years, residential electricity prices are expected to rise by 46%.... This increase will be due to two factors: upgrading and modernizing ... existing capacity in nuclear and natural gas ... (44%); and the investment in new clean, renewable energy ... (56%).”

They claim 5% when it’s really 56%. They claim wind replaces coal when all it’s done is replace clean, renewable water power; and on and on it goes. What can we possibly believe from the Liberal government when we can’t seem to get them to admit that their failed energy scheme is bankrupting Ontario businesses, crippling our families and hurting our seniors?

We encourage all to vote against Bill 75. We encourage all of the members of the Legislature to consider abandoning the FIT program and the government’s failed energy plan. Let’s start with turning down Bill 75.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): This House stands recessed until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I’d like to ask all members to join me in welcoming the Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Association of Ontario, who are here today at Queen’s Park, and specifically my constituent Mr. Brad Drewery.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’d like to follow up on the member opposite’s introduction. I’d like to welcome my constituents and yours, the Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Association of Ontario, MEAO, represented by board member Denise Magi and the other MEAO board of directors. MEAO is a charitable organization which advocates on behalf of all those living with myalgic encephalomyelitis, fibromyalgia and multiple chemical sensitivities. They’re here for an awareness day event marking May 12 as the International Awareness Day for MEAO and these three chronic, debilitating diseases.

I’d also like to welcome representatives of the Environmental Health Association of Ontario and representatives of support groups in Toronto, north Toronto, Scarborough, York region and Mississauga, and representatives of all support groups from across the province who offer support for those living with these three illnesses.

I’d like to remind all members of the awareness event and reception being held here today by MEAO in committee rooms 228 and 230, to which all members are invited to attend any time after 11:30 today.

Welcome, and thank you for being here.

Mr. John O’Toole: That was an excellent minister’s statement.

I’d like to welcome Jackie Forsey, Margaret Cartwright and Keith Deviney, who is president of MEAO. Welcome to Queen’s Park, and we’re all here to understand your ailments.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That was a good statement, too.

The member from Ajax–Pickering.

Mr. Joe Dickson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m requesting, through you, unanimous consent to wear the myalgic encephalomyelitis, fibromyalgia and multiple chemical sensitivities pins on this very special day in the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Unanimous consent has been requested to wear the ribbons in acknowledgement of the day. Do we all agree? Agreed.

The member from Prince Edward–Hastings.

Mr. Todd Smith: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to welcome a director from the Egg Farmers of Ontario, Vance Drain, a former reeve of the beautiful village of Tweed. I thank the egg farmers very much for a beautiful breakfast this morning.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I also would like to welcome Denise King from Mississauga–Erindale, my riding. She’s a member of the MEAO delegation as well.

M me France Gélinas: It is my pleasure to introduce Lauren Cripps, who is a student with RNAO and who’s taking in the proceedings today.

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature this morning the parents of page Manak Mann: his mom and dad Jaspreet Mann, Amritpal Mann, and grandfather Surjit Mann, all from the wonderful riding of Brampton–Springdale.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park today Dianne McComb, who is a director with the Ontario egg farmers and lives near Lucan, Ontario.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I’d like to introduce—I think they’re on their way here—Scott Graham, the chair of the Ontario egg farmers, as well as Harry Pelissero, their CEO and former member of the Legislative Assembly here in Ontario. I want to thank them for their “egg-cellent” breakfast this morning.

Mr. John O’Toole: I would like to remind members that this is VE Day, as well as, in 1884, Harry S. Truman’s birthday. We had the sunrise breakfast this morning in celebration of that event.

Ms. Soo Wong: I’d like to welcome the parents of page Jenny Peng, who are here: Hong Jin and Chun An Peng.

Ms. Dipika Damerla: I’d like to welcome Susan Monaco, a constituent. She’s with the fibromyalgia group in Mississauga, and has been running the Mississauga

chapter for 10 years. So welcome to everybody. I join my colleagues in welcoming all of you.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to, at this time, welcome Scott Helps from the Egg Farmers of Ontario to the Legislature this morning. They cooked us breakfast, and it was great—from the Egg Farmers of Ontario.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, I’d like to introduce Mr. Roberto Ferruci—he’s the owner-operator of Elliot’s Not Here—whom I met this weekend while attending a trade show in Elliot Lake. It was a fantastic trade show. During this trade show, he sponsored a trip that was to be awarded. For my wife, who’s watching this morning and not expecting this: Honey, start packing; we’re going to Vegas.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): My understanding is, you need a chaperone.

I do want to make an introduction in the Speaker’s gallery, but before I do that, I would remind all members that introductions has been set aside for time to introduce as many guests as possible, and if we could resist the temptation to turn it into more of a statement than an introduction, I would appreciate it. It has happened by all members from all parties. This is mostly just to try to confine the time to allow us to introduce all the wonderful guests that do join us.

Speaking of a wonderful guest, in the Speaker’s gallery today we have the consul general of the Republic of Indonesia, Mr. Julang Pujianto. Please welcome the consul general. And a welcome to all the others who have not been introduced.

It is now time for oral questions. The leader of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Thank you, Speaker—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me; sorry. I was trying to think of going to Vegas and I forgot I had to do something important.

MINISTER’S COMMENTS

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On Monday, April 23, 2012, the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka, Mr. Miller, rose on a point of privilege concerning a remark made by the Deputy Premier, Mr. Duncan, in response to a question placed by the member for Newmarket–Aurora, Mr. Klees, during the previous Thursday’s question period about the Ornge file. Specifically, the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka indicated that the minister had implied that he was not impartial in fulfilling his duties as Chair of Standing Committee on Public Accounts, which was looking into the file.

The member from Timmins–James Bay, Mr. Bisson, and the government House leader, Mr. Milloy, also spoke to this matter.

Having had the opportunity to review the relevant Hansard and the information in the notice provided by the member for Parry Sound–Muskoka and the relevant procedural authorities, I am now prepared to rule on this matter.

The remarks by the Deputy Premier were made during an exchange on April 19 with the member from Newmarket–Aurora concerning whether the Premier, Deputy Premier and Kelly Mitchell of Pathway Group would be appearing before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The Deputy Premier said the following:

“That motion that I referred to to call Mr. Mitchell to committee was in fact a government motion, and the Conservative Chair of the committee deferred dealing with it until next week. I don’t want to offend the sensibilities of the Chair or the House. I won’t use some language, but it appears as though they won’t want him at committee. Will you agree here and now to unanimous consent to call him immediately?”

These remarks were unfortunate. Although not an outright accusation that the Chair of the public accounts committee was not acting impartially, they certainly were of a nature that such a listener could believe he or she was being invited to draw this conclusion. Had the remarks been clearly heard, I have no doubt they would have been found to be unparliamentary and be required to be withdrawn.

In the House, the ability of the Speaker to act in the interest of all members, to maintain order and decorum, and to protect the rights and privileges of all members is derived from an implicit trust in the Speaker’s impartiality and neutrality in the chair and in all his other responsibilities. In many ways, the Chairs of the standing committees might rightly be considered the Speaker’s designates when they preside over a subset of members in a committee.

This brings me to one of the arguments made by the government House leader when he responded to this point of privilege, to the effect that various protections against untoward reflections on a presiding officer are not available to the committee Chair because he or she is not a presiding officer in the same sense as the Speaker, Deputy Speaker or First, Second or Third Deputy Chairs of the committee of the whole House. I disagree. I already mentioned that the committee Chairs are in effect designates of the Speaker. As noted in Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand:

“The Chairperson performs a similar role in respect of chairing the committee that the Speaker does in chairing the House—calling on members to speak or ask questions, keeping order, ruling on disputed aspects of procedure and putting questions to the committee for formal decision.”

Committee Chairs are responsible to see that the standing orders of the House are observed in their committees to the extent applicable, just as the Speaker and his designates in the House must do. Like the Speaker, they have no vote except in the case of a tie and do not participate in debates of the committee.

The implication that it would somehow be acceptable to criticize or intimidate or obstruct a committee Chair because of the strict designation of the term “presiding officer” is erroneous, and I would not want this to remain uncorrected.

Like the Speaker, committee Chairs can only be most effective when their impartiality in the chair is assumed and unquestioned. It is simply not acceptable to make implications about the partiality of a person presiding over a parliamentary proceeding, not only because the person lacks the means to defend himself or herself, but more importantly because a formal course exists for such an assertion to be made, that is, by substantive motion in the affected venue, be it this Legislature or one of its committees.

Members who disagree with the decisions of, or who have lost confidence in, a committee Chair have procedural mechanisms at their disposal. If there is no case for using those mechanisms—and there is no case in the incident before me—they should strive to avoid couching or juxtaposing words in such as a way as to call into question the neutrality of a member who has presiding responsibilities in the House or one of its committees. An accusation that a committee Chair is not impartial is serious and deserves to be treated as such, and not made in an ill-considered throwaway line in question period.

Nonetheless, I do believe that the Deputy Premier’s remarks were of exactly this type—something said in the heat and battle of what was a particularly raucous question period. Tempers were high, and so was some of the language. As I said, the remarks were unfortunate, and I do not excuse them, but I also do not believe they were premeditated by the Deputy Premier to undermine or impugn the integrity and the reputation for impartiality that the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka clearly enjoys among his peers in this House.

I do not find the Deputy Premier’s remarks give rise to a finding of prima facie breach of privilege, and again state my belief that had they been heard, the Deputy Premier would have been asked to withdraw as a matter of order. In fact, such a withdrawal is never too late.

I am concerned about the comment made on Twitter, a copy of which the member for Parry Sound–Muskoka provided to me. The tweet asks this question about the Chair of the public accounts committee: “Norm Miller, MPP, met Ornge top executives in 2010—what did he tell them? Can he still be an impartial Chair at public hearings?”

The member made a thought-provoking point about this by quoting the following from Maingot’s Parliamentary Privilege in Canada:

“All interferences with members’ privileges of freedom of speech, such as editorials and other public comment, are not breaches of privilege even though they influence the conduct of the members in their parliamentary work.... But any attempt by improper means to influence or obstruct a member in his parliamentary work may constitute contempt. What constitutes an improper means of interfering with members’ parliamentary work is always a question depending on the facts of each case.”

I therefore do not find that a prima facie case of breach of privilege or of contempt has been made out.

In closing, I will say that in this assembly, as in most parliamentary jurisdictions, there is a strong tradition of respect for the authority of those members who exercise presiding functions, be it in the House or its committees. The fact that an issue such as this one arises so infrequently is good evidence of this.

I thank the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka, the member from Timmins–James Bay and the government House leader for speaking to this matter.

Mr. Norm Miller: I just wanted to thank you for your thoughtful ruling, Mr. Speaker.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Deputy Premier, this morning, papers across the globe continue to run headlines like “France and Greece Spur New Era of Uncertainty.” Yesterday the euro hit its lowest level against other major currencies in more than three months. As you know, Europe is our second-greatest trading partner in Ontario, after the States.

You’ve built your budget on some very precarious foundations of achieving a wage freeze in international and economic growth. Your own budget says that a 1% drop in economic growth will cost the plan $800 million. Minister, you’ve booked into your plan $6 billion in savings from achieving a pay freeze across the board. The credit rating agencies don’t argue with the targets you’ve set; they point out you don’t say how you’re going to get there. You’re the first finance minister since Floyd Laughren under the NDP to see a credit downgrade.

Minister, if you’re going to vote against a mandatory, legislated pay freeze, how the heck do you get to a $6-billion savings, if you vote against a tool to do so?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We are simply following—and the member opposite is right; we’ve booked $6 billion over three years. It’s page 171 of the budget. He neglected to mention yesterday he could find $2 billion, recognizing that it’s already taken out of the budget.

There are challenges, and yesterday the Minister of Health made an announcement that is a first step towards that. We are following a number of constitutional conventions as well as rulings to ensure, as the government moves to freezing wages, that we in fact are able to achieve that.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we achieve a wage freeze and hopefully, instead of voting against those things—as this party opposite has done—in the future, when called upon, they will support the government as we move back towards balance, instead of walking away from their responsibilities to the people—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: I think the important question to ask the minister is—you’re the first finance minister to see a credit downgrade—this from Moody’s—since Floyd Laughren in the NDP days. What signal does it send to the credit rating agencies, to investors, that you’re opposing a mandatory public sector wage freeze that you’ve built your plan around?

Minister, here’s the problem: In your voluntary pay freeze approach, looking at the settlements that came about in December and November, there were 50 of them in the broader public service. Out of 50, there was only one that was zero; 49 were well above that. Your voluntary pay freeze has been a failure. The Auditor General and Mr. Drummond have called this approach into question, as have the credit rating agencies.

Why are you doubling down on a failed policy and why won’t you support our sensible and fair policy for an across-the-board, mandatory public sector pay freeze?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The Leader of the Opposition’s plan won’t work. That’s why eight provinces running deficits have rejected the approach. His federal cousins in Ottawa did not introduce—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to ask for order.

Deputy Premier?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: His federal cousins in Ottawa did not introduce a legislated wage freeze; they introduced a legislated increase of 1.5% after they had considerable negotiations with their bargaining partners.

Mr. Speaker, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario has an obligation to pay attention to court rulings. We are doing that. We will and must achieve 0%; the Leader of the Opposition is right. We have built those numbers into the budget. We will do so respecting the Constitution, recognizing that no other jurisdiction in Canada has attempted what the Leader of the Opposition proposes because it won’t work.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Minister, no other jurisdiction in Canada is in such a deep hole as the province of Ontario after nine years of your mismanagement. The worry is, it will become the Greece of Canada if we stay on this path, heading towards a $30-billion deficit. That’s the combined deficits of all the other nine provinces times three. That’s the hole you’ve dug.

The courts allow for action in times of fiscal crisis, and when you’re heading towards a $30-billion cliff, that’s a crisis. The time for action is now. You can’t kick this can down the road. This is reasonable, it is thoughtful and it is fair: a mandatory public sector wage freeze, not your voluntary wage freeze that digs the hole deeper.

Minister, will you do the right thing? Will you support the Ontario PC plan for a mandatory public sector wage freeze to save us $2 billion annually?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: No. It won’t work. I’ll show what happened in British Columbia. When governments rush to an end point without going through consultations or negotiations, labour has recourse through the courts, and evidence shows that the courts will undo the government’s action.

The federal government is currently defending up to 11 court challenges involving its expenditure restraint law for the public service, as well as multiple court challenges over its imposition of settlements for Canada Post and Air Canada. And, Mr. Speaker, they had in fact engaged in negotiations prior to taking the action they took.

We have a Constitution. We have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We in this Legislature do have an obligation to move back to balance, as we have been doing aggressively. We can’t accept their proposal because it won’t work. It’ll fail the people of Ontario, just as his leadership has failed his party.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Deputy Premier: Sir, your voluntary wage freeze has been an abject failure: 49 out of 50. It’s time to try a new path, a different path.

Minister, you’ve signed—for example, one of the voluntary wage freezes was with the 1,200 workers at the Municipal Property Assessment Corp., MPAC. Your voluntary wage freeze resulted in 2% increases in 2012 and 2013 and 2.2% in 2014-15.

Interjection.

Mr. Tim Hudak: He overachieved, my colleague says.

His voluntary wage freeze was an 8.4% increase, Speaker. It’s unaffordable.

Let me ask you this: Does your current voluntary wage freeze apply to MPAC or are they off the hook? Is yours across the board for everyone or, if they’ve already got a good deal, you’re just going to look the other way? How will you approach MPAC and those that have contracts?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The Leader of the Opposition is selective in the information he provides to the House. Let me provide some additional information that he neglected to provide.

Between April 2010 and March 2012, the average rate of settlement in wages in the Ontario public sector was 1.5%. The average settlement in the Ontario private sector was 1.9%. The average settlement for Ontario municipalities was 2.3%. The average settlement in the federal public service was 1.7%.

We have moved to the next level. The Minister of Health yesterday announced some regulatory changes that will help us achieve what we need to achieve with medical doctors.

We will no doubt have recourse to this Legislature at some time, and I hope that the opposition, instead of being absent without leadership, will respond and, as he indicated, work with—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A reminder, everyone: Please, when I say “thank you,” that should be the end of your sentence.

Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Minister, 49 out of 50 agreements saw significant wage increases compared to what’s happening in the private sector and those on fixed incomes. You just said the others have a 1.5% increase. I remind you, your policy is zero. Perhaps the minister could explain what his definition of “freeze” exactly is.

Minister, freeze means “zero.” It means “no more.” It says to all of us in the public sector that we need to take on our share of the sacrifice that has happened in the private sector, that has happened with average families and those on fixed incomes, to say that a $30-billion deficit is too much. We need to move to balancing the books, paying down the debt and building a stronger, more prosperous province of Ontario.

Let me ask you this essential question, Minister: Do you believe in your heart that somebody working in the same job in the public sector should be paid the exact same wage and benefits, or do you believe, as you have done, that those in the public sector should get 46% increases that aren’t affordable in the private sector?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I’m pleased to note that yesterday the Leader of the Opposition—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s not acceptable in the House.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I’m pleased to note that yesterday the Leader of the Opposition supported the Minister of Health’s initiative with respect to medical doctors. That’s a giant step forward from a party that has abdicated its responsibilities in this House over the course of the last several months.

I’d remind the member opposite, as I did in my response to his previous question, that in fact the average rate of settlement in the Ontario public and broader public sectors has been below that of the federal government, below that of the private sector.

There is more to do, Mr. Speaker. We’ve begun implementing our budget. We will likely have recourse to the House on some of these matters in the future. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition’s support on those matters as opposed to simply walking away from his responsibilities to this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Let me point out some important facts to the minister: The total amount paid to public sector workers in Ontario has increased by 46% since 2003. That’s way beyond what’s happening in the private sector, families on fixed incomes, let alone the unemployed. You’ve given away pension benefits that those outside of the public sector could only dream of.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business points out that an equivalent worker in the public sector gets 27% more for wages, benefits and pensions than someone in the private sector.

There is an essential element of fairness that has gone awry, Minister. We believe that you need a healthy, thriving private sector than to drive investment in public services, an Ontario economy that’s a leader in Canada and a government that says its first goal is to rein in spending, to balance the books and pay down the debt to build a stronger, more prosperous province of Ontario.

Step one: A mandatory public sector wage freeze to get us on that path that will save us $2 billion a year. Will you support it, Minister?

Interjections.

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

Deputy Premier?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We now read that that party was signing collective agreements that had a larger percentage increase than ours. Here’s what the Leader of the Opposition chose to do: He and his colleagues fired 15,000 teachers, they fired 6,200 nurses. No, Ontario doesn’t want to go back to that.

Here’s where we differ: Our policy is about protecting teachers in the classroom because every child is entitled to the best education possible. Our policy is about hiring, and we’ve hired 12,500 more nurses since we took office. We have shortened wait times to ensure that our parents and all of our families have access to the best quality health care.

Ontarians rejected them before. They will reject you again. We’re protecting health, protecting education, moving back to balance and putting money where it belongs, in classrooms and hospitals as opposed to—

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All of you, come to order.

New question.

JOB CREATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, my question is to the Acting Premier. The Minister of Finance has talked a lot about his plans for a government fund to improve productivity and, more importantly, create jobs. Can I get his agreement that creating and protecting jobs has to be the number one priority for any government plan?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, in fact, here’s what the record is: The Ontario film tax credit, a project supported by the province through tax credits, contributed $1.26 billion to the economy last year, representing 30,000 jobs. Training tax credits: We provided $216 million last year, creating some tens of thousands of jobs. The research and development tax credits, which are refundable, provide $255 million each year.

The Ontario research and development tax credit provides $135 million each year; the Ontario resource tax credit, $3 million each year; the Ontario small business deduction, $1.3 billion per year; the Ontario tax credit for manufacturing and processing, $110 million per year. That is tens of thousands of jobs, in fact, hundreds of thousands.

I look forward to the details—

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan: —of her additional proposals—

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan: —to build on our success, many initiatives of which she and her—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to take a moment to admonish the Deputy Premier. When I say thank you, that is the end and I wish you to stop.

Supplementary?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew, I don’t need your help.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The government has received a lot of advice about support for business in tough times. Some, including their expert panel led by Don Drummond, say it’s time to shift the emphasis from job creation onto enhancing productivity.

Unfortunately, these are the same people who told us that corporate tax cuts were going to unleash a tidal wave of job creation and investment. Instead, businesses have sat on record profits, and over half a million people in this province are still looking for work. Does the minister agree that it’s time for a new approach?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I think the leader of the third party wants to be careful in quoting Mr. Drummond on these matters, because he in fact doesn’t think her idea really merits serious consideration.

Now, we don’t necessarily share that view, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I had the opportunity to meet earlier this year with people at the Office of Management and Budget, looking at the Obama tax credit, which she has cited in this House and in other places, where they propose to give employers a 10% tax credit for any increases in wages, whether from new hires or wage increases for existing employees. They go on to look at this in terms of the credit being calculated by comparing a company’s 2012 eligible wages, defined as old age, survivors’, disability insurance wages and a variety of other things—with a cap of $500,000 per employer.

There are a number of these initiatives that are part of our existing tax credit system. I look forward to hearing more from the leader of the third party about the specifics of how she would operationalize her proposal, which is seriously worthy of consideration.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Maybe the finance minister misinterpreted, so I’ll just clarify: I proudly reject Don Drummond’s idea, and I disagree with him wholeheartedly that jobs should not be the focus of any budget of this province.

Sometimes big problems need big solutions. Instead of sticking with the same old tactics, which we know aren’t working, I think it’s time for Ontario to try something new: a job creation tax credit, which would be funded without adding a nickel to the deficit and would create 50,000 new jobs. Will the minister agree that it’s time to try some new ideas to create jobs in this province?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I took the leader through a number of initiatives this government has taken over the last three years, many of which she voted against. You can’t quote Don Drummond at the beginning and then at the end renounce him.

She has proposed a 10% refundable tax credit for new hires in the first year, to a maximum of $5,000, claiming that that would create some 50,000 jobs. That is why we agreed with the NDP in our budget negotiations that the jobs and prosperity council will examine their proposal and report back by February 1 next year.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, if I’m not mistaken, this is the beginning of my third question. Is that correct?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You are correct.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My second question.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Correct.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: All right.

JOB CREATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: So my next question is actually to the Acting Premier. I ask him to actually review the Hansard when he looks through the comments I’ve made because, in fact, I never quoted Don Drummond in a positive way, and I just need him to make sure he knows that.

The government’s job council is going to allocate about $2 billion, apparently, in business support. This is what their budget says. They could use less than one eighth of that for a job creation tax credit which would create 50,000 much-needed well-paying jobs here in Ontario. And because the money is already allocated, it won’t add any new costs to this budget. Will the minister support the NDP motion to reward job creators with targeted job creation tax credits?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The motion that the NDP put forward to the House is remarkably vague on detail, and I think we would have to understand more of those details before we can support that.

Their proposal does not create jobs without a cost to the treasury. In fact, we estimate that it could be up to $250 million. That is not to suggest that it isn’t worthy of consideration—pardon the double negative. It is, in fact, worthy of serious consideration, but we are going to have to look at the details more carefully, going beyond what was put into the NDP’s campaign document that spoke of it creating 50,000 jobs, a maximum benefit of $5,000 and not saying where the money comes from.

We have undertaken, through our negotiations—we referred this to the jobs and prosperity task force. I’m sure they’ll give us advice as well as access to expert opinion on analyzing this and helping us determine the appropriate way to move forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): My apologies to the leader of the third party. Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Thank you.

Governments are looking at ideas like this from all over the world, Speaker. President Obama recently said that new tax proposals should reward companies that choose to do the right thing by bringing jobs home and not tax breaks for companies that move jobs overseas. In these tough times, how can we justify handing public dollars to companies that aren’t creating jobs while so many people are looking for work? Isn’t it time for measures that support the actual job creators in this province?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We have those, and they’ve been working—some of them working quite well; some of them not as well as we’d like. I would remind her that we’ve also put forth a southwestern Ontario economic development fund. We have an eastern Ontario economic development fund, a northern Ontario heritage fund, all of which have been preserved in this.

We have taken over $2 billion in business supports, put it into a fund, and we’re now seeking the advice of a task force that will give us guidance as to how best to use that money. We will ask that growth panel to give us advice, Mr. Speaker, on the best use of those funds. We will certainly look at the proposals she has put forth. I would remind her that the kind of proposals that have been put forward by President Obama and others are already contained in many of our tax credits, many of the incentives available to businesses in Ontario, and that’s why last month we created some 46,000 net new jobs.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the finance minister might want to talk about the months before last month, where thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs were lost in this province.

This afternoon, New Democrats are going to introduce our motion to create a job creation tax credit. For employers, the math is very simple: Create a job, get a tax credit. The better the job, the higher the tax credit.

The minister has tried a lot of ideas that simply aren’t working. Is he willing to really try one for a change that works? Will he support our efforts to create a much-needed job creation tax credit in this province?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We’ve said yes to that, and what I would like to do is simply review the record, because what the Leader of the Opposition said about a month before last was factually incorrect. First of all: 46,000 full-time jobs in March, a total of 348,200 net new jobs from the low in May 2009, recovering all of the jobs lost. That wasn’t achieved by Obama; it wasn’t achieved in the UK; it was achieved right here in Ontario, Mr. Speaker.

I’m proud of our business community. That member and her party continually denigrate business and the financial services sector, the largest employer in the greater Toronto area, saying, “We don’t like them. We want to tax them more,” instead of building an environment that will allow them to continue to create the jobs they’ve been creating.

Let’s talk about the facts. Our unemployment rate is now lower than the US. Our unemployment rate continues to go down. We have built the foundations of a strong future. We—

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

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Martin Regg Cohn shed some light on why this government continues to obstruct the will of the Legislature and that of the public accounts committee. “Liberal insiders,” he writes, “believe the Ornge scandal is ... fading fast from the radar.”

Speaker, I want to assure Mr. Cohn, the Premier, the Minister of Health, the House leader and those Liberal insiders as well as Ontario’s taxpayers that we have no intention of letting this scandal fade into anything but a full-fledged inquiry.

Last week, I asked the Premier to personally intervene to ensure that the request of the Legislature and the public accounts committee for broadened terms of reference would—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Question?

Mr. Frank Klees: I ask today, given the Premier’s sentiments that he wants to get to the bottom of this, will the government agree to allow those terms of reference to be implemented?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. John Milloy: I think the member is well aware that the public accounts committee, a standing committee of this Legislature, is seized with the Ornge matter. I have here the statistics. The committee has sat for 20 hours on this matter and has heard from 28 witnesses who have appeared so far. I also know that the committee is in the process of scheduling future witnesses to come forward. I have great confidence in the public accounts committee and the good work that they do.

I would also remind the honourable member that, when it comes to the Ornge file, we have had a thorough review by the Auditor General. The Ontario Provincial Police—it’s unfortunate, but they are investigating the matter. We also have a piece of legislation in front of this House which, if passed at second reading, would also be going in front of committee.

There is a thorough review of Ornge that is taking place.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, it’s very clear that the government House leader himself is part of that group of Liberal insiders who are hoping that this will fade off the radar.

It’s very clear what the Premier’s intention is. He said, “Our responsibility is to do everything we can to understand how it is that we let this thing get out from under us, and to make sure that it doesn’t happen again.” That is why the public accounts committee sent a motion to the government House leader asking him to broaden the terms of reference.

I ask the government House leader this. It’s a very simple request. We are asking simply that the committee can meet at the will of the Chair. What is it that the government House leader is afraid of? We are asking for one thing: Broaden the terms of reference. What is the government House leader hiding and who is he protecting? That’s what we want to know.

Interjections.

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

Government House leader?

Hon. John Milloy: The public accounts committee is in the process of examining it. The public accounts committee has the tools that it needs in order to undertake the types of investigation that are needed. I would remind members, for example, that tomorrow, the public accounts committee is hearing from witness Mr. Rick Potter and has decided that they will take 2.5 hours in order to hear what comes forward. They have the tools that are needed.

The work they are doing is being complemented by the investigation by the Ontario Provincial Police, by the good work that was done by the Auditor General, an officer of this Legislature, and also by a piece of legislation that’s before this House which, if they didn’t engage in these juvenile bell-ringing games, would actually make it through to a second reading vote and go in front of committee for further examination of the issue.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. Nearly everyone in their lifetime will face or know someone affected by mental illness. The Mental Health Commission of Canada is releasing 100 recommendations aimed at putting mental health front and centre.

Here in this Legislature, an all-party select committee made 23 recommendations to improve mental health, but as we approach the recommended two-year review, this government has only moved on two of those 23 recommendations.

Can I please ask the minister to explain what is the delay?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I first want to commend the Mental Health Commission of Canada for releasing this very important report. I think, across all parties, we now acknowledge that this is an issue that we have to face head-on. I’m actually very, very pleased to see that mental health is finally getting the attention that it deserves.

We have released our mental health and addictions strategy. I’m very pleased that the Minister of Children and Youth Services, the Minister of Education and myself are moving forward with the implementation of those important initiatives within our mental health and addictions strategy.

I was very pleased that the Minister of Education last weekend announced 600 new positions to work with kids in our schools, including 144 nurses. Speaker, we need to get to kids early so that we can get them the help they need as soon as possible.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Recommendations on mental health are too important to be left on a shelf. That’s true about today’s federal report on mental health, but this is also true of the Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions’ report. Eighteen months ago, members from all three parties wrote this about the urgent need for this government to act on mental health: “We are convinced that a radical transformation of mental health and addictions care is necessary if Ontarians are to get the care they need and deserve.”

The time for action is long overdue. Why is the province dragging its feet on action on mental health?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I completely reject the premise of the question. We are moving quite aggressively on this issue, including the implementation of our mental health and addictions strategy. Our focus is initially on kids, because we know that if we can get to kids early, we may be able to prevent a lifelong challenge related to mental health.

We have almost doubled our community supports in addictions and mental health, and our most recent budget actually focuses more on community supports. That’s why we’ve had to say to our hospitals, “You’re going to have to make do with no base funding increase.” That’s why we have said to doctors, “You’re going to have to work with us to protect but not exceed past expenditures on physician compensation.”

This budget reflects our commitment to get more supports to the people who need them sooner.

AGGREGATE EXTRACTION

Ms. Dipika Damerla: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. As we all know, aggregates are a key ingredient that goes into building all of our infrastructure, whether it’s roads, whether it’s bridges, whether it’s hospitals—all of the infrastructure that Ontarians enjoy. We are blessed here in Ontario that we have a plentiful supply of aggregates.

However, a report called the State of the Aggregate Resource in Ontario shows that rising demand and a decrease in supply of aggregates mean that there could be a significant depletion of this resource over the next 20 years.

Minister, I appreciate the need to increase the supply of aggregates to keep up with our growing demand for infrastructure. But on the other hand, we have to factor in the environmental cost of extracting this resource. That’s why, Minister, I know that last year you committed to reviewing the Aggregate Resources Act. Can you let the members of this House know why we need to review this act?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Great question. I want to thank the member for Mississauga East–Cooksville for raising this issue. Certainly, I want to assure the members of the House and all Ontarians that a review of the Aggregate Resources Act by the all-party committee remains a real priority for our government. That’s why we made a commitment to review it. That’s why we brought a motion before the House and we’re pleased that it’s being discussed publicly.

The one thing that I think needs to be understood is that the demand for aggregates is greatest in southern Ontario, particularly in the greater Toronto area. Our close-to-market approach has meant that much of the extraction takes place in close proximity to the GTA. The result of that, in some circumstances, has been more land use conflicts, with a growing number of Ontarians concerned about the impact of aggregate extraction in their communities. So in reviewing the act, I believe that we can work to find a way to improve the way that we balance our need for aggregates with ensuring that we keep our water safe and protect our environment as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Dipika Damerla: Thank you, Minister, for that great answer that has offered us a better understanding of the need for a review and the challenges that face both our government and Ontarians.

Minister, I know that there are opportunities for the public to participate during committee hearings.

Interjections.

Ms. Dipika Damerla: Speaker, I’m going to repeat this. Minister, I know there are opportunities for the public to participate during committee hearings. Invitations to the public were issued yesterday in various newspapers and online. I also understand that the all-party committee is encouraging anybody who’s interested in attending these hearings to contact the head clerk.

Despite all of this transparency, it appears that there is some confusion on the consultation process. Can the minister elaborate on how interested parties can participate in committee hearings?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Certainly, it’s vitally important that—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m requesting that we race to the top and not to the bottom. I do require and request that when I get quiet, you don’t use it as an opportunity to interject again. I’m serious about my challenge.

Minister of Natural Resources.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I’d like to think that all members of the House recognize how important this review of the Aggregate Resources Act is. That’s why we’re encouraging anyone who wishes to take

part in the committee hearings to do so. Obviously, if you’re making public presentations or written submissions, and to ensure that everybody has an opportunity to participate—our government is also encouraging the committee to make full use of teleconferencing, video conferencing and web submissions, and I know that they’re continuing to discuss other opportunities to do that.

By seeking advice and insight from our key stakeholders, the all-party committee does provide a fabulous opportunity to ensure that we all have a say in the management of this vital resource. Certainly I’m looking forward to working with all parties in this House to get the review right. This is important—

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

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is to the Attorney General and it concerns the operation of the Mount Pleasant Group of Cemeteries. Yesterday in response to my question regarding the disclosure of financial and operational records of the group, a public trust and a charitable organization, you said, “[I]t’s my understanding that some arrangement has been made whereby their records will be made … public—to the general public.” Minister, can you tell me when this arrangement was made and when we can expect these records to be released to the public?

Hon. John Gerretsen: It’s my understanding that there have been ongoing discussions between my ministry and the Ministry of Consumer Services with the Mount Pleasant Cemetery organization, as well as some of the people that have been writing in about it, to basically make their financial affairs more public. That’s what’s ongoing. As you and I know, this matter has been going on for the last 20 years. We’ve got correspondence from this group going right back to 1991, and there have been attempts since that time to make the whole operation more transparent.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Clearly, Mr. Speaker, there is no plan to make these records public. After six years of inquiry, this is a totally inadequate answer. And it’s really concerning because this is reminiscent of the Ornge scandal, where numerous red flags were raised by the opposition and the government did nothing but sit on its hands.

This public trust holds over $1.3 billion in assets. It’s alleged to have generated millions of dollars in profits. Isn’t it strange that the Attorney General doesn’t know where a penny of those profits has gone? Why aren’t you concerned about this, Attorney General? You have every tool at our disposal to ask for these records to be produced. Why aren’t you?

Hon. John Gerretsen: First of all, the organization is not a crown corporation. It has never received any public funding at all, Speaker. It has not received any public funding at all from the government, that is. There are methods and ways in which the groups, if they’re not happy, how they can resolve this. They can take this matter before a judge, take it to court. That’s how civil disputes in this province are being resolved: by having both sides present their position before a judge, and then an adjudication will be made.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I have to confess to a little bit of frustration that every time a question is asked, it’s almost as if, as soon as they stand up, you start yelling something. It is frustrating.

You may finish.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Well, Speaker, I think I’ve said it many times before.

Interjection.

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

Hon. John Gerretsen: Speaker, I’ve said this many times before. There is a dispute going on between a group of people and the Mount Pleasant Cemetery people. No government dollars have ever been given to this organization, to the best of our knowledge. That’s what it is all about. There are ways in which this can be resolved if the group is unhappy with the answer that they receive from government.

The member knows that. She’s a lawyer in good standing. She knows how disputes are being—

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

I will remind this minister that when I say “thank you,” that’s the end of the answer.

New question?

CHILDREN’S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. The government has announced that it will be closing the Thistletown Regional Centre, a facility that serves some of Ontario’s most vulnerable children—over 400 clients: children with autism, children with severe developmental challenges, children who suffer as a result of sexual abuse.

The minister said the services will be transferred to community agencies—agencies that are already stretched to their limits. Will the minister table a detailed plan showing where every service for these 400 Ontarians will be moving to?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I thank the member opposite for the question. I want to, first of all, remind her that a lot has changed since the 1990s when her party also made the decision to close Thistletown. In fact, since that time, we have invested significant funds in our community-based organizations to ensure that the capacity and the operations of these agencies are effective to the point where it’s well known and understood that the organizations and the entities that are best placed to provide responsive, comprehensive services close to home for individuals like those currently treated at Thistletown—that the best place to do that is actually through our community-based agencies.

We’re at the very beginning of a two-year process of transferring the services from Thistletown to these highly capable agencies. I would suggest to my member opposite that she, as I do, support these community-based agencies for the good work that they do.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Miss Monique Taylor: Mr. Speaker, many are rightfully asking how this government intends to deliver the services that Thistletown provides: Programs like SAFE-T, sexual abuse family education, treatment, which treats victims of sexual abuse. This is an internationally recognized program that is running at capacity.

Here’s what one father said about the program’s impact on his son, “Without Thistletown, I have no doubt his life would have been destroyed.”

Now that Thistletown is scheduled to be closed, will the minister say exactly how this program will be delivered?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Again, Mr. Speaker, we’re at the beginning of a two-year process of transferring services into the communities. There are 15 residential clients at Thistletown and each one of those clients has been contacted by the ministry. They will have individualized treatment plans to guarantee that they are transferred to services within the community that can accommodate them and provide the sort of services that they’re used to and indeed are entitled to.

The many of the approximately 400 day patients will have completed their treatment plan prior to the two-year closure. Those who have not—we’re already beginning to work with those families to ensure that the treatment they receive in the communities is not only efficient and responsive but exceptional, as is the treatment provided by our community-based agencies that work hard every day to ensure that those services are provided.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr. Grant Crack: My question is to the Minister of Consumer Services. More than seven in 10 Ontarians have entered into a wireless service contract in one form or another and many of them have complained about confusing language, extra charges and massive cancellation fees. Many consumers feel they’re being taken advantage of and they’re looking to this government to provide them some protection.

The federal government has been silent on this matter for years and has only recently acknowledged that they’re willing to begin talking about this important issue.

Speaker, through you to the minister: How is the Ministry of Consumer Services planning to help Ontario consumers get some fairness, some clarity and some relief from the cell shock they experience every month?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: I want to thank the member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell. I am pleased to be able to take this opportunity to talk about the newly introduced legislation, the Wireless Services Agreements Act, 2012, which, if passed, will further empower consumers and strengthen their confidence in the marketplace. Again, I take this opportunity to thank the member from Sault Ste. Marie for bringing this issue to the forefront with his two private member’s bills dealing with wireless agreements, which provided the foundation for this new government bill.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government has left a vacuum, and we are taking strong action to protect Ontario’s consumers. Our legislation, if passed, will provide consumers some relief from cell shock by ensuring that cancellation fees are capped, contracts are written in clear language and advertisements include all-in pricing. It will also require consumers to consent for changes to be made to their agreements and for these agreements to be written in clear language.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Grant Crack: Thank you, Minister, for clearing up how this bill will help all consumers in Ontario. However, Minister, there are some concerns out there with regard to federal jurisdiction and how this bill may add extra charges to consumers as cellphone service providers adapt to these new legislative requirements. We all know telecommunications falls under federal jurisdiction, as governed by the CRTC. However, the CRTC has been dragging their feet in this area and have only recently made any effort to address the concern of consumers.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: Can the Minister of Consumer Services please share with the House how this bill will bring fairness to consumers and how it will not in fact add any extra charges to their monthly wireless bills?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: Again, I thank the member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell. It is certainly a lack of action from the federal government and consumer concerns that have led to the strong action that the Ontario government has taken with this bill to further protect Ontario’s consumers.

I would note that the provisions of this legislation, if it is passed, fall within provincial jurisdiction, as it focuses on contracts. Contracts are most certainly within provincial jurisdiction. We have only to look to Quebec, who enacted similar legislation last year with respect to the issue of added costs. Our legislation is very much aligned to the Quebec legislation. It has been in place for approximately one year, and I am pleased to report that, to my knowledge, there has not been any increase in cost to consumers.

With regard to the CRTC, it is encouraging to hear that they are listening to consumers and have signalled their intent to hold consultations on the state of the wireless industry in Canada. Thank you, Mr. Speaker—

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

HEALTHY SCHOOLS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is for the Minister of Education. It seems you and your government got into a little food fight with some students in Brampton. They’re angry that you took away their choice. They’re very insulted that you’ve taken away their responsibility. They say, “Ironically, the only health benefit to this policy that we see is the 1.5-kilometre walk to McDonald’s.” Also ironic is the $700,000 that is being lost in revenues to promote healthy lifestyles. Then add the minister’s mixed messages that she makes that undermine her arguments to defend the government. Yesterday, she said there could be dispensation from the guidelines on certain days for certain activities.

Is this minister saying that pizza is allowed to be sold on Tuesday but not allowed to be sold on Wednesday? Is Tuesday’s pizza healthier than Wednesday’s? Or do you just think it’s your government’s job to tell students when and what to eat?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I know we’re doing something right in our schools when we’re talking about pizza in question period.

We know that our kids go to school every single day to learn, to build their future, to learn how to read and write, and we should be so proud of what is happening in Ontario schools. I’m also proud of students who want to advocate, who want to talk about what’s happening in their school and be part of building that culture and climate, and I welcome an opportunity to meet with the students.

But our kids deserve the best start. The member opposite is a mom as well. I know how hard I work to make a healthy lunch every day, and we know better. When we were in school, many of us ate French fries and gravy for lunch, and we know better than that. Let’s build a good education system, and let’s make sure our children’s stomachs help their minds so that they can learn and grow.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The minister just told all those kids in Brampton that the government knows better. She should listen to those students in Brampton. They’re not opposed to a healthy lifestyle or health promotion. They are opposed to choice suppression. They are using their mind; too bad that government left it at the door.

You’ve taken their gum, you’ve taken their Gatorade, but you sure as hell haven’t taken their gumption away from them.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Withdrawn.

In the video Our Future: Student Choice Across Ontario, a student damns this government. He says, and I quote—

Interjections.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: They may want to listen to this. He said, “We are told what to do. This is not the Ontario”—

Interjections.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The student says, “We are told what to do. This is not the Ontario that I grew up in. This is not the Ontario I believe in.”

Interjections.

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

I want to take a moment to thank those members who have decided to sit there peacefully and not interject in the way it’s been happening in the last little bit.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And I don’t need any other interjections when I get quiet.

Complete.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: Thank you, Speaker. This is the Legislature of Ontario.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Northumberland–Quinte West is warned.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: This isn’t a joke, Speaker. Research tells us that healthy food is important for students’ learning. At the heart of everything that we do in Ontario’s education system is making sure that our students can learn and grow.

Speaker, I’m not going to take lessons from the PC Party about what our priorities should be in education. They fired teachers. They had a total disregard for what our students needed to achieve. When we took office, only 68% of our students were achieving, and now our results are 82%. We’re doing something right in our schools. We need to make healthy choices, the right choices. We need to make sure that our kids can learn.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr. Rosario Marchese: My question is to the Minister of Consumer Services. Over the last decade, condos have become the de facto entry point to home ownership. Today there are over 525,000 condo units in Ontario and over one million condo dwellers, yet the Condominium Act has not seen a single change in the last 14 years.

My office receives calls from across the province from condo owners who have nowhere else to go when dealing with bad construction, conflicts with developers, unlicensed property managers, problems with the new home warranty and more. Consumer protection is completely missing. When will the minister and this government start listening to the people of Ontario and give condo owners the consumer protection they desperately deserve?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: That is certainly an important issue for the government of the province of Ontario, and the Premier has made it clear that we are going to be reviewing that and it is, in fact, a priority for this government.

Mr. Speaker, I am certain that everyone here is well aware that the condominium marketplace has explo