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

April 4, 2019

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2019-Apr-04 (PDF)

L088 - Thu 4 Apr 2019 / Jeu 4 avr 2019

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 4 April 2019 Jeudi 4 avril 2019

Orders of the Day

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

Introduction of Visitors

Member’s comments

Oral Questions

Education

Education

Government accountability

Education

Autism treatment

Police services

Government appointments

Taxation

Education

Violence against women

Addiction services

Taxation

Poverty

Tuition

Public transit

Taxation

Tartan Day

Visitors

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Gasoline prices

Youth Fusion

Ontario Tech University

Craft brewers

Education funding

Organ and tissue donation

Caregivers

Education funding / Subventions destinées à l’éducation

Business awards gala

Sikh community

Petitions

Affordable housing

Fish and wildlife management

Services for persons with disabilities

Animal protection

Alzheimer’s disease

HPV vaccine

Long-term care

Tuition

Taxation

Automobile insurance

Automobile insurance

Services for persons with disabilities

Private Members’ Public Business

Day of Remembrance and Action on Islamophobia Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur la Journée de commémoration et d’action contre l’islamophobie

Prohibiting Hate-Promoting Demonstrations at Queen’s Park Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 interdisant les manifestations fomentant la haine à Queen’s Park

GO Transit

Visitor

Day of Remembrance and Action on Islamophobia Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur la Journée de commémoration et d’action contre l’islamophobie

Prohibiting Hate-Promoting Demonstrations at Queen’s Park Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 interdisant les manifestations fomentant la haine à Queen’s Park

GO Transit

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Point of order, the member for Timmins.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Mr. Speaker, I just want to draw to your attention that members of this assembly are now in an awkward position when it comes to dealing with moving amendments to Bill 74. As you know, the government has time-allocated very tightly when we’re having to table our amendments, which is 12 o’clock today. The difficulty we have is that legislative counsel is under-resourced and lacks the ability to be able to turn those amendments in time to meet that 12 o’clock deadline.

I realize it’s an order of the House, but my point is—you cannot obstruct a member from doing his or her job, is the definition of what our privileges are. I’m not, at this point, filing a point of privilege, but I’m saying it is an issue because now, as a result of legislative counsel being under-resourced—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. I understand this is a matter before a standing committee of the Legislature, and it would be perhaps a valid point of order there. But we would expect to hear back from the committee in due course when it has a chance to deal with this and any other issues before it.

Orders of the Day

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 3, 2019, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 87,

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

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Further debate?

Mr. Michael Parsa: Good morning, Speaker, to you and good morning to all of my colleagues in the House here. It’s a pleasure to rise this morning to speak in favour of Bill 87, Fixing the Hydro Mess Act, 2019. I should note that I will be splitting my time with the member for Thornhill.

The issues that this bill addresses have been plaguing this province and its residents for far too long. Over a period of 15 years, the previous government made an absolute mess of the energy file. Their misguided ideological policies destroyed our electricity system and forced families and businesses to pay ridiculous amounts for their hydro bills.

The stories that we were hearing from every corner of this province were absolutely heartbreaking. Businesses were experiencing such dire circumstances that they were forced to close their doors. Families from all over Ontario were forced to choose between heating and eating. And what did the previous government do when they heard these stories? They just simply turned a blind eye. For years, the cost of hydro kept going up and Ontarians continued to struggle. And what did the previous government do? Nothing. They put their head in the sand and ignored what was going on.

Then, miraculously, one year before an election, they came up with a magical fix to 15 years of wilful negligence and mismanagement. They called this magical solution the Fair Hydro Plan—I have many different names for it—and it was supposed to fix everything by reducing hydro rates for everyone. All of a sudden, after gouging Ontarians for over a decade, the previous government came up with a way to reduce hydro rates.

Do you know how they proposed to reduce those hydro rates, Speaker? The Fair Hydro Plan proposed to lower rates for the short term by increasing the gross public debt to refinance paying for those lower rates. In short, they were borrowing from lenders and taxpayers to subsidize the lower rates in the short term, but because of the refinancing structure, Ontarians would be paying through the nose once the time period for the refinancing was complete.

Do you know what the Financial Accountability Officer had to say about this, Speaker? In their May 2017 report on the fiscal impact of the Fair Hydro Plan, the FAO estimated that the Fair Hydro Plan will cost the province $45 billion while providing an overall savings to electricity taxpayers of only $24 billion. The overall result of this magical Fair Hydro Plan would be a net cost to Ontarians of $24 billion.

So, over 15 years, they made a mess of the hydro file and made hydro rates unaffordable for Ontarians, and then they had the audacity to say they were fixing it with a scheme that would make rates even more expensive in the future—absolutely shameful.

Luckily, voters saw through the previous government’s scheme and elected our government to restore transparency and fairness to the province’s electricity system. And with the way things were, we hit the ground running to deliver much-needed relief to Ontarians.

We began by cancelling the provincial cap-and-trade carbon tax, thanks to the incredible Minister of the Environment, and as a result removed the cost burden to Ontario’s businesses and job creators. By ending this cash grab scheme, we reduced the price of gasoline by 4.3 cents a litre and reduced the average household’s natural gas bill by about $80 a year.

Speaker, we’re fighting to put money back into the pockets of Ontario drivers, homeowners and small businesses. Currently, we’re continuing that fight by using every tool at our disposal to protect Ontarians from the ridiculous federal carbon tax. If you’ve been to the gas pumps recently and noticed a jump in the gas prices, take note that this is the federal government hard at work, taking more money out of your pockets and out of the pockets of all Ontarians. The federal carbon tax is not only going to hurt you at the pumps, but it will also increase the cost of everything you purchase to feed your family and heat your home. It’s just another federal Liberal cash grab, and it’s shameful.

We’ve demonstrated time and time again that this government will always fight for the Ontario taxpayer. We demonstrated this when we cancelled cap-and-trade. We demonstrated this when we repealed the Green Energy Act and saved Ontario electricity customers $790 million. We demonstrated this when we passed the Hydro One Accountability Act, which reduced and capped the ludicrous compensation packages that Hydro One executives were receiving.

Speaker, I can go on and on about what we’ve done, but let’s talk about what we’re going to do and will continue to do for Ontarians.

With Bill 87, this government and the tireless Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines—

Interjection: Great guy.

Mr. Michael Parsa: Yes, great guy.

Interjection.

Mr. Michael Parsa: He’s working hard already, yes, and putting forward a plan to continue to fix what the previous government made a mess of. This bill, in its entirety, will replace the adjustment refinancing structure with a more transparent, on-bill rebate; modernize the Ontario Energy Board; and make changes to all the inefficient and costly conservation programs.

Let’s start by talking about the global adjustment refinancing. So why are we refinancing the global adjustment? In August 2018, the Independent Financial Commission of Inquiry recommended that the government adopt the Auditor General’s proposed accounting treatment for global adjustment refinancing under the Fair Hydro Plan. Under the proposed legislative amendments, the government would directly fund rate relief under the existing framework while working to implement a single, transparent, on-bill rebate to replace global adjustment refinancing in November 2019.

Under this new on-bill rebate structure, the government would continue to fund a portion of electricity system costs, but not specifically targeted at the global adjustment. This rate relief structure will improve accountability and transparency while aligning with the recommendations of the Auditor General and the Independent Financial Commission of Inquiry.

Further, this amendment would require the OEB to hold the average residential electricity bill increase to the rate of inflation, beginning May 1. This will ensure that Ontarians continue to receive relief until the new electricity bill mitigation structure comes into effect. Once again, we’re ensuring that Ontarians continue receiving the relief they need while we implement a more transparent, accountable and efficient approach to the way things are done in this province.

Speaker, dealing with the global adjustment refinancing is something we have to do, and through this bill we’re doing just that. With that said, we’re also taking a holistic approach to solving the hydro mess that the Liberal government left behind. That’s why we’re proposing a plan to modernize the OEB. Now, for those that don’t know, the Ontario Energy Board is the province’s independent regulator for the energy sector. This independent regulatory body makes decisions and provides advice to the government in order to contribute to a sustainable and reliable energy sector.

They also establish rates and prices that are reasonable to consumers and allow utilities to invest in the system; encourage high performance from natural gas and electricity utilities; and protect consumer interests, investigate complaints, and apply penalties where appropriate.

That’s a fairly long list of important duties and responsibilities, Speaker, and one would think that such an important independent regulatory body would be respected and managed with the utmost care and consideration. Yet for 15 years, the Ontario Energy Board was neglected and mismanaged by the previous government. As a result, the OEB became an inefficient and outdated body that contributed to the waste and inefficiencies in the electricity sector. The regulator is now notorious for delaying key electricity projects and for decisions that have led to uncertainty and waste in our electricity sector.

Information provided to us by the Electricity Distributors Association has painted quite a negative picture. One medium-sized local distribution company spent the equivalent of almost 1,000 business days on its 2016 cost of service rate application. Another local distribution company’s application and interim responses to the OEB totalled almost 3,500 pages of evidence. For several local distribution companies, the cost of preparing recent rate applications increased by over 200%, and in some cases 300%, because of the increased reporting requirements.

Well, Speaker, I’m here to tell you that we’re changing all of that. Under Bill 87, we’re proposing changes to the way the OEB is operated and governed so that Ontarians have a fast, dependable regulatory environment that is governed by a fair, transparent and trusted regulator. Under the proposed plan, we’re going to improve the governance structure of the OEB by separating its management, administration and arbitration roles. Clear roles and responsibilities will be assigned to each segment of the new structure to ensure that predictable outcomes are delivered to all energy stakeholders in an efficient and timely manner.

Speaker, the government recognizes the importance of the OEB’s role as an energy regulator. That’s why we’re proposing to restore trust and accountability by ensuring that the OEB’s arbitration and regulatory decisions are made, and seen to be made, independently and impartially.

I should also point out that, unlike the previous government, we don’t just do things to benefit a select group. The changes that we are proposing were brought forward by the OEB’s modernization review panel, stakeholders and regulatory experts. Over 45 organizations and individuals were consulted, and 60 written submissions from stakeholders from across the energy sector were received. We made sure that we consulted with sector experts to ensure that the right plan was put in place.

I should also point out that this is just the first step in the OEB modernization process. Under the new governance structure, there will be an onus on the OEB to continuously work to improve its internal policies, operations and overall performance.

If passed, the proposed plan under this bill will ensure that the modernizing of the OEB will lead to more efficient and predictable regulatory approvals, more inclusive and transparent consultations, and reduced regulatory burden and costs, which will ultimately benefit Ontario consumers and businesses alike.

Speaker, for the remaining portion of my time, I would like to talk about the conservation changes that the government is proposing under Bill 87. This government was elected on June 7 with a clear mandate to clean up the hydro mess, increase transparency in our electricity system, and make life more affordable for Ontarians. We campaigned on these promises, and we’re working hard every single day to deliver on these promises. That’s why, under Bill 87, we’re proposing to take immediate action to streamline all electricity conservation programs.

We’re proposing to centralize the government’s approach to conservation and energy efficiency by targeting specific programs that benefit those who need them the most.

The proposed plan will not only benefit those that need it most, but we will also save taxpayers $442 million by reducing the costs and duplication in the inefficient programs that were introduced by the previous government. Specifically, we will be targeting the low-impact, high-cost conservation programs that are underperforming. Some of these programs include the current 2015-to-2020 conservation and demand management framework, the conservation-first framework, and the Industrial Accelerator Program. Madam Speaker, these programs simply make no sense in terms of cost and benefit. They are programs that are entirely based on ideology rather than results.

Do you know how we know this, Madam Speaker? By centralizing our approach, we’re meeting 94% of conservation goals and finding $442 million in savings in the electricity system. Furthermore, Ontario is one of the cleanest energy jurisdictions in the world. Over 95% of our electricity is produced GHG-free, making our province’s electricity system cleaner than jurisdictions like California and Germany. That’s how we know our government’s conservation changes are only eliminating wasteful spending and mismanagement without sacrificing conservation goals.

Speaker, in the excitement I mentioned all the efficiencies we’re creating and all the savings we’re finding, but I forgot to mention, in detail, the savings that Ontarians will experience. This government has committed to reducing electricity bills by an additional 12% for families, farms and small businesses.

Medium- to large-sized businesses would see an overall reduction in rates as early as this year, and large-sized businesses are expected to see a reduction between 0.8% and 1.1% over two years.

You see, Madam Speaker, a per cent here and a per cent there, and before you know it, we’ve found $442 million in savings.

But I should note that all the work that went into bills such as this one was no easy task. The Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines, along with his two hard-working parliamentary assistants—one of them my very dear colleague from Markham–Stouffville—had their work cut out for them when they assumed the responsibilities of this portfolio. The state of affairs in the energy sector was an absolute mess. So the minister got to work right away to make sure that Ontarians did not have to suffer through yet another year in which they had to choose between heating and eating. One can only imagine what a difficult task it has been, sorting through 15 years of waste and mismanagement.

It’s sometimes very easy to forget the dire situation that Ontarians were experiencing prior to the 2018 election. During the winter months prior to the election, I was hearing horror stories about Ontarians and their hydro connections, and their disconnections, on a daily basis. If the members in this House recall, there were people out there who were getting their electricity and gas shut off on them in the middle of winter, mainly because they couldn’t afford to pay the mind-boggling hydro bills they were receiving.

I remember that even on the campaign trail, business owners were running out of their stores just to show us the bills that they were getting, and how they could not afford to pay for them. They clearly stated that what they were being charged was ludicrous, and that businesses could not afford to stay open for long if this were to continue. I was constantly in shock at how bad the situation had become in this province.

Ontario was once the engine of Canada’s economy, a shining beacon in North America, and yet the previous government was turning electricity off on people in the middle of winter. In what realm of imagination did anybody in the province and the previous government think that this was okay? It was nothing short of wilful negligence, and it was shameful.

The government’s job is to make sure that residents in this province have access to affordable necessities like electricity, so that they can live their lives accordingly. The government’s job is to make sure that people are not getting their power turned off in the middle of winter. That previous government only decided to clue in to this responsibility during the last year of their mandate, once 15 years of mismanagement had already taken their toll on people.

I can only imagine what the minister must have thought when he received his initial briefings on the energy portfolio. Quite frankly, I wouldn’t even know where to begin.

But that’s all in the past. Our government listened to the people, and now we’re here taking the necessary steps to fix the hydro mess and help the people of this province. Through this bill and others like it, we will continue to restore responsibility, accountability and transparency in a system that has lost sight of these concepts.

Through this bill, our government is working to create a responsible energy system—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Thank you.

Questions and comments? I recognize the member for Windsor–Tecumseh.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Good morning, Speaker. Yes, it’s a pleasure to stand in the House this morning.

I must say, I do agree with the member for Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill: The Wynne Liberals sold their souls in an outrageous bid to try to buy votes as they neared the end of their mandate. The Wynne Liberals nearly bankrupted this province.

The Wynne Liberals said they would never sell our public hydro system. The Premier stood there and said to this House, “I have no intention of selling Hydro One.” A few weeks later, after somebody whispered in her ear down on Bay Street, “There’s money to be made. We can buy tickets to your fundraisers,” all of a sudden hydro was on the selling block.

The Wynne Liberals proved they couldn’t be trusted. They sold hydro, even though I think there are 444 municipalities in Ontario and 80% or 84% or 88% of them passed resolutions and gave them to the government that said, “Don’t do this. Don’t sell our public hydro system.” It wasn’t a Liberal asset to sell; it was an Ontario asset, a public asset. It shouldn’t have been sold.

If you look at the history books, there’s a wonderful book called Public Power written by Howard Hampton, a name you may be familiar with. He talks about the referendums that were held in the early days when they were generating electricity at Niagara Falls and linking up communities across Ontario on the electrical grid. People were asked by referendum, “Do you want this to be a public asset or do you want it to go into private hands?” Time after time after time, the public said, “Keep it public. Don’t sell it.” Yet even though, tag team, Conservatives and New Democrats told the Liberals not to do it—they paid the price—they didn’t listen. They sold it.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): A reminder to all members that we do not refer to members by their names. We use their riding name.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: What did I say?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The Wynne government.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I have made my statement. This is a clear rule of the House.

Continuing with questions and comments.

M me Natalia Kusendova: Bonne matinée à tous. Merci au député d’Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill et aussi à mon bon ami de Windsor–Tecumseh pour ses commentaires cette matinée. Je suis fière de me lever aujourd’hui et parler au sujet du projet de loi 87, Loi de 2019 pour réparer le gâchis dans le secteur de l’électricité.

Madame la Présidente, nous prenons des mesures pour réduire les coûts et les duplications en rationalisant le « patchwork » et les programmes inefficaces de conservation de l’énergie en Ontario. En centralisant notre approche, nous atteignons 94 % des objectifs de conservation et nous réalisons des économies de 442 millions de dollars sur le système d’électricité.

Nous avons besoin d’une approche de la conservation et de l’efficacité énergétique centrée sur les initiatives les plus rentables et les programmes ciblés destinés à ceux qui en ont le plus besoin, y compris les familles à faible revenu, les petites, moyennes et grandes entreprises et les populations indigènes en Ontario. Les programmes qui sont moins efficaces pour améliorer le rendement énergétique et répondre aux besoins des systèmes vont être progressivement supprimés. Cette réduction des coûts entraînera des économies immédiates pour les entreprises et profitera à long terme à tous les contribuables.

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

M. Gilles Bisson: Madame la Présidente, on est d’accord avec le gouvernement sur un point : ce que le gouvernement précédent a fait avec toute la question de l’hydro, franchement, n’a pas servi le bien-être de la province de l’Ontario. Si tu es petit entrepreneur, si tu es une entreprise, moyenne ou grande, ou si tu es citoyen, tu as payé jusqu’à 200 % de plus pour ton électricité. C’est une des raisons que le monde est en grande colère contre ce gouvernement précédent, ce qui est arrivé dans les dernières élections. Si le gouvernement précédent se trouve dans la situation où il est—comme c’est là, leur nombre ici dans cette Assemblée—c’est une grosse

partie du problème.

Ce qu’ils ont fait qui était vraiment problématique, et que le gouvernement ne répare pas, c’est qu’ils ont su dans la dernière année qu’ils avaient besoin de faire descendre le prix de l’électricité. Donc, ils ont fait une promesse : « On va baisser le prix de 25 %. » Mais ce qu’ils ont fait, c’est qu’ils ont pris la carte de crédit d’OPG et ils ont dit : « Vous autres »—pas OPG, mais l’organisation hydro—« allez emprunter tout l’argent », qui aurait pu être jusqu’à environ 60 milliards ou 65 milliards de dollars, et ils ont essayé de cacher cet argent hors des livres de la province de l’Ontario.

Le gouvernement, dans ce projet de loi, ne répare rien quand ça vient à la réduction du prix de l’électricité, mais ce qu’il fait, et ce qui est une bonne affaire, c’est qu’il va retransférer ces coûts directement à la province. Ça, c’est bon pour deux raisons : un, c’est transparent, parce qu’on a besoin de savoir, nous, les contribuables, où l’argent est dépensé et où il est rentré; et deuxièmement, ce qui est aussi important dans toute cette affaire-là, c’est que c’est moins cher d’emprunter de l’argent par l’intermédiaire de la province, donc on va sauver un peu d’argent, au moins, sur ce bord-là.

Mais quand ça vient à réparer le problème que le gouvernement précédent a fait avec l’électricité, ce projet de loi ne fait aucunement rien pour nous faire arriver dans cette direction. On attend encore pour le gouvernement de faire quelque chose dans cette direction. Nous, les néo-démocrates, allons continuer à pousser.

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

M me Gila Martow: On sait que le député de Timmins, bien sûr, a raison que les libéraux ont causé du gaspillage et de l’inefficacité dans l’ensemble de l’électricité et partout dans le gouvernement. Le secteur de l’énergie est un exemple. Nous autres, le caucus conservateur ici à Queen’s Park, avons été élus pour le nettoyer, et on sait qu’on devrait travailler tous ensemble ici à Queen’s Park pour le faire. On a besoin de réparer le désordre hydroélectrique laissé par le gouvernement précédent, et nous devons réduire le coût des intérêts pour l’électricité. Les problèmes sont complexes, on le sait, et ce projet de loi est un bon début.

Mais on sait que c’est un très, très grand problème partout dans la province de l’Ontario. Les résidents de l’Ontario ne devraient pas avoir à choisir entre chauffer et manger. Ce n’est pas seulement des mots, madame la Présidente; c’est vraiment un très, très grand problème. On a des communautés où ils n’ont pas de gaz naturel; ils ont seulement l’électricité pour chauffer leur maison, et on a des hivers—on a juste fini un hiver très, très, très froid.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I return to the member from Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill.

Mr. Michael Parsa: I thank my colleagues, both from across as well as the member from Thornhill, for their inclusion.

Madam Speaker, there are certain things that impact every single person in this province, and this file is definitely one of those. I can tell you, during the campaign, when we were going around, this is something that came up on a regular basis. At door after door, people were telling us about the high electricity prices and how it was absolutely unaffordable. It was a harder hit on older families, with seniors living in them, and also a lot of students. It was hitting them much, much harder.

But just as importantly, it was our businesses that were hurting as a result of these expensive, bloated and high hydro prices. Something has to be done. Madam Speaker, as you know, as parliamentary assistant in the ministry responsible for helping small businesses, I travelled around the province, talking to small businesses. Even after the election was done, this is something that came up on a regular basis. People kept bringing this up and saying, “You’ve got to do something about this. Something has to be done.”

It’s hard for people to fathom, watching and listening to the compensation that is being paid to the people who are sitting on the board while their electricity prices are going up every month. They’re paying these expensive, expensive bills and seeing very little in return. That’s why our government promised during the campaign to get on this, to fix this problem, and I’m incredibly proud of the minister in charge. Again, his parliamentary assistants, who have assisted him in putting this bill together—I thank them all for this great work. Ontarians will thank you in the long-term for the work you’ve done.

I appreciate, again, the inclusion of all of the members in this.

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

Mr. Jeff Burch: I’m happy to stand and continue debate on the government’s Fixing the Hydro Mess bill—a bill that, as we’ve pointed out, continues the Liberal tradition of having the title of the bill be the exact opposite of what the bill actually does. They’ve taken over where the Liberals have left off, but they did at least stick a new label on it. This government is very good at sticking labels on things. It gives a mechanism, Speaker, for a permanent subsidy of hydro bills through the tax base. Right now, that runs us at about $2.5 billion a year; $2.5 billion a year that people in Ontario are borrowing to reduce hydro bills.

Given the deficit that we have in Ontario, you would have thought that the Conservatives, who said they had a plan to reduce hydro bills and deal with structural issues, would have put in place those structural changes so that we wouldn’t be borrowing a lot of money. We all know it’s critical to keep hydro bills affordable, but we also know that it’s irresponsible to be borrowing billions of dollars a year to keep those bills low.

What they’ve decided to do is borrow $2.5 billion a year. They say they’re fiscally conservative. Conservatives voted against the Fair Hydro Plan when the Liberals brought it forward. Tories were denouncing the borrowing of money to subsidize hydro rates. Interestingly, since the legislation says nothing about when this borrowing will end, and since we’ve heard nothing from the minister, it sounds like this is an ongoing plan to borrow $2.5 billion. So the Conservatives’ solution to the hydro problems seems to be simply to reiterate and relabel Liberal policies: Liberal, Tory, same old story.

Speaker, this bill could have been used to roll back the Liberal mess in the hydro area. It could have actually made a big difference. On top of the fact that it continues borrowing to subsidize hydro rates—and many Conservative voters who are fiscal conservatives don’t like the idea of running deficits to subsidize something—it’s going to be rewriting the laws around the Ontario Energy Board.

The Ontario Energy Board have not stood up for those who pay for electricity against the investors’ rights with regard to the huge tax gift that the Liberals gave Hydro One when they privatized that corporation. When people brought allegations of perjury on the part of utilities to the Ontario Energy Board with regard to rate hearings, the Ontario Energy Board would not hear those allegations and would not even investigate. This was a board that looked out for the interests of the government, and of private investors, ahead of the people of Ontario.

Why do we have a hydro mess, Speaker? The other day, my friend from Toronto–Danforth in his lead gave a great history of the mess, and I’m going to talk about that for a moment. He explained that at the beginning of the 20th century, industrialists understood that the bulk purchase of power through a non-profit, publicly owned corporation—which was renewable power because in Ontario we have a substantial gift of renewable power—would make a huge difference to Ontario’s ability to attract and hold industry.

Up until about 1910, we depended very heavily on coal. Not only were we dependent on and vulnerable to events outside our borders, but we were shipping money out of the province constantly to buy those fossil fuels. These industrialists weren’t socialists, but they understood that a publicly owned company that was not marking up the cost of power, using renewable energy that didn’t have to be imported, was a good thing for Ontario. That was the basis for us building industry here in this province. Business people understood it then, and a lot of them understand it now.

Last week, the government talked about the stable, solid electricity system we had—the affordable one—which we did have until Mike Harris was elected. With that election came this whole commitment to market operation of the electricity system, abandoning everything that allowed us to industrialize and looking at selling off and privatizing the electricity system. He leased Bruce nuclear. That was a big loss for the publicly owned system. He was setting things up to sell off Ontario Power Generation, so he took all the debt off the books that was sitting on those nuclear power plants, and he put it in the debt.

If anyone will remember the debt retirement charge that used to be on their hydro bills, that was nuclear debt. He didn’t think the plants would sell without taking the debt away, so not only was he selling things off, but he was increasing hydro rates for all other forms of generation by moving the numbers around.

Ernie Eves tried to privatize Hydro One. He was blocked in court and realized it was a bit too late for him with an election coming to follow through. Then came Dalton McGuinty, who was elected on a platform of stopping privatization. As you’re well aware, Speaker, Dalton McGuinty wrote the rules so that virtually everything that was developed in terms of power from the time he was elected until the time the Liberals were defeated was privately owned. There were a few exceptions, but just about everything was privately owned at that time.

We had an expansion of interest on the part of private power developers in increasing the amount of generation in Ontario. Then we had a situation where we had an ongoing expansion of generation that we didn’t need and couldn’t afford. That was a huge problem for us. Kathleen Wynne made it very clear that she wasn’t going to sell off Hydro One and ridiculed our party’s leader when she talked about clear indications that they were going to sell it off. As my friend has mentioned, she stood in the House and said, “Absolutely not,” and then she sold it off, which led to her political demise.

I think that most people understand that the reason the Liberals have seven members here in the House is because of that betrayal.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I’m sorry to interrupt the member. Stop the clock.

Just for clarification’s sake: Any sitting member who’s in the House needs to be referred to by their title or their riding. If you’re referencing a former government—I was mistaken before—you can reference the name in that case. But a sitting member needs to have their riding or their title, please.

Mr. Jeff Burch: Thank you, Speaker. My apologies.

The mess courtesy of Mike Harris, Ernie Eves, Dalton McGuinty and a member who currently sits in the House is set to continue today under this government with this very cynical and ineffective bill, a bill that does not actually take the steps necessary to clean up that mess, a bill that fails to address the main issue, which is privatization and a lack of public control.

What about other cost drivers? Does the bill use conservation to drive down the need for new generation? Conservation is the cheapest option before us, but in fact, conservation is being cut back. This flies in the face of what other countries around the world are doing. The things you need to do to actually stabilize the system and fix the mess have been ignored.

They like the Liberal policy, they like privatization, they like borrowing money to try to make things work, and that’s what they’ve continued to do. What the Liberals were doing with their Fair Hydro Plan was that they were borrowing tens of billions of dollars and hiding it, keeping it off the books, so that they could say, “We’ve solved the problem, and we haven’t increased the deficit.” They were not being straightforward with the people of Ontario.

The Conservatives have said, “No, we will borrow the money, and we’ll assume billions of dollars of debt in interest payments.” It’s a plan that’s expensive and short-term-focused, and it’s Liberal legislation that’s being introduced by the Conservatives. At least they’re being honest about where they’re getting the money from.

In addition, most of the programs that were cut were those that served middle-class people. Home heating and cooling plans are being cut. Most of the savings, at least identified by the minister, go to large industrial operations. I think that large industry in this province does need support and does need action, but with conservation, we could help them dramatically. But the idea that you would beat up on homeowners to reduce bills for large consumers doesn’t make sense. Homeowners need help at least as much as large consumers. I would say that the majority of the people in this province understand that, even businesses.

One of the things that was cut was the Business Refrigeration Incentive. That wasn’t for middle-class homeowners; it was to help small businesses cut their refrigeration demand. They cut back on high-performance new construction, and that makes no sense in terms of actually reducing power needs, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reducing the demand for peak power.

They cut out the heating and cooling incentive. Again, cutting out the cooling incentive and cutting out the support for homeowners to get the most energy-efficient air conditioner reduces our ability to avoid peak demand, so it increases our reliance on the most expensive power in the system.

They want to make sure that the world is safe for investors and not for ordinary working people who are trying to deal with their heating and cooling bills. There’s a larger picture here. Energy efficiency is the lowest-cost resource for dealing with our electricity needs. It has been set aside by this government.

To give you a sense of some of the costs, the system operator in 2018, as was pointed out yesterday, said that conservation costs two cents a kilowatt hour—it’s cheap; wind power was seven cents a kilowatt hour; natural gas was eight cents a kilowatt hour; and new nuclear was 12 cents a kilowatt hour. That’s the Independent Electricity System Operator, the IESO. So if you want to reduce costs, you go to conservation first. You don’t cut conservation. That’s exactly what this government is doing: cutting conservation.

What could the government have done to clean up this mess? Is there an alternative to borrowing $2 billion or $2.5 billion a year to keep bills low? As my friend pointed out yesterday, in 2017, the NDP came forward with a plan for reducing electricity rates called Pay Less. Own More. It was a good plan. It didn’t require borrowing tens of billions of dollars, which was the Liberal strategy and is now the Conservative strategy. It looked at changing a variety of measures that are in place now that could reduce people’s costs.

That’s something that this government could have done. It could have phased out this borrowing and brought in its own or someone else’s restructuring plan to reduce hydro costs, and that would have given the people of Ontario what they needed.

In addition, one of the things that was pointed out at the time was to end mandatory time-of-use billing. Seniors, stay-at-home moms, small business people who are having to run, in the summer, their air conditioning, and in the winter they’ve got their lights on—they’re trying to deal with the effects of the cold, and they get charged more because they don’t have a choice. They have to run it then. The IESO calculated that most people who are now on time-of-use could save about 10% by going back to the flat rate.

There are some people who benefit from time-of-use, but it would help a huge number of people in Ontario if they had a voluntary option. That’s another thing the government could do.

Yesterday, we heard people from the government side asking for suggestions: “Why is the opposition always criticizing and never offering suggestions?” I find that interesting, because I’ve listened to most of the speakers on this side, and there have been a lot of suggestions that have come forward.

We should re-establish the transparent, independent public oversight of Hydro One, as our friend from Toronto–Danforth brought up the other day, by bringing back the authority of the Auditor General, the Financial Accountability Officer, the Information and Privacy Commissioner, the Ombudsman and the Integrity Commissioner, so that ordinary people could be protected by public oversight.

The sell-off of Hydro One by the Liberals is something that could be reversed using the profits from the part that has already been sold off. As we bring it back, we’d bring back hundreds of millions of dollars that we can use to pay off debts for purchasing our hydro system back.

People should be aware that with the privatization of Hydro One, tax money that used to come to Ontario now goes to the federal government—tens of millions of dollars. Why would you give tens of millions of dollars to the federal government when the money should be staying here to meet the needs of the people? This is not even considered by the Conservatives in this plan that they’ve brought forward.

We could cap private profit margins. Right now, companies that want to increase rates to cover costs for new investments get to claim the costs of borrowing plus a 5.5% return on equity. We’ve pointed out that if interest is at 3% or 4%, you’re talking an 8% or 9% return. In contrast, in Manitoba, their public utility has allowed 3% on top of borrowing—much less.

We can limit profits and make things more affordable for people. There is no reason for us to make this business more profitable than it has to be. When you’re producing electricity into a market that’s stable, there’s no reason for us to be increasing the profits of investors.

Burying this problem is not solving it. It’s not as sneaky as the Liberals were; it’s much more upfront, but it’s just as bad. The results are the same.

We need to end the privatization of our hydro system. We need to take advantage of the fact that many of the old gas-fired power plants had contracts that were signed 20 or 30 years ago, and those contracts are going to expire. We have an opportunity to end those contracts, reduce our hydro costs, and instead of paying 10, 20 or 30 cents a kilowatt hour for gas-fired power, spend two cents, three cents, for energy conservation. We need to be approaching things this way, but it’s not even contemplated by this government.

When you’re paying what you’re paying with your hydro bills now, and the costs of batteries and solar power are dropping so sharply, it’s clear that in the next 10 to 15 years, we will be facing a very different world, and we need to adapt and be ready for it. But this government has cancelled green energy contracts. They have no environmental plan. Here, when they say they’re fixing the hydro mess, they’re completely ignoring conservation, which is not only the cheapest way forward but the best way forward for the planet.

With respect to the changing market for electricity, it has been pointed out that in February, the Calgary Herald reported that in 2017, wind energy in Alberta was contracted out at 3.7 cents per kilowatt hour, and at the end of 2018, the Alberta government signed contracts with solar power producers for solar power at 4.8 cents per kilowatt hour. There is a huge shift in where power will be produced and at what cost.

It was Ontario’s advantage at the beginning of the 20th century to have large volumes of inexpensive power. That made us competitive. If we lose that because other jurisdictions are going with technologies that provide power at a third of what we’re charging, we will not be able to retain industry. It’s as simple as that. We will also fall behind the rest of the industrialized world in terms of conservation and environmental technology.

Speaker, to summarize on this, we have a plan before us that will not deal with the challenges coming before us in the next decade, and that will stick us with tens of billions of dollars in debt and lock us into a difficult and problematic future.

The Conservatives have moved things around, they’ve put all kinds of labels on it, but they haven’t dealt with the fundamental problems. They’ve just taken Liberal policy and moved it forward.

As I mentioned, this government likes to stick labels on things rather than fix them. Not concentrating on the cheapest energy source we have—conservation—really speaks to a lack of understanding of what it’s going to take to deal with hydro problems in this province.

In the end, we have a bill that allows diversion of tax money to reduce hydro bills, something that fiscal conservatives are basically against; a bill that allows massive borrowing to reduce hydro bills, something that will not change the fundamental problems that we have with the system. That’s not just an extraordinary waste of an opportunity, but it is a complete waste of our time in this House, time we could be using to address actual problems and issues.

We should all vote against this bill. The government should go back to the drawing board and come forward with a bill that actually addresses the real issues, not lip-synch failed Liberal policies.

We have all kinds of conservation programs that are being cut by this government. Out of $1.128 billion, they’re cutting a third of those programs: $442 million. What kind of a way forward is that for us as a province?

We should be investing in environmental technologies. We should be looking at conservation and cheaper sources of energy. We should not be throwing money hand over fist at a failed Liberal policy that has now been adopted by this government.

We’re falling behind, Speaker. If we want to be competitive in the future, we have to use technologies that will make us competitive. Throwing money at things that this government—they’re constantly criticizing the Liberal government for throwing money at things. What is this? Throwing $2.5 billion a year at a problem and not fixing anything.

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

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu: I am privileged for this opportunity to rise today and speak on Bill 87, fixing the hydro mess. Bill 87, Fixing the Hydro Mess Act, is an important piece of legislation. After the previous government neglected their duty to Ontario, they left behind a large mess. Our government is dedicated to working to clean up the hydro mess, increasing transparency in our electricity system and making life more affordable for all Ontarians.

Madam Speaker, we made a promise when we got elected to make the province affordable. According to our mandate, that’s exactly what we are doing. We are delivering on our promise by proposing legislation that ensures everyone in Ontario will see the true cost of electricity directly on their hydro bills. We’re taking action to reduce costs and duplication by streamlining the patchwork of inefficient electricity conservation programs in Ontario. By centralizing our approach, we are meeting 94% of conservation goals and finding $442 million in savings in the electricity system.

We need an approach to conservation and energy efficiency that focuses on the most cost-effective initiatives and targeted programs to those who need it the most, including low-income families, small, medium and large businesses, and First Nations. Our government is reducing costs for industrial and commercial electricity customers in Ontario. That’s money back in the pockets of the families and businesses that pay their electricity bills every month. Madam Speaker, this is another step we are taking to make Ontario open for business.

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

Ms. Laura Mae Lindo: It’s always an honour to rise and speak to the legislation in the House, but I have to say that sometimes there is some frustration when we say that we are engaging in debate, but we’re not listening to what the members are actually saying. With that as the context, I want to thank the member from Niagara Centre for talking about the root causes of the issues that are not going to be addressed by this bill.

The root causes of the issues that would in fact clean up the hydro mess would be if we made sure that we did not leave the door open for privatization and if we made sure that there was public control. I think we spend a lot of time in the House relabelling, as the member said previously—sort of packaging ideas in a way that seems great and having slogans to support us—but we’re not doing the work that would address the root causes of the problem at hand. That, to me, is quite worrisome because we’re not just dealing in this bill and legislation with hydro, but we’re talking about opportunities to do more than that. We’re talking about opportunities to literally do better.

In this legislation, when we have members who are saying it’s an actual problem that we’re setting aside energy-efficient programs—that’s a real problem. Rather than us actually going back to the drawing board and just making the amendments that need to be made so we can do the right thing, so we can protect the world we live in and we can do that in a way that’s more cost-efficient, we stand up and read from scripts and decide that we’re just going to keep on making more labels.

I do hope that sometime very, very soon we decide to listen to each other and do the right thing to address the root causes of the issues at hand.

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

Ms. Christine Hogarth: It’s great to rise to add my comments to Bill 87, and to the member from Niagara Centre’s comments. When we all ran, we all knocked on doors. I will tell you, the number one issue I heard was, “My energy costs; how much it costs to heat my house.” This was the main focus of many of the people who ran for the election: how to clean up this mess. That’s why I actually love the title of this bill. It’s cleaning up and fixing the hydro mess. It’s there.

Let me mention Anthony Haines, who’s the CEO of Toronto Hydro, and what he said about this bill. He said, “Toronto Hydro believes in the value of a strong and independent regulator, and supports the government taking steps to reduce red tape in a way that results in greater operational efficiencies for the utility and its customers.” The key part of that is “its customers.” Those are our constituents. Those are members in our riding. People need to have a break. We all agree. That’s something I think we can all agree in this House about.

Our government right now is taking action to reduce the cost of duplication by streamlining the patchwork of inefficient electricity conservation programs in Ontario. We have to get to the bottom of this to solve the problem. We can’t just touch the surface. We need to dig deep and find a solution. People can’t afford to heat their homes. That’s a fact. People can’t afford it. In northern Ontario, heating is not a luxury. It’s never been. In southern Ontario, it’s not a luxury.

We need to get to the bottom of this and solve the problem so our future—I’m trying to think of the kids in my riding when their parents are struggling in paying hydro bills or feeding them. That’s not a fair choice for parents. We can do better, and I’m really proud that this government has taken the first steps to make this happen.

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

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: This bill, the Fixing the Hydro Mess Act—nice title. But when you actually look at the content of the bill, it’s anything but fixing the hydro mess; in fact, it’s actually making things worse. The member from Niagara Centre did an excellent job of outlining how the content of the bill is actually making the hydro mess messier.

But I just wanted to take a step back and remind everybody in the House of the different actions that this government took leading up to this bill, the Fixing the Hydro Mess Act. We all know very well that the Premier started very early on in meddling in the Hydro One affair. This government blew $200 million in Hydro One payouts and golden handshakes. In fact, we had a business, Avista, who pulled out of a deal because of this government’s meddling, and that actually ended up costing the people of Ontario hundreds of millions of dollars.

The Hydro One compensation package increased to a whopping $1.5 million. By comparison, the CEO in Québec makes about $800,000. That’s base salary and bonuses included.

So all of this is happening while the people of Ontario are still paying skyrocketing bills for their hydro. It’s very shameful, because government likes to say that they acknowledge that people are choosing between heating and eating, but at the same time, they’re spending a lot of money. It’s just not going to the people of Ontario in the forms of support and services. It’s going to their friends, like the people they’re appointing to the board of Hydro One. We know that the former principal secretary—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I return to the member from Niagara Centre for his remarks.

Mr. Jeff Burch: I’d like to thank the member from Brampton West—who I had lunch with in the Speaker’s office and got to know the other day—and the members from Kitchener Centre, Etobicoke–Lakeshore and Parkdale–High Park for their comments.

Speaker, it’s clear that this bill is just a relabelled Liberal spending plan. That’s basically what it is. It’s $250 billion that they’re still spending, and that’s the highlight of the plan. There really is not much else there, except a misunderstanding of how to move forward with our hydro system so that it makes us competitive in the long-term by taking advantage of cheaper forms of power. This government is not doing that. They’re actually cutting, as I mentioned, conservation, which is by far the cheapest way to move forward. It’s what every other country in the world is doing.

They’re looking at solar power, wind power, and environmental technologies so that they can be more competitive in the long term, not throwing $250 billion at a problem in the short term. So clearly, that’s what we need to be doing.

This government started off by cancelling green contracts, and they’re just continuing down the road of ignoring the environment. We keep pointing it out. In every portfolio that they come forward with a bill, it ignores the environment, whether it’s what they tried with

schedule 10 in Bill 66 or this failure here with our hydro system—

Interjection.

Mr. Jeff Burch: —getting rid of the Environmental Commissioner. It’s just, over and over and over again, a lack of understanding of climate change and how we move forward. It’s really disappointing for future generations.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Pursuant to standing order 47(c), I am now required to interrupt the proceedings and announce that there has been more than six and one-half hours of debate on the motion for second reading of this bill. This debate will therefore be deemed adjourned unless the government House leader specifies otherwise.

I recognize the minister.

Hon. Rod Phillips: Madam Speaker, we wish to continue the debate.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate. I recognize the member from Thornhill.

Mrs. Gila Martow: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s very nice to see you in the chair, as always, on Thursdays.

We’re discussing Bill 87, Fixing the Hydro Mess Act, 2019, brought forward by the Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines. Of course, I’m not sure what the discussion was when they decided what they were going to give—sort of, the easy title. We often have a nickname title and then the more complicated, serious title for many of the bills. I don’t think it took them too long to come up with “Fixing the Hydro Mess Act.” It is a mess. In the last election, it was probably the topic we heard about most often at the doors. It’s certainly one of the topics I heard about very often in my riding of Thornhill.

People were very concerned with how fast the electricity rates went up because of previous Liberal government policies. People understood that it wasn’t just about the bill for their home; it was the cost to businesses and what that translated into in terms of our economy, in terms of heating our hospitals.

We’re now also very concerned about how the carbon tax is going to affect our economy, the federal carbon tax that the federal Liberals have just brought in—it’s kind of an April Fool’s Day joke that’s not that funny—and how that is going to affect the operating costs, the bottom line, of many of our hospitals and businesses and even schools.

After 15 long years, we know that the Liberal government got very complacent and maybe even a little bit tired. That resulted in a lot of waste and inefficiencies throughout all aspects of government. The energy sector is an example of that waste, and I think that it’s time that we all work together to clean it up.

We cancelled the wasteful renewable energy projects that our system never needed, and we repealed the Green Energy Act to ensure that the previous government’s waste didn’t continue.

Now we’re taking another step towards cleaning up this hydro mess by modernizing the Ontario Energy Board.

The Electricity Distributors Association is asking for OEB modernization. They have submitted thousands of pages—realize all the lengthy delays for approvals. There’s uncertainty around costs, and rate and regulatory matters. When we talk about red tape, this is a prime example of red tape adding to the inefficiencies and raising the cost of doing business in Ontario. It’s time, and this is an opportunity for all of us to work together and see it happen. We know that the NDP has said that we’re not delivering on our promise to Ontario this past winter, when it was cold, of reducing electricity rates.

But I think that it’s our first step. This is a big step. It’s a good start. We need to get the input costs down by cutting down on the red tape and the inefficiencies, and making sure that we can deliver power for a modern OEB.

There are principles of conservation that we need to plug into—in terms of how those communities can tap into things like natural gas. I think that here in Toronto, we don’t realize how many communities rely on only electricity for heating their homes. Our government is working very hard to bring natural gas to many of those communities, and it’s a lot less expensive. I know that my father had propane, and it was switched to natural gas 20 years ago, and it made a huge difference back then.

I can just imagine the difference that it would make now to switch from electricity to natural gas to heat a home or run a business. There’s no doubt that under this minister’s leadership the OEB will once again become a competent competitor, and that gets us to increase our efficiencies and cut that red tape that’s been such a burden to our economy for so many years.

But that’s not all that we’re doing. We know that the Liberal government thought that the answer was always to raise taxes and just spend money. We don’t feel that way. We are fiscal Conservatives. We understand there are a lot of ways we can focus here in Ontario on cleaning up the hydro mess while respecting the taxpayers of Ontario.

The Auditor General had a lot to say about reducing electricity consumption and investing during a time of surplus. It would have been nice, Madam Speaker. We’re listening to the Auditor General very carefully on all her suggestions. It has also been said many programs were so inefficient that the programs cost $2 for every $1 they tried to save. Well, that’s not how you save money. We realize that. We’re committed to keeping money in the pockets of hard-working Ontarians and ensuring that people don’t have to make those tough choices.

We’ve heard it so often, people having to choose between food on the table and heating their home, but it’s a reality for many people here in Ontario. Heating and electricity are not luxury items. They’re an absolute necessity.

I want to mention a quote from Brian Bentz, the president and CEO of Alectra: “A modern and progressive Ontario Energy Board will provide guidance to the industry as we introduce new technologies to the grid and provide new solutions to our customers.

We look forward to working with the government, the OEB and other market participants as we work towards a new regulatory environment in Ontario.” I think that’s the key word: “a new regulatory environment.” There’s the old line, “There’s a new sheriff in town.” Well, there’s certainly a new sheriff in town, and this sheriff is focusing on reducing red tape, having efficiencies, opening Ontario for business and spreading the word, and I think that we’re doing a good job of exactly that.

Up in my riding, we used to have PowerStream. We used to pay our electricity bills to a company called PowerStream, and now it’s Alectra. People wouldn’t have even noticed, except that all of a sudden they got an envelope, or a bill if they did it online, that said “Alectra.” Alectra is actually a combination of four electricity distributors—PowerStream in Thornhill is just one of them—and the profits go back into the communities. I think that’s what I want to just spend a little time addressing.

A lot of these electricity distribution companies are actually owned by the communities they’re servicing, and any profits often go back into the community. They don’t necessarily go to dividends; they go to profits in the community to pay for things like infrastructure in those communities.

I would invite people to learn a little bit more about the electricity distribution in their system to understand how it works and which areas are serviced by which company. In the case of Alectra, the municipalities are Vaughan, Markham, Barrie, Mississauga, Brampton, Guelph, Hamilton and St. Catharines. As well, OMERS Infrastructure is the shareholder of the utility. The utility rates are set by the Ontario Energy Board, and included in these rates is a regulated rate of return that allows the utility to earn a profit on its investment.

I think that when those profits are invested into the community, they cut down on the need for raising property taxes. People have to realize—we all have to realize here —that there’s only one taxpayer, and they’re paying their expenses, plus they’re paying for so many different levels of government.

I look forward to working with all members of the House to fix this hydro mess, ensuring that we get those efficiencies and reduce red tape.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Miss Monique Taylor: It gives me great pleasure to welcome some guests to the House today who joined us for the Special Services at Home press conference this morning. We have mom Sue Bassett, who is mom of Treva, 14, and Tracy Lamourie joining us at Queen’s Park today. Thank you so much.

Ms. Jane McKenna: I want to say the beautiful school in Burlington, école Sainte-Philippe, is here today—I’m meeting them on the staircase—and my friend Barry Strader is here as well.

Mr. Paul Miller: I’d like to introduce my great riding assistant Ryan Ladner, who’s here today.

Mr. Stephen Crawford: I’m pleased to introduce two friends, Nadirah Nazeer and Shan Natarajan. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: I’d like to welcome Clarkson Secondary School here, from the riding of Mississauga–Lakeshore.

Mr. Stephen Lecce: I want to introduce Kevin Vuong, an intelligence officer who’s with us today who has been in the Royal Canadian Navy for many years. Thank you, Kevin, for your service to our country.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I also want to welcome Kevin Vuong. He’s here with a group of students and staff from Youth Fusion. I’ll be giving a statement on it later this afternoon.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Dave Smith: I’d like to introduce two people from my riding, Richard and Lisa Doyle. They are here on behalf of the member for Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound as they won an opportunity to have lunch with him here at the Legislature. It was actually their parents who won it and they have given it to them.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I’d like to welcome Art Buckland from my riding of Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry. Art is a former trustee at the Upper Canada District School Board. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: It’s my pleasure this morning to introduce Mike Gibbons, who’s the LA for the MPP from Windsor–Tecumseh. There’s a Hamilton connection: He’s with his mother, Joanne Gibbons, who’s a resident of Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas. Welcome to the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): A point of order, the member for Ottawa–Vanier.

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: Je demande l’assentiment unanime de la Chambre pour me permettre de poser la question au nom de la députée de Glengarry–Prescott–Russell.

I’m asking for unanimous consent to be able to ask a question on behalf of the MPP for Glengarry–Prescott–Russell.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Ottawa–Vanier is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to ask a question on behalf of the member for Glengarry–Prescott–Russell. Agreed? I heard a no.

I believe we’ve introduced all our guests.

Member’s comments

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I want to call the attention of the House to what I’m about to say. The member for Leeds–Grenville–Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes has given me notice of his intention to rise and raise a point of privilege with regard to a petition presented yesterday by the member for Toronto–St. Paul’s. I received this notice a few minutes ago.

In his notice, the member asserts that by stating “I’m proud to rise on behalf of the former pages serving from February 19 to March 7 in group SP19-1,” and “I proudly sign this petition on behalf of the former pages serving from February 19 to March 7 in group SP19-1,” the member for Toronto–St. Paul’s intentionally misled the House as to who signed the petition that was presented.

I am now prepared to rule on the matter without hearing further from the member, as standing order 21(

b) permits me to do.

Let me say from the outset that I too was concerned when hearing that our legislative pages were referenced during a proceeding yesterday. It is my sincere hope that no member would use these fine young students to make a political point.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members will please take their seats; I’m not finished.

However, our pages are residents of the province of Ontario and they enjoy all the rights of civic engagement once their time with us has been completed. While the member for St. Paul’s did not state that the signatories to this petition were in fact former pages, as alleged by the member for Leeds–Grenville–Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, I can confirm that the name of a former page from SP19-1 does appear on the petition that was presented yesterday. For this reason, I find that a prima facie case of contempt has not been made.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Point of order: the member for Oakville.

Mr. Stephen Crawford: Yes, I heard about this this morning, about the MPP here having this petition, and I wanted to make a couple of points because I think everybody in the House needs to be aware of this—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’ve ruled on the matter, and I thank the member for Oakville.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I have ruled on the matter. The House will come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The House will come to order.

The member for Markham–Stouffville on a point of order.

Mr. Paul Calandra: On a point of privilege, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): You haven’t given us notice of raising a point of privilege. You have to give us prior notice in writing.

It is now time for oral questions.

Oral Questions

Education

Ms. Marit Stiles: Mr. Speaker, good morning. My question is to the Premier. Today, students across Ontario will be walking out of their classrooms for a very simple reason: They want the Premier to know that they are going to fight for their future.

The future the Premier has planned for them means fewer classes—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I apologize to the member for Davenport. Stop the clock. The government side will come to order. The point of privilege has been addressed. The ruling has been made. Let’s move on.

I apologize to the member for Davenport.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Sault Ste. Marie will come to order.

Start the clock. Once again, the member for Davenport.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The future the Premier has planned for them means fewer classes in the arts, fewer classes in the skilled trades, fired teachers and larger classrooms, and that is not something they’re going to accept lying down.

What does the Premier have to say to students who are already tired of being told to expect less for their future?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: This isn’t about class sizes, I’ll tell you; this is about the union bosses telling the teachers and the students what to do. Our teachers have a responsibility to the parents and they have a responsibility to the students to make sure that they stay in the classrooms and teach the students. We know that the grade 6 students—50% of them—are failing math. Maybe they should keep them in the classroom to teach them more math. Maybe the teachers should focus on learning math themselves, because we know one third of those teachers can’t pass the same grade 6 math test that they’re giving the students.

We saw what happened under the Liberals. We saw what happened with the big union bosses when they—I guess, there are no Liberals in here.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Premier will take his seat. We can’t make reference to the absence of members.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Once again, I’ll remind all members, we don’t make reference to the absence of members when they’re not in the House, for obvious reasons.

Start the clock. The Premier has a few more seconds to wind up.

Hon. Doug Ford: Our focus as government—through you Mr. Speaker—is making sure that we aren’t on the lowest tier in the entire country when it comes to grade 6 math students. Grade 6 math students should be at the top tier, not 50% failing math.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Marit Stiles: I’m going to continue with my question to the Premier.

It is not just students raising concerns. School boards are warning the Premier that his plan will have disastrous consequences for our students and their futures. Boards in Peel, Toronto, Hastings and Prince Edward have written to the government. Today, the Limestone board in Kingston and Frontenac warns that increasing the average high school class size will have “dramatic and harmful effects on students and staff.” They say as many as 80 teachers could lose their jobs in that board alone.

Why is this Premier ignoring these warnings?

Hon. Doug Ford: Again, through you, Mr. Speaker: As I said earlier, it’s not about class sizes, because we will have the lowest class size in the entire country. If you look at B.C., it has 30 to a class. Quebec has 32. If you look at Alberta, Saskatchewan, PEI, they have no cap. We’re proposing 28. We will still be the lowest in high school anywhere in the entire country.

Our focus is to make sure we focus on literacy, on math, the skills that are going to help these students—the students up there, the students back there—to actually get a job when they come out. Use the math skills—not ignore the math skills, not get bullied by a bunch of union bosses at the teachers’ union. Let’s start focusing on the students and stop using the students as a bunch of pawns, because that’s what the union bosses are doing right now. It’s absolutely shameful that they’re using our students as a bunch of pawns.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members will please take their seats.

Restart the clock. Final supplementary.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Mr. Speaker, do you know what’s shameful? What’s shameful is that response from this Premier and the creative math he’s using to come up with this fiction about class sizes.

Boards are also noting that the government’s plan will not work for their students. Under their new plan, this government says students must complete four mandatory online courses to graduate. But in a letter to the government, the Hastings and Prince Edward school board has said, “We know that in many areas of our school board students are unable to access reliable Internet service and/or transportation to an accessible location.” I’m sure this is something that the House leader would have already passed on to the Premier.

How are students supposed to complete online courses if they don’t have online access, Mr. Premier?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: When the students are in the classroom, they’re going to learn to make sure that they understand math skills. Every single job you go into, you have to understand—I’ll tell you a story, Mr. Speaker. Before I got into politics, I had a university graduate come by. I was interviewing this person. Out of the blue—and I’ve never done that—I said, What’s seven times seven?” Would you believe they look around for their phone to calculate seven times seven? A person who graduated from university doesn’t understand the basic times table? It’s unbelievable.

But I have an idea: Through Bill 48, we’re actually getting new teachers to make sure they focus on math skills. I have an idea: Why don’t we test all the teachers rather than just the new ones on learning how to deliver math?

Education

Ms. Marit Stiles: My question is again to the Premier. This morning, the Minister of Education took to the airwaves and said she was ready to listen to students. Well, students are telling the government clearly they don’t want larger class sizes, they don’t want teachers losing jobs, and they don’t want to lose courses that teach everything from art to music to skilled trades. Those are actually courses that lead to good jobs and boost our economy, Premier.

If the Premier wants a dialogue, can he start one right now by explaining why he is forcing these cuts on students?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Education.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Speaker, it’s my pleasure to rise today and talk about what we’re doing. We’re not going to be giving in to union stunts like we are seeing happening and being fostered by the members opposite. We’re not going to be teaching based on ideology and hidden agendas. We are going to be focusing on what we learned during our consultation last fall, and that is that parents, teachers and students alike want to be focusing on the fundamentals that will ensure them a great career pathway forward. That’s what we’re doing.

It’s interesting. There was a reference made to some media I was doing earlier this morning. Well, I met a young man that the Minister of Finance and I spoke to when he was a member of a round table on financial literacy. He thanked me for where we landed with regard to curriculum that resulted from our fulsome consultation last fall. That’s an example of listening, that’s an example of getting it right, and that’s what we’re going to continue to do. We’re going to continue to listen—

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

Interjections.

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

Supplementary.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Back to the Premier: I can assure you that the students in this province don’t need us or the unions to make them angry right now. You’re doing a heck of a job of it on your own. Instead of listening to students—

Interjections.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Instead of listening to students, the Ford government has done everything it can to dismiss their concerns. They claim students are playing politics, they claim students aren’t listening, even as they dismiss young people speaking out about their concerns for their future.

Instead of ignoring these young people, will the Premier consider the possibility that smaller class sizes, fewer teachers and fewer course options might not be a great idea?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: We’re focused on the fact that the education system is broken in Ontario. That is a fact, and because of that, we reached out, we consulted, we listened, and we brought in people to tell us what they really want. In fact, parents think that teachers should be in the classroom today teaching their students, because we all know the education system has failed our students. We can’t afford to lose another generation of students who do not know how to do seven by seven, as the Premier mentioned earlier

Let me be very clear. In the past, we know union bosses organized walkouts against the previous Liberal government. I’m concerned that we may be seeing the very same thing right now.

Quite frankly, we’re concerned about the issues that really are going to be pertinent to students, and that is math; that is fundamental, basic skills in terms of science, technology—

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

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Final supplementary.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Back to the Premier: Just to be clear, it’s not teachers who are walking out today; it’s students across this province.

I would ask the Premier to give us the exact number of parents or anyone else who asked for larger class sizes and less teachers in our classrooms, because everybody wants to know.

The Ford government has been very quick to criticize students who are standing up for their futures. But I want to quote one student I listened to today. She said, “We’re forced into a political arena right now. Our futures are on the line. I wouldn’t say we’re the ones who are politicizing our classrooms.”

These students are fighting for a good education and a bright future, and I’d say that’s pretty darn resilient of them.

Instead of dismissing their voices along with teachers, parents and school board voices, why won’t the Premier listen?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Speaker, I just would like to remind the member opposite that last June, we were elected with an overwhelming mandate to fix the education system in Ontario. We need to fix Ontario. We’re going to start with our classrooms, and we’re going to make sure that we have great learning environments. That means that we’re going to make sure that teachers are focusing on the basics and the fundamentals.

I am so proud that we passed Bill 48 yesterday. Every new teacher coming out of teachers’ college to register will have to pass a math test. That’s going to give confidence to our parents. That’s going to give confidence to our employers.

We’re seriously considering all of our other options, because we want to make sure that the people in the classroom have the best skills, to ensure that students are learning the proper things.

But I want to be perfectly clear today: No one—not one person in this province—gets to veto our education plans, because last year, we listened to 72,000 people. No matter—

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

Next question.

Government accountability

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Premier. Premier, last month, the member for Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston raised serious concerns about possible illegal lobbying being carried out by some of the Premier’s closest advisers. The member for Essex passed these concerns on to the Ontario Provincial Police. We have now learned that they have referred this matter to their anti-rackets squad.

Will the Premier pledge today that he and his office will work with the police and any other officials conducting the investigation?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: There’s no illegal lobbying going on. It’s very simple. No one can influence our team. No one can buy our team. Very simply, if you want to talk to the government, call me on my cellphone. You hand it out anyway.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Premier—

Interjections.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Thank you, thank you. Thank you for that applause. Much appreciated.

Premier, we’ve seen in the past where Premiers have destroyed documents within their office. We’ve seen that show before. Will you instruct your staff that all emails, text messages and any relevant records are to be maintained while the OPP do their work? Will you promise that no records will be destroyed in your office?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Before I ask the Premier to reply, again I’ll remind members to make their comments through the chair, not directly across the floor of the House.

The Premier to reply.

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Economic Development.

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks to the member opposite for the question. It’s pretty clear that the Premier is the most accessible Premier this province has ever seen. I think, of the 14 million people who live in Ontario, there are many millions who actually do have his cellphone number—much to the chagrin of his staff, I must say. The Premier is very loyal to that smartphone and gets back to as many people as he possibly can.

The Integrity Commissioner of Ontario has ruled on the claims that have been made—or is looking into the claims that have been made.

I can tell you that, without a doubt, there are other matters that the member from Timmins should probably be asking about. We are trying to create jobs in northern Ontario. I know that’s something that the Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines is working extremely hard on. I’m surprised the member from Timmins wouldn’t ask a very important question for the members of his riding on that topic.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary. Nope, that’s it; that’s both questions. I apologize.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’ll do a third.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I apologize; I erred.

Next question.

Education

Mrs. Gila Martow: Today is a sad day for Ontario students and Ontario parents. Teachers’ unions across Ontario are encouraging a student walkout across the province instead of encouraging students to advance their education in subjects like math. Union bosses are clearly pushing their political agendas and trying to use our students as bargaining chips.

Mr. Speaker, the minister has committed to working in good faith with teachers’ unions as we work to improve Ontario’s education system. Can the minister tell us what the government expects of those responsible for representing the voice of our teachers?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I’d like to thank the member from Thornhill for her question, because I know you care about getting the classrooms back on track. Thank you so much for that.

But, Speaker, I have to share with you today, the teachers’ unions who are encouraging these walkouts are disrupting and distracting students across this province. While unions use the classroom to push their ideas and push their political agenda, our government is getting to work and focusing on the real challenge facing our educational system, because it’s broken. For instance, half of our grade 6 students, as the Premier mentioned before, are failing to meet provincial math standards.

That’s where our focus is: preparing students for the future, to improve their career pathways by focusing on STEM and math curriculum. That’s why we needed to make a change and make math education compulsory in the Ontario teachers’ college. That is why we are exploring making math skills minimum standards for teacher certification and recertification in the future.

Teachers’ unions are abandoning the classroom to focus on cheap stunts. That’s not—

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

Mrs. Gila Martow: I’d like to thank the minister. Mr. Speaker, I remain concerned about the safety and security of our students who are being encouraged to leave class. I’ve heard that some teachers might even abandon the classroom to join or assist the protests. Does the minister consider it acceptable for teachers to leave their positions in the classrooms to participate in these protests?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I appreciate the question. This is a very serious situation. I do not consider that acceptable behaviour from our teachers. No, I do not think it’s acceptable. Our government believes that schools should be non-partisan, where students learn the knowledge they need to succeed. It should be non-partisan inside and outside of the classroom.

Unfortunately, the fact is that teachers’ unions are encouraging their members to put their textbooks down and carry on political agendas that are union-driven. Speaker, we want to bargain in good faith. We want to work with our teachers to ensure our students are receiving the best possible education, but unfortunately, union bosses are distracting teachers from this goal. This is unethical. It’s wrong. It’s manipulative. Students deserve better. Parents deserve better.

I want to remind parents that the Ontario College of Teachers exists to enforce instances of teacher misconduct—

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

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Next question.

Autism treatment

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is for the Premier. Last night, a recording of the Premier surfaced in which, when asked about job losses of providers of autism therapy, he claims, “There’s never been one employee been laid off in the—front-line employee that has been laid off in the province”—I’d love to fix it, but it’s the Premier’s grammar.

But that doesn’t jive with the 19 staff laid off across northern Ontario in child and community resources or the 17 autism workers laid off by the McGivney centre in Windsor. Is the Premier still willing to claim that there have been no job losses because of his callous changes to the Ontario Autism Program?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: I’m glad that’s proof in the pudding. I’m at my office until midnight every night, talking to families with children with autism. I think that was at about 10:30 last night, actually listening to people. As we say, we are listening to the parents. We’re listening to stakeholders right across the province. We’re doubling the amount of money that the NDP cut with the Liberals, at $235 million. We’re putting over $600 million towards this program, making sure that we get everyone involved and listen to the parents, listen to the stakeholders, making sure we take care of the children

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Miss Monique Taylor: Maybe he should listen to his own recording that claims that there were no layoffs in the province of Ontario since he has taken office, because if those jobs that I already mentioned don’t count, what about the 17 therapists who were laid off at ABA Connections in Ottawa, or the nine workers who were laid off at KidsAbility in Kitchener? That’s not even counting the 10,000 teaching jobs that are on the chopping block, or the nurses who have been laid off across the province.

So I will ask again. Premier, think about your answer. Does the Premier still stand behind his words that no front-line workers have been laid off under your Conservative government?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: We’re making sure no one is being laid off. We’re doing extreme measures to make sure—I know that the opposition actually mentioned about teachers. I’ll give you some facts about teachers, Mr. Speaker. Under the Liberals, there were 13,000 new teachers hired, and guess what? Enrolment dropped 109,000 people. So we have 13,000 more teachers being hired when enrolment dropped 109,000.

We’re actually protecting the front-line teachers. Even though they’re trying to attack us, we’re still protecting them, because the people who are directing them, the big union bosses, like Sam Hammond, who has been there—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m sorry. I apologize to the Premier. I have to cut you off.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Okay. I could barely hear the Premier because of the cacophony coming from the other side of the House.

Interjection.

Hon. Todd Smith: Did you hear that, Speaker? Unacceptable. That’s unacceptable.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I was talking; I didn’t hear it. I can hear you now, and I’d ask you to come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I would ask the House to come to order. Once again, I could barely hear the Premier’s answer. The opposition must come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Hamilton Mountain will now come to order.

The Premier still has a few seconds, if he chooses to use them to wind up his response.

Hon. Doug Ford: No, I’m fine, Mr. Speaker.

Police services

Mr. Kaleed Rasheed: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday represented an important milestone for police and community safety in Ontario: The Ontario Police College held a march-past and review ceremony. This ceremony represents the culmination of weeks of training for police recruits before they return to police services across Ontario and commence their careers as police officers.

Mr. Speaker, Ontario’s police officers are true everyday heroes, and these recruits are Ontario’s next generation of heroes. They are making an honourable contribution to keep us safe, stand up for victims and hold criminals accountable for their actions.

Can the Premier please tell this House how our government is supporting and respecting the front-line men and women in uniform who courageously serve to keep us safe?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: what a great day—a great ceremony yesterday. I was joined by our incredible minister of safety services and correctional services—as a matter of fact, that’s a tongue twister. By 12 o’clock, you can call the minister the Solicitor General, because we’re changing you to Solicitor General. At 12 o’clock today, we’ll have a new Solicitor General with the same great ideas.

Nothing was better than going there and watching 479 recruits—it was incredible—from 34 regions across this province, ready to serve. You saw the glow in their eyes, the enthusiasm in their faces. They’re going to focus on dedication, dedication to not only each other and their peers, but dedication to the communities they serve, because we’re strong believers in community policing.

They’re showing true leadership amongst all 479. I mentioned to them, “Show leadership again in your community and teamwork”—focusing as a team, watching each other’s backs and watching the community they serve. It was just the best ceremony—

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

Mr. Kaleed Rasheed: I thank the Premier for never—and I repeat, never—wavering in his support for our men and women in uniform.

Ontario is home to some of the finest police officers anywhere in the world. It is an honour to be part of a government that recognizes their contribution to our communities and is willing to stand up for front-line police officers.

Mr. Speaker, our communities are most safe when the police, the people and their government are empowered to work together. Could the Premier please share more about our government’s commitment to supporting the police and public safety in Ontario?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: That’s one of our priorities, because you don’t have a community unless you have a safe community.

Each one of these young officers—the dedication they’re committing to for the rest of their lives, giving back to communities, not only in policing, not just upholding the law, but getting involved in the community in and out of uniform. It is absolutely critical.

I had an opportunity to speak to a lot of the 479. I had an opportunity to speak to a lot of police chiefs. The appreciation they have toward this government is over the top. All I heard is, “Thank you. Keep going. We appreciate your support,” no matter if it’s guns and gangs, or the new OPP stations we opened up across the province, or proper communications we gave them to make sure they’re safe, day in and day out.

But I want to thank them. I want to thank all the police officers across this great province for their support and for their service back to the community. They’re absolutely outstanding people.

Government appointments

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, the Toronto Star reported details of yet another insider who has received a handout from the Ford government. Former Conservative MP Ken Hughes has been hired to advise on this pressing provincial priority: beer and wine in corner stores. He’ll receive $1,000 a day for his efforts, up to $200,000, plus expenses.

Not only that, but Ontarians could be on the hook for up to $100 million for breaking a negotiated contract.

Can the Premier explain why the people of Ontario should foot the bill for yet another high-priced Conservative consultant and friend of the Premier?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Thank you for the question. Our government is committed to improving alcohol choice and convenience for Ontario consumers, something they have long asked for and something Premier Ford promised during the election that we won so overwhelmingly on the 7th of June.

Mr. Hughes has been appointed to provide advice on how our government can fulfill that promise while expanding business opportunities.

Throughout Ontario, you have to consider that we have the lowest density of retail outlets selling beer, wine, cider and spirits. Quebec has 8,000 retail locations where you can buy beverage alcohol; Ontario has 3,000. So we look forward to changing this trend, bringing more choice and more convenience to Ontario’s beverage alcohol consumers.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: Back to the Premier: As the Premier knows, this is hardly the first time one of his friends has been handed a high-paying gig at public expense. Former PC Party president Rueben Devlin has a $348,000 contract advising the Premier on dismantling our public health care system. The Premier’s former tour director is taking home $350,000 a year in Washington—more than the actual ambassador—and Jenni Byrne was handed a lucrative job at the Ontario Energy Board with no background in energy. That’s just a small sample.

If the province is short of money for students, seniors, hospitals, schools and mental health, how can this Premier find so much money to pay his Conservative friends?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Thank you very much for the question. Again, our government is committed to improving choice and convenience. So, because the Premier had never met Mr. Hughes in the past, let me tell you a little bit about him. Let me tell you, Premier—

Hon. Doug Ford: I’d like to know about him.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: —that Mr. Hughes is going to lead discussions with key members of the industry, including the producers, public health, safety organizations, municipalities, restaurants and bars. He brings extensive entrepreneurial and public sector experience that will give him this valuable insight.

He’s a former Minister of Municipal Affairs and Minister of Energy in Alberta. He was an MP, as well. He served as chair of the board of Alberta Health Services. He brings lots of experience—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. I have to ask the member for Waterloo to come to order, and the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade to come to order.

Next question.

Taxation

Mr. Parm Gill: My question is for the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. It has been four days since the federal Trudeau carbon tax has been imposed on our province. We know the carbon tax will increase the cost to heat your home, fuel your car and feed your family. Yesterday, I was pleased to have both the Minister of Health and the Minister of the Environment in my riding of Milton to speak about impacts of the federal carbon tax on our hospitals. Can the minister please share with this House how the Trudeau carbon tax will impact the institutions that provide essential and life-saving services to the people of Ontario?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Thank you to the member from Milton for welcoming the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care and I yesterday. The federal carbon tax is going to hurt our health care system. Let me just give you a few numbers here, and I think the members opposite from the NDP should care about these because some of them are in cities I know they care about. The Hamilton Health Sciences corporation will pay an additional $2.1 million a year by 2022; London Health Sciences Centre, an additional $1.9 million a year; the Ottawa Hospital, an additional $1 million a year. The list goes on and on, Mr. Speaker.

The federal carbon tax, this year, will cost Ontario hospitals almost $11 million, and that will go to $27 million by 2022. That’s a $27-million health care cut by Justin Trudeau. That $27 million is 104,000 MRI operating hours for 157,000 patients. That’s 3,300 pacemaker implants.

Our plan proves—

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

Mr. Parm Gill: It’s clear that this carbon tax is going to place unnecessary pressure on our hospitals, and I’m proud to be part of a team that continues to fight against it for the people of our great province. We were elected to put the interests of the people first, to make life more affordable in Ontario and to end hallway health care. Meanwhile, the Trudeau carbon tax will make it harder for businesses to stay open and is a burden on institutions, such as our hospitals. Could the minister please inform the members of this Legislature how the federal carbon tax redirects focus from what really matters to Ontarians?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you very much for the question. It was a pleasure to be in your riding yesterday. But there is no doubt that the federal carbon tax is going to have a direct negative impact on hospitals and make life more unaffordable for Ontarians.

Hospitals in Ontario are already under enormous pressure. Diverting resources to cover rising heating costs instead of on reducing wait times and ending hallway health care is simply not acceptable. Hospitals should be able to focus their resources on providing the quality, patient-centred care that Ontarians expect and deserve, and not have to deal with unnecessary rising operational costs.

Our government is committed to ensuring our money is being directed to front-line services where it belongs, to improve patient experience and provide better and connected care. We will continue to fight the federal government’s carbon tax on the people of Ontario.

Education

Ms. Laura Mae Lindo: My question is to the Minister of Education. Waterloo Catholic District School Board issued surplus notices to teachers this week, signalling layoffs are on the horizon. The school board said that the $2.7 million cut from their budget is because of the minister’s cancellation of the local priorities fund. This puts 73 jobs in jeopardy. Without this money, these educational workers likely won’t have jobs come September.

I’m wondering, Minister, knowing that our kids’ education and education jobs are on the line, why is the government eliminating the local priorities fund?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Let’s be perfectly clear. The surplus notices that are going out at this time from board to board across Ontario are routine. They’re absolutely routine. The fact of the matter is, we’re making sure that we are prioritizing how we invest in our classrooms, in our teachers and, most importantly, in the education that Ontario students deserve. Again, Speaker, we’ve inherited a system that absolutely crumbled under the previous Liberal administration, and unfortunately people are taking advantage of that and manipulating the situation.

But the fact of the matter is, we’re going to continue to focus on getting it right in the classroom, because Ontario students deserve the proper fundamentals that ensure success for their careers down the road. We’re going to focus on getting it right and making sure the investments are looking at making sure students learn math, because it’s unacceptable having over 50% of grade 6 students in Ontario failing math at—

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

Ms. Laura Mae Lindo: Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? Even more jobs will be lost if the government moves forward with bigger class sizes. The Waterloo Catholic board estimates that the class size changes that will cram more students into overcrowded classes mean that there could be 80 fewer teachers in the Kitchener-Waterloo area. Talking about potential job cuts at Waterloo Catholic schools is not fearmongering, which I was accused of yesterday, Mr. Speaker. These job cuts directly affect students, especially marginalized and underserved students.

I am so proud of the students who are standing up for their education and walking out of the schools today. That is true leadership, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, students at schools around the corner are walking out today. Will you go to listen to their concerns?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Speaker, I’m always listening to parents, to students and to teachers. The fact of the matter is, when we’re talking about class sizes, I have to remind the member opposite that she is doing nothing more than fearmongering. Again, I’ll pass over to the member opposite the CBC fact-check from March 25 that showed, even with increasing the mature class sizes by six students, we’re still going to have some of the smallest class sizes across Canada.

So, really and truly, the whole party across the House here needs to get it right, because the fact of the matter is, we are investing in our students, we’re investing in our teachers, and we’re listening to parents because they are concerned that the Liberal government has absolutely destroyed the future of a generation because of their failed ideologies, and their failed experiments, if you will. But we’re going to get it right and the fact of the matter is that, people, students in particular, should be in the classroom today, and if any teacher walks out—

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

The next question?

Violence against women

Ms. Natalia Kusendova: My question is to the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services and minister responsible for women’s issues. Recently, the North Bay Nugget released a staggering

article titled, “Domestic Abuse Escalating in the Northeast.” The

article highlights that the OPP reported that the rates of domestic abuse in northern Ontario increased by 150%. Sadly, we know that victims of domestic abuse are often women. This is an alarming trend that we are seeing across Ontario, including in the region of Peel. Speaker, I can confidently say that our government finds these numbers appalling and unacceptable.

Can the minister explain to this House the steps our government for the people is taking to make Ontario safer for women and girls across this province?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I’d like to thank the member for her question. This government is going to continue to build on our historic investment of $174.5 million in funding for violence against women services. That’s why we’re also tapping into a network of community partners, including about 900 member organizations, agencies and partners, to help stop violence against women and improve services for survivors.

Sex trafficking, as we all know, is Ontario’s dirty little secret. I want to assure all members of this Assembly and every person in the province of Ontario that our government takes that issue particularly seriously and we’re going to continue to build on the strong work of the Minister of Labour, Laurie Scott.

That is why we are doing a number of different things: Not only are we talking to those 900 member organizations, but we’ve created a multi-ministerial task table, we do have consultations ongoing with the member from Mississauga Centre and the member from Cambridge; and in addition to that, I’m working with the federal government so that we can bring more attention to this issue and more funding.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Natalia Kusendova: I would like to thank the minister for her tireless efforts in combatting violence against women and girls across this province and for standing up for our vulnerable women each and every day.

Northern Ontario is home to many Indigenous communities. Sadly, Indigenous women continue to experience significantly greater rates of violence in Ontario. Indigenous women are three times more likely to experience violence than non-Indigenous women, and they are two and a half times more likely to experience spousal violence. These statistics are not only heartbreaking, but they are intolerable.

Can the minister please explain what our government is doing to work with our Indigenous communities to combat this disturbing trend?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I had an opportunity, while at the United Nations, to work with some Indigenous partners from across Canada to talk about some of the work that we’re doing here in the province of Ontario. By working together with our Indigenous partners, we are developing and delivering policies and programs that put an end to violence against Indigenous women.

The ministry supports Indigenous-led public education, prevention campaigns and community-based services, such as the Family Well-Being Program, which supports Indigenous families and communities in addressing the effects of intergenerational violence and trauma and reducing interactions with child protective services; and Kanawayhitowin, “Taking Care of Each Other’s Spirit,” which raises awareness about the signs of domestic violence so that people close to an at-risk woman or abusive partner know what to do to help.

But I appeal not just to women in this Assembly and across the province to support Indigenous women who are at risk of violence—I encourage all strong men across this province, including in this chamber, to take a strong stance against violence against women, in particular, Indigenous women who are at greater risk of violence within their own home.

Addiction services

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Dr. Mackie, the chief medical officer of health at the Middlesex-London Health Unit is sounding the alarm about opioid deaths in the London area. There have been 16 overdoses in the past week alone. He says, “It’s the worst it’s ever been....” Why is this government reducing supports to overdose prevention sites when this crisis is growing worse every day?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Christine Elliott: I thank the member very much for the question. I share your concern and Dr. Mackie’s concern. We are in the midst of a public health crisis with respect to the opioid situation. We are addressing that with the sites that have already been approved. We announced them last Friday. There are 15 sites that have been approved—with three new ones, I might add: one in St. Catharines, one in Thunder Bay and one in Parkdale.

We are increasing the number of sites in areas where there is particular need. We are still accepting applications and are reviewing them. There are more sites to be appointed. We do take it seriously and we are acting on it.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: My question is back to the Minister of Health. Today’s London Free Press lays out the toll this crisis is taking throughout southwestern Ontario: three dead in Brant county, one dead in Oxford and 16 overdoses in London. This is a crisis that is killing people every day.

At a time when we should be looking at every possible way to save lives and confront this crisis, why is the Ford government cutting funding and closing prevention sites in Ontario?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Well, Mr. Speaker, through you: In actual fact, the funding continues. The sites will remain open—the 15 sites that have been approved. We announced last October that we were encouraging people to get into treatment. The sites that have been approved, first of all, are in appropriate locations. They also provide the wraparound services that are necessary, and they involve the communities in the decisions with respect to those locations.

We want to make sure that we prevent deaths. Of course we want to do that. But we also want to make sure, for those people who want to enter treatment, that those wraparound services are available. When someone chooses to accept treatment, action needs to be taken immediately because these are people who often don’t have homes—they sure don’t have cellphones—and the opportunity presents itself only once.

So we want to make sure that these sites remain open, but also, in the bigger picture on our mental health and addictions strategy, that we have the detox beds that are necessary, that we have the community mental health and addictions services that are necessary. The consumption and treatment services are one—

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

Taxation

Mr. Michael Parsa: My question is for the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.

Interjection: That’s a great minister.

Mr. Michael Parsa: Indeed, he is.

Our government was afforded a mandate by the people of Ontario to make life more affordable to them. As we continue to work tirelessly to keep this promise, affordability is being threatened by the federal Liberals and their carbon tax—a carbon tax that they would have you believe will leave Ontarians in a better financial position.

But how does that work, Speaker? My constituents simply do not believe that any tax of any kind leaves anyone better off. This tax has already raised gas prices by 4.4 cents a litre, and we know that heating costs and grocery bills are next to rise.

Can the minister tell this House what we’re doing to ensure we’re reducing emissions while making life more affordable for Ontarians?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member from Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill: I know he does a fantastic job of representing his constituents.

Interjection.

Hon. Rod Phillips: I’m blocking his shot right now, which probably doesn’t help.

But, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you, the federal carbon tax is going to attack the affordability of everyday goods for everyday Ontarians. It’s $648, the price in 2022 for an average family—a $648 additional charge for that federal carbon tax.

Under the leadership of Premier Ford, we are leading the charge. Along with my caucus colleagues, we have been going riding by riding, speaking about the impacts of this carbon tax. Mr. Speaker, it’s not just in Ontario. Premier Ford has been leading the charge across this country, and I’m pleased to say that just yesterday the province of Manitoba—another provincial Premier who sees the wisdom of challenging this federal carbon tax in court because it’s unconstitutional, it’s unfair, it’s a bad tax, and we don’t need it to fight climate change.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Michael Parsa: I know that businesses in my riding of Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill are deeply concerned about how this federal carbon tax will impact our economy. We know we can expect farmers, truckers, hospitals, universities and colleges, families and seniors to all feel the impact of this job-killing, regressive carbon tax.

Speaker, I’m proud to be part of a government that works to find solutions that won’t cost the hard-working people of Ontario. Our government recognizes that we must play a

part in fighting climate change, but we also know that there is more than one way to fight climate change.

I know the minister has been speaking with many people about this carbon tax lately. Can he tell this House what he has heard and share some of these concerns with us?

Hon. Rod Phillips: People across Ontario have been very interested in our made-in-Ontario plan. They appreciate that we will hit the federal carbon targets for a 30% reduction by 2030, but without a carbon tax.

Mr. Speaker, we were at Algonquin College when we talked about students paying $20 million more because of the carbon tax.

We were in Woodstock with the Minister of Agriculture and the Premier, talking to farmers about increased costs on the farms: a seven-cent increase in diesel fuel—unacceptable.

We spoke to drivers in Etobicoke on Monday about that 4.5-cent increase that will go up to an 11-cent increase in gasoline.

I was with the minister for seniors, speaking with a family, talking about the impact for people on fixed incomes of a carbon tax—unfair, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday we were talking in Milton about the impact on hospitals: $27 million, Mr. Speaker. That’s a $27-million health care cut by Justin Trudeau.

The CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce says it’s an income redistribution scheme that’s going to make us uncompetitive.

Mr. Speaker, we’ll keep talking to Ontarians, keep talking about our plan and keep fighting this carbon tax.

Poverty

Ms. Rima Berns-McGown: My question is for the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

The government has released its 2018 Poverty Reduction Strategy report, and it was astonishing to find that the entire report is only nine pages long and contains no specific plans or frameworks to address poverty.

Poverty is a systemic issue that impacts Black and Indigenous communities that deal with systemic anti-Black and anti-Indigenous racism, as well as people with disabilities and mental health and addictions challenges.

Can the minister explain why she cut promised and desperately needed OW and ODSP increases and cancelled the Basic Income Pilot when she has no plan to deal with the systems that push people into and keep them in poverty?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I’d like to thank the member opposite for bringing poverty reduction to the floor of the assembly today.

As many Ontarians know, one in seven of our neighbours is living in poverty today, and we have to do more in order to support that. That’s why we increased social assistance rates across the board: 1.5% for ODSP, 1.5% for Ontario Works. That’s why we had a 100-day plan to turn social assistance around in this province, so the one million people who are relying on social assistance—either ODSP or Ontario Works—will have a hand up, so that those who can work will get a job and those who can’t work will have greater wraparound supports.

That’s why I’m working with the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities to ensure that we have better employment supports for people. That’s why I’m working with the Minister of Health so that we can provide better mental health supports. That’s why we’re working with the Minister of Education to support more affordable child care.

We believe there’s a better way forward than simply doing what the previous Liberal administration did, which put one in seven people into poverty in this province. We can end—

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

Ms. Rima Berns-McGown: Poverty has deepened under this government.

In the report, the minister again touts her line that the best social program is a job. Yet this government is doing everything in its power to undermine the quality of work available to people looking to get out of poverty, like changing the law so people earn less from working overtime, or freezing the minimum wage that would have put more money back into the homes of Ontarians who need it most.

Why did this government go against all the evidence and cancel a minimum wage increase that would have pulled many Ontarians out of poverty?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: This is disappointing rhetoric from the New Democrats, who do not believe that people should be working in the province of Ontario.

The Minister of Economic Development and Trade has told this House consistently that there are 200,000 vacant jobs out there. Wouldn’t it be great if the social assistance program actually transitioned people who could work into good-paying jobs across this province? Wouldn’t it be great if we understood that the best social program is a job? Wouldn’t it be—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Interjection.

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

I’ve stopped the clock. I apologize to the minister. I could not hear what she was saying once the standing ovation erupted on the government side.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: And I have the loudest voice here, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I can normally hear you, but I couldn’t at that point. That’s why I interrupted you.

Next question. Restart the clock. The member for Scarborough–Rouge Park.

Tuition

Mr. Vijay Thanigasalam: My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Speaker, students in my riding consistently have said to me that the cost of post-secondary education skyrocketed under the previous Liberal government. Since 2006, undergraduate tuition for Ontarians has risen from an average of $5,000 to $9,000. Students and families are frustrated that the previous Liberal government, propped up by the NDP, allowed fees to increase, making university and college more unaffordable for families and students.

Can the minister please tell us what steps our government is taking to provide students and families relief?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you to the member from Scarborough–Rouge Park for the question. Students and families make great sacrifices to pursue post-secondary education and, for them, every dollar counts. Ontario’s government for the people is lowering tuition fees and giving students the power to choose the services they support on campuses.

Lowering tuition fees keeps money in the pockets of students. We will restore financial sustainability to OSAP to ensure that the program is sustainable and supports the students who need it most for years to come.

We are bringing predictability and transparency to the fees students pay by creating a province-wide Student Choice Initiati