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

November 18, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Nov-18 (PDF)

L121 - Wed 18 Nov 2015 / Mer 18 nov 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 18 November 2015 Mercredi 18 novembre 2015

Orders of the Day

Mental Health Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois relatives à la santé mentale

Energy Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois sur l’énergie

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Autism treatment

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Laboratory services

By-election in Sudbury

Social assistance

Hydro transmission corridor

Poverty

Employment standards

Long-term care

Nuclear safety

Refugees

Rural infrastructure

Manufacturing jobs

Climate change

Correction of record

Visitors

Decorum in chamber

Deferred Votes

Mental Health Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois relatives à la santé mentale

Members’ Statements

Farmnorth.com

Giller Prize

Central Technical School

Lung disease

Marguerite Wabano

Halton Learning Foundation

Workplace safety

Children’s Grief Awareness Day

Bowmanville hospital

Introduction of Bills

Employment Standards Amendment Act (Temporary Help Agencies), 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant la

Loi sur les normes d’emploi (agences de placement temporaire)

Budget Measures Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur les mesures budgétaires

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Economic policy

Transportation infrastructure

Economic policy

Transportation infrastructure

Transportation infrastructure

Economic policy

Petitions

Privatization of public assets

Water fluoridation

Privatization of public assets

Long-term care

Protection de l’environnement

Health care funding

Pain management

Ontario farmers

Privatisation des biens publics

Lung health

Air quality

Hospital funding

Ehlers-Danlos syndrome

Opposition Day

Privatization of public assets

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Mental Health Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois relatives à la santé mentale

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 17, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 122,

An Act to amend the Mental Health Act and the Health Care Consent Act, 1996 / Projet de loi 122, Loi visant à modifier la

Loi sur la santé mentale et la Loi de 1996 sur le consentement aux soins de santé.

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

Hon. Bill Mauro: Speaker—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Point of order.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Sorry to interrupt. I don’t believe we have a quorum.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A quorum count, please.

The Deputy Clerk (Mr. Todd Decker): A quorum is present, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A quorum is present. Thank you.

Minister.

Hon. Bill Mauro: Speaker, Ontario’s Mental Health Act provides for involuntary detention of patients in psychiatric facilities where patients present a risk of harm to themselves or to others. The Ontario Court of Appeal addressed the involuntary admission and detention of patients under the Mental Health Act and said that part of the act was inconsistent with

section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, in partnership with the Ministry of the Attorney General, has reviewed the act and consulted with stakeholders on proposed amendments. These amendments would, if passed, ensure that the Mental Health Act aligns with the charter and, at the same time, enhance the rights of involuntary long-term patients who have been committed to psychiatric facilities.

The Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care consulted with key stakeholders during the development of this bill. The ministry has discussed the Court of Appeal decision with the CCB, the ORB and the Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office, and asked for their thoughts on any amendments. Additionally, the Mental Health and Addictions Leadership Advisory Council, which includes people with lived experience and family members, was consulted.

Speaker, during second reading debate we’ve heard opposition members express their support for this important legislation. The member from Carleton–Mississippi Mills said, “It is impressive and positive that we’re doing this much.... We support this bill, Mr. Speaker. We look forward ... to doing more positive things like we’re speaking of today, and I applaud the government for doing what is right.”

Additionally, the member for Toronto–Danforth said, “We agree it’s time to amend the Mental Health Act to comply with the Court of Appeal ruling which found that portions of the act violate patients’ rights under the charter.” The member for Kitchener–Waterloo added, “This is October 2015, and we are just getting to this piece of legislation. It needs to be accelerated. There is an urgency to not acting. There’s a cost to not acting.”

We couldn’t agree more with that member’s sense of urgency. It is very important that we move this bill through the legislative process as quickly as possible.

Speaker, we allowed debate to continue when we reached six and a half hours of debate on this bill, so that more members would have an opportunity to present their views on the bill. This bill has now seen over 10 hours of debate, and according to my count, we have had over 60 members speak to the bill. There has been considerable debate on this bill, and we have heard a wide range of viewpoints, opinions and perspectives.

It’s time that the bill is put to a vote for second reading and hopefully referred to committee, where important work takes place. In committee, members of all parties will hear from stakeholders that have an interest in this bill. Members of the public will be able to provide their important input on this bill. In committee, members will have an opportunity to move amendments to strengthen the bill.

At the same time, this House can move on to debate other substantive matters. There are a number of pieces of important legislation already introduced that the government would like to debate and move through the legislative process, including Bill 100, the Supporting Ontario’s Trails Act; Bill 119, the Health Information Protection Act; Bill 132, the Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan Act; and Bill 135, the Energy Statute Law Amendment Act. We’d like to spend time debating some of the other important pieces of legislation currently before the House, but we can’t until Bill 122 is referred to committee for further review. As a result, I move that this question now be put.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry has moved that the question now be put. I am satisfied that there has been sufficient debate to allow the question to be put to this House. There has been seven hours of debate, 32 members have spoken on this—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Sorry, over 10 hours.

Is it the pleasure of the House that—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I heard a no.

All those in favour, please say “aye.”

All those against, say “nay.”

I believe the ayes have it.

This will be deferred until after question period.

Vote deferred.

Energy Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois sur l’énergie

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 16, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 135,

An Act to amend several statutes and revoke several regulations in relation to energy conservation and long-term energy planning / Projet de loi 135, Loi modifiant plusieurs lois et abrogeant plusieurs règlements en ce qui concerne la conservation de l’énergie et la planification énergétique à long terme.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I believe the official opposition has the floor.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The third party? Now I’ve been told it’s the third party. Which one is it?

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I appreciate the opportunity to address this bill this morning. This bill is a product of its times, and those times have to be discussed first to understand the bill and its ramifications. This is a time of privatization of our electricity system, a time of soaring prices for electricity consumers, a time of tighter and tighter centralization of decision-making, and a time of increased activity on the part of the government to appear open while in fact veiling government decision-making and removing key information and processes from public scrutiny.

I want to outline my main concerns with this bill, and then I’ll go into further detail in the body of my presentation.

With Bill 135, the government has officially abandoned, once and for all, the vision of an independent and transparent long-term energy planning and approval process that had been established in 2004. People need to see this bill as a very substantial move from all the at least statutory provisions for power planning that existed in the past. This is a dramatic move. I don’t know quite how the government will characterize it when it puts out its advertising campaign on the wonders of this decision, but frankly, this means very substantial change for the people of Ontario.

By removing their planning and approval authority and relegating the Ontario Energy Board and the Independent Electricity System Operator to the role of simply implementing the government’s plan, it will become even easier for private interests to lobby the government to approve costly and risky energy projects without being subject to any further independent public scrutiny. This brings the curtain down on power planning and opens the curtain to all kinds of power-plan marketing.

People need to understand that with this bill the citizens of Ontario will see a substantial withdrawal of their power to intervene and have an impact on government policy. For the third time this year, the government is using progressive policy items—in this case, energy efficiency improvements—to cover changes that upend electricity policy in Ontario without public review and with unknown impact.

Speaker, as I will explore further along this morning, this government has never been truly committed to an independent and transparent long-term energy planning and approval process. Not a single integrated power system plan has ever been approved in Ontario, despite the law mandating that one be approved and updated every three years. In fact, this government has ignored its own laws and has set up ad hoc processes for power planning. Some of the most substantial decisions in the life of this province—done behind closed cabinet doors, not in the open, not subject to public scrutiny, not subject to public examination.

The government refused to submit its Hydro One privatization scheme to the Ontario Energy Board for review—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It’s a little loud, folks. We’ve got six different discussions going on. I’m having trouble hearing him. Thank you.

Continue.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: The government refused to submit its Hydro One privatization scheme to the Ontario Energy Board for review or even disclose the analyses that were prepared for the Ed Clark panel, even though the process leading to the privatization decision was supposed to be “transparent, professional and independently validated.” This government claims to be committed to transparency and independent review, but its actions show that the opposite is true, especially when it comes to energy policy.

The fact that the privatization of Hydro One, with huge potential implications for energy rates, electricity rates in Ontario, was not subject to the OEB was as telling as any other action that this government could take. The fact that its background analyses were not made available to any legislator in this chamber or to our Financial Accountability Officer says that this government has no interest in the public actually having the ability to coldly, analytically assess what they’ve put forward and deal with the problems that arise before the government actually implements the plan. They have no interest in that.

As flawed as the current energy planning and approval system is—and no one will argue that it is without flaw—at least the Independent Electricity System Operator and the Ontario Energy Board processes have mandatory hearings and disclosures, which guarantee some transparency and accountability. Evidence can be tested and witnesses cross-examined. With Bill 135, this transparency and accountability will be lost.

The government will say that it will engage in wide-ranging consultation, and I guess it remains to be seen how wide-ranging it is, but I’m fairly sure that public gatherings will be held, documents will be presented, people will be allowed to speak. But people will not actually be able to do what’s critical, and that is, through advocates, through intervenors, through their legislators, put the decision-makers on a witness stand, under oath, to answer questions about their assumptions and their actions with regard to electricity planning. That, Speaker, will be gone.

Instead, citizens will be given a process where they’re allowed to speak but where they’re not allowed to question, and that lack of questioning, that lack of disclosure, is a fundamental problem with what this bill proposes.

If the Ontario Energy Board is supposed to protect Ontarians from rising rates demanded by a privatized Hydro One, then why is the government again undermining the Ontario Energy Board’s independence and regulatory authority? We’ve heard day after day, in questions about the sale of Hydro One, that of course the regulator would have the power to call the new owners to account, of course the regulator would have the ability to stop unreasonable rate increases. But that presumes an Ontario Energy Board that has some independence, that has some ability to get at the major decisions of the day.

This law, this bill, withdraws that power, undermines the government’s argument that the regulator can protect Ontarians from unreasonable price increases—simple as that.

In 2006, the government relegated the Ontario Energy Board to the role of implementing ministerial directives related to the smart metering initiative, with no independent public scrutiny. As a result—and I will expand on this as I go further into my speech—Ontarians wound up with a $2-billion boondoggle. Smart meters were supposed to substantially cut the peak power that was used in Ontario. And if that, in fact, had been the case, it would have allowed reduction in costs for gas peaker plants. It didn’t do that. We spent $2 billion, with virtually no savings, and, frankly, opening the door to a variety of cyber security and privacy problems that this government has yet to address.

The government ignored the Ontario Energy Board as a regulator when it brought in smart meters, and now the government is trying to do the same thing with the entire transmission sector—a transmission sector that will be dominated, that will be owned, by private investors who have been promised billions of dollars’ worth of expansion opportunities. This government is opening the door to even bigger boondoggles than the one we’ve seen in the past.

So let’s go back. Let’s go back to context and look first at privatization. Our electricity system has been subjected to a process of ongoing privatization since the Eves-Harris government in the 1990s changed the structure of the electricity system, decided to lease out Bruce nuclear to a private operator—and, by the way, an operator that in the UK went bankrupt at about that time and had to be bailed out by the UK government.

The Liberals have continued the Conservative policies, so that as almost all new generation has been built in Ontario, it’s been privately owned and, in many cases—in most cases—subject to contracts with what was the Ontario Power Authority and now is the Independent Electricity System Operator: contracts not reviewed in public, not questioned at the Ontario Energy Board, not subjected to any legislative oversight, and outside the purview of public control.

This government has happily continued privatization throughout the last 12 years, without reference to this Legislature, without reference to the Ontario Energy Board, and is now engaged in another privatization—and it is the largest in Ontario’s history—of a public utility without reference to the regulator, the Ontario Energy Board. That has consequences, Speaker, as you are well aware. Ontarians are now spending somewhere in the range of $750 million to $1 billion a year paying private operators, private generators, profit that did not come out of our pockets back in the 1990s. People feel it in their wallets. They feel it in their purses.

This privatization will be facilitated by this change in law. This will be facilitated. A bill that cuts back on public intervention in the planning process is completely consistent with a government that wants power planning to be a cozy arrangement between private power companies and the cabinet. So many opportunities for friendships and favours; so little public scrutiny.

Speaker, the sale of Hydro One is not a stand-alone project. It’s not being done in a way that leaves Hydro One out there unable to fend for itself. No, what the government is doing is changing the regulatory framework around Hydro One to maximize the opportunity for profit. If you have powerful private owners—and frankly, this is one of the biggest electricity grids on the market in North America—then they will do everything they can to make sure that their profits continue to grow.

I know the government has said that the Ontario Energy Board—which this government continues to weaken—will protect the people of Ontario. But frankly, the way our system is set up, if this private company—the new, private Hydro One—wants to increase the profits for its owners, for its masters, it simply has to build more infrastructure on which it can claim a guaranteed rate of return. It doesn’t have to have a 20% rate of return on its investment; it can just have more and more extra pieces of infrastructure built that it gets 9% on, and that will satisfy these owners. They will be very well off.

Just this week in committee, we went through Bill 112, a companion to Bill 135 and a companion to the privatization initiatives of this government. Setting priorities for power lines will no longer be discussed or debated in public. Speaker, investments in the billions of dollars will not have to be justified as being useful for the electricity system. The cabinet will be able to decide and simply direct the regulator: “You accept this as a priority. The power company needs that. This will be built. They will get their profit off the top. Go ahead.

Just make sure that when it comes to petty cash, when it comes to individual construction contracts, you follow these guidelines.” But the larger picture, the one where the big dollars will flow to these new private owners, that will be protected by the cabinet.

I want you to imagine, Speaker, a number of wealthy investors. Let’s put them in Arizona in a hot tub on a clear summer evening, drinking bourbon and saying, “You know what? We need more money from our Ontario operation. You know that line in the Niagara Peninsula, the line to nowhere that cost 100 million bucks? Well, if we put another line beside it, we can claim another big chunk of cash. I mean, no one’s complained. The government’s very happy with a line to nowhere that cost 100 million bucks—$5 million a year in interest payments.” I’m sure there are happy bondholders out there who are very pleased that they’re getting five million bucks a year for a line to nowhere.

These hot tub denizens, the people who, between themselves, in one tub, own 30% or 40% of Hydro One, don’t even have to submit to the indignity of an OEB hearing. They don’t have to go to the Ontario Energy Board and say, “Folks, this is a good line. Approve it so we can make more money.” No, they can go to the ever-attendant Premier and her staff. They can draw a line on a map, a declaration of priority follows, and, as they say, “Bob’s your uncle”—another investment that guarantees a high rate of return.

I think people need to look at the experience of the Financial Accountability Officer, the officer who reports to us, the legislators, on exactly what is going on with the government’s books on an ongoing basis. The Auditor General audits after the fact; the FAO looks in advance. That Financial Accountability Officer tried to get the background documents on the Hydro One sale, and he couldn’t get them. He could not get them. He wanted to find out the justification for this sale. He wanted to see what the numbers were, what the analysis was. What was the business case?

I will read from his report: “During the preparation of this report, meetings were held with the Ministries of Finance and Energy and Treasury Board Secretariat to obtain additional information on fair market value estimation methods for rate-regulated companies, accounting line items that would be impacted and related accounting treatments.” He wasn’t looking for commercial secrets; he was looking for information that the government of Ontario used to make a decision, that the Liberals had in their cabinet.

Interestingly, “under the Financial Accountability Officer Act, 2013 and Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the province is not permitted to disclose cabinet records to the FAO unless the cabinet gives permission”—which they didn’t—“or a record is more than 20 years old. The determination of what constitutes a cabinet record is made by the province. In some cases, in the course of this project, the FAO requested information that the province had deemed to be a cabinet record, and chose not to provide. Where relevant, these gaps in information have been identified in this report.”

Speaker, I want to let you know right now that there will be Tim Hortons receipts that will be declared cabinet documents. There will be hotel bills for a meeting with investors in Arizona that will come under a veil of secrecy. I think there will be notices that the Premier has to get up in the morning that will be declared state secrets, because, let’s face it, this is a government that wants to put a veil, a cover over everything to do with electricity planning.

The Financial Accountability Officer had a few other comments. He estimated the market value of Hydro One to be $11 billion to $14 billion. Take that. “The initial 15% sale of Hydro One would significantly reduce the province’s deficit in 2015–16.” That is a critical fact, because many people in this province—many of my constituents—come up to me and say, “Why on earth are the Liberals selling off Hydro One? It’s a money-maker. Why are we putting it in a position where it can be owned by American, German, Japanese or Chinese interests? Why don’t we have it owned here in Ontario by the people of Ontario?”

But, if we look back, the Harris government in the late 1990s had a problem: An election was coming up and it had a big deficit hole to fill. It looked around, went through the closets, took out the couches, took out the pillows and looked for change, but they couldn’t find enough change under those couch cushions. They decided they needed a big chunk, and they needed it fast. So, they sold a 99-year lease of Highway 407. Everybody knows how that story worked out: drivers getting dinged and Mike Harris’s Conservatives getting enough money to make the numbers look good.

Fast forward to 2015: an election coming up in 2018. This government has an opportunity, $1.5-billion chunks at a time, to make their deficit numbers look much better. There may be some secret reasons why Hydro One is being sold by the Liberals. I don’t know what those are, but I do know one thing: If every year their deficit numbers look better, so that when we get to the next election they can say, “Deficit conquered,” man, that is something that moves mountains and sells very large assets. Maybe next they’ll broaden the ownership of hospitals and schools. Whatever else is not nailed down is going to be on the chopping block.

The Financial Accountability Officer wrote, “The partial sale of Hydro One could also have important direct implications for non-residential electricity customers. They pay a debt retirement charge ... which is levied on electricity consumption to help pay down the debt of the former Ontario Hydro, the predecessor to Hydro One.” The debt retirement charge “is not only an additional charge for electricity consumers, but also a significant source of revenue for the province.”

This is another instance where you’ve got a steel cover over the facts. I was in estimates committee a few weeks ago trying to get from the Minister of Energy, the Deputy Minister of Energy, what the debt retirement charge would be after all this money came in from the sale of Hydro One. That number is a moving target. There isn’t anything publicly available.

The Minister of Finance at some point will declare, “This is what remains to be paid in the residual stranded debt, and this is the debt retirement charge.” I don’t think any of this money is going to be used to reduce the debt retirement charge that non-residential consumers will be paying. Maybe the government will surprise us. I do know that, whatever calculation is made by the Minister of Finance, it will be completely opaque. We in this province won’t be able to find out exactly how it’s calculated and what its real function is.

Because of the lack of information, the Financial Accountability Officer had to say, “It is not possible for the FAO to offer a definitive opinion on whether the partial sale of Hydro One would help the province to achieve a balanced budget or surplus in 2017–18.” They couldn’t get the numbers—not available, covered, buried, done. When you’re in a situation where even your Financial Accountability Officer can’t get the information, then you’ve got a big problem. We have a big problem in this province, and that is one that needs to be addressed.

About a year ago, I had an opportunity to speak before the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario. I was speaking to them because they are—what can I say? Their business, and the employment they provide in Ontario, is exquisitely tuned to the price of electricity, so they follow it very closely. I spoke in the spring of 2014. This was several months after the long-term energy plan of 2013 had come out.

Speaker, I want to share with you some of my observations on that long-term energy plan because we never had the opportunity to scrutinize it either in this Legislature or before the Ontario Energy Board, to actually take the numbers apart, to actually bring forward the decision-makers, have them testify under oath, have them cross-examined so we could determine whether or not this plan for power, which is critical to Ontario, was substantial or full of hot air.

What I had to say was that the first question that people were asking was about the credibility of the long-term energy plan, one that we never actually got a chance to examine in depth: Does that long-term energy plan of 2013 accurately represent where the Liberal government wants to go with electricity in Ontario over the next few years? In broad outline, it probably does set out where the Liberals want to go, but it doesn’t present a pathway forward that the province can sustain, and it doesn’t accurately present the scale of risk to electricity consumers.

There are a number of factors that are intertwined in electricity planning, which is one of the reasons you want to have a public hearing with the ability to summon witnesses and question them under oath. The projected increase in price for electricity in the plan—which personally I think is an understatement; I think the risk of much higher prices is there and not set out in the plan—has huge consequences for Ontario’s economy, not only for manufacturers but also simply for the purchasing power of the population as a whole.

AMPCO, the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario, had presented useful information about the competitiveness of Ontario rates for large power consumers on its website. As everyone in this chamber is aware, Ontario is not providing competitive rates. We didn’t see any program in the long-term energy plan that the Liberals were proposing that would adequately address this issue.

Frankly, without them putting large-scale burden on the backs of people who are paying taxes or putting more burden on residential and small commercial consumers, I didn’t see a lot of options the Liberals were exploring to manage costs with their approach. I think we can characterize the Liberal approach to electricity and to electricity planning as an approach of ongoing privatization, system fragmentation and overbuilding of infrastructure.

Energy efficiency, demand management and conservation investments are not being implemented on a sufficient scale to reduce demand for new transmission capacity or to defray investments in generation, so that their efforts are either ineffective or add to costs without displacing other expenses. This high-cost approach threatens Ontario’s economy but also threatens the viability of the grid itself.

We lost the Xstrata smelter in Timmins a number of years ago because of high energy prices. It relocated to Quebec, where generation and transmission costs are lower for them. But in Ontario, the customers who remain behind have to pick up the costs for generation capacity and for transmission capacity, and that means higher costs for everyone who hasn’t yet abandoned the grid.

Now, you should be aware, Speaker, that when we first looked at the long-term energy plan, we noticed that the cost of the system was going up 18% over the next five years but the prices for commercial customers were going up around 30%. Now, prices were going up 40% for residential because the Ontario Clean Energy Benefit was being taken off. AMPCO’s researchers showed that the difference between the increased costs to the system and the increased rate for electricity had to, in part, be attributed to drop in demand.

As more customers abandon Ontario’s electricity system, the people who remain have to pick up the slack, and that has a substantial material impact on the people of this province.

You’re well aware that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and many people in rural Ontario have been desperately trying to get out from under the high and rising cost of electric baseboard heating. A number of decades ago, when Ontario had substantial surplus power, Ontario Hydro pushed hard for rural Ontario to go to electric baseboard heating. It cost a lot to set it up. They got rid of wood and they got rid of oil, propane, whatever, and they tied themselves into the electricity system. They have been hit hard.

If you look at a political map of Ontario and its discontents, you will see that wherever there is electric baseboard heating, there’s great anger against this Liberal government. I pick it up in my own riding. The few people in my riding who have electric baseboard heating are just furious and desperate about the cost—furious and desperate. So the Ontario Federation of Agriculture is trying to move forward with a project of providing natural gas heating to rural communities that are just outside the economic zone for provision of natural gas. They’re getting some support from the provincial government.

They want to abandon the grid in a major way because the costs that have been visited upon them are increasingly unbearable.

Let’s face it, Speaker: As large numbers of electric baseboard heaters leave the system, the remaining transmission/generation costs will apply to those who haven’t left. Those higher prices that this government has driven forward are having a big impact on the long-term viability of the grid because people are trying to abandon it whenever they have the opportunity. That, Speaker, is of consequence.

The other risk engendered by these high prices is now manifesting itself in Germany, Hawaii and California. The price of installed solar power is now reaching grid parity or dropping below grid prices. In the United States, it’s projected that solar power will reach grid parity in 20 states in the next two years. That means that if they have solar panels on their roof, they can actually get power at the same prices they’re paying to their hydro utility, or less. At that point, when we hit grid parity, it’s expected we could see substantial defection by consumers. That has happened in Hawaii. It is a very big planning problem for that jurisdiction.

At the rate Ontario is going, we could hit grid parity with solar fairly soon. When I talk to the Canadian Solar Industries Association, they say that by about 2020 people will be able to start dramatically cutting their consumption of power from the grid because solar will be at the same price.

In Germany right now, solar photovoltaic power for newly installed systems costs between nine and a half and 12 euro cents. We’re paying 17 cents for peak power in Ontario. Solar is cheaper there now than the power we buy for our homes. Ontario’s prices are continuing to go up. People leaving the grid and leaving those remaining holding the bag is going to become a bigger and bigger issue. I don’t believe the Liberals have adequately accounted for the potential to lose customers and demand, thus forcing much higher rate increases in the future.

Stranded debts have been a burden on our economy for quite a while now. There’s no recognition in the Liberals’ long-term energy plan, a plan that was never tested before a tribunal, a plan whose background data was never subjected to deep scrutiny, whose decision-makers were never questioned under oath—that plan has not taken adequate account of ongoing drops in demand for electricity and its consequences for our electricity system.

The second risk that this long-term energy plan we’re now working with, that will become the norm in the future—the second risk they don’t address is the reliability risk. Speaker, we are in a situation where, as our weather patterns change, as more extreme weather events become the norm, our system is not built for and not reinforced to deal with those problems. I asked the Minister of Energy in estimates what sort of provision they’ve made for extreme weather events. What I was told a few weeks ago was that last fall a working group was set up. No plan was produced; no numbers were given before the estimates committee.

I note that last night in Vancouver there was a windstorm with winds of 120 kilometres per hour. Power was knocked out in a big way. Are we ready for something like that in Ontario? Obviously not, because we’ve already had windstorms this fall that have knocked out power farther north in this province. In 2013, we had an ice storm that knocked out power in the GTA and regions east. Were we ready for that? No, we weren’t.

This government has not planned adequately for changing weather. It has not planned adequately for decreasing demand. It has ignored the major factors that are going to change the environment the electricity system will operate in in the years to come.

This plan doesn’t deal with overcapacity in production. As you’re well aware, Speaker, Ontario, for years now, has been producing $1.5 billion worth of power more than it needs. We sell it for about $500 million; we take a $1-billion loss. The government used to refer to that $500 million as profit. They were challenged on it and had to withdraw; the minister had to make a withdrawal in the House. They aren’t making profit; they’re cutting their losses. Fair enough, but are they dealing with overproduction in the electricity system? Are they actually looking at what the system needs and what way it has to be configured in order to match demand with supply? No, they’re not; that’s not there.

Frankly, this plan—the one we’re operating under now; the unscrutinized, unexamined, untested plan—does not adequately assess the risk of the roughly $25 billion in refurbishments that are planned for our nuclear plants in the next 15 years. Be well aware, Speaker, nuclear projects have not come in on time or on budget in Ontario’s history. The experience has frequently been a doubling of price over estimates. In fact, it was the gross overruns on the new build of Darlington that caused dramatic price increases in the cost of power at the beginning of the 1990s, in a period when demand was dropping.

The government has been using estimates of 8.6 cents per kilowatt hour for power coming from a refurbished Darlington nuclear generating station. Speaker, this is very, very different from the conclusions reached by Hydro-Québec when they did their study for refurbishment of the Gentilly-2 nuclear plant. They wrote a very extensive report of their experience because they sent their people to Point Lepreau in New Brunswick to watch nuclear refurbishment that went totally out of control. They sent their engineers to Wolseong in Korea to look at the Candu refurbishment there.

It’s a much better managed project, but still, even using the best practices employed with the Candu plant in Wolseong in South Korea, Hydro-Québec’s best-case projection for power cost was 12.3 cents per kilowatt hour. It’s substantially higher than what Ontario is estimating.

Speaker, we think the Liberals were far too optimistic in their projection of a 40% increase in the cost of power over five years. What the exact number is, I don’t know, but I know they were lowballing.

The Liberal approach to planning has largely ignored the legal requirement for hearings so that all of their evidence, all their projections, can be challenged in public. This has led to high and rising prices as well as some very visible damages. Speaker, people are well aware of what happened with the smart meters. People may know that around 2004, according to the Auditor General, the Ontario government announced a plan to reduce energy consumption in the province by putting in smart meters.

Frankly, that project went ahead and the Ontario Energy Board was never asked to actually hold a hearing on smart meters. The Ontario Energy Board was never asked to test the assumptions that this investment would be based on. That proved to be very expensive for the people of Ontario.

As the Auditor General found, the cost of the smart meter project was somewhere in the range of $2 billion—almost double what had initially been projected. And, frankly, what the Auditor General found was that the savings that had been projected were far less than the government had said they would be, in part because they didn’t look at things like the cost of scrapping millions of meters that still had a decade or so to run on their lives. They didn’t look at the costs that came with smart meters. They didn’t look at all of the factors that have given us a $2-billion investment with virtually no payback.

People wonder why their electricity bills are higher. I don’t think there should be any question. There have been disastrous decisions by this government that didn’t allow those decisions to actually go through public hearings where they could be scrutinized. That’s of consequence.

We went through a process in this Legislature with regard to the building, abandonment and relocation of two gas plants, one in Mississauga and one in Oakville. Speaker, you may be aware of this—I’m not sure everyone who is watching will be aware of this—but those plants were given the go-ahead, the green light for construction, even as power demand was dropping sharply. We were dumping export power on markets in New York and Michigan and Quebec, sometimes at what the government cutely refers to as “negative pricing”—we paid people to take the power.

Yet the government proceeded with those plants until an election came along and forced the government to spend very large amounts of money to ensure the safety of a number of seats.

That’s the history of power planning in this province by this government when it doesn’t actually allow for the kind of hearings and examination of evidence that’s needed to make rational decisions.

This government had an opportunity in the last decade to move away from coal by putting in place a very aggressive energy conservation and energy efficiency program. That would have cut the energy bills for homes, for families and for businesses. Instead of doing that—and they were urged to do that by Howard Hampton, the energy critic for the NDP and the leader of the NDP earlier in the last decade—they didn’t go that route. They built a whole series of gas plants, the cost of which was dramatically higher than the cost of power from coal.

Coal had to be phased out; there was no question. The question was, do you do it in a way that actually protects consumers from high prices, or do you do it in a way that maximizes price for consumers? This Liberal government decided to make the decision for a maximum increase in prices.

What they didn’t look at, as well, was the fact that in the next decade, as they proceed with nuclear refurbishments, those plants will be ramped up dramatically in production to account for a loss of nuclear production. So all the goals that we’ve invested in to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions will be carried away on a wave of gas-fired greenhouse gas emissions, carbon dioxide, in the next decade.

This government has given lip service to conservation, but in fact it has put in place the electricity infrastructure that even now is producing more power than Ontario can consume. I think there’s a reasonable expectation that, in the decades to come, this government will be struggling—sorry, it may not be this government, it may be another government—this province will be struggling with the burden of those decisions.

The most important part of this bill—now that you know the context, now that you know how far wrong things can go when you have, effectively, unaccountable and secret processes for determining electricity policy in Ontario—has to do with electricity planning. We have a situation where the government said, “Sure, we have a statutory framework for power planning in Ontario. We’ve ignored it for most of the time we’ve been in power. I think it’s time to take this ad hoc process and make it law.” That is the heart of this bill, Speaker. That is the heart of this bill.

That decision, and that decision alone, is enough for anyone to vote against this bill. That decision alone is going to make it very difficult for us in Ontario to have any control of our electricity system.

Now, it isn’t as though there hasn’t been a statutory system in place. When I look at the minister’s remarks from the other day, he talks about putting in place a statutory system for electricity planning, but, in fact, we have the Electricity Act, 1998, and the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, which set up the basis for electricity planning. Those acts were supposed to require those two agencies, the Independent Electricity System Operator and the Ontario Energy Board—sorry, the Independent Electricity System Operator to prepare an integrated power system plan and then the Ontario Energy Board to review it.

Frankly, the public hearings before the Ontario Energy Board will be dropped with this new system. The minister had this to say: “The proposed legislation would ensure a consistent, long-term planning process is followed.” Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn’t. But, if recent history is any guide, any inconvenience that’s posed by this long-term energy planning process would cause it to be set aside.

As you’re well aware and as I’ve said, there is a statutory system and it has been ignored. I asked legislative research for a little background. They said that the process in place now to produce an independent power supply plan was introduced as part of a restructuring of the power system by the government itself in 2004. It was facing a gap between supply and demand. Remember, there was a power crunch around 2003-04. The government’s plan at the time was that, with this independent planning system, we could avoid the kind of power shortages we saw between 2003 and 2004. The government focused on that and phasing out coal.

Only one IPSP, one power plan, has ever been fully drafted by the Ontario Power Authority, but the entire process wasn’t completed. In 2006, the Minister of Energy directed the agency to complete a 20-year plan covering generation, distribution, conservation and green energy. This was submitted to the Ontario Energy Board in 2007, but its review was suspended in 2008 after the minister requested revisions. So they had a law in place, the agency was directed to put a plan forward, and when it got into hearings, it got into trouble. It got into trouble, Speaker.

A second integrated power supply plan process was begun in 2011 when the Ontario Power Authority was directed to update and complete a power supply plan for submission to the Ontario Energy Board. That would be based on the 2010 long-term energy plan. As of 2011, that plan went no further.

In his remarks in this Legislature, the minister said, “As well,” this new plan “would enshrine in legislation Ontario’s Open Government Initiative”—Open Government Initiative? That’s amazing; they have a sense of dry wit, of irony, of humour, that sometimes is missed by those of us in this chamber—“by making consultation with the public, stakeholders and aboriginal groups throughout Ontario a requirement in the development of our future long-term energy plans—it will be put in the legislation.”

The last process for having public hearings on power planning was put in legislation as well, and totally ignored. Based on their track record, why would you think they would do any better? They don’t have any difficulty ignoring the law when it doesn’t suit them. As we are well aware—and we went through this in the gas plant hearings—Liberal political staff were involved in large-scale deletion of their correspondence, their email, that was supposed to have been sorted and passed on to archives. It didn’t happen. The law was ignored. Was there any penalty? None that I’m aware of.

There was no penalty for ignoring Ontario’s statutory power planning system, either. The government ignored it, carried on with its own ad hoc routine and is now putting that ad hoc routine into law, saying that they’re actually going to have consultation. Well, the last time, they said they were actually going to have hearings. Maybe they will have some meetings, but will it actually allow people to know what the truth is behind the numbers? Don’t put a single dollar on that, Speaker, not a single dollar.

Let’s look back at some history. In the past, the Environmental Assessment Act would have allowed people to ask for projects to be brought forward for environmental assessment. But in June 2006, the government, through a regulation—one that wasn’t publicly posted in advance—simply amended the IESO act so that there was no environmental assessment any further on major projects.

The environmental assessment process is supposed to capture very large projects. It is supposed to be able to subject those to hearings. This government was not interested in any part of this supply plan or any part of this transmission plan being subjected to an environmental assessment.

Frankly, at the time, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario was very upset with what had happened. As this says, “Last week the government made an important announcement about how the province would meet its future electricity needs—and then quickly followed up with two more decisions, said Gord Miller, Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, that deprived the public of their rights to participate in decisions that could have great environmental significance for the people of Ontario.”

Speaker, we had a process with a number of problems that allowed for open hearings. The government didn’t like that. It curtailed people’s ability to use the Environmental Assessment Act to get at those projects, those propositions, and then even that wasn’t enough. They abandoned the statutory planning process, set up their own ad hoc process, now putting that in law, and they’re going to further constrain the ability to use environmental assessment to deal with new electricity projects.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Sounds like Harper.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Sounds like some Prime Minister we don’t like.

“The Environmental Bill of Rights”—this is what the Environmental Commissioner wrote—“requires ministries to post on the Environmental Registry any proposed new regulation that will have a significant effect on the environment before the regulation is passed.” I think that’s really quite reasonable. Before the regulation is passed, the public should have an opportunity to comment.

That’s why we have an Environmental Bill of Rights. “Instead, late last week”—referring to June 2006—“the Ministry of the Environment posted an ‘information notice’ on the registry advising that the government had already passed a regulation exempting the plans for nuclear power from an environmental assessment. The ministry claimed that in this case full notice on the registry was not required because the regulation to exempt decisions about nuclear power is purely ‘administrative in nature.’”

The Environmental Commissioner was taken aback. He said: “This is the first regulation under the Environmental Assessment Act that has not been posted on the Environmental Registry for public review and comment in the 12-year history of the Environmental Bill of Rights. This decision goes against the whole principle of government accountability and transparency enshrined in the act. Exempting the province’s long-term electricity plans from the environmental assessment process—to consider the possible impacts of those plans—is clearly environmentally significant and should have been posted on the registry for public comment.”

“In effect,” Miller added, “in making these environmental decisions, the government is escaping its responsibility to be transparent and accountable under Ontario’s two key public-participation statutes.”

This bill is all of a piece; it is one whole. It is a process, on one hand, of trying to make privatization of the system easier, trying to make sure that investors will maximize their return at the expense of ratepayers, at the expense of the people and the economy of Ontario. The other piece, Speaker, is one in which this government cuts out public participation, cuts out public scrutiny, provides a gloss, a superficial series of activities that don’t allow, in fact, for deep scrutiny and deep examination. These two things go together. The more you want a system that is not controlled by the public, the less those new investors will want to have to be subjected to public scrutiny.

I said earlier that this whole process opens up an opportunity for far more decisions to be made behind closed doors, far more favours to be given, far more friends to be pleased, but certainly nothing that will actually help the people of Ontario deal with the issues that they have to come to grips with. This government narrowed the scope of public participation, cut back on the ability of the public to intervene, and they’re now heralding this bill as one that provides for public consultation.

We went through the gas plant scandal. We went through that even though, publicly, this party and citizens were saying that this plant in Mississauga and this plant in Oakville were not needed for the power system. We went through the smart meters because this government didn’t actually use the Ontario Energy Board to hold public hearings. They simply told the Ontario Energy Board, “You will actually be implementing part of this process. Go ahead and implement.

Don’t, in fact, regulate; don’t, in fact, examine; don’t, in fact, question,” because this Liberal government doesn’t like to be questioned. “We don’t like to have to present a business case for doing something.” In fact, they dislike it so much they’re changing the law so they won’t have to do it at all.

Speaker, I urge you and I urge members of this chamber, legislators in this province, to vote against this bill. If another bill comes forward that has a reasonable approach to dealing with power planning, that allows for public inquiry, public examination, public questioning of decision-makers under oath, then let’s look at that. This bill is not that process. This bill is a closing of doors. This bill is providing advantage to those who are powerful enough to call cabinet ministers and Premiers on their cellphones and tell them what they want done.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Arthur Potts: Speaker!

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Well done. The member from Beaches–East York.

Mr. Arthur Potts: Much appreciated, Speaker. I wasn’t anticipating that the member would have finished his comments a few minutes early, but I do very much appreciate it because it allows us time to have a full range of speakers and comments on his remarks.

I have a lot of respect for the member from Toronto–Danforth. He represents me. I’m a resident of his area. I know him to be very thoughtful and researched in his criticisms, but his analysis of what we’re doing in energy—I sit with him on a number of committees, and I appreciate his comments. However, you’ve got to appreciate, Speaker, that when—this is detailed analysis that he gives. He loses so much credibility when he starts spreading information that we’re going to privatize schools and hospitals.

I’m seeing this campaign in my community where people are reacting with horror: “You’re privatizing schools next?” It just doesn’t serve him well. If he wants us to take his remarks seriously, he wouldn’t be spreading that kind of information in the community.

The same goes for what we’re seeing in the remarks from the opposition on Hydro One. There’s a whole series of skewed information which concerns me, because the notion that rates are automatically going to go up with this privatization is just patently false. The reality is that the rates are going to be approved by the OEB, and we think there will be downward pressure on rates because of a more efficient operation.

But you also see it in this argument he makes that the OEB is going to be approving unnecessary transmission lines in order to pad profits. It’s just absolutely fatuous to consider for a moment that the Premier’s office will be giving a direction to build a transmission line to nowhere and that they are then going to go to the OEB to get approval on a rate increase. It’s just not going to happen.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Your facts are skewed. You’re skewed. Your government is skewed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from London–Fanshawe will slow down a bit. Thank you.

Mr. Arthur Potts: Thank you, Speaker. I seem to have ignited a fire in the opposition as they’re looking in the mirror and they see that they are doing things that they really shouldn’t be doing. Do please tell the total story to the people of Ontario. They deserve nothing less from you.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Jim McDonell: I guess I disagree with the member opposite because I know that many of the things that the member from the third party is saying are right. I know a farmer out our way who’s getting off the grid because it’s too expensive. It’s cheaper for him, through diesel generation, to produce three-phase power. And that gets scary.

It is almost laughable. He talks about people being worried about privatizing schools and the like, because we don’t know what this government is going to do next. They talk about the transmission line to nowhere: These guys have built it. They’ve got a transmission line they built to nowhere. So we don’t know what they’re going to build next. It’s interesting that he would bring that up because that’s what we’re seeing in this province. We’re seeing projects being made that are just crazy.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Well, I’ll tell you, I get it. And if I remember correctly, we’re supposed to direct it this way, not across the floor, Minister.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I didn’t say one word today.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Yes, you said some words.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I didn’t say one word today.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Don’t challenge the Chair, Minister.

Continue.

Mr. Jim McDonell: Thank you, Speaker. It’s interesting; generally the member from London–Fanshawe is very reasonable in this House, but I can see some of the comments getting them upset. And no wonder. Transmission lines to nowhere: This is a gross waste of public money that is now making us uncompetitive. Our businesses are leaving and, unfortunately, the old “last person out, turn off the lights”—that’s what we’re seeing in this province. Business is leaving. It’s time for this government to wake up.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Michael Mantha: I want to commend the member from Toronto–Danforth, who put very detailed, thoughtful points forward this morning during his address on this particular bill. He highlighted various issues.

I just want to go on the record by saying that attacking one’s credibility doesn’t promote your own. It really belittles yourself as a person with honour in this House, and I think what the member was bringing forward was his points of view—our points of view. Attacking that credibility doesn’t really elevate yourself, so I would ask the member to think about what you’re doing before you open up your mouth.

The concerns that he brought forward were very sincere. If you look at the practice of this government that has been going on for many years, it’s the veil that has been put forward—the information that has been kept from the public; the ongoing privatization; the wrongful decisions that have been put into place, particularly when it comes to hydro; the secrecy behind the whole gas plant issue; the smart meters. The list goes on and on, Mr. Speaker, so why wouldn’t we stand here and criticize this government for the actions that they’re taking? That’s our role. We’re doing our job. Surprise!

That’s what we’re supposed to do. We’re highlighting the issues we’re hearing within our constituencies.

Now, with this particular bill that’s going forward, you are going to put a further barrier and a veil where people won’t have the opportunity to question this process. You will continue pushing your agenda forward, keeping that information or keeping the opportunity from individuals to challenge that information, and you’re surprised we’re criticizing this? Wake up. You must be hearing the same thing in your area. This is what’s happening. We’re doing our job, holding you to account. You have to listen to some of this information and realize that you’re heading down the wrong path.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Ms. Daiene Vernile: I’m very pleased to be joining this lively debate this morning on Bill 135, the Energy Statute Law Amendment Act.

All Ontarians know that long-term energy planning is critical for our province. With this bill, the goal is to deliver a very consistent, transparent, long-term planning process. We want to ensure that there is consultation with everyone involved, the public stakeholders and aboriginal group, and you are going to see two new initiatives to help families and businesses conserve energy and water. The key here is conservation.

When I worked as a broadcast journalist for CTV News in Kitchener, I got a call one day from an engineer who wanted me to come visit him. His name is Paul Rak. He was very excited about how he was saving energy at his four-bedroom house in Kitchener. I went to visit him, and I took a camera with me. This was in the dead of January. He showed me his hydro bill, which was $34. I was stunned, and I asked him, “How did you do this? He said, “A bunch of little things and a few big things.” He and his family have won a number of environmental awards for their efforts, and he asked me, “Daiene, why aren’t all people doing what I’m doing? It saves money; it saves energy.”

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to some comments that were made by the member for Toronto–Danforth. I was there in the briefing with the Financial Accountability Officer. We heard his comments. But when we asked him why he did not include the net benefit of investing capital that is raised by the IPO of Hydro One in further offerings, he had no answer. What about the thousands of jobs that are going to be created with infrastructure that will come with this? I would have to say that it was somewhat disappointing.

But I believe in Bill 35. It’s forward-thinking, and we need to pass it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Toronto–Danforth: two minutes.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My thanks to the members from Beaches–East York, Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, Algoma–Manitoulin and Kitchener Centre for their remarks.

I want to address first the comments from the member from Beaches–East York. I raised this question of sale of hospitals and schools because, frankly, when our party questions the Premier as to what else is for sale, we don’t get a straight answer. We don’t get an answer saying, “Nothing else is for sale.” No, Speaker, this is a government that has increasingly privatized Ontario lottery and gaming, is privatizing generation and is privatizing Hydro One. Frankly, Speaker, there is no line that this government appears unwilling to cross when it comes to privatizing.

They’re absolutely happy privatizing the financing of hospitals, privatizing the financing of roads and privatizing the maintenance on the Eglinton Crosstown.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Minister of Natural Resources.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I think the question is, when will this government definitively say they’re going to stop—

Hon. Bill Mauro: You supported it between 1990 and 1995.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Stop the clock. I guess the minister didn’t hear me the first time. I hope he did this time.

Continue.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: First point. Second point: the assurance from the member that the rates won’t go up with the new Hydro One because the OEB is there to protect us. Well, in fact, my friends, the OEB is going to be stripped of its power to determine whether or not new transmission lines are worthy or unworthy, which allows for tremendous opportunities for private investors to go and speak to cabinet and say, “You know what, folks? I need this line. Declare it a priority or you’re going to have political problems.”

This government is setting things up—

Hon. Bill Mauro: Oh, I see. You—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Stop the clock. The Minister of Natural Resources is warned.

Continue.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I’m glad I have attention from the Liberals on this, Speaker. I think they recognize they’re vulnerable on this. As I go door to door in my riding petitioning on this issue, many people who were big enthusiasts in the past are very angry now.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank goodness it’s 10:15.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): This House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Michael Harris: I’d like to welcome my old boss and good friend Doug Saunders and Mya from Oakville. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Bob Delaney: It gives me great pleasure, on behalf of my page Dayo Kehinde, to introduce her father, Michael Kehinde, who will be in the public gallery this morning.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I see my guests from Wasaga Beach are just coming into the gallery: Tim and Mary North.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: ISARC is in the House. They’re going to be here all day, so please, everyone, drop in and say hello.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: I’m delighted to welcome back to the House Dr. John Milloy, who has joined us in the gallery. He is here with his class from Waterloo Lutheran Seminary, Wilfrid Laurier University: Dr. Joy Philip, Cassandra Wolfe, Rodny Said, Presley Roberts, Ben Redfern, Carmen Mortley, Jonathan Fulford, Lindsey Werner, and Filip Gabrić. They’re here on a field trip.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Coca-Cola recently celebrated 1,000 days without time lost due to injury. Visiting us today from the Chatham facility is the manager, Tony Caradonna. Also from Coca-Cola Canada are Peter Pyrchalla and John O’Leary. Welcome, gentlemen.

Mr. Paul Miller: I’d like to introduce one of my constituency assistants from Hamilton, Ryan Ladner.

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: I’d like to welcome two constituents of mine in the members’ east gallery this morning: Barbara Duncan and Jacqui Pylypiw. They’re joining me for lunch today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

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

I do have some introductions. First, although he has already been introduced—and, rather interestingly, we were heckling a guest, so I don’t know where that comes from; that’s quite all right, we do recall that—the former member from Kitchener Centre in the 38th, 39th and 40th Parliaments, Mr. John Milloy.

Also in the Speaker’s gallery: the member from Elgin–Middlesex–London in the 37th, 38th and 39th Parliaments and the Speaker of the 39th Parliament, Steve Peters.

And also in the Speaker’s gallery, some dear friends of mine—we grew up in Eagle Place together: Brian Tremblay and Judith Goodwin. Welcome. We’re glad you’re with us.

Oral Questions

Autism treatment

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. Enhancing access to autism treatment is something very dear to me. For the last five years, I’ve been involved with the Simcoe county association for autism with Erin Nightingale to fundraise. I promised the families that I would ask you this question, Madam Premier: On April 2, the member for Ottawa–Orléans stood up in this House during question period and said she was very encouraged by the strong action the government took to improve the lives of children with autism. Yet, just months later, we became aware that there were 16,000 children sitting on wait-lists for autism treatment.

Mr. Speaker, to the Premier, is she proud and encouraged by the strong action this government has taken while thousands of children languish on wait-lists?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I am very proud of the work that we have done over the years to improve the service to children with autism. The Leader of the Opposition will know that I was the Minister of Education. At the time, I worked very closely with the Minister of Children and Youth Services, who is now the Deputy Premier, and we worked with autism associations around the province. We worked with them, Mr. Speaker. We established a coordinated, multi-interdisciplinary care circle for families and for children with autism.

We put more money into IBI treatment and ABA treatment, which allowed thousands of education workers in schools to be trained. So, yes, I’m very proud of that work. Is there more to be done? Absolutely.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: I can applaud the government for additional investments. However, it is clear that that funding is not enough. Some 16,000 children are on wait-lists. Furthermore, the government has had the audacity to claim they have expanded applied-behaviour-analysis-based services and supports when in fact we now know that 1,000 fewer kids received ABA funding over the past two years.

Mr. Speaker, how did this government stand up on World Autism Awareness Day and claim they expanded autism treatment programs with a straight face, knowing that you have not?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m sorry; that is just not the case. There was no funding for ABA. We put funding in place for ABA and we trained people around the province in schools. So here’s the issue—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That will do.

The Speaker will also acknowledge that there are people speaking when I’m standing. I don’t want a repeat of yesterday, but I will if I have to.

Please finish, Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: This is a very complex issue. It is not enough just to look at a wait-list, Mr. Speaker. What we have to do is to make sure that children are getting IBI when it will benefit them the most. We have to make sure that schools have the ability to take kids into their system. That’s why we train so many education workers in ABA. That’s why we continue to work to make sure that children get the service that they need. There’s more to be done. We acknowledge that.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: Premier, it’s not complex. It’s very clear. It’s straightforward; 1,000 fewer kids received ABA funding. It’s simple. The government is known for having conversations, panels, sit-downs, committees, chit-chats. But what they’re not known for is taking action. The Autism Parent Resource Kit is a nice tool for parents, but what I’m looking for in the kit I can’t find, and what it’s missing, Mr. Speaker, is funding: funding for 16,000 children on wait-lists who struggle every day.

Tomorrow, I’m looking forward to going to the Toronto Autism Gala. Can I tell the parents and children at that event that this government will commit to making sure that these 16,000 children on the wait-lists—that you’ll deal with it; you won’t delay; you will figure it out; you will have an answer?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: If the Leader of the Opposition doesn’t think this is a complex file, then that just demonstrates his complete lack of understanding of what autism is, Mr. Speaker, and how our society can deal with it.

I am very pleased that the Leader of the Opposition—

Interjections.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Too complex? Resign. Can’t fix it? Resign.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, come to order. One more round like this and I’ll go to warnings.

Finish, please. You have the wrap-up.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, it has been a top priority of this government to provide services for children when they need them, to make sure that the IBI services and the ABA services are available to students, are available to children. We understand that families struggle with children with autism. We will continue to work to make investments that will improve the lives of children and families who are dealing with autism. We are not going to oversimplify it the way the—

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

New question.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Todd Smith: My question this morning is for the Minister of Energy. Time and time again, this government has repeated that the sell-off of Hydro One won’t impact hydro rates. When the Minister of Energy spoke to the Oakville Chamber of Commerce, he said that the government “will ensure taxpayers and ratepayers are protected” and that “a private Hydro One will never have the power to set its own rates.” Yet right after 15% of Hydro One is put on the market, what do we find in our mailboxes? A notice that Hydro One is attempting to increase distribution charges effective January 1.

It seems oddly coincidental that the first chance a partially private Hydro One has to increase rates, it’s going to increase your hydro bill. Speaker, does the government plan to do what’s right and protect the ratepayers of Ontario from the fire sale of Hydro One, which will only result in increased hydro rates for consumers?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that Hydro One is asking the Ontario Energy Board. It’s the Ontario Energy Board that makes the decision. He’s defeating his own point by saying that we’re going to increase rates. What they basically sent a notice on is that they’re making an application to do so. There will be a process. There will be public hearings. There will be intervenors. There will be consumers’ associations all going before the Ontario Energy Board. The member knows that, time and time again, the Ontario Energy Board has varied or reduced those increases.

He’s just proving the point: Hydro One can’t do it themselves. They’ve got to go to OEB and they have to have public hearings.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Todd Smith: The minister is right: They do have to go to the OEB, and they have rarely turned down a rate increase at the OEB. This came out at the very first opportunity.

Back to the Minister of Energy: He stated on September 30th: “The Supreme Court upheld the right of the Ontario Energy Board to ensure consumers pay just and reasonable rates for electricity.” When I get phone call after phone call at my constituency office telling me that my folks have to choose between heating and eating, or a woman who just had a baby goes home to a dark home because hydro has been cut off because she can’t afford to pay it, that is anything but just and reasonable electricity rates.

Just two weeks after the beginning of the sale of Hydro One, the rates are going to be pushed up again, with hydro customers being hit hard. Will the government stop the sale of Hydro One? Will they do the right thing and allow them to keep their lights on?

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m standing.

Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, Hydro One has asked the Ontario Energy Board for a rate increase. In 2010, Hydro One asked for a rate increase for distribution and received a 9% reduction for its capital request. In 2012, Hydro One asked for a rate increase for transmission and received a 3% reduction for its capital request. When Ontario Power Generation applied for a 6.2% rate increase in 2011—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, come to order; and the member from Simcoe–Grey, come to order.

Carry on, please.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: When Ontario Power Generation applied for a 6.2% rate increase in 2011, the OEB denied the request and lowered the rate by 0.8%. In 2014, OPG asked for a rate increase and the OEB only approved about half the request. So the Ontario Energy Board makes the decision, not Hydro One.

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

Mr. Todd Smith: Hydro rates in Ontario have gone up 77% over the last five years, and that’s a fact that you can take to the bank, Minister.

In an interview with the Globe and Mail this weekend, Michael Penner, chair of the board for Hydro-Québec, was asked about the possibility of the privatization of that province’s utility, to which he answered, “Don’t even think about Hydro-Québec and privatization in the same sentence.” He also went on to say, “There’s a better chance that the Egyptians would privatize the pyramids than we would privatize” in Quebec.

The chair of Hydro-Québec recognizes the absurdity of privatizing their electricity utility and the long-term value that such an asset brings to its province. Why is this government pressing on with the privatization of Hydro One, which will cause long-term pain to Ontario and its ratepayers? Stop the sale of Hydro One now.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, I’ve asked the Leader of the Opposition, and I’ll ask him again in answer to this question, why did he support the privatization of Ontario Hydro and OPG during his campaign for leadership? Why was that part of the platform of the Conservative Party in the election in 2014? They recommended selling shares to the public. They indicated in their own policy paper they would rely on the Ontario Energy Board to control rates. It’s their policy.

Will the leader disavow himself from his own policy?

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. When the Premier doesn’t answer a simple question, Ontarians should ask themselves why. Is the Premier planning to sell off more revenue-generating assets?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I’ve answered this question over and over again. The leader of the third party has seen our plan. She knows what’s in our plan. We ran on our plan. We are broadening the ownership of Hydro One in order to invest in infrastructure. That is the decision that we made, that is what we ran on, and we are going to make those investments because we know, in order to be competitive in the 21st century, that we need to make those investments in infrastructure. That’s what we’re going to do.

To do that, we are selling real estate. We sold the GM shares and we’re broadening the ownership of Hydro One. That is our plan, that’s what we ran on, and that’s what we’re implementing.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: If the Premier was done with her sell-offs of revenue-generating assets, she would have had a great answer. She could have said, “I appreciate the question from the leader of the NDP, but our revenue-generating public assets are safe. They’re staying in public hands and they’re not being sold.” But very obviously she is not saying that, and that speaks volumes to the people of this province.

Is this Premier refusing to rule out selling more revenue-generating assets because she’s planning to do exactly that?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. We made the decision that investing in infrastructure, roads, bridges, transit and water systems around this province was critical to the economy of the province. That’s why we made the difficult decision to broaden the ownership of Hydro One: because we know that using an asset that is owned by the people of Ontario and leveraging that to be able to invest in new infrastructure that will be owned by the people of Ontario is critical if we’re going to be competitive into the 21st century.

That’s what we’re doing. I know the leader of the third party doesn’t think that’s a good idea, but clearly she doesn’t think that making the investments in infrastructure is a good idea. She’s wrong. We need those investments. She has put forward no plan for how she would do that. We’ve got a plan and we’re implementing it.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, our revenue-generating assets—the people of Ontario’s revenue-generating assets—pay for things like transit. They pay for hospitals and schools, roads and bridges, nurses and education workers, police, scientists and snowplough drivers.

The independent Financial Accountability Officer of this province has shown that the selling off of these kinds of assets means less money to invest in the services that the families of this province rely upon. Will this Premier do the right thing by the province of Ontario, the right thing by the people of Ontario, and commit to not selling off any more of Ontario’s revenue-generating assets?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It is our responsibility as the government in this province to work to make the economy as strong as it can be. If we do not do that, then we will not be able to generate the wealth and to generate the growth that will allow us to support the very institutions that the leader of the third party is talking about.

It is our responsibility to make those investments, whether it’s in people’s talent and skills, in their education and skills training, whether it’s in infrastructure or whether it’s working with businesses to support them and create a dynamic business environment. That is our responsibility.

We made a determination that investment in infrastructure was a critical part of that plan. That’s why we are making these investments. That’s why we are broadening the ownership of Hydro One. The leader of the third party knows full well what is in our plan. We are implementing that plan.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: You don’t burn the furniture to heat the house.

My question is for the Premier. Every time we learn something new about the Hydro One sale, it gets worse. Yesterday the Minister of Finance confirmed that Ontario families are actually subsidizing the IPO. In fact, the province wrote a $3-million check to Hydro One to pay for IPO costs, and there will be more coming.

Can the Premier explain why Ontario families, who are so opposed to the sell-off of Hydro One, are now subsidizing its sell-off?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, that’s not the case. The Minister of Finance, I know, will want to comment in the supplementary, but let me just say this: We are building Ontario. The fact is that infrastructure that has been in place for decades needs to be renewed.

My term as the Minister of Transportation made it clear to me that we must make investments that, quite frankly, have been neglected by previous governments. We need to make those investments in order to be able to compete. In fact, we’re patching up. We’re actually behind in terms of the investments that needed to be made over the last 40 years, so we are making those investments, and we are building the province up.

So when the leader of the third party characterizes what we’re doing as somehow taking away, what we are doing is we’re building new. We’re building new infrastructure that’s needed for the next generation and the generation after that. That’s what our plan is, and that’s what we’re implementing.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Too bad nobody agrees with the Premier, except her and her small group of friends.

Not only are Ontario families subsidizing this Premier’s sell-off, but it turns out the Premier is counting money that isn’t even there. The Premier put out a press release last week claiming that the Hydro One sale generated $2.2 billion that simply isn’t there. It’s not cash that can be used for infrastructure and transit. It is simply an account entry. This deal is so bad that the Premier has to count money that doesn’t even exist.

She started out by borrowing Mike Harris’s hydro privatization plan, and now she’s borrowing Tim Hudak’s bad math plan. Exactly how much of this sell-off is based on this kind of bad math?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think we have to talk about what these investments mean to the people of Ontario, because there are real projects that are creating real assets.

Yesterday we announced our government’s investment of $2.27 billion for the new Oakville Trafalgar Memorial Hospital. I had the opportunity to visit the hospital to see this fantastic new facility that has been built. That kind of investment will benefit people every single day. It will change people’s lives. It will save people’s lives. That kind of investment is exactly what we’re talking about.

I also had the opportunity to visit our first fully digital hospital, the Humber River Hospital, last month. That, again, is the kind of investment that will change people’s lives. Those are investments and projects that are happening all over the province. They will improve people’s quality of life and that’s what this investment means to the people of Ontario.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Not only will the sell-off of Hydro One cost us money in the long run, but to add insult to injury, Ontario families have just paid $3 million, with more still to come, to actually have the privilege of mortgaging their own future. And the money that the Premier claims that she’s counting on from this sell-off? Well, it’s not cash; it’s a number that the Premier has pulled out of thin air.

Just how bad does this deal have to get before the Premier admits that she is wrong? Or is that something this Premier does not know how to do: admit that she is wrong? That’s what I suspect, Speaker. When is she going to admit that she’s wrong and actually stop the sell-off of any more of Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Today, the NDP are going to make a motion, and this is what they’re going to say: The new tranche that’s being sold will raise as little as $1.4 billion over the course of the next four years. That’s what they’re claiming. The fact of the matter is, this one transaction alone has netted to the families of Ontario $3 billion: $1 billion extra which is going to pay down debt. So we’re paying down debt by $1 billion. We’re putting $3 billion more into infrastructure.

They further say that we are now going to have forgone revenue. Absolutely. We are going to replace it with greater revenue, and that’s the whole point of reinvestment, something that that party doesn’t seem to understand.

We’ll continue to do what’s right for the people of Ontario. We’re protecting consumers and ratepayers at the same time. This is all net monies. The people of Ontario are now ahead as a result of the transaction we’ve just done.

Laboratory services

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is to the Premier. In the 2015 budget you announced that there would be a $50-million reduction in funding to Ontario’s medical laboratory companies. We have learned that Alpha Laboratories, whose CEO is former Liberal cabinet minister and leadership candidate Gerard Kennedy, has actually been exempted from this cut and will continue to receive the previous funding.

Mr. Speaker, my question is short and direct: Can the Premier confirm that Alpha Laboratories has in fact been exempted from this $50-million cut?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I appreciate the question. We have a proud tradition in this province of working closely with our community laboratories, including smaller laboratories like Alpha Laboratories but also LifeLabs and Dynacare—an extraordinary ability to provide the services at the quality that Ontarians expect. However, we’ve been working closely with those labs to see how we can find further efficiencies.

We’ve actually asked for a panel to be set up, which they have and they’ve just recently concluded their report, to look at how in the short, medium and long term we can provide those efficiencies, we can ensure that the quality is the highest and we can support our community laboratories to do even better work than they do. I’m currently reviewing that report. I’ve met with all stakeholders quite frequently over the course of the past year and will continue to do so as we develop a program that Ontarians can be proud of.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Back to the Premier: Premier, you’ve rewarded the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health for supporting you at your leadership convention by giving them plum cabinet positions. Mr. Kennedy also supported you at the convention, although you couldn’t give him a cabinet post because he no longer sits as a member in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I will ask once again to this Premier: Will she confirm that the preferential treatment given to Gerard Kennedy’s Alpha Labs is in fact his reward for supporting her at the Liberal leadership convention?

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me.

Very borderline and I’m going to let it pass, but I would warn all members that you’re not making those kinds of accusations directly or indirectly to any member in the House.

While I have the clock stopped, I’m going to remind all members that you address each other by either your title or your riding. By doing so, it helps the tone of the place.

Minister of Health.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I mentioned, we have a laboratory services expert panel that was created in coordination and concert with our community labs and experts in the field and outside of the field that can provide us with the information and the recommendations that we need to strengthen our community labs that provide such a vital service to Ontarians.

There are no special exceptions to how we view any of the laboratories. We are looking at this purely from one vantage point: working and acting in the best interests of Ontarians; how we can find efficiencies so we can provide even more service to Ontarians; how we can ensure that laboratories exist throughout the province providing that high quality of service. We will approach this in a way which is based on the good advice of the expert panel.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Premier. Today your operative in the Sudbury by-election scandal, Mr. Lougheed, is going to court. Can you please confirm in this House today if your government is paying his legal bill, or is it the Liberal Party of Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I actually don’t know the answer to that question and I will have to get back to the member opposite. I really have no idea.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Wow, who’s in charge over there? It begs the question.

My follow-up question then would be this: You’ve had to sit down with lawyers—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Lanark, come to order.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: —in regards to the Sudbury by-election scandal. You’ve had to interview with the Ontario Provincial Police. You’ve obviously had legal counsel. Can you confirm in this House today if it’s the people of Ontario—

Interjection.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: —the Liberal Party or yourself that paid your legal bills when it came to your protection in this particular scandal?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The people of Ontario did not pay any legal bills for me, Mr. Speaker.

Social assistance

Mr. Granville Anderson: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. This government and the people of this province value the idea that every member of society can and should be supported, especially at times when they are most in need. Much of that population is served by the programs that your ministry operates. However, even with this support, in my riding of Durham I hear from constituents, advocates and leaders in the community about the challenges that individuals living with and without disabilities experience during difficult times.

Minister, what improvements have been made to social assistance in Ontario to help the most vulnerable who are relying on these supports?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Thank you very much to the member from Durham for the question. Our government knows how important social assistance is to supporting those in need. That is why over the past three years we have focused our increased investment in social assistance towards lifting the lowest rates and increasing support for individuals with disabilities. Our 2015 budget invested an additional $100 million annually to continue these rate increases. I’m pleased to report that as of November 1 the new rates are in effect. This means that single adults on Ontario Works, the largest group accessing that program, received $900 more this year than they did three years ago.

However, our social assistance programs provide much more than a cheque. Increased assistance, coupled with strong employment supports and skills training initiatives, helps people reconnect with the labour force and toward independence.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Granville Anderson: Thank you to the Minister of Community and Social Services for all of the important work that she has done, along with the thousands of ministry staff who serve the most vulnerable people in our province every day.

As the minister said, over the past three years there has been demonstrable progress to improve the supports offered by Ontario Works and the Ontario Disability Support Program. But as we all may remember, it hasn’t always been this way. Following the significant cuts made under the Progressive Conservative government in the 1990s and early 2000s, the social assistance system was left devastated, Mr. Speaker, and it is still now recovering. Minister, what has happened to the social assistance system since the Liberal government was first elected in 2003?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: This is an important question in order to understand where we have come from and how much progress has been made. When the PCs were in government, they cut social assistance, froze ODSP rates and downloaded the costs of social assistance to municipalities. Since 2003, our government has not only increased rates by 29% for individuals receiving Ontario Works, and 18.3% for families receiving Ontario Works and individuals receiving ODSP, but has also implemented an earnings exemption to allow recipients to earn up to $200 a month without reducing their overall benefits.

We have had 11 continuous years of new investments in raising social assistance rates, providing help to over 900,000 vulnerable adults and children in Ontario every day. That’s why our government believes that further reforming social assistance is a key aspect of our effort to alleviate poverty.

Hydro transmission corridor

Mr. Toby Barrett: To the Minister of Energy: With respect to the blockade of Caledonia power towers, Hydro One said recently, “We respected the request by the community to stop work.” I represent that community. The community did not ask militants to seize control of Hydro One land running through Caledonia.

The community did not ask for acetylene cutting torches placed at the base of transmission towers; for vehicles to drag part of a power tower down the main street of Caledonia, and to then blockade the town for a month; for the Mohawk warrior flag to fly over Caledonia, 300 feet up on a tower; or for the dismantled towers to be used as lookout towers. I witnessed all of this. The community did not ask for pieces of towers to be thrown from the Highway 6 overpass.

This transmission corridor must be completed. Now that the minister is selling Hydro One to the private sector, will they let the private sector do it?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I think the member knows the history of this particular transmission line. Construction was started, I think, around 2005. About 95% of it was completed. Then there was the land dispute around Caledonia, involving two First Nations and the federal government. There is a land claim issue that needs to be resolved by the federal government, which has the responsibility for that.

We have taken some steps to try to facilitate solutions by the two First Nations who are disputing with each other and disputing with the federal government. We had made some significant progress towards it, but we have not been able to resolve the issue.

It’s a very sensitive issue. We’re being respectful of First Nations in terms of waiting for these issues to be resolved.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Toby Barrett: After nine years, Paul Bliss from CTV News determined that not only did the Niagara Falls-New York power transmission corridor to nowhere cost $100 million, but also, interest on the capital is dinging taxpayers another $50 million, growing by $5 million a year for a truly stranded asset: newly built power towers that have never transmitted electricity.

As the Minister of Energy continues to centralize power in his cabinet office—to date, 37 ministerial directives and now Bill 135, disempowering IESO and the OEB. If the minister can’t guarantee that the private sector will do it, will he now use his newfound authority to secure an injunction to resume construction after nine years and complete the wiring of these towers through Caledonia?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Hon. David Zimmer: There’s a complex land negotiation claim under way in your area. It’s been going on for a number of years. The federal government is a key party to those negotiations. The federal government has not sat down in a meaningful way since 2009, when we had the last meeting.

There is a new government in Ottawa. There is a new minister of aboriginal affairs. I have read her mandate letter over. Her mandate letter is much like my mandate letter, and it stresses the need for the federal government to work with the provincial government and the First Nations involved to settle these complex and ongoing land claim matters.

I’m expecting to meet soon with my new federal counterpart in Ottawa. There is a new government. There are new players on the scene. We are hopeful of moving these issues forward.

Poverty

Ms. Sarah Campbell: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, the annual HungerCount report on food bank usage was released, and the results are shocking. Since 2008, food bank usage in Ontario has risen more than 14%, and 48.6% of food banks in Ontario are reporting an increase in use. More appalling still, nearly 34% of food bank users are children.

This government is failing families and children in need. Will the Premier admit that her government isn’t doing enough to help families in need across this province?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Community and Social Services will want to comment on this, but I just want to say to the member opposite that of course we are all concerned about these statistics. In fact, it’s why our government put in place a poverty reduction strategy. It’s why we’ve put in place the Ontario Child Benefit, which has actually lifted thousands of children out of poverty.

We know there’s more to be done. We just put in place a Local Poverty Reduction Fund.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: But there is more to be done across the country—

Mr. John Yakabuski: More to be done.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew, second time.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —and the fact is that we have targets—

Mr. John Yakabuski: More to be done.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I just want to make sure that he heard me. Member from Renfrew: second time.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: There are 50,000 fewer children in poverty today because of the Ontario Child Benefit. We know there’s more to be done, and we are continuing to take action.

Ms. Sarah Campbell: There is not one fridge for parents and another for children. These kids are living in poverty, using food banks regularly because their parents have no other choice, not to mention already marginalized people like those on disability income supports, making up one third of food bank users because they aren’t being properly supported. More and more post-secondary students are being forced to use food banks because they don’t have enough to buy food. Speaker, it’s 2015. Food banks in Ontario should not be reporting increases in use.

Will the Premier admit that her government’s failed policies are forcing vulnerable people to pay the price?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: We do thank Food Banks Canada for the report that they issued yesterday. It does give us a good national picture of the problem of food security and hunger. But we also know that we have made steady progress, as the Premier just responded, and as I did in the previous question. We are lifting those most vulnerable up, in terms of increasing rates. We are improving the system in terms of partnerships with many of our community agencies.

The reference that the Premier made to the Ontario Child Benefit I think is particularly relevant. We know that we did increase that in July 2015 to $1,336, and it is indexed to inflation for the very first time. So we are making steady progress on this issue.

Employment standards

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: My question is to the Minister of Labour. These days, we are hearing more and more about precarious work and the nature of changing jobs in our province. It is common for Ontarians to be self-employed or have part-time and temporary employment. When I meet with businesses and workers in my riding, they tell me that our laws should reflect the realities of the modern economy. And we must ensure that they do so.

Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister of Labour launched the Changing Workplaces consultations some time ago. Can the minister update this House about those consultations?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’d like to thank the member for the excellent question because it really gives me the opportunity to update the House this morning on the Changing Workplaces consultations. As the member mentioned, since I announced the appointment of the special advisers earlier this year, they’ve been all over this great province. They have met with more than 200 groups in person. They’ve received close to 300 written submissions; they’ve been working through these submissions. I expect we’re going to see their final report later next year, but in the interim, they’re bringing in an interim report in February.

Submissions included solutions that came from Ontarians as to how we might address the plight of precarious workers across this province. I was pleased to see that so many Ontarians from so many sectors came forward. We heard from employers; we heard from employees, trade unions and trade associations. We’re really excited about the recommendations that people are bringing forward. How we adapt to these key changes is going to really determine how well we’re able to protect workers going into the future. The process is going well.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. It sounds like the consultations were a great success. It is great to know that so many Ontarians decided to attend one of the scheduled consultations or took time to submit recommendations to the advisers. I know that people in my riding were able to participate, but I also know that some are still wondering if they are able to have their opinions heard.

Mr. Speaker, the minister mentioned that the consultations have ended. Minister, will there be further consultations for my constituents and opportunities for those across the province who have not yet done so to participate?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Excellent question. This, I think, is one that all members can assist in this regard. As I mentioned previously, the formal consultation process has ended, but this does not mean the opportunity to submit written recommendations to the advisers is over. All of us should go back to our ridings and tell people that, after we share the interim report in the new year, in the early part, there’s going to be a period of approximately six months when Ontarians are going to be able to submit more recommendations, more solutions.

So I’d like to encourage every member in this House, from each of the parties represented in this House, to go back to their ridings and to ensure that people realize that another consultation period is coming up. We need everybody’s help in this House to make sure that everyone is able to go home safe and sound at the end of every day. To realize that future we want, Speaker, we need to get solutions from Ontarians. I urge all members to participate.

Long-term care

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is to the Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. In 2007, the Liberal government announced it was redeveloping 35,000 long-term-care beds. That’s 3,500 beds per year over 10 years. By 2014, seven years since the original announcement, the ministry, having failed to implement and execute the plan the first time, simply reannounced the same: They’re redeveloping aging long-term-care beds.

This government and its two health ministries have had eight years to review, plan and prioritize and, most importantly, to deliver the promised beds. It’s nearing 2016, and the seniors in my riding and across Ontario want to know where the beds are and why this government is eight years behind schedule.

Will the minister responsible—as a minimum—release the

schedule of bed redevelopments to this House?

Hon. Dipika Damerla: I thank the member opposite for his question and his advocacy on long-term-care homes. I just want him and you to know, Mr. Speaker, and this House, that we take the redevelopment as a priority item for us. That’s why I can say that since coming to office, we have already redeveloped 13,000 beds. In fact, very recently—in the early fall—I attended the official opening of yet another redevelopment. It was in Whitby. Fairview Lodge: 198 beds redeveloped, part of the 13,000 that we have already redeveloped.

The member opposite is right. We have committed to redeveloping another 30,000 beds. Work on that is well under way, and I look forward to making some announcements.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Bill Walker: You’ve had 12 years, and you’re telling me this is a priority and you only got a third of the way. Associate Minister, I’ve listened closely to your platitudes that you give to yourself and your party. I think it’s clear they’re nowhere near the start or, worse, the end of completion of construction.

Just so this House is clear: Under this government’s watch, the number of long-term-care beds has increased by a mere 3%. However, the wait-list has exploded to 21,000 seniors, and 15% of our seniors die while on the wait-list. But, eight years later, the ministers responsible for our seniors’ health and well-being can’t so much as put together a

schedule of when and where they will redevelop the beds. I asked you this in estimates.

Mr. Speaker, we believe our most frail citizens deserve better. Through you to the minister, I ask: Can the minister at least advise this House how much she budgeted for redeveloping old and for building new long-term-care beds in Ontario?

Hon. Dipika Damerla: I’d like to begin by reminding the member opposite that we’ve already redeveloped 13,000 beds and work is well under way for redeveloping an additional 30,000 beds. I’m also going to remind the member opposite that our original budget mentioned redevelopment of 30,000 new beds. If the member opposite and his party were that interested in the redevelopment, why did they vote against that budget, bring down a government, which delayed by months our ability to redevelop?

Nuclear safety

Ms. Jennifer K. French: My question is to the Premier. The OPG, Ontario’s nuclear regulator, has just applied for an unprecedented 13-year licence extension for the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station. Typically, extensions are granted for periods shorter than five years, and a 13-year extension would effectively end public scrutiny of Darlington’s emergency planning until the year 2028.

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has since stepped in and said that they will hold their own consultations because of public concern. So will the Premier please offer her thoughts on why a federal panel appointed by Harper feels that the province is so non-transparent that they need to host consultations on their behalf?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I know the member realizes that for a period of over 45 years we’ve been operating nuclear facilities in the province. We’re among the best measured, in terms of safety, worldwide.

We also know that we’re on the cusp of Darlington moving forward with refurbishment. That refurbishment will take us over several decades in terms of additional life out of these units.

Ontario Power Generation has been working very, very closely with the nuclear safety association of Canada. It’s a federal regulatory responsibility. We’re complying with all of the provisions and we’re willing to live with the decision of the federal regulator on this issue.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Last week, Durham regional council passed a motion calling on the provincial government to be more transparent in reviewing nuclear emergency plans. The motion was originally put forward in June by former councillor Jennifer O’Connell, who has since been elected as the Liberal MP for Pickering–Uxbridge.

Will the Premier listen to the advice of Ms. O’Connell and the Durham regional council and commit to a more transparent process for Ontario’s emergency planning?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The member would also know, as well, that all of the municipalities in the Durham region are very, very supportive of nuclear power remaining. They’re supportive of the refurbishment of the units so that they’ll continue to provide the jobs.

Again, I want to repeat that we’ve been measured as among the safest jurisdictions in the world for nuclear energy. We will be 100% compliant with the federal regulatory agency on this particular issue.

Refugees

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Ma question est pour le ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. My question concerns Ontario’s response to the global refugee crisis. Given my own ethno-cultural background and linguistic affiliations, I find asking this question particularly poignant and urgent.

As I said yesterday in caucus regarding Premier Wynne’s commitments—whether she’s on the right side of politics, the right side of history or just on the right side—I salute her leadership.

Ontario has always welcomed people fleeing war, famine and persecution. With our 2013 Newcomer Settlement Program, we accept over 80,000 people annually. I respectfully ask the minister, what is our government doing to support the Syrian refugees in Ontario?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: The member for Etobicoke North is absolutely right: This province and this country have a long tradition of welcoming refugees from all parts of the world. In fact, Ontario welcomes more refugees and refugee claimants than any other part of this country.

Our province has committed to receiving our share of the 25,000 Syrian refugees that are expected in this country later this year. This is something that I know and believe all Ontarians should be extremely proud of. We’re going to play a critical role in resettlement efforts. We’re already working hand in hand with our federal partners. We’ve established an ad hoc cabinet committee on Syrian refugees chaired by Michael Chan, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and by myself.

We expect to hear details of the federal government’s plan in the coming days, but we’re well underway in our preparations here in the province to welcome and receive these refugees.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Minister, as you know in both your professional and parliamentary capacities, health care is a human right, not a luxury. I know that health care facilities all over the province have committed to providing health care services to the Syrian refugees who will be coming to Ontario.

I also know that the leader of the official opposition was part of the, now thankfully past, dark ages, otherwise known as the Harper government, which voted to cut health care to some of the world’s most vulnerable populations. This was just one of the many, many moves that made Canada unrecognizable to itself.

Minister, how will you re-Canadianize our refugee response?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I was proud, 15 years ago—I was responsible for the refugee file, working in Lloyd Axworthy’s office when he was foreign minister, and we invited and welcomed 5,000 Kosovar refugees over a period of just about a month. We succeeded in that. That’s why I have confidence that we will succeed again.

I’m so proud of the outpouring of support from our local health partners right around the province. Hospitals, public health units, community health centres: Their response has been outstanding; they’re so enthusiastic to help. We’re developing an action plan in coordination with them. We’re monitoring the situation in the Middle East in terms of any communicable diseases or other infections that we should be concerned about that would help alert us in terms of any immediate health needs or protections required.

Most importantly, we’re working with all our community partners out in civil society who have the expertise and the talent to work with us, including on that important issue of providing mental health supports and trauma counselling. We look forward to working with the federal government in the coming weeks.

Rural infrastructure

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: My question is for the Premier. For years, this government has forced rural Ontario to foot the bill for Liberal mistakes. We paid for cancelled gas plants. We paid for the disastrous Green Energy Act. We paid for eHealth and Ornge. Now we’re paying for the new Hydro One CEO’s $4-million salary. Does the Premier agree that it would have been better to pay for things we actually need, things like rural infrastructure, or will she continue on her merry wasteful way?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think it’s commendable that the member opposite is actually advocating for rural infrastructure because that is exactly what is at the heart of our decision to broaden the ownership of Hydro One. I think the member opposite knows full well, because he travels around from municipality to municipality, as we do on this side, that every municipality in this province—urban, rural, suburban—is looking to the provincial government for support in building infrastructure.

We are very committed. As the member opposite knows, we are allocating $31 billion provincially between the GTHA and the rest of the province, and we are doing that by StatsCan data, by demographics, because we know that there is a need for equitable distribution of that infrastructure money. That means that rural infrastructure is critical.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Unfortunately, no one believes the Premier anymore. Two years ago, the government cancelled the Connecting Link Program even though it was working well. We fought tooth and nail to get this program back. It worked, but it came at a cost. Instead of funding the program as it used to be, the government is only putting in $15 million, and $15 million divided by 77 eligible municipalities doesn’t go far. Worse yet, it looks like the government is going to make communities compete for the funds that they need.

Will the Premier commit today to making sure municipalities in Perth–Wellington are at the top of the list for Connecting Link funding?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I thank the member opposite for his somewhat sudden interest in supporting infrastructure for communities across the province of Ontario. As one of my colleagues said earlier today, it’s more than a little bit curious—and I’m sure people watching at home even from his own community are a bit perplexed because, month after month, year after year, that party, that caucus, that leader stand up and object and oppose every initiative brought forward by this Premier to invest in this province’s infrastructure.

I’m so proud of the fact that we’ve re-established a stand-alone Connecting Link fund. Applications for those 77 communities are open as of this week. We look forward to continuing to work with them right across the province to make sure we keep building Ontario up.

Manufacturing jobs

Ms. Cindy Forster: My question is to the Premier. It was only two days ago that the NDP stood here in the Legislature and asked the government to stop leaving the Ontario manufacturing sector behind. On that very same day, PowerBlades, a manufacturing plant in my riding of Welland, closed its doors, leaving 136 Ontario workers without a job, effective immediately.

This government talks a good game about attracting manufacturing, creating jobs and investment, but the proof is in the facts: 300,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs have been lost under the Liberal government.

Premier, my question is simple: What does the government have to say to those 136 people, workers, in my riding?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure.

Hon. Brad Duguid: We’re always concerned about any layoff in this province to any worker anywhere in the province. It’s unfortunate that this company, which I believe is about 24 months old, didn’t get the contracts they were hoping to get and weren’t able to make a go of it. It is unfortunate for those workers. But the fact of the matter is, we’re continuing to build manufacturing in this economy, and that’s despite the fact that the opposition opposes us every step of the way.

The member’s party wants to see us put taxes on our manufacturers across Ontario, raise their corporate income taxes. That’s going to take jobs away from a sector that’s been on the rebound. We’ve seen $2.5 billion of investment in the auto sector alone in the last 12 months. If we did what that party wanted us to do—raise their corporate taxes—those investments wouldn’t be happening. We’re going to keep fighting for manufacturing jobs and we’re going to keep winning, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Cindy Forster: PowerBlades provided a livelihood for more than 100 people. Those were people who were already laid off from other manufacturing jobs in Welland. Now these families don’t know where their next paycheque is coming from. So what’s the advice that the Premier is receiving from Ed Clark, her privatization czar? Lower labour costs; selling off Hydro One, which we know will actually drive the electricity rates through the roof and make it much harder for companies to either expand or even stay open.

It’s clear the Premier shares Ed’s definition of “a new day in manufacturing,” which means leaving people behind and driving manufacturing jobs out of the province. Will the Premier commit to standing up for the hard-working people of Welland and across this province in the province’s manufacturing sector?

Hon. Brad Duguid: We have committed more than any government in the history of this province when it comes to working in partnership with the manufacturing sector. We’ve invested $1.6 billion, Mr.

Speaker, and that has leveraged somewhere around $15 billion in private sector investments and 60,000 manufacturing jobs, because we’ve had the courage to work in support of the private sector, working in partnership, unlike the party opposite who, every chance they get, vilifies our manufacturers, vilifies our companies that are providing jobs for workers, and comes forward to this Legislature with their leader and their policy being to jack up taxes against those very manufacturers who are creating jobs across this province.

We’re going to keep working in partnership with our private sector—60,000 manufacturing jobs because of those partnerships and we’re still building.

Climate change

Mr.