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

November 3, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Nov-03 (PDF)

L116 - Tue 3 Nov 2015 / Mar 3 nov 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 3 November 2015 Mardi 3 novembre 2015

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

Introduction of Visitors

Annual report, Environmental Commissioner of Ontario

Oral Questions

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Wind turbines

Autism treatment

Consumer protection

Mining industry

Mining industry

Services for the developmentally disabled

Special education

Privatization of public assets

Mining industry

Seniors’ health services

Northern transportation services

Correction of record

Visiteurs / Visitors

Deferred Votes

Time allocation

Estimates

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians

Autism treatment

Southlake Regional Health Centre

Privatization of public assets

Northern transportation services

Melanoma

Privatization of public assets

Diwali

Irving Ungerman

Visitors

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Introduction of Bills

Cy and Ruby’s Act (Parental Recognition), 2015 / Loi Cy et Ruby de 2015 sur la reconnaissance parentale

Motions

Private members’ public business

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Crime Prevention Week

Petitions

Services for the developmentally disabled

Accident benefits

Student safety

Taxation

Lung health

Taxation

Privatization of public assets

Water fluoridation

Energy policies

Hospital funding

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Services for the developmentally disabled

Gasoline prices

Royal assent / Sanction royale

Orders of the Day

Employment and Labour Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne l’emploi et les relations de travail

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Mr. Chiarelli moved 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 Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my parliamentary assistant, my colleague from Mississauga–Streetsville.

Today, I rise to move second reading of Bill 135, the Energy Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015. If passed, this act would establish in law a long-term energy planning process that is transparent, efficient and able to respond to changing policy and system needs. This is consistent with our government’s commitment to enhance transparency and community participation through open data, open dialogue and open government initiatives.

It would support increased competition and enhanced ratepayer value by empowering the Independent Electricity System Operator, or IESO, to competitively procure transmission projects, and it would introduce two new initiatives to help Ontario families and businesses conserve energy and water to help manage costs at both the retail customer level and the system as a whole.

Before I pass on to my colleague from Mississauga–Streetsville, I wanted to highlight the three core components of this important piece of legislation. Firstly, our government recognizes that sound, prudent long-term energy planning is essential to a clean, reliable and affordable energy future. The best way to ensure that kind of robust system planning occurs is to consult with the public, First Nations, industry and the energy stakeholder community. The Ministry of Energy has developed our long-term energy plans to include broad consultations with the public and stakeholders.

It’s a transparent process for establishing the government’s key goals and priorities for the province’s energy system.

Today, our government is proposing legislation that would provide a statutory basis for this long-term energy planning process. The proposed legislation would ensure a consistent, long-term planning process is followed. As well, it would enshrine in legislation Ontario’s Open Government Initiative 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.

To support an even more robust process, this legislation also ensures that supporting technical data are made public prior to the start of our next consultation phase. This would ensure everyone starts from the same appropriate technical level of understanding.

In addition, this legislation we are debating today also proposes an adjustment to transmission planning and procurement by providing the Independent Electricity System Operator with the ability to undertake competitive processes for transmitter selection or procurement when appropriate.

Competitive transmission procurement has only previously been done once before, through the Ontario Energy Board east-west tie designation. This is a very major transmission line that goes across northern Ontario, and very, very critical to the planning process that is in our long-term energy plan at the moment. Stakeholders and the Ontario Energy Board have agreed that the process run in 2012 was not as efficient as it should have been.

As we know, the IESO runs competitive procurement for energy generation projects with much success. We are proposing here to add transmission projects to their procurement processes. This measure is consistent, as well, with the recommendations of the Premier’s Advisory Council on Government Assets.

Next, Mr. Speaker, as Ontario continues to implement its 2013 long-term energy plan, one of our key goals is energy conservation. Conservation helps families and businesses save money on their energy bills. It’s as simple as that. It reduces the need to build expensive energy infrastructure, helping lessen the need for rate increases. And conservation reduces greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, creating a cleaner future for our children and our grandchildren.

Ontario has already made great strides in building a culture of conservation. From 2005 to 2013, Ontarians conserved 8.7 terawatt hours of electricity, enough to power the cities of Mississauga and Oshawa in 2013. But there’s more to do, Mr. Speaker, and this legislation takes additional steps.

Energy and water reporting and benchmarking initiatives for large buildings would require property owners to track their building’s energy and water usage—as well as greenhouse gas emissions—over time, to determine how a building’s energy performance is changing and how it compares to other, similar buildings. This ongoing review would help building owners identify opportunities to save energy and water, thereby saving money on their utility bills. It would also help tenants and buyers make informed property decisions, enabling property and financial markets to value energy- and water-efficient buildings, and it would help Ontario meet its conservation and greenhouse gas reduction goals.

Ontario is already demonstrating leadership to energy reporting and benchmarking requirements for government and broader public sector buildings. This is already being done, and it’s being done quite successfully. As we proceed, it will only be required of large buildings—several dozen large buildings across the province. Extending this requirement to large buildings would align our policy with jurisdictions across the United States, Europe, the United Kingdom and Asia. We’re not breaking new ground; we’re following best practices, and some of those best practices are already taking place.

The second initiative sets water efficiency standards for products that consume both energy and water, such as dishwashers and washing machines. Currently, manufacturers can supply the Ontario market with models that meet our energy-efficient requirements, but they consume more energy than they would if we also included water efficiency standards. So if these same appliances and the same equipment had not only energy efficiency in it, but also added the water efficiency component to it, you would almost double the conservation benefits from the equipment.

Other jurisdictions, including the province of British Columbia and the US Department of Energy, have already harmonized both energy and water efficiency standards for these types of products. Again, we’re not breaking new ground here, we’re following best practices. By harmonizing with the US standards, Ontario can streamline the process for manufacturers, save consumers money and show continued leadership in setting efficiency standards.

In conclusion—I won’t go into conclusion right now, because I’m going to speak to some of the issues that my parliamentary assistant was going to speak to, but he is not here yet.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Oh, you cannot refer to the gentleman in his absence.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, I’m going to try to demonstrate that the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke has set a very, very good example of how to ad lib through time in this House, because he is masterful at it, and I wish I could emulate him.

Mr. Speaker, one of the main points of this particular submission is to create a process in legislation for planning the electricity system. There was a process that was contemplated under the Electricity Act. I forget what year it was enacted. It was a process that would have delegated to the Ontario Energy Board a very, very significant planning process. It was very prescriptive in terms of the type of consultation that had to take place, the length of time. Previous governments initiated the process to incorporate the Electricity Act process into the system, and it bogged down on a number of occasions.

From 2010 to 2013, we did an alternative because we did not have that incorporated in legislation. We proceeded with what we called the long-term energy plan, or LTEP. LTEP, as it was implemented in 2013, included very, very massive consultation across the province that went from February through to November. It included, I think, nine sessions with First Nation and Métis communities. It went across the province. It had special sessions for stakeholders where they could have an interrelationship with the leaders from IESO, OPA, and it was extremely broad.

When the long-term energy plan 2013 was issued—it was December 2013—it was about 85 pages long, and it covered all the key components of the electricity system. The final product received a lot of plaudits and thank yous from the people, the stakeholders, who had participated in the process. When we announced that process, there were endorsements that came to the end product to the ministry, to the IESO and to the Ontario Power Authority for the fact that we listened and it was effective.

Part of the long-term energy plan at that point established and required regional energy plans to be implemented, and so the 2013 long-term energy plan is being implemented now by those regional energy plans being implemented, and in each one of the regional plans there is additional detailed consultation. They consult with municipalities because, up until now, energy planning took place, and community planning and community official plans took place and they never connected the dots; they weren’t on the same page.

At the same time, the level of engagement, of energy conservation, combined heat and power projects, in municipalities was very, very scattered. It was successfully implemented particularly in Guelph, a leader in Ontario in that regard. But many municipalities were not paying attention to it.

So the regional structure for energy planning is being implemented now. One of the first to be implemented, one that actually was included, the regional plan was included in the long-term energy plan of 2013, was northwestern Ontario. That was the plan that identified the east-west transmission line to be implemented. It was the one that identified something that is absolutely transformational, and that is the transmission line to Pickle Lake, which will then move northerly to bring power, grid power, to 21 remote First Nation communities. It’s transformational. That hasn’t taken place anywhere in Canada or in other northern provinces.

About a month ago in Thunder Bay, they had the Chiefs of Ontario session, and at that time they announced a transformational public-private partnership. Watay Power is 100% First Nation. That group of First Nations—there were 20 First Nations who joined together in a public-private partnership with private sector companies Fortis and RES to actually put together a billion-dollar-plus transmission project to bring power up to Pickle Lake and then into remote communities in northern Ontario.

They had First Nations in that room who were in tears that they were leading it. Watay Power: The First Nations were leading this initiative. They had been working over the last two years with the OPA, the IESO and the Ministry of Energy. Most importantly, they were working meticulously to get all of these individual First Nations onside for this public-private partnership, which was transformational in terms of moving forward.

So the regional planning context is very, very important. That’s what was included in the long-term energy plan. It’s that type of consultation and forward-looking planning that is incorporated in this legislation to ensure that we can plan for the future.

There are issues that have arisen concerning what will happen to planning. This legislation deals with planning, and it makes it very, very clear that cabinet and the IESO will have the responsibility and the authority to designate transmission projects—not only to designate them, but to have them on a competitive basis moving forward. So we’re very, very pleased to see that moving forward in this particular legislation.

Mr. John Yakabuski: We’ll take it from here, Bob.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I’m hearing some chatter on the other side, and I didn’t quite get the words. He is not speaking in his usual loud voice. I’m speaking about the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. John Yakabuski: We’ll take it from here.

Interjections.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I think I’ve almost used up his time. For those in Nepean–Carleton, they should be aware that Lisa MacLeod is here at the start of the parliamentary proceedings, doing her work and paying attention, and the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke is doing his usual thing of trying to be interruptive.

The other issue that I wanted to address in terms of this legislation are the issues regarding the equipment and appliances having conservation both with respect to water and with respect to electricity. That’s new in Ontario. It involved a lot of internal discussions and some external discussions with manufacturers and so forth. One of the issues there was whether it should be done by the Ministry of the Environment or the Ministry of Energy, and we were able to resolve that issue successfully.

In terms of other planning issues, one of the significant elements that came out of the long-term energy plan was the regional planning and the municipal planning that was relative to renewable energy. In that particular case, we did initiate consultations through the IESO and the OPA before they were merged, and that turned out to be quite successful. As you know, the outcome of that particular process is that municipalities now have a lot more input into the issues.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: He’s here.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I know one of the tardiest and most attentive members in this place is the member from Mississauga–Streetsville. He just attended, and I’m just contemplating—I was just given a copy of his speech and told, “Just read his speech.” I thought maybe we would teach the member a lesson and I would read his speech, and then he would be able to listen to it to see whether he prepared a good speech or not. But, Mr. Speaker, I won’t do that. I’ll ask the member to address the issues now. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I thank the Minister of Energy for his promptness, for his on-the-spot dialogue.

I now turn the debate over to the member from Mississauga–Streetsville.

Mr. Bob Delaney: I certainly thank the finest minister that I’ve ever had the privilege of working with for doing some excellent ragging of the puck, I gather.

I’m tempted to begin this morning with a discussion of traffic in Toronto after spending two most interesting hours-plus sitting in it—

Hon. Mario Sergio: We need more money for infrastructure.

Mr. Bob Delaney: Yes, exactly. It sort of struck me as odd because the weather was perfect, the roads were dry, and it was just volume of traffic. But that’s the subject for yet another discussion and a different act, and I can hardly wait. Of course, if I were to continue on this, my good friend and colleague across the away from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, who loves to spar with me in debate, would say, “But he’s not addressing the act.”

I would like today to rise in support of the second reading of the proposed Energy Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015. If passed, this act would establish in law a long-term energy planning process that is transparent, efficient and able to respond to changing policy and system needs. It would support increased competition and enhanced ratepayer value by empowering the Independent Electricity System Operator, which I’m going to refer to by its acronym, IESO, to competitively procure transmission projects, and it would introduce two new initiatives to help Ontario families, businesses and the province as a whole conserve energy and water to manage costs.

Speaker, the province recognizes that sound, prudent, long-term energy planning is essential to a clean, reliable and affordable energy future. The Ministry of Energy uses the development of long-term energy plans to conduct broad consultations with the public and with stakeholders. It’s a transparent process for establishing the government’s key goals and priorities for the province’s energy system.

In 2013, Ontario released the long-term energy plan for that year, the 2013 LTEP—sometimes called LTEP, but I’m going to call it the long-term energy plan—which balances five principles that guide all of the province’s energy-related decisions. Those five principles are: cost-effectiveness, reliability, clean energy, community engagement and putting conservation first.

Since its release, the 2013 long-term energy plan has helped the province provide Ontarians with a clean, reliable and affordable supply of energy. Thousands of Ontarians participated in the consultation process for the 2013 long-term energy plan and helped us in our ministry and the many people who helped put the 2013 long-term energy plan together to develop the plan’s strategies and targets to build a clean, modern and reliable energy future here in Ontario.

For the past two years, our ministry has been rolling out a variety of initiatives under the plan, and it will continue to guide our efforts. The overarching theme throughout the 2013 long-term energy plan and the guiding principle of the plan is Ontario’s commitment to put conservation first. Conservation is the cleanest and most effective energy resource that we have. It offers consumers a way to reduce their energy bills.

A significant aspect of the conservation framework that guides the 2013 long-term energy plan is cost-effectiveness. We know that savings are important to Ontarians. Because the cost of electricity is rising everywhere in the world and we know that residential, commercial and industrial consumers are concerned about rates, the province is determined to find efficiencies that will assist homeowners and business owners to keep electricity costs down. This is a key priority.

From 2015 to 2032 inclusive, the forecast for residential bills indicates an average annual increase of about 2.2%, which is in line with neighbouring jurisdictions. The average annual increase in consumers’ costs is generally in line with expected inflation, which averaged about 1.8% over the past 10 years.

To assist consumers to continue to see cost-savings and to manage electricity prices, the province has put initiatives in place, including Ontario’s five-point small business energy savings plan, which is helping small businesses conserve energy, manage costs and save money. The government has always stood up for consumers and continues to be committed to putting consumers first.

This proposed legislation would, if passed, support two more guiding principles of the 2013 long-term energy plan: clean energy and reliability.

The Ministry of Energy will continuously monitor and support the development of more advanced and efficient ways to generate and to transmit electricity. In terms of supply, it’s important to note that Ontario’s precedent-setting closure of coal-fired generation in 2014 has earned Ontario’s energy system recognition around the world. In fact, Ontario’s electricity system is now 99.7% free of carbon emissions. Of the emitters of greenhouse gases, Ontario’s power generation system is no longer even among the top sources.

Replacing coal-fired electricity generation was the single largest climate-change initiative undertaken in North America and was the equivalent of taking some 7 million cars off the road in Ontario.

Ontario was the first jurisdiction in North America with a significant reliance on coal to eliminate coal as a source of electricity production. It’s something that the utilities in the United States are only now stepping up to address. It’s a challenge that Ontario addressed 10 years ago and set about in an organized systematic way, and in so doing has given Ontarians the cleanest electricity generation system anywhere in North America. It’s a tremendous achievement.

The beauty of Ontario’s energy system is that we rely on a variety of generation sources, using the right source in the right way at the right time for the right reasons. The workhorse of our system here in Ontario has always been our nuclear power fleet. It’s reliable, it’s clean, it’s cost-effective and it’s a key contributor to Ontario’s technological development and, of course, to job creation right here in the province of Ontario.

Ontario is a pioneer in the generation of electricity through nuclear power. Ontario has been operating nuclear power safely and successfully for more than 40 years. It began with the launch of Ontario’s first full-scale commercial nuclear power. That unit, called Douglas Point, came online in the 1960s and was only decommissioned not all that long ago.

Since the first reactors in Ontario began generating electricity, Ontario has benefitted from emissions-free, safe, reliable and affordable nuclear power. The Pickering generating station came online with Pickering 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the late 1960s, then Pickering 5 to 8 in the 1970s, at about the same time as construction on the Bruce nuclear power development began, with Bruce A and Bruce B coming on stream in the 1970s and the 1980s. Darlington was first conceived in the 1970s, and the last unit of Darlington came on stream in the 1990s.

The story of nuclear power in Canada is one of constant innovation and refurbishment. Ontario will ensure that this track record continues. Today, nuclear power provides about half of Ontario’s electricity.

Renewable energy is playing a key

part in our efforts to make the energy system cleaner and more sustainable. Renewable energy represents an important piece of Ontario’s supply mix. The 2013 long-term energy plan includes targets for renewable energy: some 10,700 megawatts for wind and bioenergy to be online by 2021, and some 9,300 megawatts of additional hydroelectricity to be online in about 2025.

Ontario currently has more than 14,800 megawatts of wind, solar, bioenergy and hydroelectricity energy online. There are more than 3,600 megawatts of wind power currently online. That’s enough electricity to power nearly a million homes each year in the province of Ontario. As well, approximately 2,100 megawatts of contracted wind capacity is yet to come online. In just 10 years, Ontario has become a North American leader in the development, use and manufacturing of clean energy. We have the fastest-growing clean tech sector in the country, and that’s something that Ontarians should be proud of.

In looking at some of the states in the United States, you have to ask yourself: What are our neighbours doing? In what direction is Texas going? Texas is pursuing wind power. California is pursuing wind power. The mid-western states are pursuing wind power. Ontario was there first.

One of the advantages to Ontario’s wind power was explained to me during the summer when I paid a visit to the Independent Electricity System Operator. One of the things that the technicians in the control room told me is that one of the challenges for electricity is that at any given moment, supply has to exactly equal demand, because for all practical purposes, electricity is not a commodity that can be stored.

They said one of the things that turned out to be a wonderful asset in Ontario’s adoption of wind power—but one that at the outset of the Green Energy Act was not foreseen—was the ability to take some of the wind farms and to adjust the pitch of the blades so that the energy coming out of wind farms could exactly follow the rise and fall of the peaks during the day or even during the season. It meant that other dispatchable sources of power either didn’t need to be brought online if they weren’t needed, or didn’t need to be brought offline.

You could very finely tune the supply and demand for electrical power right at the IESO headquarters—which, by the way, are in Mississauga—by adjusting the pitch of the blades on wind turbines.

I thought: How interesting that here we have a technology that’s enabling Ontario to meet the challenge of those differences in the demand for electricity at various hours during the day. It just gives you an idea of the flexibility that we have here in the province with our diversified sources of power generation.

Speaker, community engagement is another key pillar of Ontario’s 2013 long-term energy plan. In this province, we make it a key priority to encourage municipalities and aboriginal communities to develop their own community-level energy plans. These plans set out infrastructure priorities and identify conservation and renewable opportunities tailored to local needs.

This province is committed to giving municipalities meaningful opportunities to participate when decisions are being made about siting renewable energy projects. It means that Ontario is constantly working with our partner ministries and agencies to ensure that First Nation and Métis communities are consulted on any energy activity that could affect their aboriginal or treaty rights.

The implementation of the 2013 long-term energy plan is helping the province make great strides in meeting each of our objectives to provide Ontarians with a clean, reliable and affordable supply of energy.

Among the other things, Speaker, we have some real centres of excellence here where some of our regions or municipalities have really stepped up and approached some of the challenges of how they’re going to generate energy locally. So I’m going to do a little shout-out to some of the best ones.

Oxford county is one area that has set out to become autonomous in the way that it generates and uses energy. I can see my colleague over here, the MPP from Oxford. I was in Woodstock not that long ago talking with the mayor and talking with Woodstock Hydro. They’re a great example of how to set out to do a plan to approach their energy future by looking ahead and calculating how much energy the region is going to use, where it’s going to come from and what mix it’s going to be.

Another would be Guelph. Guelph has long been a leader in approaching how Guelph and the surrounding area use energy and where their energy comes from.

Today, our government is proposing legislation that would provide a statutory basis for a long-term energy planning process that builds on the 2013 long-term energy plan and that is designed to balance the principles of cost-effectiveness, reliability, clean energy, community and aboriginal engagement, and emphasis on conservation and demand management.

The proposed legislation would ensure a consistent long-term planning process is followed. As well, it would support Ontario’s Open Government Initiative by making consultation with the public, stakeholders and aboriginal groups throughout Ontario a requirement in the development of energy plans, and it would ensure that energy plans and their supporting technical data are made public. These are our existing practices, but never before have they been enshrined in legislation.

The proposed legislation would also improve transmission planning and procurement by providing the Independent Electricity System Operator with the ability to undertake competitive processes for transmitter selection or procurement when those actions are appropriate. These competitive approaches will ensure that ratepayers get the greatest value and that the Independent Electricity System Operator is well positioned to undertake these selection or procurement processes.

And there’s more: The proposed legislation would also advance energy conservation. As Ontario implements its 2013 long-term energy plan, one of the key goals of that plan is energy conservation. Conservation helps families and businesses save money on their energy bills. Conservation reduces the need to build expensive energy infrastructure, and conservation helps to lessen the need for rate increases. Conservation reduces greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. Conservation creates a cleaner future for our children and for our grandchildren.

Conservation is the cleanest and most cost-effective energy resource that Ontario has. Conservation offers consumers a way to reduce their energy bills. Conservation reduces the need, as I mentioned before, to build new generation as well as new transmission and distribution infrastructure. Conservation makes the best use of what we already have and the most optimal use of what it is that the province is building at any one moment.

The more we save, the less we need to look for new supply, and so Ontario’s aim is to consider conservation as the first option before building new generation or transmission facilities wherever such a measure is cost-effective. That means adopting a conservation-first mindset throughout Ontario’s planning, approval and procurement processes. It means bringing that mindset to work with Ontario’s agencies, with local distributors and with the other ministries with which the Ministry of Energy partners. And, of course, it means building a climate of conservation and a culture of conservation here in Ontario.

As we plan our energy needs for the next 20 years, conservation will be the first resource Ontario considers before building new generation, transmission and distribution infrastructure. The Ministry of Energy is providing leadership in implementing conservation first by setting energy conservation policy and establishing energy efficiency standards.

Ontario has already made great strides in building a culture of conservation. From 2005 to 2013, Ontarians conserved some 8.7 terawatt hours of electricity. To put that in perspective, that’s enough to power the cities of Mississauga and Oshawa throughout an entire calendar year.

As always, as things continue to evolve in a fast-growing place like Ontario, the legislation that the province is introducing today takes additional steps, and it introduces two new initiatives. There’s more to do. The energy and water reporting and benchmarking initiative for large buildings would require building owners to track and report their energy and water consumption and greenhouse gas emissions to the Ministry of Energy, and potentially develop and publish energy conservation and demand management plans. This is something that many building owners are already doing.

In fact, the best of the building owners are discovering that not only is it a particularly good idea, but as a not-bad-at-all plan it’s something that all other building owners should adopt as well. The initiative would help building owners identify opportunities to save energy and water, thereby saving money on their utility bills. It would help tenants and buyers make informed property decisions enabling property and financial markets to value energy- and water-efficient buildings, and it would help Ontario meet its conservation and greenhouse gas reduction goals.

Speaker, Ontario is already demonstrating leadership through energy reporting and benchmarking requirements for government and broader public sector buildings. Extending this requirement to large buildings would align Ontario’s policy with jurisdictions across the United States, in Europe, in the United Kingdom and in Asia.

The second initiative sets water efficiency standards for products that consume both energy and water, and the most common in most homes would be your dishwasher or your washing machine. Currently, manufacturers can supply the Ontario market with models that meet our energy efficiency requirements but which consume more energy than they would if we also included water-efficiency standards. To this end, other jurisdictions, including the province of British Columbia and, most importantly, the US Department of Energy, regulate both energy and water efficiency standards for these products.

By harmonizing with the US standards for these products, Ontario can streamline the process for manufacturers, save consumers money, and show continued leadership in setting efficiency standards.

Speaker, to make smart decisions, you’ve got to have the best information. If passed, the new legislation would help Ontarians make smart decisions about the products that we use and the places that we live and work, and it would enshrine an inclusive, transparent and efficient planning process, ensuring we have the best information in planning for Ontario’s energy future.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Questions and comments?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s my pleasure to rise today in debate for Bill 135, the Energy Statute Law Amendment Act. I applaud the minister, actually, for continuing on after he had indicated that he would be splitting his time, because I know he spoke a bit longer than he was prepared to.

In any event, Speaker, I think I speak on behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus when I say that whenever an energy bill comes before this Legislature, it causes us a great deal of concern. After all, this is a government that has brought in the largest single hydro increase in Ontario’s history. This is a government that brought in the Green Energy Act, which has destroyed much of rural Ontario and has increased our hydro rates. This is a government that cancelled two gas plants, to the tune of $1 billion, in order to win an election.

It wasn’t based on sound planning, so when I hear the government talk about the long-term energy plan, when I hear them talking about the Green Energy Act and wind turbine developments, when I hear them talking about IESO, and when I hear them talking about the sale of Hydro One, I get concerned.

Just like clockwork, on Saturday evening and early Sunday morning, our time shifted backward and our hydro bills, yet again, went up in the province of Ontario.

As a former energy critic and somebody who’s been very concerned about energy prices in the province of Ontario for quite some time, I urge caution whenever we look at a piece of legislation put forward by the Liberal government with respect to energy. I will be respectful of the government’s time. I will be respectful of the fact that they have a bill before the assembly, but I will raise red flags because what they have done in the past is likely what they will do again in the future. That causes me concern for the good people of Nepean–Carleton and the city of Ottawa who have consistently sent me to this place to defend them.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Mr. Speaker, when we’re speaking about energy in this province, like my colleague just talked about, we need to look at what this province has done when it comes to energy.

One of the most troubling decisions, probably in the history of our province, is the fact that this government, when it comes to the energy file, is selling off our public hydro system. It would be one thing if they can substantiate this sale by saying, “Listen, by selling it we’re going to raise enough funds that will actually pay for infrastructure.” The reality, independently confirmed by the Financial Accountability Officer, is this: Selling Hydro One will actually put us further into debt.

So how can there be a claim that by selling this asset, they will be able raise funds to build infrastructure, when the reality is this is going to put us further into debt? This will put us into a worse financial position. And this isn’t my opinion, Mr. Speaker; this is the opinion of an independent officer of this Legislative Assembly. This officer stated very clearly—just looking at the facts, not affiliated with any party; looking at the facts of this sale—that it will put our province in a worse financial position.

Now, how can the government possibly stand up in this House and claim that they’re selling this asset to build infrastructure when the reality is that it puts us in a worse financial position? In fact, they’re making it harder to build infrastructure by selling this asset. The reality is that this makes it more difficult to actually invest in our province, by selling this asset. The reality is that it does nothing to benefit Ontarians.

Who knows what the real reason is? Who knows what the real benefit is? But it’s certainly not to build infrastructure, which we so dearly, dearly need.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Mike Colle: Yes, Mr. Speaker, like yourself, I listened attentively to the Minister of Energy and the parliamentary assistant the member from Mississauga–Streetsville. As you know, they are charged with a very important file that affects everybody in Ontario. With this legislation they’re trying to ensure that, going forward, there are more efficiencies and more conservation measures. That’s the core of this bill, Bill 135.

The interesting new analysis here is the connecting of water usage with power usage. We sometimes don’t make that connection. Whether it’s in your home or whether it’s in your workplace, especially in large workplaces, water consumption is directly correlated with your energy consumption. So it’s an attempt, in this legislation, to try to measure that in order to bring about more conservation.

If you look at the city of Toronto at night—I’m sure Chatham is the same way—you’ll see that all the lights in the big buildings seem to be on. You wonder, “Why do all the buildings have to be lit up all night long when there’s nobody in them? What’s the cost of that?

Do these big office towers measure that?” That’s one of the things that is in this legislation, which I think is very important: to try to measure this energy usage and consumption so there would be some kind of benchmark so you can find best practices in how to reduce energy consumption—because these big users, like the buildings that are in all our major cities and our industrial partners, have to start to measure and try to find out ways of conserving power.

This is what this bill tries to encourage, and that’s why I think it’s a bill worth supporting.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Steve Clark: It’s a pleasure for me to provide a couple of minutes of comments on the record regarding Bill 135, the Energy Statute Law Amendment Act.

I felt sorry for the government today. They really had a challenge giving their lead today, so part of me felt bad for the minister and the parliamentary assistant because any time they stand up and have to defend their energy policy, they do always appear to be on shaky ground. I share some of the same concerns that my colleague the member for Nepean–Carleton put on the record.

We just faced a hydro rate increase on November 1 because of this government’s damaging energy policy. I do get worried when this government talks about energy policies that also include water consumption. This is a government that—when we had issues with billing and metering in rural areas, we went to the Ministry of Energy for answers and they shut the door. We had to bring in the Ombudsman to get those answers for our constituents.

So when we talk about water conservation, I’m just a little worried. I have a rural riding. I hope that this government isn’t going down the road of metering wells, because I think they’re going to have big, big opposition from ridings like Leeds–Grenville and all over the province of Ontario. I think they need to come clean with their energy policy. I think we’ve had a situation where we’ve asked for answers and they shut the door on us. We’ve got issues in this House almost every day with the sale of Hydro One. There is tremendous opposition in this province; 185 municipalities have stood firmly against this government’s plan.

In fact, even the Minister of Energy, when he was the mayor of Ottawa, stood vehemently opposed to the sale of Hydro One. That is the Bob Chiarelli we want to hear from today, not the minister that we heard from this morning. Come clean, minister. We want to hear from you again. Don’t meter wells. Don’t continue this disastrous energy policy in the province of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the government side, to the member from Mississauga–Streetsville for final comments.

Mr. Bob Delaney: Well, thank you very much, Coach—I mean, Speaker. I thank the members from Nepean–Carleton, Bramalea–Gore–Malton, Eglinton–Lawrence and Leeds–Grenville for their comments—some helpful; others less so.

The Green Energy Act, as I explained in my remarks, has helped Ontario contain costs and more efficiently manage energy supply and demand. Here is what Ontario’s decision to move to green energy has done in the last decade: Ontario has tomorrow’s generation assets at yesterday’s prices, procured with near-zero interest rates. Looking south of the border, the United States is scrambling to catch up to the province of Ontario by shutting down their coal plants and buying the energy assets they need today at tomorrow’s prices, with interest rates that Americans cannot predict.

Ontario is not going to choose the conservative, retrograde option. We have to remind them that the 20th century is indeed over. In this century, Ontario is going to generate power cleanly and economically, while doing our part to lower greenhouse gases. Now, if one looks south of the border at other electrical utilities around us, we can see that Duke Energy is increasing its power rates. The many northeastern and Midwestern utilities are shutting down their coal-fired plants, as Ontario did a decade ago, and their power rates are going up. Austin Energy in Texas is raising its power rates.

California’s dozens of electrical utilities are all moving to renewable energy, shutting down coal, and their power rates are climbing.

We appreciate that power should be delivered as efficiently and economically as possible, and that is exactly what this bill and the long-term energy plan have allowed us to do.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you very much for allowing me to join the debate on Bill 135 today. I really did appreciate the minister coming in and pinch-hitting for the parliamentary assistant as well as doing his own job this morning. It’s always challenging when someone is caught up in gridlock that is primarily caused by themselves. However, that is a story for another day, because of course we can talk about the fact that the Liberal government has done nothing to relieve gridlock in this province in the 12 years that they have been in power—absolutely nothing.

But there is so much to talk about and so little time. I’m looking at the clock and I really only have 20 minutes to speak today,

whereas I should have an hour. Is it possible for us to delay question period and allow me to have the whole hour, all in one piece? Apparently not, no. According to the standing orders, I’ll have to wait and come back another day.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: What if we just ring the bells?

Interjections.

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s always helpful if you can speak all at the same time.

But I am very nervous whenever this government brings out a new bill to deal with the energy sector. I think I have a right to be, and the people across Ontario share my view and my concern, because every time this government uses the word “energy,” it seems that it costs us more and more.

I chuckle—but of course I didn’t heckle, because I don’t really do that on a regular basis. The parliamentary assistant spoke about how the Green Energy Act has helped to lower the cost of electricity—I’m paraphrasing here. His implication was that it’s been a good financial thing for the people of Ontario. Well, Speaker, you know and I know and he knows that nothing could be further from the facts. In fact, the primary driver of increased energy costs in this province is the Green Energy Act, and everybody who has done an independent analysis will share that view.

As a result of the Green Energy Act, we have what used to be called the provincial benefit, but it became quite a joke. It is now called the global adjustment. “Global adjustment” sounds like something that came from the Klingon universe or something. It’s the global adjustment. I’ll tell you what it does mean: It means that you’re paying a lot more for your hydro bills here in the province of Ontario.

The global adjustment, as auditor Bonnie Lysyk has determined in her report, will have cost Ontarians $50 billion by the end of this year. That’s not million; that’s billion. Take a million and add three more zeros; $50 billion is what the global adjustment will have cost you by the end of 2015, and that is largely as a result of the changes made by the passing of the Green Energy Act in 2009.

I want to talk about this bill itself, but I see that, based on what the minister spoke about and what the parliamentary assistant spoke about, the discussion is somewhat wide open here today. I appreciate that because it gives us an opportunity to talk about—I know we do not question the motives of a member of this assembly, so I’m not doing that, but I think it is fair to question the motives of a government.

It seems that, as they say, timing is everything. Just ask the Kansas City Royals. It seems that the introduction of this bill coincided very closely with the Financial Accountability Officer releasing his report on the financial impact of the partial sale of Hydro One. I think something that was made abundantly clear in the FAO’s, Mr. LeClair’s, report—I have some facts and quotes here—is that he believes it’s a bad deal for the people of Ontario. He also makes it clear that this Liberal government is anything but open and transparent.

The reason he says it’s a bad deal is because—and he sees the politics. He’s not political; he’s completely neutral when it comes to politics, but he sees what the government is doing here. With this tranche that will begin on Thursday, 15% of Hydro One will be sold. I know that my people here in the PC Party, the official opposition, and my colleagues in the third party are going to consider that a very bad, dark day for the people of the province of Ontario because once the cat is out of the bag, it’s going to be very hard to reverse it. As they say, you can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube.

On Thursday, it’s going to be a difficult day for the people of Ontario because they know that this government will have then crossed the line. There’s always the opportunity to say, “We’ve made a mistake.” We thought that just maybe, when the FAO released his report last week, this government would take notice and say, “At the very least, we have to pause this. We have to sit back and say, ‘Is this the right thing to do or is it maybe time for us to take a second look at it?’” I think that would have been a very, very reasonable approach to take.

The Financial Accountability Officer’s job is to analyze how decisions made by the government will impact the finances of that province. What he pointed out in his report was that there’s going to be a bump in the revenue of the province in the first year. Isn’t that kind of convenient? A government that’s talking about—as the finance minister repeats over and over and over again, “We’ve met every one of our goals, and we’ve met every one of our projections as far as reducing the province’s debt and deficit.”

First of all, when you set them low enough, it’s not hard to get to. But isn’t that going to be convenient next year when the budget comes out and the finance minister is going to—and you know what? The Premier may even take that crowing opportunity on herself. She might say, “We have reduced the deficit for 2016-17 by X number of dollars.” Really, it’s going to be in the billions; we know that. This is a valuable asset that they’ve put up for a fire sale. It is not some used car that your grandmother had that’s been sitting in the barn for five years. No. This is Hydro One.

This is the caretaker of all the transmission in this province. This is the central nervous system of the electricity system in the province. This is what they’re selling off, and 15% of that is going to bring in a lot of money.

So next year, it’s going to be, “Look at us. You see, we’ve exceeded our deficit projections. We’ve exceeded our goal once again. Come and pat us on the back, because we’ve done so much of it we’ve dislocated our shoulders.” That’s going to be the story next year. I’m telling you in advance, watch next spring. That’s going to be the story by the Minister of Finance and the Premier.

But there’s a sad ending to the story. The FAO said it’s going to be good news next year, but as we go down the road, the news is going to get worse and worse. This government knows that its days—they’ve done such a terrible job that even Justin Trudeau may not be able to save them in 2018. So here we go. As a result of this deal, they’re going to see the deterioration of the finances of the province get progressively greater; the deterioration gets greater as we move along.

The FAO says a nice, positive bump in year 1, but in subsequent years, we’re going to find that the decision to sell off this crown asset is going to hurt, and that will be reflected in the finances of this province. Our revenues are going to be damaged because the annual revenues from Hydro One’s operations won’t be there anymore. We’re going to lose that. We’re relinquishing our right to have that because it won’t be in public hands anymore. That’s the financial side of it.

We also have concerns about who controls the transmission in this province. My cousin Sean Conway, who was also my predecessor here in this House, came from the other party. Sean was a member of the Liberal Party, and I am not. Let’s just leave it at that. Sean was the one, I believe, who called it the central nervous system of the province. He decried toying with the idea of selling Hydro One in the previous government, as did the member from St. Catharines, the minister without portfolio, Mr. Bradley, as did Dalton McGuinty, the former Premier.

I can name minister after minister in this government, but certainly members of the party, when they were in opposition, said that it is just the wrong idea to sell that crown corporation.

I’m just going to talk about the money at this point, too. It’s the wrong idea; we’ve established that. This government doesn’t want to back down on it because it is so desperate. It is so desperate to give the people some good news on the financial side of things next year, because they’ve been going on and on and on and on about “net zero.” This is the new phrase when they’re negotiating contracts: “net zero.” Can anybody out there actually tell us what it takes to achieve net zero?

It must be some kind of a dream in a fantasy movie or science fiction, that net zero, because every time you turn around, there’s a settlement. And the ministers crow about how hard they worked and how their partners and they worked to get this settlement. The increases are this much in the first year—a lump-sum bonus for signing, this much in the first year, this much in the second year and this much in the third year—but it all adds up to zero. It’s kind of consistent with the math of this government. They really have trouble with numbers.

Moving to the increase in hydro rates, what about the numbers that we get in the hydro rate increase? The OEB puts out a press release and the government just parrots it. In fact, I suspect that the government pretty much writes the release. The government parrots it and it gets portrayed in the media as being gospel.

Here is the trouble I have with the math. The off-peak rate for electricity was eight cents a kilowatt hour. It went to 8.3 cents a kilowatt hour. That’s an increase of about 3.5%. The mid-peak went from 12.2 cents a kilowatt hour to 12.8 cents a kilowatt hour. That’s about a 5% increase. The on-peak rate went from 16.1 cents a kilowatt hour to 17.5 cents a kilowatt hour. That’s just under a 9% increase. The government’s math is, if you take 9% and 5% and, we’ll just say for the sake of argument, 3%, so 9% and 5% and 3% is about 17%. If you divide that by three, apparently it makes 3.4%. I’m just helping you guys out.

Interjection.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you very much, Michael. I have to keep moving otherwise my feet might get stuck to the floor.

You take 17% and divide it by three and in the Liberal world of math, that’s 3.4%. I have a problem with that, because you take 17% and divide it by three, it’s almost 6%. But in the Liberal world it’s 3.4%. They’ve been saying the increase in your hydro rates is about 3.4%. No matter how you divide it—if every kilowatt hour you used was off-peak, you might be able to achieve that goal.

I would ask those people out in television land to examine their hydro bills. I want to be inundated with the thousands and thousands of emails from every one of you who is going to say, “Oh, Mr. Yakabuski, every one of my kilowatt hours was off-peak.” I’ll be awaiting the emails. I’ll look for the relatives of Liberals to be sending that email in. That’s the only one I’m going to get because it doesn’t exist. In reality, it doesn’t exist. It’s not feasible. But this is the kind of math we get from Liberals. That’s what we’re getting with the FAO report and that’s what we got with the hydro increases: 17% divided by three now equals 3.4%. I better have a talk with the education minister.

Interjection.

Mr. John Yakabuski: She’s probably busy these days adding up the cost of pizza.

More directly now to Bill 135: I have to set the background a little bit for it to be easier to understand why I’m concerned about this bill. What you have seen in the background is a government that is determined—determined—to put a picture on every piece of legislation and to make sure that their hands are on it.

One of the big concerns about this bill—the minister mentioned the IESO, the Independent Electricity System Operator, frequently in his address and how they are increasing the role of the IESO. But in fact, the bill says:

“At least once during each period prescribed by the regulations, the minister shall, subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council”— that’s the cabinet—“issue a long-term energy plan setting out and balancing the government of Ontario’s goals and objectives respecting energy for the period specified by the plan....

“The minister shall, before issuing a long-term energy plan under subsection (1), require the IESO”—that’s the Independent Electricity System Operator—“to submit a technical report on the adequacy and reliability of electricity resources with respect to anticipated electricity supply, capacity, storage, reliability and demand and on any other related matters the minister may specify....”

So it’s not the IESO that’s going to write the LTEP, the long-term energy plan; it’s going to be the minister. He is going to call the IESO and say, “I’d like your input as to the adequacy of supply and the blah blah blah, but I’m the one who’s going to write the plan. It’s going to be mine. We really only need you in an advisory capacity.”

When the IESO was first brought into being—it was the IMO at that time—it was supposed to take the politics out of it and allow the technocrats to help design the energy plans for the province of Ontario. But they have taken this electricity system and completely politicized it. Contrary to what the government and the minister imply—that the IESO is going to have a greater role—the IESO is going to have a lesser role, and the politicos are going to have more to say about running our electricity system.

I’d ask the people of Ontario, if the politicos are running our electricity system as they have under this gang, how are we doing so far? We’ve got a province where electricity was 4.3 cents a kilowatt hour in 2003; it now peaks at 17.5 cents a kilowatt hour.

Now we are going to have the politicians take greater control of the long-term energy plan. Speaker, as Danny Labine once said to me, this is not good. Wow.

We pay a lot of money.

They amalgamated the OPA, the Ontario Power Authority, which this government created, and then they realized it was nothing but a political smokescreen for them, and they were getting caught on it, so they amalgamated it into the IESO. But now what they’re doing is taking away all of the relative usefulness of the IESO. Is the government saying that they do not trust the Independent Electricity System Operator? Is that what we’re hearing in this House today, that the government doesn’t trust its own agency? We know they don’t like the Financial Accountability Officer because he didn’t tell the people what the government wanted the people to hear.

I’m running out of time, so I’m going to have to cut this in two. I will be back, Speaker, at another time to inform the people of Ontario in a bigger way about what’s happening in this province as a result of the negligence of this government.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I thank the members for an interesting and lively debate this morning and for the warning from the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke that he will be back.

It is now 10:15. This House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise today to welcome the friends and relatives of page captain Abby Moreside. In the gallery today are her parents, Kathy and Dave Moreside, and her former teacher, Karen Miller. Thank you all for coming to Queen’s Park and wishing Abby well today.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Page captain Cameron Rodzik is a St. Pius X grade 8 student in my riding. His mom and dad are here today: Amber and Donald Rodzik Jr. His brothers Christopher and Hudson Rodzik are here, as well as four grandparents: Donald Rodzik Sr. and his wife, Gail; and Joanna Staudt and her husband, Helmut. Thank you all for coming to Queen’s Park this morning.

Miss Monique Taylor: I’d like to welcome some guests who were here this morning to speak about autism. We have Katharine Buchan from Autism Ontario; Kara Onofrio of Autism’s Angels; and Linda DiMambro, Tony DiMambro, and their son Anthony DiMambro. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Arthur Potts: Unfortunately, my guests aren’t here yet, but I have the students from Neil McNeil high school, which isn’t quite in my riding; it is in Scarborough Southwest. Chrissy Orr and her students—grade 10 civics class. I’ll welcome them maybe later when they get in the House.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, you won’t.

Further introductions.

M me France Gélinas: Ça me fait plaisir de présenter M. Alain Dupuis, qui est le président du RÉFO; M. Denis Vaillancourt, le président de l’AFO; ainsi que des représentants de la FESFO, Jérémie Spadafora et Rym Ben Berrah, qui sont ici à Queen’s Park. Ils ne sont pas tout à fait arrivés, mais je ne voulais pas manquer l’opportunité de leur souhaiter la bienvenue. Ils viennent nous parler de l’université francophone.

Mr. Todd Smith: I would like to welcome a former broadcast colleague of mine, David Foot, from Peterborough.

Annual report, Environmental Commissioner of Ontario

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the 2014-15 annual report from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario.

Oral Questions

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Acting Premier. Hydro One generates over $700 million a year for this province. That’s a lot of money flowing into provincial coffers. The FAO has confirmed that the Hydro One fire sale will see that money dry up. It’s a one-time payout with long-term negative consequences.

Everyone in Ontario will pay for this bad deal. Will the Acting Premier tell the people of Ontario which taxes she will raise or what services she will cut?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I must say, I find the selective reading from the Leader of the Opposition to be quite remarkable. Nobody is suggesting that revenue will dry up. We are retaining a minimum of a 40% share. We will—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Finish, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We will continue to receive revenues from Hydro One, unlike—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Oh, how much?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, come to order.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: —unlike the deal to sell off the 407 that your party knows intimately. We will continue to receive revenue from Hydro One. We also did ask the assets council to look at other ways to generate revenue. We are, in fact, going to be raising $100 million a year from increased taxes on beer, for example, so we are looking at—

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Acting Premier, and back to the present day. The government is very good at blaming things that were done in past decades. The reality of this is a bad deal for Ontario today. Don’t try to justify your actions by blaming things that happened in the distant past.

According to a poll done by the Ontario Energy Association, almost 80% of Ontario residents believe the fire sale will raise their hydro bills. When you combine rising hydro bills with the inevitable tax increases this government will impose to make up for the revenue lost from Hydro One, the people of Ontario will suffer a double hit.

Mr. Speaker, does the Acting Premier really believe the people of Ontario deserve to be punished twice for this government’s incompetence and mismanagement?

Interjections.

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

Deputy.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think it’s important that we go back and ask ourselves why, in fact, government made the decision to broaden the ownership of Hydro One. The reality is that we have a big infrastructure deficit in this province. We simply must invest in infrastructure, because the lack of infrastructure has a significant negative impact on our productivity. This is all about enhancing our productivity, Speaker. We are committed to building infrastructure. We have to pay to build that infrastructure.

One of the things that we’re doing is broadening the ownership of Hydro One, but it’s not the only thing that we are doing. We have sold the GM shares, we are looking at our real estate holdings and we are looking at other assets, because we need to get the revenue to pay for the much-needed infrastructure. We need to do that now, not down the road, so we are making those investments, because the people of Ontario need those investments in infrastructure.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Acting Premier. This tired response, that this is for infrastructure—no one buys it. Your infrastructure budget for the 10 years is $130 billion, pre-sale. Post-sale, it’s $130 billion. There’s not one cent more for infrastructure. The FAO can show us exactly how much money will be lost. You’re losing revenue for infrastructure.

This government’s past record of fiscal mismanagement tells us that with the revenue lost from Hydro One, Ontario will spiral down a path of financial crisis. There are only two ways to replace the $700 million that you’re going to lose in revenue. It’s either new taxes or cutting services.

Why won’t the minister tell us which taxes they will raise or what services they will cut? Are we going to see more cuts to doctors? Are we going to see cuts in infrastructure? Tell us what you’re going to cut.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, one thing I can guarantee you, Speaker, is that we are not going to be cutting 100,000 jobs, which is the platform of that party opposite. I also urge the Leader of the Opposition to actually read the report of the FAO, and when—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Let’s keep it that way, please.

Carry on.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think the Leader of the Opposition owes it to the public to actually present a more balanced view, but I don’t think he’s going to be doing that, so let me do that. Let me quote page 9 of the report: “This report does not seek to assess the merits of the decision to sell Hydro One.” Also: “The results of this analysis are sensitive to the timing of subsequent sales.... These forecasts are subject to changes in the financial performance of Hydro One.”

Speaker, the people of Ontario deserve—

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

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, since the Acting Premier won’t acknowledge what taxes are going to be raised or what services will be cut, let me try with the Minister of Energy.

Let me read you a quote from the editorial board of your Ottawa Citizen. “It’s hard to see the benefits of the Ontario Liberals’ decision to” sell “Hydro One ... now that we’ve seen the provincial Financial Accountability Officer’s assessment of the proposed sell-off.” It goes on to note, “The report also points out it would have been cheaper just to borrow the money.”

The minister didn’t see the benefits of the Hydro One fire sale when he was mayor of Ottawa; the minister must admit he doesn’t see them today. Everyone in Ottawa is saying this is a bad deal for Ontario. Will you finally acknowledge it’s a bad deal?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Energy?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: First of all, I want to say that I think the Ottawa Citizen endorsed my opponent in all of the 10 elections that I ran in, and I was able to overcome that.

But what’s important is to give some reality to the report from the accountability officer. Again, I want to say, reading from the report, this report does not seek to assess the merits of the decision to sell Hydro One. What’s more important, it does not seek to assess the prospects for performance improvements at Hydro One that might result from the partial sale or any future changes at Hydro One. The report does not seek to assess the financial impact of any government spending that may be financed from the sale of Hydro One.

These are very important omissions and I will refer to them in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the minister: The same editorial goes on to say—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Mr. Patrick Brown: —“the Liberals’ argument seems to amount to ‘we really, really want the money right now and hopefully something good will happen down the line.’”

The minister doesn’t have a crystal ball to show him the future, but the FAO has laid out the facts very clearly. He showed that this is a bad deal for the province.

Why won’t the minister come clean to his constituents and stand up against this bad deal? One hundred and eighty-five municipalities are saying this is a bad deal for Ontario. Will he come clean and admit this deal is just about temporarily cooking the books for the province to look better for the next election? This isn’t a good deal for the province.

Interjections.

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

While I’m standing, I’m going to remind all members that the dignified way to acknowledge members in this House is by using their title or their riding. I’m getting a little more frustrated with the barbs that are coming out from either side, lowering the tone of debate.

Minister of Energy?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I’m up to the challenge of the battle of the newspapers. In the Toronto Star today there was a very, very insightful

article that pointed out that in the report, they set out a number of scenarios, possible scenarios. A number of those scenarios show that it’s a very positive result for the province of Ontario. We don’t hear that.

Given that there are a number of scenarios that actually are included, some of which are positive, I think it’s important to give context to the statement that says, “This report does not seek to assess the merits of the decision to sell Hydro One.”

We believe that what is not included in here, and what’s referred to here as not being included, is the economic assessment of those investments and the better production that will come from Hydro One.

We’re confident this is the right decision. It provides infrastructure; it provides it now and over the next 10 years.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the minister: No one buys this argument that it’s for infrastructure. The infrastructure budget doesn’t change. You’re losing revenue. That’s why the editorial has been so critical.

I’ll continue. The editorial reads there are “voters who are sick and tired of big-ticket, bad-outcome projects,” something the Liberal Party has become famous for. The Citizen mentions cancelling gas plants, investing in money pits like MaRS and throwing cash around at teachers’ unions.

The editorial concludes that this fire sale “looks like yet another bad fiscal decision from a provincial government with a well-earned reputation for making them.”

Will the minister continue to defend the sale in the face of all evidence that suggests the contrary? Do the right thing: Listen to your constituents, listen to municipalities. Stand up to this government, stand up to your Premier and say, “Don’t sell out Ottawa.”

Interjections.

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

Minister of Energy?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: The member opposite makes it sound as though—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: The member opposite makes it sound as though 100% of this crown corporation is being sold, and that’s not the case. We are in fact broadening ownership; the first tranche is 15%. Of that amount, we are going to be credited with a deferred tax benefit of $2.6 billion. We are going to receive enough money to reduce debt substantively, which also reduces cost. We are going to receive a substantive amount of capital that’s going to be able to be reinvested into projects to earn more opportunity.

The question the member opposite is asking is, can the forgone revenue be replaced over a period time? Of course it’s going to be replaced. Unlike what they did when they sold the 407 and gave us nothing in return, we are reinvesting, we are going to get—

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

Hon. Charles Sousa: —we continue to own the company—

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

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Acting Premier. The Premier told Ontarians that she’d lead the most open and transparent government in Canada. Instead, we see the Liberal government tearing a page from Stephen Harper’s playbook by stonewalling independent watchdogs and trying to discredit them when they speak up. We’ve seen it with the Auditor General, we’ve seen it with the Ombudsman, and now we’re seeing it with the Financial Accountability Officer.

Why is this Liberal government trying to discredit the Financial Accountability Officer?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I have to make it very clear that the leader of the third party has her facts wrong on this. We completely accept the results of the Financial Accountability Officer, we respect his report; we just wish people would read it. If you actually do a careful read of that report, he’s very clear about what he is reporting on and what he is not reporting on. He looks at one side of the deal; he does not look at the advantages of the investments in infrastructure that we will be making as a result of this and other initiatives.

I urge the leader of the third party to actually read the report, and when she’s speaking to Ontarians to acknowledge what he did say and what he did not say.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I just have to listen to that response and re-ask the same question I just asked because that is absolutely the problem here. They refuse to respect the Financial Accountability Officer and they’re discrediting his report.

The Premier promised that there would be independent oversight of the Hydro One sell-off. For months the Premier has insisted that Ontarians cannot have public hydro and at the same time new transit and infrastructure investments. The independent oversight shows that if the Premier sells Hydro One, we could have neither of these things.

Will the Liberal government start listening to the people of Ontario, to the business communities, to 185 municipalities, to First Nations and to Ontario’s non-partisan watchdogs and stop the sell-off of Hydro One?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I refer the leader of the third party to the report, which I will quote. That’s how much I actually respect this report, that I’m very happy to quote it here. The Financial Accountability Officer discusses on page 9 the scope of the review. He says very clearly:

“This report does not seek to:

“—assess the merits of the decision to sell Hydro One

“—forecast the impact of the partial sale of Hydro One on electricity rates

“—assess the prospects for performance improvements at Hydro One that might result from the partial sale or any future changes at Hydro One

“—assess the financial impact of any government spending financed by the sale of Hydro One, i.e. transportation projects financed by the Trillium Trust.”

We have complete respect for this report, we value this report, but we recognize the limitations of the scope as stated by the Financial Accountability Officer.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What it does say is that debt will increase and what it does say is that revenues will decrease, and what it also says is this is the very worst way to fund infrastructure for the province of Ontario. That’s what the report says.

By stonewalling the FAO, this Premier is undermining an independent watchdog of this Legislature. By selling shares in Hydro One before the FAO tabled his report, the Premier is undermining an independent officer of the Legislature. By ignoring the red flags that the FAO has raised, the Premier is undermining an independent watchdog of this Legislature.

Will this Liberal government stop undermining the FAO, listen to his advice, and stop the sell-off of Hydro One?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Let’s be very, very clear: We appointed this independent Financial Accountability Officer through the report that we put forward in our budget last year, recognizing the importance of having that independent voice. We respect that.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Essex.

Hon. Charles Sousa: In fact, the report very clearly validates what it is that we’ve been saying all along. We recognize there is forgone revenue. We know that. We’ve been talking about that throughout the proposals and in the assessment of our budget. We also know that you cannot borrow in perpetuity without then having other implications on our fiscal plan, so we are taking a balanced approach.

Furthermore, we are retaining ownership of this corporation, which enables us to benefit from future dividends as accrued. More importantly, we’re reinvesting, dollar for dollar, all of what we are receiving into other projects and will receive even greater economic prosperity.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Back to the Acting Premier: The finance minister knows that this province can’t waste in perpetuity either, the way the Liberals have been wasting for a dozen years in this province.

When the Premier appointed her privatization committee, she promised that her plan to sell off Hydro One would be independently validated. Thankfully, the FAO stepped up to do that job, because that independent review was not going to be done by the Premier. She had no intention of fulfilling that promise.

But the Liberals have another chance now. Yesterday, the Keep Hydro Public coalition and the National Farmers Union called for the Ontario Energy Board to do a review of the sell-off.

Will the Liberal government join the call for the OEB to review the deal?

Hon. Charles Sousa: This proposal is being independently validated. The FAO has validated what we had said we were proposing.

More importantly, the most independent of all is the marketplace. They have independently validated the valuation of Hydro One at the high end, recognizing that the opportunities that exist with the proposal we brought forward will have positive opportunities for everyone.

We’ll continue to hold a great ownership of this corporation. We’ll continue to take great benefit from—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Essex—second time.

Please finish.

Hon. Charles Sousa: And we’re reinvesting those monies, one, to reduce debt and, secondly, to create new assets.

Also, most conditions would agree that for every dollar we invest, $1.40 is returned. That is a much greater return than maintaining and holding the shares that are not producing—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s good for Liberal insiders and good for Liberal friends on Bay Street, but it is bad for Ontario, Speaker.

The Liberals have been doing their very best to ignore and undermine the FAO. Maybe the Liberals are worried that a second review—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Please finish.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Maybe the Liberals are worried that a second review will show the exact same thing, that this deal is bad for Ontarians.

Will the government direct the Ontario Energy Board to review the Hydro One sell-off before it goes any further? Or is this government afraid that more independent oversight will mean more bad news for the Liberals?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite actually mistakes what broadening of ownership is. Forty per cent of the ownership of the first tranche is actually Ontarians—retail investors, the public of our province—and we still own 85% of the corporation on behalf of the province of Ontario.

More importantly, when she’s speaking of the OEB, it’s an important point: It is independently regulated. No one in this operation will be able to set the price, unless it’s the OEB, similar to what they do with Toronto Hydro, as they do with Horizon and as they do with Brampton Hydro, all of which rival Hydro One to be more competitive, more efficient and more effective. That is why we added this discipline and that is why, in the end, it will be of greater benefit to the people of Ontario, because we’re reinvesting all of that appreciation back into our economy.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Liberals promised independent validation of the Hydro One sell-off but so far, they’re ignoring the FAO and refusing to hear from the OEB. Hydro One won’t raise the money that the Premier promised. It won’t lower debt like the Premier promised. Every time we learn something new about Hydro One’s sell-off, the deal gets worse. The more we learn, the less the deal seems to do with transit.

If the Liberals are so convinced that it is a good deal, will they call on the OEB to review it so that Ontarians don’t have to rely on blind faith in the Liberals because Lord knows where that gets us each and every time?

Hon. Charles Sousa: A prospectus has been brought forward. It has been reviewed by the marketplace and experts across the province—and Canada, for that matter. The FAO has validated the process and the valuation, and he provided a number of degrees that that value could be. That value has now been assessed at the high end by the marketplace. So that

part is done.

What we now need to do is to ensure that we reinvest that money for the benefit of the people and to ensure that we accrue greater returns through those investments. That has only been made available because of these transactions, and that is exactly what we do. We are not going to be borrowing in perpetuity, which will then enable us to have greater leverage. What we need to do is have greater benefit. We’re doing so by reinvesting these assets, a component of which is sourced through this transaction. We will continue to retain a substantive share of an opportunity in Hydro One to enable us to have a greater benefit in the future.

Wind turbines

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Minister, we’ve made it clear from the start that the intermittent nature of wind under the Liberals’ Green Energy Act would ensure that it would never be a reliable source of electricity. We now have evidence that the level of production is actually lower than our worst predictions.

In 2009, Metrolinx, at considerable expense to the crown corporation, installed a 31-metre-tall wind turbine at its Lisgar station. However, this past August it was taken down because it failed miserably, producing less than 10% of the electricity that was expected.

Speaker, can the minister explain why, if Metrolinx has the common sense to cut its losses with unreliable wind power, the Liberal government continues to invest heavily in this expensive experiment?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The wind component of our energy supply mix is a very significant part of it. Number one: It’s clean. In terms of the operating systems that are out there: I remember, while we were in estimates last week, that one of my colleagues checked the IESO app and was able to confirm on the spot that at that time in Ontario, there were 20 megawatts of wind being used in the system. That is reflective of the viability and the need for that type of energy mix.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. John Yakabuski: When wind hit that high point last week, it was a result of a deadly hurricane in Mexico and Texas. That’s not a good time to be bragging about your wind.

The minister knows full well that even if the industrial wind turbine at Lisgar station had met its projections, that station would still require the stability of a grid in case the wind is not blowing on that particular day.

This example speaks to the larger problem that this minister would not accept: namely, that wind alone cannot be relied upon. It must be backed up by another form of reliable generation, essentially forcing Ontarians to pay twice.

Yet the government continues down this wrong path. Under the price

schedule for—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Come to order. Please finish.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Under the price

schedule for 2016, the rate is increasing from 11.5 cents to 12.8 cents per kilowatt hour. This increased incentive means a flood of new wind on the grid, which will lead to an even more unstable and expensive energy supply.

Can the minister tell the House how many more examples like the Lisgar GO station will be needed before he stops signing these expensive, unreliable energy contracts?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I’m having trouble believing he is even having any credibility in his own premise, Mr. Speaker. He’s finding one turbine owned by an entity that, for some reason, was dismantled. That’s like seeing a Mercedes broken down on the side of the road and saying, “We should abolish all Mercedes.” It’s a ridiculous premise, and I can’t answer any further than that.

Autism treatment

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is to the Acting Premier. My recent freedom-of-information request shows that the number of children on the wait-list for IBI therapy this year is 2,192, and the number on the wait-list for ABA is an astonishing 13,966. This represents an increase of 75%. Estimates from the ministry show that only five more kids are receiving IBI this year than last year, and for ABA, 926 fewer children are receiving therapy than were receiving it two years ago. Yes, fewer children, and it’s unacceptable.

Will the Acting Premier tell the minister to do the right thing for families and kids and immediately ensure all vulnerable kids on the wait-list have access to the supports they need?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I know the Minister of Children and Youth Services will want to speak to this issue, but I did want to take the opportunity to say thank you to the parents who are here today and the kids who are here today for being strong and very important advocates when it comes to services for kids with autism.

This has been a priority for our government. We have doubled the investment in autism services, but we know that the demand continues to grow. I know that the Minister of Children and Youth Services does want to talk about some of the progress we have made and some of the challenges that do remain.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Miss Monique Taylor: Speaker, 16,000 kids on a wait-list for treatment is not progress. Study after study shows that early intervention is crucial for children with autism, and the government knows this.

Today, we are joined in the Legislature by two families directly impacted by the failure of this government to address the growing wait-list for essential therapy for children with ASD. These are just two of the hundreds of families, some who have to make those tough decisions like remortgaging their house or moving to another province. Will the minister step up to the plate today and make sure these children receive the therapy they need immediately?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Our government and I absolutely recognize that families caring for young people with autism—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Lambton, come to order.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: —face very unique challenges, and we are working very hard to support them. That’s why we invested about $190 million—

Interjection.

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

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Finish, please.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Thank you, Speaker. That’s why our government invests nearly $190 million annually in autism services, an increase of more than $100 million since 2003. But I know the wait-list persists—

Mr. Monte McNaughton: You lied to the people with autistic kids.

Interjections.

Interjection: Come on, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I think I know what I’m doing.

The member will withdraw, and if it happens again, I will name him. Withdraw.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Finish.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I hear the call from families. I hear the call from parents. I hear the call from Autism Ontario. I thank the people who are here today to tell us more about the challenges, but we’re very familiar—that more help is needed. I’m committed to doing more, and even when kids are on wait-lists, we have a number of services to support children and families while they’re on a wait-list.

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

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: We all want to get those numbers down, Speaker—

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

Consumer protection

Mrs. Laura Albanese: My question is to the Minister of Government and Consumer Services. The Ministry of Government and Consumer Services is responsible for regulating a number of sectors and ensuring Ontario consumers are provided reliable information to make the choices they need without being subjected to unfair practices. As part of this priority, I know the ministry is responsible for regulating moving companies. Many Ontarians rely on moving companies. They perform important work and are responsible for protecting the belongings of their clients. However, I have seen reports about moving companies allegedly holding people’s belongings from them as a way to demand payment.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, can the minister please speak to the approach his ministry has taken to regulating the sector and provide advice on best practices for Ontarians?

Hon. David Orazietti: The member from York South–Weston is asking about a very important issue around consumer protection. Movers provide an important service for Ontarians, and my ministry has worked to better protect consumers in this sector. Since Ontarians entrust movers with their personal belongings, it’s important that they conduct themselves appropriately and that we hold them to high standards.

Ontarians should know that when they do business with moving companies, they are covered by the Consumer Protection Act. The act requires that contracts with moving companies be clear and understandable. It also prohibits misrepresentation and makes it illegal for businesses or individuals to give consumers false information about themselves or the products or services that they offer. The act also contains a 10% rule that states that a consumer cannot be charged more than 10% above the estimated cost for moving in a written contract.

These are important protections for Ontarians, and we’ll continue to enforce these protections to ensure Ontarians are supported.

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

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I thank the minister for his update on the Consumer Protection Act and its application toward moving companies. It’s very interesting to learn that his ministry has identified residential movers as an important area for consumer protection. I am confident that he will work on behalf of Ontarians and the residents of York South–Weston to ensure that adequate protections are in place.

I understand that the Premier also expressed interest in consumer protection for Ontarians using moving companies, as reflected in the minister’s mandate letter. Mr. Speaker, can the minister please further update the House on steps his ministry has taken to strengthen consumer marketplace fairness with respect to moving companies?

Hon. David Orazietti: Again to the member from York South–Weston, who’s a great advocate for her constituents, our ministry has recently implemented a risk-based and proactive compliance strategy for enforcing the Consumer Protection Act. The strategy will deploy resources to the sectors of greatest concern, including the residential moving sector. Our ministry has increased inspection powers to enforce the act, including the right for inspectors to enter a place of business in Ontario, examine relevant documentation and, where appropriate, issue orders to address marketplace concerns.

We’ve also commissioned a research report by Prism Economics and Analysis this past spring to provide insight into the residential moving industry. We’ve added residential movers to our consumer advisory team’s outreach sessions and have maintained detailed records of moving companies in our Consumer Beware List, which is posted online for Ontarians.

Speaker, I’m pleased with the steps that we’ve taken to protect consumers in this important area, and we’ll continue to raise the standards for Ontarians.

Mining industry

Mr. Norm Miller: To the Minister of Northern Development and Mines: Over the past month, I’ve had the opportunity to tour a number of mines operating in the province, and I’m sure you would agree with me that the work they do is remarkable.

By far the number one issue that continues to be raised is uncertainty in the permitting process in Ontario. The Fraser Institute’s annual survey of mining companies reflects this and has again placed Ontario near the back of the pack for mining jurisdictions in Canada. In the investment attractiveness index, Ontario fell nine places, to 23rd in the world.

Minister, even with the changes made with the Mining Act, why does it take so long to permit a mine in Ontario?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thank you very much for the question from my critic on the other side of the House. We continue to work very, very closely with industry and with all stakeholders in the mining sector to continue to move mining projects forward.

We also work very hard to encourage investment in the province of Ontario, and we see successes continually as new mines continue to open up, despite the reality of the down cycle, particularly in commodity pricing.

One of the things we also do, working very closely with our Minister’s Mining Act Advisory Committee that’s in place, related to moving forward on a modernized Mining Act, is indeed find that balance as to how we can make sure that we put together the right system in terms of the permitting process, as well as being sensitive to the needs, to find that correct balance. This is an ongoing piece of work. We’re very encouraged by the work that we’re doing and continue to work closely with industry.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Norm Miller: Again through the Speaker to the minister: Uncertainty in the permitting process makes it harder for companies to justify investing money in Ontario projects. Noront Resources, trying to develop the Ring of Fire, had to wait two and a half years just to have their terms of reference approved. Just this morning, we heard from miners that it takes at least 110 permits to open a mine in Ontario. This uncertainty is compounded when taking into account the costs of high energy rates based on industrial consumers in Ontario.

Through the Speaker to the minister: How will we be able to bring into production new mines to replace those that will be closing in the next decade if the current permitting process in Ontario is so unpredictable?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I really do appreciate the question. It’s an important one today when we do have, obviously, the miners here for Meet the Miners Day in the Legislature. We’ll all be involved in activities throughout the day.

I think the important point to point out is that we recognize that it is indeed important to make sure that we do the best job we can in terms of moving the permitting process forward. We have a one-window approach, which, again, the member would know well about.

May I say I’ve already been part of a meeting with the Ontario Mining Association this morning. One of the things, actually, that Chris Hodgson, the president of the OMA, spoke about was the reality of an actual level of certainty in the province of Ontario related to the rules and regulations that are in place—which is not to say it’s a perfect system, but again, that’s where the challenge is: to find that balance. When we began the modernization of the Mining Act, we said very early on that this is about balance, finding a way to maintain a positive—

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

Mining industry

Mr. Michael Mantha: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and good morning to you. My question is again to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Each year, Minister, we have Meet the Miners Day at Queen’s Park, where mining companies come to enlighten us on issues they are facing in the mining sector. We welcome them here today.

Each year, they warn us that hydro prices are threatening their exploration, operation and ability to refine here in Ontario. Their alarm bells appear to fall on deaf ears, and several companies have left the province, taking good jobs with them. Minister, can you tell our friends here today in the mining sector how the fire sale of Hydro One is going to help these companies with their already crippling energy costs?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thanks again for the question—I appreciate it—from my critic from the New Democratic Party. The fact is, as the member knows well, that we are working very, very closely with the mining sector and have worked hard to provide significant breaks in terms of the costs of energy, recognizing that energy costs are significantly higher, particularly on the smelting side and in parts of the mining industry, which is why we are so proud of bringing permanency to the Northern Industrial Electricity Rate Program, which has been hugely beneficial. Thank you to the Minister of Finance for bringing that in. That has made a huge difference.

There are also other significant incentive programs the Minister of Energy has put in place as well. We continue to work closely with the industry to find the best possible way we can help them reduce their energy costs. As a result, we’re seeing more new mines opening up. That’s the positive side of the story.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Mantha: Minister, there is no positive; there is no plan. This year, the message is loud and clear. The mining industry in this province is unanimous that they’re worried about the sale of Hydro One, and they have not been consulted. They expect their costs to go up tens of millions and potentially lose good-paying jobs here in Ontario.

When industry comes to this government for help, they get nothing—and now this. This government is content to sit on the sidelines and watch as mining companies leave this province. Minister, why hasn’t this government consulted with one of our biggest resource industries about the sale of Hydro One?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, it seems that the member across may have obviously had a very different conversation, but I can tell you about the conversation that we had this morning with the Ontario Mining Association with our caucus members. I am grateful to all those who were able to show up for it. Indeed, while there are many, many challenges in the mining sector, there are also so many positive stories.

We are continuing to work closely with the Ontario Mining Association and all their members, as well as the other very important partners in the mining sector, which obviously includes communities that are going to be impacted by future mining developments. We’re going to continue to work with that. Again, I’m grateful for the Northern Industrial Electricity Rate Program being made permanent—$120 million a year, rebates of almost $500 million over the last number of years.

We’re going to keep doing the good work. We’re going to be positive. I wish you’d join me in being positive.

Services for the developmentally disabled

Mr. Arthur Potts: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. We all know that people with developmental disabilities are very valuable members of our society. We also know that like everyone else, people with disabilities want the opportunity to participate and be active members of our workforce. I know that the minister is committed to leveling the playing field for people with disabilities when it comes to workforce participation.

Earlier this year, her ministry provided an update about the employment and modernization fund for individuals with developmental disabilities. It’s part of our government’s $810-million investment strategy for community and developmental services that was approved in the 2014 budget.

Will the minister please provide this House with an update on the employment and modernization fund and the impact that it is having—

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

Minister of Community and Social Services?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker, and to the member for Beaches–East York for the question.

Our government recognizes and values the important contributions made by individuals with developmental disabilities to our communities and to our workforce. I’m so pleased to say that the investments made through my ministry’s employment and modernization fund are starting to yield results on the ground that support inclusion and independence.

One of the projects that received funding is the new Centre for Excellence in Employment Services which is run by the Ontario Disability Employment Network. They have been working with many businesses to provide training and tools so that people with developmental disabilities are hired for competitive jobs in their communities. I’m hearing first-hand that more employers are starting to understand that hiring adults with developmental disabilities is good for business. Whether it’s at a grocery store in Port Perry or at your local Tim Hortons, more and more individuals with developmental disabilities are securing competitive employment.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Arthur Potts: I very much appreciate the minister’s response and the update she’s given the House today. I know that the people of Ontario and certainly my constituents in Beaches–East York very much appreciate the hard work she’s doing on this file.

It’s clear that by investing in better employment outcomes for people with developmental disabilities, we are investing in their independence, their health and their overall participation in society. I understand that there are many more projects that support the employment of individuals with developmental disabilities and that have been approved by the fund in the past year. I look forward to hearing more about them in the future.

Will the minister then please tell us about the next steps for the fund and how we will be moving forward to help build Ontario up?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: As the member from Beaches–East York has expressed, there is great value in working towards greater inclusion for people with developmental disabilities. In fact, while securing a job is certainly one of the best routes to social inclusion, it also leads to better general health for the individuals involved.

The employment and modernization fund has two objectives: One is to create opportunities for people with developmental disabilities to secure competitive employment in the community, and the second is to support projects that lead to more individualized and responsive services and supports. LiveWorkPlay in Ottawa is a great example, as is the Paro Centre in Thunder Bay. In fact, there were 38 communities and agencies across the province that were successful in their applications to the fund this year, and my ministry is currently planning for the next call for proposals.

I look forward to many more successful projects.

Special education

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is to the Minister of Education. I’m asking for meaningful action on this government’s special education formula. I’m asking the minister responsible for the ongoing mess in special education to address the program cuts, the staff firings and, most importantly, the serious impacts on vulnerable students whose needs she is not meeting.

The minister needs to explain why she is spending $3.7 million of taxpayer money to pay teachers’ unions for negotiations, when she could have used it to hire back fired educational assistants to help our vulnerable students stay in school full days, not just part of the day. We want the money to go to students with special needs, including those with autism.

When will the minister stand up for the vulnerable children and put their teachers back in the classroom?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Thank you. The member opposite—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Finish, please.

Hon. Liz Sandals: The member opposite mentioned negotiations, and I’m very happy to report to the House this morning that yesterday we concluded agreements, first of all, with CUPE, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, which represents most of the caretaking and maintenance staff and some of the education workers; also with ETFO, the elementary public teachers—

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

Mr. Bill Walker: I can tell you, the parents, the special education assistants nor the children are standing up and giving you applause right now.

Back to the Minister of Education: The minister must know that her funding formula is not meeting the need. Between 2001 and 2014, the student-teacher ratios in special education have jumped from 22 students per teacher to 37. That’s a huge cut in special education teaching staff.

The minister can try to spin and cover up this scandal all she wants, but she must admit that despite repeatedly saying she would not cut, she would not fire, the reality is that special education staff are losing jobs and our most vulnerable students are missing out.

Mr. Speaker, we want the Minister of Education to treat special education students with fairness and equity. Will she match the platitudes she just gave herself with real action and commit to putting students first by reinstating the fired special education teachers?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Speaker, I just want to make it clear that in all five of the collective agreements which we have concluded, there have been absolutely no cuts to the classroom.

Specifically, with respect to special education, the funding for special education has actually increased, up to $2.72 billion this year. That represents a 68% increase since 2003. In fact, it’s an increase of 9% since the 2012-13 school year. That 9% increase is at a time when the overall enrolment in the province of Ontario has gone down, which means that on a per pupil—

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

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Peter Tabuns: To the Minister of Energy: A privatized Hydro One has no incentive to promote energy conservation. It makes more profit when people use more electricity, not less. We saw an example of this behaviour earlier this year when Nova Scotia’s privatized electricity utility fought against the government’s new energy conservation programs.

Will the government put energy conservation first, put the public interest first, and stop the further privatization of Hydro One?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, of course I don’t accept the premise of the question.

In November and December of last year, we had 70-plus LDCs, local distribution companies, sign contracts with the IESO for the new conservation contracts program moving forward. That will save 30 terawatts up to 2032, a very, very aggressive target.

The important thing is, the private sector companies signed those contracts and are implementing our conservation program. That includes Fortis. It includes hybrid companies that have partial private ownership. It includes municipal utilities. They’re all engaged in the issue.

If you look at the gas side, which the OEB manages as well, private sector Enbridge and Union are exceptional in their conservation programs. They are poster child cases for what can happen in conservation. Private—

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, Germany sold off parts of its transmission grid in the 1990s, and politicians there now admit this was a historic mistake. Germans now realize that in order to connect people to renewable energy sources, they need a publicly owned grid. Germans have learned the hard way that once the public grid is sold off, it is very difficult and very costly to get it back.

Will the government learn from Germany’s historic mistake and cancel the further privatization of Hydro One?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The member can dream about how bad things are or can be, but let’s look at what’s actually happening. Hydro One has signed a contract. That contract binds them to abide by the conservation program that we have. Whether it’s pre- or post-IPO, they’re bound by it. They have very, very positive conservation programs, including ductless heat pumps, of which in Nova Scotia they’ve installed 40,000. They’re saving customers an average of $1,000. That pilot project is going on now, and I believe that the pilot project they have will be implemented to the benefit of ratepayers in Ontario.

Mining industry

Mr. Glenn Thibeault: My question this morning is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Today, the Ontario Mining Association hosts their annual Meet the Miners Day at Queen’s Park. This day looks at the positive aspects of mining in our province, and it’s a great opportunity to participate in and learn about the incredible role that mining plays not only in my riding of Sudbury but across the province and in our everyday lives.

For instance, Ontario has world expertise in mine financing, geology and engineering, stable exploration in mining industries, and one of the lowest mining tax rates in Canada. As well, we have the advantages of a strong economy, competitive business costs, and world-class research development in environment and in mining.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister speak of the significance of mining to our provincial economy and to the current status of mining in our province?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thanks so much to the member from Sudbury for the great question—obviously somebody who very much is a strong advocate for the sector.

Let me begin by saying that despite the real challenges in the mining sector, Ontario remains the leading jurisdiction for the exploration and production of minerals in Canada and a major player across the world. There are currently 43 operating mines in the province: 14 base metal mines, 16 gold mines and, of course, one diamond mine.

The mineral development sector plays an incredibly important role in our economy, as it does very much in our day-to-day lives. Not everyone knows this, but the mining sector directly employs over 26,000 people in the province of Ontario and 50,000 in the mining supply and services sector. The value of mineral production in Ontario in 2014 was $11 billion, which is an unprecedented high. There’s much more I’d like to say, and I look forward to the supplementary—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, you will stop. Supplementary.

Mr. Glenn Thibeault: It is part of our government’s plan to build up Ontario by creating a dynamic and supportive environment where business can prosper. The Minister of Northern Development and Mines has made it clear that our government is doing just that when it comes to the mining sector.

The global mining economy is evolving and our new competition is always emerging. I know that our government is committed to ensuring that Ontario remains a world leader in mining exploration and mining investment. Can the minister tell this House what our government is doing to maximize Ontario’s mineral potential and support a modern and innovative industry, ensuring that Ontario’s mining sector continues to thrive for decades to come?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thanks again for the question—a great question. Let me just say as strongly as I can that our government is absolutely committed to supporting a strong, healthy and prosperous provincial mineral sector. It’s important for people to know that we’ve invested over $160 million in Ontario mineral sector activities since 2003.

I referenced, in an earlier response, that the Northern Industrial Electricity Rate Program—a continued investment of up to $120 million per year and, of course, made a permanent program because we recognize how important the mineral sector is—long-term investments that are incredibly important.

That’s why Meet the Miners Day is so important to us. It helps us reflect on the role of the mine and mineral sectors in our lives. Certainly, on behalf of our Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, I’m pleased to join the Ontario Mining Association for Meet the Miners and invite all members to come to the reception this afternoon in rooms 228 and 230. It’s going to be a terrific day.

Seniors’ health services

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: My question is for the minister responsible for seniors. Many seniors in our province want to stay in their homes for as long as possible before moving to a long-term-care home. They rely on home care services and the help of family and friends to receive the support they require.

We know from Health Quality Ontario’s Measuring Up report that one third of informal caregivers report distress, and some are unable to continue providing care.

Can the minister please explain why these burnout numbers continue to increase despite the government’s dedicated provincial secretariat focused on improving the quality of life for seniors and their families?

Hon. Mario Sergio: I want to thank the member for the question, and I’m sure that the Minister of Health wants to address the issue.

Let me say that I think we are all familiar with respect to our seniors population today. As of June of this year, people over the age of 65 are more than the people under the age of 14.

We have done a lot with respect to looking after our seniors. I have to say that a lot of seniors in the member’s community as well enjoy some of the programs that we have been able to put in place. The Seniors Community Grant Program has been reaching some 116,000 seniors, and they are in every corner of our province.

With respect to the seniors in long-term-care homes, I’m sure that the minister wants to address the issue in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Back to the minister for seniors: We know from the Measuring Up report that this government’s strategy—if it has one—is just not measuring up. This government made a deliberate effort to keep seniors living at home, but they haven’t provided the supports necessary to do so.

The Auditor General said the government needs to take a hard look, to improve CCAC home care services. Without the home care they need, many seniors turn to the long-term-care system, where they end up waiting around 116 days for a spot. That’s unacceptable. The end result: Informal caregivers are reporting record levels of burnout, doubling over the last four years.

Can the minister provide any hope to seniors’ loved ones, who, through no fault of their own, can no longer provide the care they need?

Hon. Mario Sergio: To the Associate Minister of Health.

Hon. Dipika Damerla: I want to thank the member opposite for his question. I want to assure this House and the member opposite that, in fact, we are investing in the care of our seniors. I just want to give you some examples: $2 billion in funding, and a 2% increase in 2015-16 for resident care needs. We have opened 10,000 new long-term-care beds.

In fact, I was in London on Friday—

Interjections.

Hon. Dipika Damerla: I was in Kitchener, sorry. I was in Kitchener on Friday with the deputy minister. Members opposite, from your caucus, were there as well. I was there for the opening of a brand new long-term-care facility—192 new beds. That’s 192 new beds. That’s adding 192 beds to our footprint.

That is just an example of how we’re expanding care for our seniors.

Northern transportation services

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Acting Premier. In 2012, this government cancelled our only passenger train in northern Ontario. The reason was because they had an equivalent bus line, and they were going to provide enhanced bus service. Since then, they’ve closed bus stations, and yesterday we learned that now they are cancelling bus routes.

Why is it acceptable for this government to deny public transit to people in northern Ontario?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: The member knows, as we’ve spoken about it a great deal, we are very proud of the fact that we made a decision a little over a year and a half ago to keep four of the five lines of the ONTC in public hands, and that certainly included the motor coach service.

What we also made clear was that we were going to be working closely with the communities and with him to make sure that we provided services to all the communities where the Northlander no longer operated. Right now, the ONTC is identifying changes to the way that they operate, to maintain and ensure that sustainability.

But our commitment to the motor coach services remains as strong as ever. The member also knows we put $6.2 million over three years to purchase new motor coaches, almost all of which have been put in service over the last short period of time.

The long and the short is that we’re going to continue to make sure we ensure that long-term sustainability while we provide an efficient and well-run ONT service for people in northeastern Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. John Vanthof: To the minister, or to the Acting Premier: While they claim their commitment remains strong, as we speak, services are being cancelled. Now it takes three days to get to Ottawa.

Once again, why is it acceptable, when this government keeps talking about increased access to transit, increased access to transportation, that they continue to cut access to transit in northern Ontario?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: The facts are that we are working with the communities and with the public to make sure that we provide the services for motor coach services that are in place. We have made a significant investment of $23 million. Most significantly—I know this received support from many in the House, certainly those on the opposition side—we were able to keep four of those five lines in public hands. There was a time when that was not the case. But the bottom line is we are providing services to all the communities that were previously served by the Northlander,