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

September 25, 2018

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2018-Sept-25 (PDF)

L027 - Tue 25 Sep 2018 / Mar 25 sep 2018

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 25 September 2018 Mardi 25 septembre 2018

Select Committee on Financial Transparency

Introduction of Visitors

Report, Environmental Commissioner

Private members’ public business

Substitution in question period

Oral Questions

Provincial deficit

Anti-racism activities

Government accountability

Children’s mental health services

Long-term care

Education funding

La Francophonie

Government accountability

Community safety / Sécurité communautaire

Government accountability

Hazardous waste

Energy policies

Amélioration d’autoroute / Highway improvement

Community safety

Northern transportation

Natural gas

Private members’ public business

Disaster relief

Members’ Statements

Kingston WritersFest

Apple industry

Injured workers

Woodland Cultural Centre

Anti-racism activities

Gies Family Centre

Flemingdon Park basketball courts

Leashes by the Lake

Niagara Grape and Wine Festival

Down Syndrome Awareness Fun Walk

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Motions

House sittings

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Jour des Franco-Ontariens et des Franco-Ontariennes

Petitions

Injured workers

Curriculum

Indigenous affairs

Social assistance

Guide and service animals

Curriculum

Northern health services

Employment standards

School boards

Animal protection

Private members’ public business

Orders of the Day

Select Committee on Financial Transparency

Adjournment Debate

Anti-racism activities

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Select Committee on Financial Transparency

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Finance.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Good morning, Speaker. I move that a Select Committee on Financial Transparency be appointed to consider and report to the House its observations and recommendations with respect to the report submitted by the Independent Financial Commission of Inquiry; and

That the committee investigate and report on the accounting practices, decision-making and policy objectives of the previous government or any other aspect of the report that the committee deems relevant; and

That the committee have the power to send for persons, papers and things; and

That the committee be composed of six members of the party forming the government, three members of the official opposition, and that the Chair and Vice-Chair shall be members of the party forming the government; and

That the committee be authorized to meet at the call of the Chair; and

That the committee be given priority to use the Amethyst Room for its meetings; and

That the committee shall present, or if the House is not meeting, release by depositing with the Clerk of the Assembly, its interim report by November 1, 2018, and its final report by December 13, 2018, or on a date to be determined by the committee.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Mr. Fedeli has moved government notice of motion number 7. Would the minister care to lead off the debate? I recognize the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Thank you very much, Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this motion. I’m splitting my time with the government House leader.

Speaker, we have a very serious situation in Ontario. A couple of things have come to light. First of all, we’ve seen the public accounts, which I must say came as quite a surprise to most people in Ontario, to learn two things. First, that despite the Liberals telling us there was a $600-million surplus in their 2017-18 books, when the books were indeed closed, we learned that there was a $3.7-billion deficit in those books. So that was the first thing that people learned.

The second was the fact that the Auditor General has approved and signed off on these books, which in itself became “unusual,” in Liberal speak. This is the first time she signed the government’s books with a clean slate in three years. Previously, the Liberal government had a qualified opinion, which meant there were outstanding questions unanswered by the government. Can you imagine having unanswered questions about finances? It’s black or white. There are no ifs, ands or buts in accounting. Numbers add up. One plus one equals two, not minus-600 million, or in this case, 3.7 billion. We learned that, and those numbers were presented last Friday.

Following that, I was privileged and honoured to release the complete report of Ontario’s Independent Financial Commission of Inquiry, which was announced by our Premier Ford back in July. Lo and behold, again, Ontario learned some very startling news that no, the Liberals—who, first of all, had claimed that they were balanced and in surplus but would run an almost-$7-billion deficit in 2017-18—well, it turns out that deficit is actually $15 billion. A $15-billion deficit is where we are right now in this current fiscal year.

Now, that’s not our number. This is the Liberal number. This is the number that should have been in the Liberal budget that they presented. They presented it as $6.7 billion when, in fact, it’s $15 billion. They were afraid to be upfront with the people of Ontario and tell the people what the real number is. They chose to come up with a different number, crossed their fingers, and hoped that nobody would figure it out. Well, the commission of inquiry did indeed figure out that there’s a $15-billion deficit.

Now, some people are quick to say, “Oh, but you guys already knew that. There’s nothing to see here. Move along.” That, in itself, is not accurate. The fact that the Auditor General, in her pre-election report, and the Financial Accountability Officer before the election both claimed correctly, with the information they had at the time, that the deficit would not be what the Liberals said—$6.7 billion—but indeed closer to $12 billion. One was a little under, one was a little over, but they were within the reasonable margins of the information that the public knew at the time.

Since that time, more information has come to the surface about numbers that were not accurate in the Liberals’ budget. For instance, they claimed $1.4 billion in efficiencies, but they wouldn’t know an efficiency if they stepped on it. Believe me, we’re going to show what efficiencies are.

Let me give you a quick example of an efficiency. When the Liberal government put out OHIP+, it was to give free pharmacare for everybody under the age of 25. It was going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Premier Ford and Minister of Health Christine Elliott stepped in and made an efficiency. What that means is that they changed the model so that if you and your family, if you have a benefits program—as everybody in this House does, for instance—your benefits program now is the first payer of the pharmacare, even for under 25. If you don’t have that, well then the government kicks and takes it up.

The end result of this efficiency was that everybody under the age of 25 still has exactly the same coverage as they had—in fact, it’s a little better—before the announcement as they did after the announcement. Nobody lost a job, but the government saved many, many tens of millions. In fact, it may well be closer to $200 million that the government saved. That is an efficiency. There’s no fearmongering needed for that. Everybody has exactly what they had five minutes before the announcement, nobody lost a job, and we’ve saved countless dollars.

The Liberals had $1.4 billion in efficiencies in the budget but had no plan for one penny of it. The commission said there wasn’t even a scintilla of hope that they were going to save five cents. They didn’t show that. From the time the budget was announced to the day of the election, there were no savings found; there were no ambitious programs of efficiencies. In fact, when we announced, pre-campaign, that we would be looking for efficiencies, oh, it was going to be cuts, according to them.

But in their own budget—as I sat on that very chair and said day after day after day, “You in your own budget have $1.4 billion of efficiencies,” they had no plans, ever, to implement one of those efficiencies. So that money needs to be added back now, because they never found a nickel. So that money was put back in.

They were dipping into the reserves, precariously into our future safety net, dipping into that and using that money. And of course we know all the stories, Speaker, that I used to talk about on that very chair across the aisle: how they continued to sell assets and put the one-time revenue from the sale of the OPG building or the sale of the LCBO lands into general revenue. Any business person—any family—knows that you can’t rely on that money every year. You’re going to run out of buildings to sell very shortly. You can sell buildings, of course, and put that money where it belongs, in the reserves, and build your reserves, but you don’t put it into general revenue as they did.

So we know, Speaker, that when everybody said, “Oh, you knew that number; there’s nothing to see here,” that’s not the issue. We didn’t know the number. The number is billions—billions—worse than the Liberals led us to believe and billions—billions—worse than even the Auditor General and the Financial Accountability Officer were able to determine at that time. In fairness to them, they had the best information at the time and came up with the best possible number at the time.

So how can everybody say, “Oh, there’s nothing to see here,” when it’s—when did billions, when did $3 billion more in debt, in deficit, become “Nothing to see here; move on”? When did we hit that point, that that money doesn’t mean anything? So I’m very, very surprised and, quite frankly, disappointed, Speaker, in the detractors who say, “Oh, you know, this is old news. This is old news; nothing to see.”

Then, Speaker, it takes on an even further and more nefarious ramification. So we’ve got public accounts: a $3.7-billion deficit, not $600-million surplus. We’ve got the true deficit for this year: $15 billion, not the $6.7 billion that the Liberals had said. And then we’ve got words that I cannot use in the Legislature, and I understand that. But we’ve got a system—and I’ll use some of the auditor’s words in a moment here—of a very devious scheme that was developed to make sure we never knew the truth. That’s the real story.

That is the purpose of the select committee: to get to the bottom, yes, about how somebody could say $3.7 billion when it wasn’t true; how somebody could say $15 billion when it wasn’t true. But the real issue is the breadth and depth that the Liberals went through to make sure we never could put this financial map backwards and put it back together to understand exactly and precisely what they did.

So again, Speaker, those would be unparliamentary words. I won’t use them, but I am going to eventually read some words, some not very kind words, from the Auditor General and from the Financial Accountability Officer.

But I want to go back—I know I’ve spoken for 10 minutes, Speaker. I’ve gotten through the first paragraph of my speech; I’m still not through page 1 yet of about a 40-page speech. So we did give the commission of inquiry a broad and expansive mandate under the province’s Public Inquiries Act, which remains Ontario’s most powerful legislative tool to independently uncover and assess questionable practices or situations.

In particular, the commission was mandated: (1) to perform a retrospective assessment of government accounting practices, and (2) to review, assess and provide an opinion on Ontario’s actual budgetary position compared to the glowing picture the Liberals painted in the 2018 budget. As I said, the numbers on (2) were overblown. They never told us the facts about how bad things were, but the real issue was the accounting practices that they used to keep the true state of Ontario’s finances from the people.

The Public Inquiries Act gave quite broad discretionary powers to the commission. I want to thank former Liberal Premier of British Columbia, Gordon Campbell, who chaired the commission; former federal deputy minister of finance, a long-time deputy finance minister under many governments, Michael Horgan; and Dr. Al Rosen, the founder of Rosen and Associates here in Toronto, who runs Canada’s leading investigative accounting firm. He’s a forensic accountant. We really appreciate their diligence, their ability to work to extremely tight timelines, and the thoroughness of their report.

Premier Ford announced that commission of inquiry back in July because, quite frankly, we had reason not to trust the budget numbers the previous Liberal government had introduced prior to the election.

Of course, as I’ve said many times this week already and last week, it’s not uncommon in politics for a new government to call its predecessors’ numbers into question. Let’s face it, we all do it all the time. But it’s fair for someone to ask me, “Why this time, Vic? When you stand up and say, ‘Their numbers were wrong; they made up the numbers’—why should we look at this one as being any different this time around?” We see it all the time in politics: a change in government; the new guys open the books; we scream in horror at the true state of the public finances; we accuse them of being reckless, irresponsible—and the list goes on and on.

But, Speaker, let me tell you that what happened under this last government is indeed very different than any other new government taking over. You just have to look at Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk’s last report on the state of the government. She reviewed the Liberals’ pre-election report on finances and she concluded that the Liberals’ numbers were “not a reasonable presentation of Ontario’s finances....” That’s quite serious to hear from an Auditor General. She followed up and told us why the numbers don’t add up.

She said, “The government is making up its own accounting rules.” The Auditor General then went on to use words like “conceal,” “bogus,” “deceptive” and “unreliable.” Those are quotes from the Auditor General in documents that were tabled in our Legislature. Can you imagine? These are not normal words to describe a government’s accounting. “Bogus,” “deceptive”—those are amazing words. And then the Auditor General issued a qualified report.

If you haven’t read the auditor’s comments, read them fully. I’ve got two pages of words like that that would shock anybody. Even one word like that should make the public nervous—but two pages of sentences like that.

The commission themselves came up with pretty much the same sentiments. They built on the Auditor General’s findings, as I’ve said, and dug in areas that have been revealed since the auditor’s report and they concluded the Liberals’ approach to their policies such as reducing electricity rates was to pursue a strategy that was “costly,” “convoluted,” “risky, complex and ultimately opaque.” We couldn’t see it. We could not see what they attempted to do. Again, those are not normal words used to describe a government’s accounting, and that’s because this was not a normal situation.

What we are witnessing right now is without precedent in recent Canadian politics, Speaker. This has never happened, quite frankly. When taken together, the conclusions of the Auditor General and the commission of inquiry represent a scathing indictment of how Kathleen Wynne and the Liberals abused the public’s trust. In particular, the Liberals pursued a reckless spree of debt-financed spending and then deliberately deployed a series of accounting tricks to hide the resulting cost from the public. That is exactly what happened. This is unprecedented in Canadian politics.

The result is this crippling hidden debt, which is only now being brought forward. It puts our very future in jeopardy. It puts the future of our children, our grandchildren and their children in jeopardy. The safety nets that we need are being used up by the Liberal government.

It began with public accounts—again, I talked about the fact that the government said that they had a $600-million surplus and actually have a $3.7-billion deficit. In the run-up to the election, they continued to boast of a surplus when they knew—they knew—that there wasn’t a surplus. So this select committee will get to the bottom of who knew what and who did what about it. We’ll learn the truth. It’s so important that we learn the truth so that the techniques that the Liberals employed, the breadth and depth that they went through to conceal this, as the auditor called it, should never happen again in Ontario. It should never happen again in Canada.

The real nightmare was when we look at the money that the Liberals said they will have in a deficit this year, $6.7 billion, when it turns out to be $15 billion. It’s time for Kathleen Wynne and the Liberals to answer for authorizing what they did. Somebody authorized all this. Somebody developed this convoluted plan. Somebody authorized it, and it’s time for them to answer for what they did.

The Liberal party’s accountability for this scandal didn’t end on election day; it began on election day, when Premier Ford said, “People deserve answers, and we are here to ensure that the people get those answers.”

Speaker, I want to talk a little bit for a moment about what I call the canary in the coal mine. It was quite some time ago when—as you know, I talk about Focus on Finance quite frequently here in the Legislature—

Hon. Todd Smith: A bestseller.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: I wish it was a bestseller, Minister.

Yes, I have written five books on the state of the finances in Ontario. In fact, I did give one to one of the finance critics across the aisle.

It was March 2017, so we’re talking quite a while ago now. In my Focus on Finance issue back in March 2017, I called it the canary in the coal mine. I’m going to just read a paragraph here. I call this the “Hydro Hail Mary.” This is when we first heard about the government trying to do something about the mess they got themselves into with our hydro rates, when the hydro rates had more than doubled—in fact, they had tripled. We had the highest hydro rates in North American as a result of the crippling programs that the Liberal insiders got rich on. That will come out in our inquiry, I’m hoping, although I don’t know.

In March 2017 we started to muse about, “This looks pretty fishy, this hydro plan.” So here’s what I wrote back in March:

“One interesting side note is that the government has co-opted Ontario Power Generation into their scheme”—we got our hands on a government slide deck. “The slide deck states that OPG ‘Finances/manages the GA proposal’”—that’s the global adjustment proposal. We thought, “What the heck do they need OPG to be involved in the global adjustment program for? They’re our utility that makes power; they run Darlington and Pickering. What on earth do we need OPG for?”

Then we mused, “Why, might you ask, is OPG involved?” “Well OPG is certainly large enough to absorb this massive financial hit”—because we were going to be talking about borrowing billions and billions of dollars—“but primarily” OPG “are two steps removed from the province.” Even though we own them, I call it two steps removed from the province. “And this liability doesn’t show up on the province’s books.” We disclosed this back in March 2017, what I thought the scheme was starting to shape up like.

“Burying this purported fix inside of OPG’s balance sheet does nothing to solve the government’s bad contracts crisis. Instead, it simply masks the consequences of the government’s Hail Mary. It’s inappropriate and risky for OPG.”

Now, I wrote that back in March 2017. The government at the time: “Oh, no, you’re wrong. It has nothing to do with that. We would never do anything like that. You’re making it up. You’re fearmongering. You’re scaring the people. You’re telling them that we’re going to be borrowing billions and hiding it over in OPG. That’s not fair. You can’t say that about us. That’s not what we’re doing.” Well, Speaker—

Hon. Todd Smith: That’s what they did.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: That’s what they did.

I then, eventually, a year ago wrote “Making Up Its Own Accounting Rules.” It was the October 2017—so, a year ago—version of Focus on Finance where we laid this whole scheme out for the people of Ontario to see. I’ll read a little bit about this, because last year at this time, both the Auditor General and the Financial Accountability Office released very alarming reports about the true state of Ontario’s finances.

It’s “important to acknowledge ... the divide” between what the independent legislative officers are saying the government is doing and what the government says the government is doing. That divide grew very, very large. In accounting, this shouldn’t be. I said that earlier. It’s black; it’s white. One plus one equals two. You don’t mess with accounting.

“[T]he Financial Accountability Office (FAO) presented a report” a year ago “concluding the government’s debt reduction commitment”—this was the scheme that they came up with—“was based on ‘unlikely assumptions.’ And the Auditor General (AG) responded to the government’s financial statements”—this is the public accounts—“by issuing a ‘qualified’ audit...,” as I said, “because, based on the evidence, the statements were”—this is the auditor’s quote—“‘significantly misstated.’”

My gosh, Speaker. This is the government’s books, and the auditor is saying they’re misstated. That’s just unbelievable, that that was going to happen. Of course, that government’s answer to all this, including in the press this morning: All they did was try to disparage the Auditor General. I read some of the former Premier’s comments today. “Oh, nothing to see here. This is old news. Everybody knew that.” Well, it will be interesting to see, if everybody did know that, then why were the numbers not put in the public accounts or in the budget? Why were different numbers used in public accounts or in the budget?

The Premier said, oh, everybody knew that; it was an accounting issue. It’s not an accounting issue. It’s the fact that they tried to financially engineer a change in results. There was an accounting dispute between the auditor and the Liberal government. We resolved that. We accept the auditor’s numbers. But it’s not just the accounting dispute; it’s the scheme that they developed. I’m going to talk about this in a moment, because I’m going to try to lay it out. It’s very complicated. It took a tremendous amount of time and effort, and a drawing—you’ve got to see the drawing from the Auditor General.

As I think I said yesterday, it looks like something out of Saturday Night Live, a cartoon drawing of where the arrows go. They’ve got arrow 1 leading to another box. Arrow 2 drops down. Arrow 3 is an angle up. It twists around with a dotted line over to “who pays what to who.” There’s another arrow that comes around and joins it up. There’s one that goes down. There’s one that goes on another angle. There’s a triangle that spits money up. There’s another box that spits money over. I mean, it’s almost virtually impossible to follow this.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): I’d remind the minister not to use a prop in the House. Also, I’d like to remind the minister, when referring to other members, to refer to the member’s riding as opposed to the former Premier’s first name or last name—just the riding.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): It was entertaining, that use of that prop.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Thank you very much, and I would never challenge the Speaker. That’s the Auditor General’s drawing that she sent to us. But I do apologize for using it. I know better, Speaker. But I’ve got to tell you, it’s one heck of a chart.

I would encourage everybody to go on the Auditor General’s website and download the document called The Fair Hydro Plan: Concerns About Fiscal Transparency, Accountability and Value for Money. That’s the document the Auditor General created that has this most entertaining of charts in it.

Speaker, if there’s any doubt in that very document that I just spoke about, the auditor’s 53-page report that has that chart in it, the opening paragraph, written by the Auditor General, adds an exclamation point to it all. She says, “When governments pass legislation to make their own accounting rules that serve to obfuscate the impact of their financial decisions, their financial statements become unreliable.”

What she has said here is that the government passed accounting rules to change the impact of their financial decisions. They borrowed billions, put it on Ontario Power Generation’s books and said, “That’s not our money; that’s theirs.” They get the benefit of it; they get the bill for it over there off-book for the next generation.

She also said, “When organizational structures and transactions are designed to remove transparency and accountability, and unnecessarily cost Ontarians billions of dollars, the responsibility of an Auditor General is to apprise the Legislature and the public in accordance with the Auditor General’s mandate.”

She told us what they were doing, they denied it, and everybody played ball—everybody. So, again, when the former Premier stands up and says, “No, everybody knew what we were doing”—well, we knew because we exposed it. But they continued to deny that’s what they were doing. The former energy minister stood here day after day after day while we were questioning him and saying, “You are doing this.” “No, we’re not. You just don’t understand accounting. No, that’s not what we’re doing.”

So when people ask why we are doing the select committee—it is to get to the bottom of this. We need to make certain that this type of activity can never happen in Ontario again. That’s why we need the select committee.

Again, Speaker, when I hear people say, “There’s nothing to see here; move on”—there’s a lot to see here. This is at the very core. This is the core of moral decency as well as financial respect. This is all about the government’s so-called fair hydro plan, when they attempted to reduce hydro rates to make up for the fact that they tripled and quadrupled them.

Now we’ve learned that this will cost anywhere—this is what we revealed. I’m reading from what we revealed a year ago, in October 2017. At that time, we learned this will cost anywhere between $45 billion and $93 billion, depending on how much the government has to borrow over the next 29 years. We knew that going in. That was all revealed. What the Auditor General revealed a year ago is that the government created that complicated financing structure that I spoke about and illustrated, that was designed to keep the true cost of the plan off the province’s books so as not to show a deficit or increased debt.

That’s what they were doing. That’s what this is about. It isn’t so much about the fact that yes, there’s a $3.7-billion deficit, not a $600-million surplus in 2017-18—yes, the reality is we have a $15-billion hole to climb out of thanks to the Liberal government, not the $6.7 billion they were announcing—but primarily, it’s the fact that they were keeping the cost of this plan off their books. They had the audacity to try to do that to the people of Ontario.

So this decision could also cost, according to the Auditor General, $4 billion more in interest costs, because this off-books structure, this scheme that they developed—OPG doesn’t have the same borrowing power as the province, and they knew that going in. So taking it off the books to try to keep it from the public—it’s also costing $4 billion more to do that.

In the Auditor General’s words—it’s important to see exactly what was written so you can determine just how serious this is from a financial perspective and a moral/ethical perspective. The Auditor General opens with, “The accounting rules being applied are ... not in accordance with Canadian [public sector accounting standards].” As an independent, non-partisan office of the Legislature, the Auditor General felt it’s her “responsibility to speak out when the financial information of the government is not, or will not be, presented fairly and transparently to both the Legislature and Ontarians.”

In her “Summary of Concerns”—can you imagine an audit that has a headline called “Summary of Concerns”? Speaker, the auditor has a title that—she is so concerned. She said, “It is clear ... that the government’s intention in creating the accounting/financing design to handle the costs of the electricity rate reduction was to avoid affecting its fiscal plan.” The auditor has unmasked that they tried to borrow all this money, use that money to give you lower hydro rates, but give somebody else the bill so it doesn’t show up on their books. Speaker, who does that? If this were listed on the stock exchange, guess who would be knocking at the door?

While the auditor was very clear that she does not question the government’s policy—that’s not her role and she was right to not question the policy—her concerns are that “planned accounting for the government’s” making up its own accounting rules and budgets “is incorrect, and that it was known that the planned financing structure could result in significant unnecessary costs for Ontarians.”

She is saying taking this scheme off-book and putting it at OPG is going to cost more money—$4 billion more—and that it was known that this scheme was going to cost that. So the select committee will want to know who knew—who authorized—the people of Ontario to spend $4 billion just to keep that plan a secret. That’s what this select committee will get to, Speaker. It’s not about the stuff that the former Premier says: “Oh, nothing to see here. Nothing to see here.” Yes, there’s a lot to see here. Somebody knew that they were going to spend $4 billion to keep that from the public. Speaker, that in itself is just unbelievable.

As an end result, yes, the government reduced hydro bills, making them lower than the actual cost. But all those generators making the power still have to be paid, so the government now borrows that money—they borrow that cash every day—to pay the shortfall to those providers, to those people making the power. That money needs to be accounted for and that, indeed, is what we’re doing because the Auditor General said that “the government did not properly account for” that debt and it’s “not planning to account for” the debt.

They knew what they were doing. They knew it was costing billions more, and yet they were saying, “Nothing to see here and, oh, by the way, no, no, no, it’s just a dispute with the auditor. There’s nothing to see.” Well, the Auditor General said that “the government is making up its own accounting rules.” No wonder, Speaker. It’s easy to be able to do this when you make the rules up as you go along.

The select committee will get to the bottom of this. They’ll get to the bottom and we know that they’ll work hard to determine exactly what happened, and they will begin to unravel the details, Speaker.

In the few minutes that I have left I just want to say that in the 2017-18 public accounts we do accept the commission’s recommendation to adopt the Auditor General’s accounting treatment of these issues where the former Premier says, “Nothing to see. It’s just a little accounting dispute.” Well, that little accounting dispute has turned out to be quite a pickle for the government with this Fair Hydro Trust, a wholly owned corporation that they set up on the books of Ontario Power Generation. The trust was used to provide an indirect subsidy to consumers.

It was passed through the Independent Electricity System Operator, through what they called this “global adjustment refinancing”—this is when the chart starts to get all the arrows and the triangles and the upside-downs.

Somebody is going to have to get through that scheme because it was designed to hide billions and billions of dollars of deficits. That’s the sole purpose of this. All the money that was collected and all the rates that were subsidized through this trust are completely kept off the province’s books.

I said this in my speech at the Economic Club on Friday. I said to the crowd, and there were 500 people in the crowd, “Many of you in the room work for publicly traded companies.” So I asked a hypothetical question: If the CEO or CFO of their company—of the 500 people in the audience—directed one of their subsidiaries to borrow massive amounts of money—billions—to finance the parent company’s spending and then turned around and directed that same company, that same subsidiary, to hide the resulting liability off the parent’s books, what would or should happen to that CEO or CFO?

I simply said, “They’d be in a lot of trouble.” We can let our minds wander, but that is exactly what happened with the so-called fair hydro plan; and the only reason the Liberals were never punished for breaking the rules is because they were the ones making the rules. That is not good enough.

Speaker, it’s not just about the numbers; it’s about transparency and trust. It’s not just about the markets; it’s about our citizens as well, because the people believe their government. If their government will not tell them the truth about one thing, then they will have to believe that their government is not telling them the truth about everything. That puts public confidence in our democracy at risk, and we cannot allow that situation to fester any longer. Only when the government of Ontario truly accounts to the people of Ontario can we begin to put the province back on a path to balance, a path to fiscal sustainability.

So we are quick to accept the commission of inquiry’s recommendations in good faith, along with the Auditor General and our Financial Accountability Officer, but while we accept those we also know that more needs to be done, and that is why we have the motion to form this select committee that will, once and for all, get to the bottom of this scandal, determine who knew what and when, and why they would ever allow $4 billion more in taxpayer money to be spent just—just—to keep the truth from ever being known. We need answers. The people of Ontario demand answers and our select committee will get those answers.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): The minister did say he was sharing his time with the government House leader. Government House leader.

Hon. Todd Smith: Thank you, Speaker, and good morning to you.

I want to thank the Minister of Finance for his remarks this morning. He always does an outstanding job at laying out the entire story for all of us to understand, not just in his Focus on Finance novels that he puts out, which are very well researched and written, but also on the floor of the Legislature when he has the opportunity, quite often during hour-long leads.

He was our finance critic in the official opposition for a long time, and did a great job at holding the government to account and shining a spotlight on exactly what the Liberal government of the day was doing here in Ontario to try and hide numbers from the public. He did a very, very excellent job of exposing those numbers, and I believe that’s why we saw the Liberal government reduced to non-party status in the Legislature. It was in part because of the work that Mr. Fedeli did as our finance critic over the last number of years.

A scathing indictment—we’ve heard all kinds of colourful language, not coming from the Minister of Finance, but in reports that were done by our Auditor General here in the Legislature on the way that the Liberals were showing their numbers. They really did abuse the public trust, Mr. Speaker; there’s no question about it.

The member was talking about March 2017. I remember it very, very well because I was the energy critic at the time. I was the energy critic for three years leading up to the election and keeping an eye on what was happening in the energy sector and shining a light on the fact that our electricity prices were skyrocketing faster than any jurisdiction in North America. We had some of the highest electricity prices in North America, and that was putting a lot of pressure on the Liberal government to do something about it.

In March 2017, they decided that they were going to do something about it. The Minister of Finance just detailed in great depth what they did to try and take the electricity issue off the table for the election the next spring in June 2018. What they did was an elaborate borrowing scheme, and they hid those numbers from the public.

Now, one thing that the Minister of Finance didn’t talk about during his presentation is the fact that one of the key reasons that a light was shone on this issue was because of a cabinet document that was leaked to my office, as the energy critic, detailing what the cost was actually going to be to the people of Ontario for this borrowing scheme—this undercover scheme—that the Liberals had concocted to try and take electricity off the table for the voters of Ontario.

First of all, how did that turn out for the Liberals? I think it turned out the way that we wanted it to turn out: The Liberals were decimated in the election, Mr. Speaker. What has been left? Seven Liberal seats, but worse than that, potentially $45 billion to $93 billion in debt over the next 30 years just so that the Liberal government could try and win an election. That’s how damaging that decision was not just for the Liberals—they paid a price electorally—but for the people of Ontario who potentially could be paying tens of billions of dollars because of this scheme that they concocted.

Now I’m going to talk a little bit more about why we need to have this select committee of the Legislature—and I’m going to do to that in a moment. There have been various other Legislatures across the country and around the world that have conducted special or select committees to review their internal affairs—and I will get to some of those, but I want to speak to something that I think underscores why this whole process is necessary. When the results of the commission were made public last Friday by the minister, we had a pretty extraordinary response that I think a few members opposite may now regret.

I’m speaking of the current leader of the Liberals in the Legislature and the member from Scarborough–Guildwood, who in their releases on Friday accused the government and the Premier of “pretending to be shocked by something he has known for a long time.” Certainly we’ve respected the numbers that were put out there by the Auditor General and the Financial Accountability Office, but the numbers are even worse, Speaker, than what they said they were going to be.

The member from Scarborough–Guildwood was the Associate Minister of Finance, the Minister of Advanced Education and the Minister of Education during the last Parliament. Other independent Liberals include a former Minister of Community Safety and Corrections, a former Minister of Northern Development and Mines, a former Minister of Natural Resources and a former Minister of Community and Social Services, not to mention one of them was the Premier, Speaker. Every one of them while they were in cabinet would have seen documents from Treasury Board that outlined the state of the province’s finances.

Every one of them would have done that. I now have the opportunity to sit in that executive council, and we see those numbers. Every one of them, while they were in cabinet, would have had to sign off on their ministry’s initiatives to be included in the budget and the fall economic statement. They also would have been briefed on their own ministry’s public accounts.

All this is to say that the only implication you can draw from the statement issued last Friday by members opposite is that they never thought that they were going to be held accountable. Now, certainly, as we’ve already detailed, they have been held accountable by the public in the election. But they need to be accountable to the Legislature.

For three years, I sat as a member of Her Majesty’s opposition and watched as the government of the day waged what could be called a guerilla campaign against the Auditor General from the floor of this very House. It was very disappointing to watch that happen. They hired outside consultants at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars or more for the express purpose of undermining the auditor’s findings. And yet members opposite have the gall to tell the House that we already knew what they were doing. I couldn’t believe the reaction yesterday from the leader of the official opposition, almost trying to continue to shove this or sweep this under the carpet.

There needs to be a light shone on this, and that’s why we’re bringing forward this select committee. We didn’t know the full extent of what was going on, but there is a way to find out, and that is through this select committee process. From a procedural standpoint, I can stand and speak to this as the House leader. I think it’s necessary to lay out the case for why this is the appropriate avenue for the government to use, to seek a remedy for the state of the province’s books and the state that they were left in.

I’d like to start by quoting the Auditor General. “For the first time in the last three years, I have issued a clean audit opinion on the province’s consolidated financial statements.” For the first time in three years, the Auditor General, the independent officer of the Legislature, has been able to very honestly say that she believes there is a clean audit for the province. Three years. It’s unbelievable that she was unable to do that, that for three years this province didn’t have an accurate set of financial records on which to make economic projections or issue bonds. That’s how serious this is.

This House saw documents that were tabled here for review by the members and by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts that the auditor has given us cause to doubt with regard to their accuracy for three long years. For members to suggest that the House or an independent officer of the Legislature can be insulted by a government that way and not immediately seek to examine what happened, to me, is an insult to this House and all of us who serve here.

I’d like to quote Speaker Carr from May 18, 2000, in a ruling. “In considering the question, I find the very fact that an officer of this House, a person selected by this Parliament and sworn to faithfully discharge her duties to this House, has taken the extraordinary step of advising us that the authority of her office was disregarded and discounted to the extent that she was, and again I quote from her report, ‘unable to conduct a full and complete investigation,’ is in and of itself a challenge to the supremacy of this House, from which she draws that authority.

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

I submit to the Speaker that this House has no other option but to strike this select committee. Members opposite who have served as House officers will know that timeliness keeps this issue from being addressed as a breach of the House’s privileges, though it arguably should have been raised at the time. That having been said, it should be left to the House to police its own affair, and that’s what this motion seeks to do. It gives us the power, as members, to address what may be offenses against the work done in this place.

I now turn to one of my new friends and one of the newest colleagues in the Legislature, the member from Guelph. He’s the leader of the Green Party, and I hope he’ll forgive me for disclosing this information to the House, but the member sent me a very impassioned email last night expressing his concern with this motion that we’ve brought forward to strike this committee. He was worried that it was too backward-looking and not enough about steps that could be taken to correct issues that have come up. He’s a very thoughtful member, Mr. Speaker, and I enjoy our conservations that we have.

But I say to the member from Guelph, this House enjoys the right and discipline for any transgressions that have been taken against it. Committees are the appropriate place for investigations to take place and they can do both backward-looking and forward-looking work.

We’re only now at the beginning of debate on this motion, and we can’t prejudge the work of any committee struck by this House to examine any question. Committees that examine issues, especially controversial ones, have a long and important history in the Westminster tradition. I’d like to highlight an example, if I could, Mr. Speaker—and this is why we’re forging ahead with this committee on the government side, with the assistance hopefully of the official opposition—that is, the committee that looked at the expenses scandal in the United Kingdom a few years ago.

As members may be aware, there was considerable concern raised both by the press and the Speaker in the UK regarding the expenses of certain members and whether they abused their allowances and essentially feathered their own nests with taxpayer dollars. The matter was referred to the Members Estimate Committee. The committee then commissioned Sir Thomas Legg to help look into the issue, and the terms of reference for the examination were as follows:

“To conduct an independent review of all claims made by members of Parliament (except those who have since died) for the Additional Costs Allowance during the financial years 2004-05 to 2007-08;

“To examine all payments made on such claims, against the rules and standards in force at the time, and identify any which should not have been made, and any claims which otherwise call for comment;

“To allow members who received such payments or made such claims a fair opportunity to make representations about them;

“Subject to any such representations, to recommend where necessary any repayments which members should make and otherwise to comment as seems appropriate; and

“To report as soon as possible to the Members Estimate Committee.”

This was done back in the early 2000s in the United Kingdom: to strike up this committee to look into this scandal that occurred there. It’s worth noting that, in this case, members not only made explanations to the inquiry but they also made appeals to the Committee on Standards and Privileges at the House of Commons. This demonstrates the functions of our committees that we have very seldom used in this House, which is their examination and oversight function of matters that occur in the House, including the tabling of documents that later evidence casts doubt upon. While it is a look back, it can also be a look ahead to improve the way that the Legislature functions.

At risk of boring the members—and I worry that I may have already done that, Mr. Speaker—when we talk about the rules of this Legislature and how it functions, I’ll avoid quoting all of those great books that the Clerks of the Legislature have memorized. We have the right to examine our own internal affairs here, the breaches or contempts when they occur or should they occur and the ability to discipline our own members.

I also had the privilege, like some other members of the House—although we have quite a turnover now; we have a lot of new members in the Legislature, given the results of the last election. But I had the opportunity to view our committees perform this function when the justice committee looked into the gas plants a few years ago. You’ll recall, in 2011, we ended up with a minority Parliament here in Ontario—very similar to what happened in my home province of New Brunswick last night, where it’s going to be very, very interesting politics over the next couple of months to see how that turns out.

Congratulations to the new Premier—or at least we believe it’s the new Premier-designate—Blaine Higgs in New Brunswick, the PC leader who was elected Premier, at least for the time being, we believe. It is a minority Parliament obviously, as it was here in 2011.

A minority Parliament was able to work very, very effectively in the justice committee to shine a light on the gas plants scandal during those days. It was must-see TV, Mr. Speaker, for not just members of the Legislature and our local Queen’s Park media gallery, but for the people of Ontario as well. A political decision was made during the 2011 election, as you’ll recall, to cancel gas plants in Oakville and Mississauga. What happened during those committee hearings down in the Amethyst Room resulted, I believe, in the early retirement of a Premier and the resignation of some cabinet ministers. People were held accountable for the decisions that were made.

That committee, like the expenses scandal in the United Kingdom, did end up leading to new standards and practices for the House. We’re now required to do records retention in a way that we weren’t prior to 2014. You know as well as anybody else that the Premier of the day’s chief of staff was found guilty in a court of law and served time behind bars for his involvement in that scandal.

As the minister responsible for the Archives of Ontario now, I think that it’s a good thing. I’m also informed that the archives don’t have a shortage of space, Mr. Speaker.

Laughter.

Hon. Todd Smith: I’m glad you got that.

For those rookie members like my friend the member from Guelph, I wish to assure them that these committees, generally, almost always lead to new practices in the Legislature so that it functions better, so that there are checks and balances in place, either those adopted by the government through legislation or by the officers of the Legislature through recommendations regarding their scope and jurisdiction.

These committees always fundamentally change the business of the House, and that’s because when an event occurs—like, say, a three-year period of time, Speaker, where the province’s Auditor General refuses to sign off on the province’s consolidated financial statements—the House doesn’t just seek discipline by striking a committee; it also seeks the reform of its own practices, and that’s how it’s supposed to be done. That’s why we’re striking this committee.

I commend the work that’s been done so far by the Minister of Finance first of all ordering the independent commission of inquiry to take that backwards look and ensure that we know what the actual numbers are in the province that we’re dealing with. It was pretty obvious, I think, to most onlookers that when the Auditor General and the Financial Accountability Officer come out saying that you can’t believe the government’s numbers, and I think it was pretty clear with the results of the June 7 election that most people believed the Auditor General’s numbers. Why wouldn’t they? Why wouldn’t they?

There are no politics at play when you’re talking with the independent officers of the Legislature. They’re here to serve the members of this House and serve the public, and ensure that people out there are getting the real facts.

But you had a government that was intent—intent, Mr. Speaker—on “making up its own ... rules.” Those are the words of the Auditor General. We had a government that was, in her words—in the words of Bonnie Lysyk, the Auditor General—“concealing” information, making “bogus” statements to the people of Ontario, using “deceptive” tactics to hide the numbers and putting forward numbers that were “unreliable.” The Minister of Finance in his speech was talking about the fact that if this happened in the private sector, in publicly traded companies, oh, my goodness—we have seen these types of things occur and we know how they play out.

Now, it’s a little bit different in here, Mr. Speaker, because ultimately the people have the say, and the people spoke loud and clear on June 7 of this year: They could no longer trust Premier Wynne. They could no longer, after 15 long years, trust the Liberal government. They couldn’t do it anymore. But we need to ensure—and we will do this. Through this select committee of the Legislature, we will ensure that this type of activity isn’t allowed to occur in the future. As I say, it’s a backward look, but we can have some very forward-looking results. Those would be accountability and trust in this place again.

That’s what we, as the new PC government, hope to find as a result of this select committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Further debate? I recognize the government—or the House leader for the official opposition.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I wish I was the government House leader. The agenda around here would be a little bit different.

Hon. Todd Smith: Boy, that would be scary.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Not as scary as you guys.

I just want to say a couple of things. I’ve only got about 10 minutes this morning and the rest of my presentation will be later on today, but I will be moving a couple of amendments. I would like to send over a copy of the amendments, if I can have a page here, please. If I can have this sent over to the government House leader, please.

I want to explain the amendments before I read them into the record. I’m going to do this the other way around. I’ll read from the government’s second paragraph:

“That the committee investigate and report on the accounting practices, decision-making and policy objectives of the previous government or any other aspect of the report that the committee deems relevant....”

Well, I agree that the previous government—we need to look into this. I don’t think this is a bad thing, in the sense that transparency is always a good thing. But you also have to look at what’s going on now and what this government is doing. I think to limit this committee’s ability to only look at what happened in the past and not to look at what’s happening now limits what this committee can do. So I would be moving a motion in that particular direction.

The other thing is, the way that this particular motion is written, you’re limiting, to a certain degree—the way that the wording is done—who gets to call the witnesses. At this particular point, there’s going to be a Chair plus five members of the committee on the government side and three members of the opposition. As you know, in other select committees in the past—for example, the select committee on mental health and others—we’ve always made it that the members individually can call a witness forward.

If you’re on the committee as an individual member from either the government side or the opposition side, and there’s a certain witness that you want to be hearing from, you don’t want to be in a position where the government majority limits the ability to call witnesses before the committee. So we’re going to be amending that particular

section as well.

I have a copy here for the Clerks, but I’ll move it into the record at this point. I move that the motion be amended as follows:

In the second paragraph, insert the words “and the current government to date” following the word “government”; and

In the third paragraph, insert the words “and each member of the committee shall be authorized to independently call witnesses before the committee” following the word “things.”

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Mr. Bisson has moved that the motion be amended as follows:

In the second paragraph, insert the words “and the current government to date” following the word “government”; and

In the third paragraph, insert the words “and each member of the committee shall be authorized to independently call witnesses before the committee” following the word “things.”

And now we’re going to debate the amendment?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Yes, debate the amendment and the main motion. Because of the way we’ve amended this, we’re still on the main motion as well.

A couple of things: I’ve only got a couple of minutes before the House breaks this morning, but I want to give the government the rationale of why we’re moving these particular amendments. If the government is going to create a select committee in order to take a look at those things that, quite frankly, were troubling—and we agree with you.

In the last Parliament, both in the 2017 budget and the 2018 budget, the auditor came to conclusions similar to what you’re coming to now: that the reported amount of money being shown on the books was different than what it actually was, because they were using accounting practices that probably they shouldn’t have been using. We’ll get into that a little bit later on this afternoon.

What we’re saying by way of these two particular amendments is that if we’re going to look at this, we can’t look at it just in the context of what happened in the previous Parliament. We also have to look at what’s happening now, because transparency—I agree with the government House leader when he says that there’s nothing more cleansing than shining the light and making sure that the public is able to see what it is that has happened, and what is that’s happening. So we’re moving forward with these particular amendments in the spirit of trying to co-operate with the government to make sure that the committee has the mandate to do what it’s got to do.

The second part, and I spoke to it very quickly, is the power to be able to call witnesses. Now, we all know by way of standing order and by way of precedence in this House and others that one of the main powers that you have as a committee is to call a witness, get papers or things before the committee. That is something that’s in your motion that’s in our standing orders already, but I can understand why you put it there. But what we don’t want to do is to get into a situation where the government uses its majority as a way of being able to then control who it is that’s coming before the committee.

There may very well be some people that the official opposition wants to call that will help shed light on what the Liberals did. And we agree with you: The Liberal government both under Mr. McGuinty and under Mrs. Wynne did use accounting practices that were suspect. That’s not me saying that, Mr. Speaker; that was the auditor of Ontario saying that.

In fact, the former finance critic for the Conservatives, now the current Minister of Finance, time after time after time would get up in the House and he would rail against those accounting practices here in the House. I’ve got a number of quotes. I’ve got to say, I’ve got very efficient staff for finding me these quotes in such short order.

Just on April 11, 2018, Mr. Fedeli is quoted as saying: “The Auditor General pointed out three areas where the budget does not include costs that should be listed. While I covered those many, many times in the Legislature, it’s safe to say that they will add billions in debt.”

That’s what my leader, Andrea Horwath, was referring to yesterday. This is not a big surprise. For the government to come out yesterday with the report—or on Friday, I guess it was—and to say, “This was a big surprise. We didn’t know all these things,” is a little bit of a stretch. We all knew those things. We knew them because the auditor and the Financial Accountability Officer had reported on those things to the House as a result of inquiries the public accounts committee made and also that individual members in our caucus made to the Financial Accountability Officer. They came back and said so in the previous Parliament. So it’s not a surprise.

Now, does that mean to say we’re in disagreement with the government about shining light into this whole matter? No, that’s not our argument. Our argument: Don’t pretend that you’re surprised. You went out and spent about a million dollars hiring a former Liberal Prime Minister of British Columbia to come and tell you three things. The three things that he reported back on—that, surprise, surprise, the auditor was in disagreement with the reporting methods of the government. You didn’t need to spend a million bucks to get there; the auditor had said that herself.

And that the numbers stated were different: Well, again, the Minister of Finance, when he was critic in this House as the official opposition finance critic, was saying that himself. So we spent a million dollars to essentially repeat what everybody was saying in the previous Parliament. I just wonder to what degree this government is no different, in some ways, than the previous government. I understand that at times you’ve got to use people from the outside in order to assist.

That’s why we have political staff, that’s why we have a professional bureaucracy to help us, and at times we need to go outside of that to get certain specialties. But in this particular case, we spent a lot of money to find out what we already knew.

New Democrats are moving these amendments forward, Mr. Speaker, as a way of making sure that this committee is fully transparent. We agree that committees are a good place to do this type of work, because committees have the time. We have the expertise on committee to be able to look into these matters in some detail. We agree that utilizing committees in this fashion is not a bad idea.

But we need to make sure that the scope of the committee doesn’t, first of all, give the government complete control on what’s going to happen when it comes to witnesses, because I think that would be a shame, and I hope the government supports us on our amendment; also, that the scope of the committee be widened out a little bit in order to allow the committee to take a look at current practices as well, because we need to inform ourselves.

As we all know, there’s going to be a budget coming this spring. There’s going to be an interim supply motion later on this winter. We need to inform ourselves as a House, because we’re the ones that appropriate dollars. The Legislature is all about the appropriation of the government’s budget. The government can’t spend money unless the House agrees. And so to properly inform members of the House, I think we need to look not only at what happened in the past, but we also need to look at what’s going on now.

Mr. Speaker, you’re kind of looking at me, being about that time of the clock, so I will let you adjourn the debate at this point and I’ll continue later on.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Thank you. I didn’t want to interrupt. I thought you would bring it to a natural close and then you’d be moving on from there, but if that’s your choice, then it is that time of the clock, almost 10:15, and the House will stand in recess until question period at 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Ms. Rima Berns-McGown: I would like to welcome to the House this morning the family of our page Alexander Tracey: his mom, Susan; his dad, Tom; and his brother, James. Thanks so much for coming. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

L’hon. Caroline Mulroney: J’ai l’honneur en ce jour des Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes d’introduire aujourd’hui des gens de l’Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario. Ici avec nous, nous avons Carol Jolin, président de l’AFO; le directeur général, Peter Hominuk; ainsi que Bryan Michaud, Stewart Kiff et Danielle Roy. Je leur souhaite la bienvenue à Queen’s Park.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I have a friend, Gérard Malo, who is with us today from Windsor–Tecumseh with the francophonie de l’Ontario. Welcome back to Queen’s Park, Gérard.

Hon. Todd Smith: I’d like to acknowledge some guests here today at Queen’s Park, including a constituent from Prince Edward Country, from the craft wineries of Ontario: Len Pennachetti, Paul Speck, Stephen Gash, Walter Schmoranz, Allan Schmidt, Richard Linley, Terrance Oakey and, from beautiful Sandbanks Winery in Prince Edward Country, Catherine Langlois. We wish you well today as you promote VQA wines in Ontario.

Miss Monique Taylor: It’s always a pleasure, as you know, as members, when we have pages from our ridings here in the House today. My page from Hamilton Mountain, Aaliyah Kinney, is our page captain today. She is joined by her mother today, who is in the gallery: Karima Habibali. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: I see our government House leader may have taken a little bit of my thunder, but I would like to again welcome, from the Wine Council of Ontario, delegates who are with us this morning: Len Pennachetti, Caroline Granger, Paul Speck, Stephen Gash, Walter Schmoranz, Allan Schmidt, Catherine Langlois, Richard Linley and Terrance Oakey. Welcome.

M. Gilles Bisson: Monsieur le Président, je ne vais pas vous donner tous les noms de nos visiteurs de la communauté francophone, parce qu’ils sont plusieurs, mais j’aimerais souhaiter la bienvenue, de la part de toute l’Assemblée, à nos amis et nos collègues francophones ici aujourd’hui pour la journée francophone.

Ms. Lindsey Park: I’d like to welcome the Ontario Association of Landscape Architects, who are here in the east members’ gallery this morning, including President Jane Welsh, executive director Aina Budrevics and registrar Ingrid Little. As well, I’d like to give a special welcome to the delegation all the way from Washington, DC, representing the Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards. Welcome to President Christine Anderson, President-elect Phil Meyer, CEO Joel Albizo, director of strategy Veronica Meadows and member engagement manager Missy Sutton. Thanks for joining us this morning.

Ms. Doly Begum: I’m very happy to introduce my uncle. I think I was influenced by the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane yesterday, so I brought my uncle as well, from Northern Ireland, Ahad Meah; and my constituency assistant, Aysha Sonna. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Amy Fee: I’d like to welcome to the House today Scott McNab, who was a great volunteer on my campaign team.

Ms. Jill Dunlop: I would like to introduce two of my guests this morning who are here discussing the horse groom apprenticeship program. We have Mr. Brian Tropea, the general manager for the Ontario Harness Horse Association; as well as Gayle Ecker from the University of Guelph, sister of former member Janet Ecker.

Mr. David Piccini: I’d like to welcome to the gallery today my executive assistant, Ralph Kerr. I don’t know what I’d do without him. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I wish to introduce some special guests. We have with us today in the Speaker’s gallery 10 interns from the Ontario Legislature Internship Programme. Please join me in welcoming Munisha Basiram; Linda Bui; Nishani Chankar; Janessa Duran; Jad El Tal; Braelyn Guppy; Hudson Manning; Clara Pasieka; Nikki Romano; and Peter Supierz-Szczyglowski.

The Ontario legislative interns will spend the next 10 months working with members, and we are excited to have them here in the assembly. I urge eligible members to participate in this exceptional program.

Once again, welcome to the Ontario Legislature.

Report, Environmental Commissioner

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I beg to inform the House that the following document was tabled: the 2018 greenhouse gas progress report from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario.

Private members’ public business

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I also beg to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 98(c), a change has been made to the order of precedence on the ballot list for private members’ public business such that Mr. Bailey assumes ballot item number 22 and Ms. Kusendova assumes ballot item number 26.

Substitution in question period

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I recognize the member for Orléans on a point of order.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: I would like to ask the House for their indulgence in allowing a unanimous consent. Unfortunately, my colleague Michael Gravelle from Thunder Bay–Superior North is unable to attend and ask his question. I would ask the House to allow me to ask the questions today on his behalf.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Orléans is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to ask a question today in the place of her colleague, who couldn’t be here. Agreed? Agreed.

Oral Questions

Provincial deficit

Ms. Sara Singh: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and good morning. My question is to the Premier.

Quite rightly, yesterday, the Premier sang the praises of the Auditor General for her due diligence and persistence in reviewing the province’s books. Yet the Ministry of Finance says they’re only adopting the auditor’s findings on a “provisional basis.”

Which is it, Premier? Is the auditor right or is she wrong?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: I want to thank the member from Brampton Centre for such a lob ball question. That was very nice.

What we’re focused on is the $15-billion deficit that the Liberals created—and the NDP propped them up, supported them 97% of the time. We’re going to have tough decisions over the next couple of years to get our province back on track, to make sure that every single person is prosperous and has an opportunity for growth. That’s what we’re going to focus on for the next few years.

We look forward to the NDP’s support. As they supported the Liberals building up the $15-billion deficit—we would love their ideas and their support. We’re willing to work with them to reduce that $15 billion.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Sara Singh: Yesterday the Premier said, “I believe ... what the Auditor General was saying.” But when we look at the fine print in Gordon Campbell’s report, we see the Premier may believe it or he may believe the opposite; it’s provisional.

As the Premier noted yesterday, the Auditor General’s views are not new. There has been endless analysis and expert study. What is it that the Premier doesn’t understand about the positions taken in the analysis and the positions that they’re getting now from the department of finance?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: Unlike the Liberals, we respect the Auditor General. We respect working with the Auditor General. For the first time in recent memory, everyone’s numbers line up. The commission’s numbers line up. The Auditor General’s numbers line up. The finance minister’s numbers line up. The Treasury Board numbers line up.

Again, I’m asking for the support of the NDP to start being responsible. We are willing to work with the NDP to find efficiencies to put money back into the taxpayer’s pocket, to make sure we create good-paying jobs and make Ontario the engine of Canada once again.

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

Ms. Sara Singh: Mr. Speaker, it looks like we’re seeing a pattern here. The Premier is surprised by a deficit that no one else finds surprising. He agrees wholeheartedly with the auditor, but only provisionally. Then he reserves the right to lower the deficit using the same methods that the Liberals used. When will we know whether the government will actually agree with the auditor? Before the new select committee? Before the fall update or before the budget? Perhaps before the end of their term?

Hon. Doug Ford: Mr. Speaker, you know something, I just find it so ironic and so rich coming from the NDP, who stood side by side, shoulder to shoulder and propped up the Liberals. Similar to the leader of the NDP yesterday saying, “This is not a surprise”—my question to the NDP is, what were you doing for the last four years to speak out against this reckless spending?

Anti-racism activities

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, the Premier was asked if he would stand up in this House and denounce the extreme views of Faith Goldy, a candidate for mayor of Toronto and neo-Nazi sympathizer, whom the Premier posed for photos with over the weekend. The Premier refused two opportunities to condemn Ms. Goldy’s views yesterday, so I’ll ask again: Will the Premier unequivocally denounce Faith Goldy and apologize for appearing in a photo that is now being used as a de facto endorsement of her campaign by the Premier of our province?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: What a shame. I totally denounce—I repeat, denounce, denounce, denounce—anyone who wants to talk hate speech. You know what I find ironic? I didn’t hear the Leader of the Opposition during the election denounce her members, but, you know something, we denounce it. We have zero tolerance—zero tolerance—for any hate speech. We won’t put up with it, and I denounce it; I denounce it; I denounce it. I don’t know how much clearer I can be about that.

The opposition wants to play politics. They want to change the channel. They want to change the channel on the $15-billion deficit and how they propped up the Liberals, wasted billions of dollars and voted with them 97% of the time. They don’t want to be held accountable, but guess what? You aren’t walking away scot-free; I’ll tell you that.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Start the clock. Supplementary?

Mr. John Vanthof: This shouldn’t be that hard. This is the woman who appeared on a white supremacist podcast and said she “salutes” the neo-Nazi hosts for showing up “in hordes” to a rally in Charlottesville, North Carolina. That would be the same Unite the Right rally where a white supremacist drove his car into the crowd, murdering one woman and injuring 19 others.

I will ask again, Speaker: Will the Premier unequivocally denounce Faith Goldy and apologize for appearing in a photo that is now being used as a de facto endorsement of her campaign by the Premier of this province?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Premier.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Opposition benches come to order.

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I don’t know how much clearer I can be here. I denounced every single comment from anyone, including your party during the election—which was disgusting. I find it pretty rich that they’re throwing stones in a glass house—boulders in a glass house—that some of the members who are over there—absolutely disgusting comments.

I denounce all hate speech. It’s zero tolerance. I think it’s disgusting, anyone who wants to talk that way.

I know you have three questions. Just keep ’em coming.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: Premier, people are looking to you for leadership. I know that things get heated in this place and we like to score points, but people need to hear from your mouth that you do not endorse Faith Goldy. You need to say her name, Premier, that you do not endorse her and that you denounce her neo-Nazi sympathies. Premier, can you do that?

Hon. Doug Ford: After saying it five times, Mr. Speaker—they want to play politics. They want to change the channel; they want to keep this going. I’ll tell you what’s not going to change the channel: the $15-billion deficit. The $15 billion that they squandered. They turned their backs as the Liberals were out of control—the worst political corruption I’ve ever seen in my life, and the NDP stood by them. They stood by them while they were making backroom deals and stood by them while they were wasting the taxpayers’ money without any concern whatsoever. That is terrible. That is disrespectful to the taxpayers, and we won’t tolerate that whatsoever.

Government accountability

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Families are hearing a lot of talk about doing things differently at Queen’s Park—

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Your question is to whom?

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Oh, pardon me. To the Premier. Question period, thank you; I’m looking for an answer. I’m looking for an answer, I guess.

First the Premier claimed to be shocked by a deficit that wasn’t surprising to anyone. Then he said he agreed with the auditor for now but reserved the right to disagree with her later. Now they’re striking a committee to look into the province’s financial decision-making, but only if it involves the last government.

If the government is truly interested in transparency, will the new select committee be able to look into decisions since the election, since this government has been elected, as well as before them?

Hon. Doug Ford: President of the Treasury Board.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. We’ve worked really hard to restore trust and accountability to government finances and put an end to more than a decade of Liberal mismanagement. We first started to hear how sobering the situation is through the commission of inquiry, through our public accounts and through our now-released line-by-line audit. But what we have heard—it’s from the Auditor General and from the Financial Accountability Officer—is that there were things done that this government has to hold people accountable for.

Not my words, Speaker, but the auditor’s and the third party’s. They have said that we need to get answers, and we are going to move forward to get those answers through the select committee that the Premier has launched and with the full support of this government.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Sandy Shaw: To the Premier again: Here’s what families are afraid of: The premier is setting the stage for deep and painful cuts to our schools, to our hospitals and the services that we all rely on, and he’s going to complain that the deficit made him do it.

If the Premier is really interested in transparency, he would be interested in getting all of the facts, not just the facts that help his party. Why should families believe the Premier when he refuses to do that?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Again, we promised to restore accountability and transparency to government finances and put an end to more than a decade of Liberal mismanagement, propped up by the opposition.

I’m pleased to announce that the line-by-line audit today was completed on time and on budget and is public.

The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberals left the people of Ontario with a legacy of debt that has put at risk the prosperity of future generations. The line-by-line revealed that total expenditures have grown over 50% since 2003. Growth in expenditures has outstripped the growth in population. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to tell this House that fiscal mismanagement and obfuscation are things of the past and that today is a new day for Ontario.

Children’s mental health services

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: My question is for the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services. According to an Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences report, suicide rates in northern Ontario were six times higher than the provincial average,

whereas southern Ontario was comparable to the provincial average. Furthermore, suicide rates in Canada are five to seven times higher for First Nations youth than for non-Indigenous youth.

Today, the Chief Coroner of Ontario’s expert panel report on residential housing deaths was released. The safety and security of children is of the utmost importance to us all. Could the minister tell this House what steps are being taken to ensure incidents like this are never repeated?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I want to thank the member from Carleton for her advocacy on suicide prevention and for her compassion here today.

I’d like to thank the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario and the expert panel for putting out this report and the recommendations. The experiences of the children outlined in this report are heartbreaking. The death of a child, particularly in care, is unacceptable. My heart goes out to the families, the loved ones and communities affected by these tragedies.

The deaths are unacceptable, and I’m going to take immediate action. We need to do more to make sure that children are safe and cared for. If a child dies, someone is responsible. We must improve coordination among service providers, as well as throughout our ministries. I’m currently engaging with the Ontario Child Advocate, the coroner, Indigenous community leaders, as well as the LGBTQ leaders.

From the CASs to group homes to my ministry, we all bear some responsibility, and I want to assure the House that, as the new minister, the buck stops with me and I will take action.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Through you, Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister. I understand that mental health services available to children in care are often limited or ineffective.

Through you, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister please clarify what steps are being taken to give our most vulnerable more support when they need it the most?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: The experiences of the young people described in this report were very difficult for me to read, and it was a very difficult briefing from the coroner last week.

Our government will take action to bring systemic changes to the residential services system. Together with partners from the child welfare sector, Indigenous communities, LGBTQ2S partners and the Ministers of Health, Education and Indigenous Affairs, we will take a collective approach to help residential placements and coordination between government agencies.

Let me be perfectly clear: I’m going to take immediate action to put in place better screening protocols for youth who are at risk and who need help; I’ll issue a directive to the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services, CASs and group homes to put the child first. It’s not about checklists; it’s about taking responsibility for a child’s well-being. We’re going to continue to improve inspections to lay out clear lines of responsibility and ensure supports are in place. Finally, we’ll support youth and their workers to access mental health services and resources when and where they are needed.

But let me be perfectly clear: This government for the people will put children in care first.

Long-term care

M me France Gélinas: Merci, monsieur le Président. Ma question est pour la ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée.

The Minister of Finance told all Ontarians that we will have to make sacrifices, but we have seniors living in long-term-care homes whose safety may be at risk because of chronic underfunding. Does the minister believe that the frail, elderly people living in our long-term-care homes should be making sacrifices?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I thank the member opposite for the question. Of course, we value the contributions that have been made by our seniors. We know that they deserve to live out their lives in peace and comfort, and with the best possible care.

We know that there is an inquiry ongoing with respect to what has happened in some long-term-care homes with Ms. Wettlaufer. We are awaiting the final report. I know that the families gave some testimony in the last few days that was heart-wrenching and tragic. We know that there are going to be recommendations forthcoming. We await those recommendations, and we’ll take them very seriously when they come forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: The Conservative Party seems to have copied some of the NDP’s commitments: promising to end hallway medicine, promising to add thousands of long-term-care beds. But to date, all we’ve seen is a wait-and-see. That means sweeping the problems that we have in our long-term-care homes under the rug.

The tragedy being uncovered by the Wettlaufer inquiry shows that we cannot continue to ignore what’s going on. We need to expand the Wettlaufer inquiry to examine the systemic issues in our long-term-care homes.

Will the government commit today to expanding the Wettlaufer inquiry, so that everybody understands the challenges in our long-term-care system, before taking any more services that our frail, elderly long-term-care residents need?

Hon. Christine Elliott: The Wettlaufer inquiry is well under way and in fact is nearing the end of its hearings. There is more work that they are going to have to do to come forward with their recommendations.

But that doesn’t mean that we aren’t doing anything in the Ministry of Health. Of course we are. We’re looking at the situation. First of all, it was one of our campaign promises that we were going to increase the number of long-term-care beds, because we know there are over 30,000 people right now waiting for spaces. We are actively working on creating 15,000 beds in the first five years. That is something that I deal with almost on a daily basis in the Ministry of Health.

But there are other issues that we have to consider, too, such as the staffing in those long-term-care homes. We know that there is a shortage of personal support workers right now. A lot of personal support workers are being asked to do jobs that they weren’t initially trained for.

So we’re looking at what the issues are there and trying to fix them, to make sure that when those beds are opened, there will be people who are able to work there as well.

M me Natalia Kusendova: Ma question s’adresse à la procureure générale et ministre déléguée aux Affaires francophones. Aujourd’hui, le 25 septembre, tous les francophones et francophiles partout en Ontario célèbrent le Jour des Franco-Ontariens et des Franco-Ontariennes. Nous avons commencé aujourd’hui avec le déjeuner annuel de l’Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario et avec la levée du drapeau ici même à Queen’s Park en présence de la communauté francophone et des élèves représentant les deux conseils scolaires francophones.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

M me Natalia Kusendova: Monsieur le Président, par votre entremise, je remercie l’honorable ministre pour sa réponse.

La francophonie est en plein essor en Ontario, et le nombre de francophones dans ma région de Mississauga continue de connaître une croissance marquée. J’ai été ravie d’accueillir des membres de l’Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario à mon bureau hier, et je les remercie pour une présentation très informative.

Alors que nous célébrons la semaine francophone en Ontario, est-ce que l’honorable ministre pourrait faire part à la Chambre de ce qu’elle va faire pour appuyer la francophonie en Ontario?

Du côté de l’immigration francophone, il est clair que les politiques du passé n’ont pas fonctionné. Nous allons trouver des solutions.

Monsieur le Président, nous sommes à l’aube d’un nouveau jour en Ontario, un jour prospère pour la communauté francophone.

Education funding

Ms. Marit Stiles: My question is for the Minister of Education. Ontario’s parents and students are already struggling with the consequences of decades of cuts and underfunding to our education system under both Liberal and Conservative governments. With the government setting the stage for even deeper cuts, they are right to be concerned.

Will the Minister of Education tell us exactly what sacrifices—using the government’s own words—parents, students and educators will be asked to make next?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: You know, I think it’s really rich, the narrative that this party across the way is trying to create, because we campaigned on a mandate that we’ve been successful in pursuing, and that is doing everything we can to support our front lines. That includes our teachers in the classroom, that includes our education assistants and that includes our students and parents.

We are absolutely committed to respecting parents and delivering on our promise to ensure that our students are on the best course to success. The narrative that this party opposite is trying to create just needs to stop.

People through the weeks have been defining the acronym NDP in many different ways. Well, today I would like to suggest, that it’s “new democratic propaganda.” It just needs to stop.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Supplementary?

Ms. Marit Stiles: Mr. Speaker, we will not stop. We will not stop—I can guarantee you that—because you are setting the table for deep cuts to our education system, and everybody knows that.

While children wear winter coats in class because the heat doesn’t work and wait months and years for special education and mental health supports, this government can only offer one solution—and we know what’s coming: more cuts.

Will the Minister of Education be up front with parents and let them know exactly what cuts they can expect? Will it be school closures? Will it be firing teachers or educational assistants, or cuts to supports for special needs students?

We will not stop asking these questions. People deserve to know. Educators deserve to know. Parents deserve to know. Students deserve to know.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: What I suggested was that the propaganda stop, not the questions. The reality is the New Democratic Party, the opposition party here, is trying to scare people into believing the sky is falling.

For instance, the GGRF, the funds that were earmarked to replace light bulbs and to renew schools: The fact of the matter is that money was already out. Out of the $100 million through the GGRF, $95.4 million was already subscribed to. And they were trying to describe the sky as falling.

This propaganda needs to stop. We’re fulfilling our obligation to provide the best learning environment possible for teachers and students, and respecting our parents every step of the way.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Next question.

La Francophonie

M me Marie-France Lalonde: Ma question est pour la ministre déléguée aux Affaires francophones. Nous avons mentionné qu’aujourd’hui marque la journée des Francos et les fêtes des Franco-Ontariens et des Franco-Ontariennes. Je sais que dans plusieurs communautés, tout comme dans celle que je représente, Orléans, les organismes francophones profitent de cette journée pour célébrer en grand nombre leur francophonie. Je remercie l’AFO et tous les organismes qui se sont rassemblés ce matin pour la levée traditionnelle du drapeau et pour le fameux déjeuner, « French-ment bon ! »

Par contre, souvent il y a des organismes qui font face à de sérieuses restrictions financières. Considérant l’importance des petits et grands organismes francophones à travers l’Ontario de marquer et de célébrer leur francophonie localement, est-ce que la ministre s’engage à poursuivre le Programme d’appui à la francophonie ontarienne, le PAFO, pour justement permettre de mettre en place des activités et des événements qui rassemblent notre francophonie à travers notre belle province?

L’hon. Caroline Mulroney: Je remercie l’honorable membre pour sa question. En ce jour d’importance pour les Franco-Ontariennes et les Franco-Ontariens, je suis très contente d’annoncer que notre gouvernement est déterminé à appuyer les Franco-Ontariennes et les Franco-Ontariens de toute manière.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

M me Marie-France Lalonde: Malheureusement, on n’a pas complètement répondu à la question—mais je suis fière quand même que l’on s’engage à soutenir la francophonie de votre côté.

Écoutez, nous connaissons l’importance et la force que représente la francophonie—vous l’avez mentionné, madame la Ministre—partout en province, et ça ne s’arrête pas ici. Beaucoup d’avancées ont été faites dans les dernières années en ce qui concerne la représentation et le soutien des communautés francophones.

C’est pourquoi j’aimerais savoir aujourd’hui la position de la ministre déléguée aux Affaires francophones sur la membriété de l’Ontario au sein de l’Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, l’OIF. Est-ce que la ministre peut nous dire si elle va soutenir et maintenir cette membriété?

L’hon. Caroline Mulroney: La priorité de notre gouvernement est d’appuyer les Franco-Ontariens et les Franco-Ontariennes ici en Ontario. Notre membriété au sein de l’OIF est quelque chose de très important—nous y sommes membre observateur. Pour l’instant, en vue des résultats qu’ont annoncés le ministre des Finances et le président du Conseil du Trésor, notre gouvernement va se pencher sur les enjeux importants ici en Ontario pour les francophones et les francophiles.

Pour ce qui est de l’OIF, notre gouvernement est représenté par le gouvernement fédéral, comme il l’est à Washington, donc nous allons appuyer le gouvernement fédéral pour nous représenter en Arménie. Nous avons beaucoup de travail à faire ici en Ontario pour appuyer les Franco-Ontariens et les Franco-Ontariennes, et c’est ce que je m’engage à faire.

Government accountability

Mr. Kaleed Rasheed: Mr. Speaker, our government promised the people of Ontario that we would restore trust and accountability to government. Under the previous Liberal government, spending spiralled out of control as they mismanaged the public finances, made up their own accounting rules and created non-transparent accounting schemes. In fact, it was because of the hard work and decisive action of this government that a clean audit opinion to the public accounts was given for the first time in three years. That was one part of the promise kept. Promises made, promises kept.

Another promise that this government made was to conduct a line-by-line audit of public sector spending. Can the President of the Treasury Board please update this House as to the status of the line-by-line audit?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Thank you for the question. Mr. Speaker, we promised to restore trust and accountability and transparency to government finances and to put an end to more than a decade of Liberal mismanagement. As I said earlier, I’m pleased to announce today that the high-quality, line-by-line audit was completed on budget and on time and is now public. Promise made, promise kept.

The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberals left the people of Ontario with a legacy of debt that has put at risk the prosperity of current and future generations. This is the sobering truth. We need to restore trust and accountability, which includes transparency—that’s why we made the documents public—and we are moving forward with a line-by-line plan where we are going to modernize and transform government.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here to tell you that this House is going to move forward, that the things of the past are out, and help is on its way.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Kaleed Rasheed: I’d like to thank the President of the Treasury Board for this answer, as my question was directed to him earlier.

Mr. Speaker, under the Liberals, Ontario accumulated the highest subnational debt of any jurisdiction in the world, at $338 billion.

Interjections: Ohhh.

Mr. Kaleed Rasheed: Ohhh. On the current path, our shared prosperity is not assured. Action must be taken.

Mr. Speaker, can the President of the Treasury Board please inform this House how the line-by-line audit will help us transform government into a modern institution that serves the people and, by so doing, create a more sustainable Ontario for this and future generations?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: I thank the member from Mississauga East–Cooksville for that very moving question. Mr. Speaker—

Interjection.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: I’m glad to hear the member opposite, from the opposition, agree that we can agree on one thing, which is that the debt, at $338 billion, is unsustainable, so thank you for supporting us on that.

Mr. Speaker, the intent of the audit was to provide advice that Ontario needs to end a culture of waste and mismanagement and provide the government with a way forward. The line-by-line review will help us change government for the better and change it for the people, who, by the way, submitted more than 26,000 ideas. I’m still sure that a couple came in from the other side.

We’re going to modernize this government through four ways: through modernizing services; secondly, through finding more cost-efficient ways of administering government; three, by ensuring that government funding is directed to those who need it most; and, finally, by maximizing the value of government assets.

Mr. Speaker—

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

Community safety / Sécurité communautaire

Mr. Kevin Yarde: My question is to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, yesterday marked Toronto’s 80th homicide, which now mirrors 2005’s year of the gun. What this underscores is the urgent need for this government to address gun violence in Toronto. This government needs to invest in the root causes of violence so that we can all enjoy freedom from the fear of crime and violence.

My question, Mr. Speaker: Will this government commit to making community safety a priority?

Hon. Michael Tibollo: Thank you for that question. Our government is taking action to help combat guns and gang violence, restore public confidence and ensure that our streets and communities are safe. Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, we promised to restore the $12 million in funding that the previous government cut from the fight against guns and gangs. Additionally, we committed $25 million—a promise that was made, a promise that was kept. In fact, our government doubled its commitment.

This investment is vital as a first step in combatting violence, disrupting gang activity and cracking down on the trafficking of illegal guns in this province. Unlike members from the official opposition, who have continually insulted our police services, we are standing behind them and are going to provide the tools to them to be able to do their jobs effectively—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Kevin Yarde: Just to let you know, we stand behind the police, and we definitely will not insult the police.

Speaker, in light of the line-by-line audit, we know that cuts are looming with this government, especially as we still don’t know how the $47 million promised to support the Black Youth Action Plan has gone. Cuts to much-needed community services and programs in communities will only make matters worse. Report after report revealed that the key to addressing gun violence is better community supports.

Monsieur le Président, est-ce que le gouvernement va écouter les communautés et ce qu’elles demandent depuis des années et ne pas couper ces programmes essentiels?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Mr. Speaker, once again, our commitment is to ensure that the police have the tools to be able to do their jobs. In addition to that, in fact, the ministry of community services has invested half a million dollars in Ottawa to assist with racialized communities.

In addition to that, we are working on a total-government approach to look into the issues that underlie gangs and gun violence. We discussed this before in the House, and we are working together with the Ministry of Health, with the Attorney General, with the Minister of Housing and with the minister of youth and community services to provide a solution that reaches out into all aspects of the community.

We all know on this side that the right thing to do is to invest in all the ministries. Unlike the other government, that blew $15 billion and—

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

Next question.

Government accountability

Mr. Stephen Lecce: To the Minister of Finance: From an intergenerational perspective, the last 15 budgets in this province have been the most unfair in our history—unfair to rack up the largest subnational debt in the world; unfair to spend a billion dollars per month on servicing the debt rather than investing in jobs training and post-secondary education. It is unfair that every single child born in this province today automatically carries with them a debt load of $24,000. My nieces deserve better, and so does every child in this province.

On this side of the House, we believe that saddling the next generation with billions and billions in deficit spending is not compassionate, nor is it morally defensible. It is wrong and, under the leadership of this Premier, it will end.

Can the Minister of Finance reaffirm that he will restore accountability for our young people and end the intergenerational theft, once and for all?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Thank you to the member from King–Vaughan.

Under the cover of empty promises, the previous Liberal government mortgaged the future of our children, our grandchildren and their children. The worst part? The previous government is taking no responsibility for the accounting schemes they created. This is about more than the numbers; this is about accountability and trust.

The Auditor General was very clear in talking about the Liberal government. She said, “It is clear ... that the government’s intention in creating the accounting/financing” scheme—“design ... was to avoid affecting its fiscal plan.”

The Liberals knew what they were doing, and the select committee will make sure we all know what they were doing. We’re doing so with the full trust and confidence of the public, and it’s about time this happened.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary.

Mr. Stephen Lecce: Through you, Speaker, back to the minister: It is about time that we have a Minister of Finance committed to ensuring that every child can achieve their full, God-given potential. Thank you, Minister.

Under the former Liberal government, our young people paid the price. While taxes rose, incomes stagnated. While the size of government expanded, youth employment contracted. While household debt grew, the provincial debt skyrocketed.

The Liberal legacy, in a word, can be summarized as unfair—unfair to those who long for income and social mobility, unfair to those who work hard, and unfair to our young people, who aspire to succeed in this country.

Let us be clear: The intergenerational unfairness by the former Liberal government undermines the prosperity of future generations, and our children—all of our children and grandchildren—deserve better.

Can the minister outline how our government is changing the trajectory for the better and bringing back a spirit of hope to our young people?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, I’ll tell you exactly what we’re doing to make this right, starting with our intention to form a select committee on financial transparency.

This morning, the disastrous record of failed policy decisions of the previous Liberal government was laid bare for all to see. Not only did the Liberal government avoid showing us the true numbers, they knew their accounting scheme would cost the taxpayers a further $4 billion in interest just to keep their numbers secret—$4 billion more in money, and the Liberals knew about it.

Now the select committee will ensure that everyone knows about it. That’s the first step in restoring accountability and trust in this government for today and for generations to come. Only then can we move on.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Order. The member for Don Valley East, come to order. Minister of Transportation, come to order.

Start the clock. Next question.

Hazardous waste

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: My question is for the Minister of the Environment.

Port Weller is a wonderful community is St. Catharines. I want to speak about the concerns the people of Port Weller are having regarding a substance called clinker dust.

There are documented health risks when exposed to this dust. It has been piled in Port Weller Marine Terminal for well over a year now. While this toxic dust is piled up, the winds carry it across the neighbourhood, coating people’s homes and green spaces.

Will the minister commit to ensuring the safety of the Port Weller residents by ordering the dust to be contained while being transported and removed from the site immediately?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member: Thank you for the question. The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks takes all of these concerns very seriously. Part of our commitment is to clean air, clean water and clean land, and that’s a challenge we face every day.

I’m familiar with the situation. I’d be happy to speak to the member specifically about it and to make sure that I’m apprised of all the details, but I can assure you the ministry is aware of the situation and we will be taking the appropriate actions.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: It goes without saying that the most essential issue at hand is ensuring the health of the people. This clinker dust is certainly a health and safety issue. It is also a matter of citizens of the Port Weller area losing their quality of life. Property values are decreasing and the people can’t sell their homes. Residents have expressed that because of the clinker dust, they can no longer enjoy the community.

Will the minister commit to engaging with the residents, the local government of St. Catharines and the relevant authorities to put a stop to the clinker dust plaguing the Port Weller community within St. Catharines?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member: I appreciate her advocacy on behalf of her community.

The ministry is engaged. It will stay engaged. Again, I’d be happy to get from you directly the ways that you think we can be helpful and I can be helpful.

But this is true; you’re right about the health and safety concerns. Obviously, we on this side as well are very concerned about anything that affects the health and safety of Ontario residents.

Energy policies

Mr. Rick Nicholls: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Last week, 15 years of bad energy decisions came to an end as our government repealed the Green Energy Act.

I know that the mismanagement of the former government created this mess and I am happy that we are taking steps to clean it up. The Green Energy Act is one of those bad decisions, and I know repealing it is the right decision for the people.

Can the Minister of Energy please explain to the members of this House why it is so important to repeal the Green Energy Act?

Hon. Greg Rickford: Mr. Speaker, he sure can. I want to thank the member for Chatham-Kent–Leamington for his important question.

The government has made it clear that we take our duty to consult very seriously. The exact opposite occurred with the Green Energy Act. It allowed the previous Liberal government to ram wasteful green energy projects into communities that didn’t want them, for a province that didn’t need them.

Sadly, we’ve learned a few more things in the past couple of days about this act and actions that we’ve taken in the past to deal with a $15-billion sinkhole. Sadly, colleagues—through you, Mr. Speaker—this is in large part due to poor policy decision-making of the previous Liberal government when it came to energy.

We’re going to take action that reduces the energy bills of families, small businesses and large employers in this province in our plan for prosperity.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Back to the minister, Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank Minister Rickford for championing this important bill and standing up for the people of Ontario.

I am pleased to know that municipalities, especially in my riding, won’t be forced to house green energy contracts for energy our system simply does not need. Giving power back to the people is one of our government’s most important promises. I am delighted to know that our government is making good on that promise.

Could the minister please tell the members of this House again how repealing the Green Energy Act is going to help rural communities?

Hon. Greg Rickford: It’s clear that the official opposition party are madder than a bunch of stomped-on polecats, because in the race to June 7, the people of Ontario weren’t buying in to the invitation to jump into the “spend-DP-mobile,” which demonstrated it wasn’t capable of tackling big issues. It had no plan. It couldn’t see a clear path to the finish line—the plan for prosperity, Mr. Speaker—with big governments, big spending, expensive fuel, the largest carbon tax in the world, and a track record of propping up the Liberals 97% of the time. They chose team Ford, Mr. Speaker.

It goes by the number 76, and so far, it’s got a track record of dealing with those speed bumps that the previous Liberal Party included.

Now, $15-billion worth of debt is no ordinary speed bump, Mr. Speaker, but they have the confidence in our team to take it across the finish line and put Ontario back on the podium, as Ontario is the economic engine of Canada, not—

Interjections.

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

Restart the clock. Next question.

Amélioration d’autoroute / Highway improvement

M. Taras Natyshak: Ma question est pour le ministre des Transports.

Speaker, on May 23, the Premier made a promise to my community, and that of the member for Chatham-Kent–Leamington, that he would begin the twinning of Highway 3, the third and final phase. He said that he would do this, “not a year down the road, but immediately.”

Les accidents et les fermetures de rues continuent, et « immédiatement » n’arrive jamais.

The accidents and road closures continue, Speaker, and “immediately” has come and gone.

Meanwhile, the Premier has found the time to immediately meddle in the elections at Toronto city hall. He’s immediately cut school repair funding, and he’s immediately appointed friends and insiders to patronage positions.

Can the minister tell the people of Essex county why he has broken his promise to immediately begin the construction of the third and final phase of the widening of Highway 3?

Hon. John Yakabuski: I want to thank the member for his question. I recognize that he has been an advocate for this four-laning for some time.

The Premier made it clear that this is a project that our government considers to be a priority. There are highway projects all across this province. Highway safety is and will always be the number one priority in my Ministry of Transportation.

I would ask the member to be patient. This government was sworn in just a few short months ago. We are currently in the process of determining our next 10-year highway capital plan. I look forward to talking to him more about this, but we have projects all across this province that we are committed to. Absolutely, Highway 3 is one of those projects that my Premier and I consider to be priority projects. The safety of those people who drive on that highway every day—that is not something we have forgotten about. It is still very much top of mind.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: The Minister of Transportation asks my community and that of Chatham-Kent–Leamington to be patient. We have waited for 16 years. People are dying on this roadway. There’s no more time for patience. We need this project done and completed now. The Premier and the Minister of Transportation obviously have a unique understanding of the word “immediately.” Promises made, promises broken, obviously.

My community wants to know exactly when we can expect this government to begin the twinning of Highway 3. Give us a date right now. We’ve run out of patience.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members, please take your seats.

Minister?

Hon. John Yakabuski: Well, for the benefit of the member—am I good to go, Speaker?

Interjection: You’re good to go.

Hon. John Yakabuski: For the benefit of the member from Windsor–Tecumseh, let me make this crystal clear: The widening of Highway 3 is a priority for our government. Unlike the previous government that has saddled us with a $340-billion debt and a hidden $15-billion deficit, the widening of Highway 3, for this government, is a priority. I recognize that you waited 16 years under the previous government. You won’t be waiting 16 years under this government.

Let me repeat myself: The safety of every resident and every member of the motoring public in this province is our highest priority. Widening Highway 3 remains as one of those priorities. I look forward to chatting with the member on a personal basis on this—

Interjections.

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

Next question.

Community safety

Mr. David Piccini: My question today is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Yesterday, the London Free Press reported that Terri-Lynne McClintic, the woman convicted of the kidnapping, rape and murder of eight-year-old Tori Stafford, a young girl from Woodstock, Ontario, has now been transferred from a prison to a healing lodge in Saskatchewan.

As a member of this government, I am shocked and outraged that such a decision could come under the federal government, to release this dangerous individual from prison. It is simply wrong and morally reprehensible.

To the minister: What actions will you take to ensure that the decision can be corrected?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: I’d like to thank the member from Northumberland–Peterborough South for the question.

This matter came to my attention this morning. As a member of this government—we take community safety and correctional systems seriously. I’m also shocked and disappointed that such a decision could be made by our federal government.

Our government has remained committed to improving our community safety and correctional services. Decisions like this, made by our federal government, can seriously impact the public’s confidence in our correctional systems.

Rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that I will make sure that we remain in contact with our federal government and also discuss this issue with our Attorney General to ensure that closure can be brought to the family of Tori Stafford and to ensure that justice can be delivered. My ministry will continue to monitor this matter as it unfolds, to see what we can do in this unfortunate situation that was created by the federal government and try to correct what has been done.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. David Piccini: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

After such a tragic, shocking event that shook those in the community of Woodstock, Ontario, the family of Tori Stafford deserves closure on how justice will now be served for the horrendous crime committed. After originally serving in a multi-level security prison, Terri-Lynne McClintic is now being transferred to a minimum-medium security healing lodge with more relaxed and independent quarters.

What is the minister going to do to ensure that sentencing for heinous criminals is carried out in full, as is intended?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Mr. Speaker, I refer this to the Minister of Agriculture.

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: I’d like to thank the member for the question to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

I’m shocked and saddened to hear about the unfortunate news and the change in direction by the federal government. I would like to express that my thoughts, first and foremost, rest with the family of Tori Stafford and the community of Woodstock in my riding.

As the member from Oxford, I want to let the member know that I will be writing a letter to the federal government immediately asking why such a decision could possibly be made. I’m confident that the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services will do everything in his power to encourage the federal government to reverse this decision and bring justice to the family of Tori Stafford.

Northern transportation

Mr. Michael Mantha: My question is to the Premier. Premier, Huron Central Railway is in need of funding before the end of December to ensure its survival.

During the campaign, the Premier promised his support for Huron Central Railway and said the money could come from the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund. New Democrats and Progressive Conservatives were on board to save the railway.

If the issue is a priority for this government and not a partisan issue, why is it so difficult for the member for Sault Ste. Marie to arrange a meeting between the ministers and representatives of the Huron Central Railway task force?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Energy and Northern Development.

Hon. Greg Rickford: I thank the member for his question, and I thank the member from Sault Ste. Marie for his hard work not just on behalf of Sault Ste. Marie but across northern Ontario. He’s doing a great job.

He, like myself and all of our colleagues here, understand the priorities for northern Ontario moving forward. We need a dynamic transportation network. We have busing matters on the table. We have train opportunities and challenges, frankly, on the horizon. We’re going to make good decisions that benefit all of northern Ontario in its vastness.

I can assure the member opposite that in the not-too-distant future, we will be rolling out a series of decisions and announcements with respect to how northern Ontario can contribute to an economy for Ontario that will help break down this $15-billion deficit, this sinkhole created by the Liberal Party of Ontario in their previous status as the government.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Again to the Premier: He and his team recognized during the campaign that ensuring the survival of the railroad was crucial to the economy and well-being of the north. Will the Conservative government follow through with their “promise made, promise kept,” or will they let thousands of jobs be lost in northern Ontario?

Hon. Greg Rickford: I find it rich for somebody from the NDP to talk about the loss of jobs. Just think of what would have happened if the NDP had won the last election. How many people from the nuclear sector would have been cut loose?

I’ll make no apologies in this place or defend my responsibilities as a minister now, or as I was then, to stand up for mining jobs, to stand up for forestry jobs, to stand up for agriculture over in northeastern Ontario and to ensure that we have the right transportation networks to meet the needs of our communities and to contribute to an economy in northern Ontario that will help break down this $15-billion sinkhole of debt that was created by the previous Liberal government and propped up by the New Democratic proppers, Mr. Speaker.

Natural gas

Mr. Bill Walker: I’d like to direct my question to the government House leader. It’s my understanding that the Liberal government is actually putting in some reasoned amendments, and I’d like to ask the minister why they’re delaying the natural gas expansion that the province has been waiting for for 15 years under their leadership.

Hon. Todd Smith: That’s a really good question, to the member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound. I can’t understand why the current Liberal independent members would try and hold up something that they promised before the 2014 election, and that would be to expand natural gas i