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

April 28, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Apr-28 (PDF)

L075 - Tue 28 Apr 2015 / Mar 28 avr 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 28 April 2015 Mardi 28 avril 2015

ORDERS OF THE DAY

2015 Ontario budget

Ending Coal for Cleaner Air Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’abandon du charbon pour un air plus propre

Introduction of Visitors

Wearing of ribbons

National Day of Mourning

Oral Questions

Health care funding

Government accountability

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Teachers’ labour dispute

Privatization of public assets

Youth services

Hydro rates

Privatization of public assets

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Mining industry

Pan Am Games

Northern economy

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Home care

Deferred Votes

Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant la

Loi sur la Société de protection des animaux de l’Ontario

Visitors

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

National Immunization Awareness Week

An Instrument for Every Child

Burlington Teen Tour Band

Goderich to Guelph Rail Trail

Ontario wood

OCAD University

Hockey

Organ and tissue donation

Rotary youth awards / Prix reconnaissance jeunesse du Club Rotary

Introduction of Bills

Empowering Home Care Patients Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 donnant plus de pouvoir aux personnes recevant des soins à domicile

Motions

Standing Committee on Public Accounts / Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

First responders / Premiers intervenants

National Day of Mourning

First responders

National Day of Mourning

First responders

National Day of Mourning

Petitions

Pesticides

Home care

Student safety

Landfill

Home care

Environmental protection

Highway improvement

Dog ownership

Taxation

Gasoline prices

Taxation

Affordable housing

Orders of the Day

2015 Ontario budget

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le Régime de retraite de la province de l’Ontario

Adjournment Debate

Retail alcohol sales / Vente d’alcool au détail

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

2015 Ontario budget

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 23, 2015, on the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: To begin with, Mr. Speaker, I would just like you to know I’ll be sharing my time with the member from Nipissing.

It’s a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill 91, the Budget Measures Act. I’ve been in this Legislature for a few of these budgets and budget bills, and it always amazes me how many areas of the province this single bill affects. Normally, these bills are stuffed with important changes to existing legislation, changes that stakeholders and people alike both voted for and wanted, but this budget bill is different.

This budget bill contains policy changes that not a single Ontarian voted for. There’s the fire sale of our public assets without any concern for the province’s hydro debt. There’s the commitment to a carbon tax and a cut to health care dollars. The Liberal Party and the members opposite didn’t campaign on any of those things—not a single one. There’s a $100-million tax on beer, cuts to apprenticeship tax credits and the film industry, and—most shocking—an increased deficit for the third year in a row.

This government continues to spend more than it takes in. That’s no way to manage a government or achieve a balanced budget.

Applause.

Mr. Jim Wilson: That wasn’t even a clap line.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: It’s good to be the leader.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Oh, a couple of weeks to go.

Only this Liberal government could think that the way out of a hole is to keep digging.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance knows full well that the interest on the debt, tax dollars that the province literally throws down the drain, is over $11 billion this year. It’s growing at a rate of 5.4% every year; health care funding is only growing at 1.9%, by comparison. This year, education is even lower than that. Interest on the debt is the third-largest expense on the government’s books and it’s growing the fastest.

Ontario can’t afford more Liberal financial planning. That’s why, as one of our five budget asks, we asked for a credible and detailed plan to balance the budget. Instead, the minister opposite put forward a budget that simply hopes the deficit will go away. He plans to cap spending but doesn’t say how. He plans to increase revenue but, again, doesn’t say how.

We all know this government hasn’t met a tax they didn’t like, leading us on this side of the House to believe that there are more taxes to come. Despite this fear, the Premier touted all weekend, on news shows, talk radio, in the media, that there are no new taxes in this budget. Yet there’s a recommitment to a job-killing payroll tax, the Ontario registered pension plan—a payroll tax by this government’s own admission—which will kill tens of thousands of jobs in its first year. That’s why we asked for the government to abandon this damaging payroll tax but, again, they ignored us.

They also ignored our calls to walk away from the carbon tax that will raise the price of everything: gas, electricity bills and even groceries. Again, the Liberals rejected our advice. Not only did the Liberals recommit to new taxes; they also didn’t do anything to lower current ones.

This government did nothing to address our ask to reduce hydro prices in Ontario. People are being forced to choose between heat or groceries. Hydro bills have tripled since the Liberals took office, even with the Ontario Energy Board, and they’re only going to go up with the majority sale of Hydro One. Not only could the government not guarantee hydro savings; they actually removed Auditor General and Ombudsman oversight of Hydro One in this bill. Now Ontarians will be forced to pay higher bills without any explanation as to why.

This is a direct reaction to the Auditor General’s 2014 report, where she pointed out that the $50-billion global adjustment tax brought in under the Liberals was simply a cover-up for their failed green energy policies. On that note, Mr. Speaker, I’m sure the Ombudsman’s record-setting investigation into Hydro One’s billing practices isn’t favoured by the government either.

The removal of this oversight is concerning. We in the PC caucus have raised concerns about Liberal choices regarding the existing $27-billion hydro debt in this province. That debt is supposed to be paid off by the money Hydro One makes. Now that money—60% of it—will go to private companies and the debt will balloon. A larger debt means larger interest payments, which means higher bills. That’s the reality for this government. It’s only going to get worse before it gets better.

Hydro bills have already gone up by about $1,100 a year on average since the Liberals took office, and that’s before the sale of the majority of Hydro One. Quite simply, Ontarians can’t afford to pay more on their hydro bills, and that’s not what the people across the aisle campaigned on.

The privatization of Hydro One should be done to improve customer service, to create lower rates and to improve the efficiency of the organization, not to find money to pay off the deficit of the government’s own making. On that note, the government has actually reached a deal to sell Hydro One Brampton. They reached this deal behind closed doors, in secret, with no competing bids and no public input. They sold the asset for a set price in a backroom. Well, that’s not good enough.

How do we know, other than to take the Minister of Finance’s word and the Premier’s word—and their word is a little shaky at best. We’re to take their word for it that this multi-billion-dollar deal is the best deal for Ontarians. I don’t buy that, and they shouldn’t be allowed to get away with that. They should have the Auditor General looking at that deal to see if we are getting the best bang for our buck. It’s truly an ironic approach.

On page 209 of the budget, the Liberals unveil plans to create a centre for evidence-based decision-making, yet pages 73 to 86 talk about maximizing assets, including the sale of Hydro One Brampton, without any evidence to back up their decisions. The lack of evidence is truly astounding for a government that claims to be the most open and transparent ever. It’s baloney.

There’s also no evidence that hydro bills won’t go up. The Premier can’t guarantee it, and when asked for proof rates wouldn’t skyrocket, Ed Clark simply said, “We don’t think so.” Mr. Speaker, Ontario can’t afford to take this government at their word.

One area where the Liberals are expecting Ontarians to take their word is that all is well in home care. Every day, the Minister of Health stands in his place and says that everything is fine. But we know Ontario’s home care system is a mess. It’s very badly broken. The Premier and her Minister of Health actually acknowledged this when they brought in Dr. Gail Donner to put forward recommendations to fix home care. Dr. Donner’s report stated quite clearly that the status quo is not good enough, that Ontarians can’t afford the same old home care system.

That’s why we in the PC caucus, as our fifth budget ask, recommended tying funding for community care access centres directly to outcomes and streamlining the agencies and bureaucracies that a patient must deal with in order to get care. But sadly, that is nowhere to be found in this budget bill.

Overall, we put forward five sensible policy directions to be included in this budget: walk away from the job-killing pension tax and carbon tax; fix home care and the deficit; and work to lower hydro rates. The Liberals ignored all five, leaving us no choice but to oppose this bill and the Liberals’ budget. Ontario cannot afford to continue on the path the Liberals have set us on.

Mr. Speaker, I’ve spent most of my time today addressing what is not in the bill, but it’s important to know what is in the bill as well. Normally, budget bills deal with the finances of the province. Normally, these bills make changes to a variety of acts needed to fulfill funding commitments.

But instead this budget bill takes that a step further. This bill reforms the Auditor General Act to actually force the Auditor General to submit her audits in full to the government before releasing them to the public. Simply, the Liberal government is tired of being embarrassed by the auditor. They’re tired of the auditor doing her job and exposing things like a wasteful $2-billion smart meter program or the $1.1 billion wasted on relocating gas plants. The auditor’s oversight should not be muzzled. This bill will actually make the government less accountable, less open and less transparent.

But this government has shown a willing tendency to do what it wants, regardless of its mandate. When it comes to the sale of Hydro One, I thought that one day a desperate Liberal government may get itself into such a fiscal mess that it may start having a fire sale of our precious assets. That’s why, when I put forward the Electricity Act, 1998, I put a clause in that act that mandates that all proceeds from any future sale or partial sale of Hydro One must go to paying down the $27 billion of hydro debt. If all $9 billion of the 60% sale went on to that $27 billion, we’d start to see hydro rates moving in the other direction.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: They don’t want that.

Mr. Jim Wilson: They don’t care. They don’t want that.

So, again, our PC government made it illegal to use the proceeds to pay for anything but paying down Hydro debt until that debt was paid off. Instead of honouring the law, the Liberals have simply decided to change it. Mr. Speaker, that’s not how the world works. No family in Ontario can change the law just because they want to. Not a single Ontario family can just decide they aren’t going to pay their bills anymore, but apparently the Liberals can.

To recap: We have a Liberal government that ignored our five asks, introduced new job-killing taxes, changed the law to fit their plans and didn’t take action to address Ontario’s health care system or deficit. I think the people of Ontario are going to thank the PCs for not voting for this budget. It doesn’t address their needs. It doesn’t address the most pressing problems of the day. It takes more money out of their pockets and raises the cost of living for everyone. We will not support it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I recognize the member from Nipissing.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: It’s hard to follow you. You spoke with conviction and had all the facts.

Mr. Jim Wilson: You just have to get as much sweat going as I have.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I’ll see what I can do.

Speaker, since the last budget all of the financial experts have warned the government that they need to drastically change direction. Since then we’ve seen a downgrade from Moody’s. We’ve seen a downgrade from Fitch. The Ontario Chamber of Commerce has warned that the direction we’re heading is about to put us in crisis. The government hasn’t listened.

Mr. Steve Clark: I gave them a downgrade too.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: You gave them a downgrade?

Mr. Steve Clark: Yes.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: The member from Leeds–Grenville downgraded the government as well. In fact, I think we all did.

Sadly, the government hasn’t listened. The debt is rising. The Auditor General warned that we are starting to crowd out the services and the programs that we’ve come to expect.

Today the government is crowing about their spending on infrastructure, but let’s get into that a little deeper than our leader talked about. He spoke about the hydro sale and the concerns that we have—which we’ll be talking about for many days and weeks—but I want to talk specifically about the $130 billion that was announced in the budget.

It is exactly the same announcement that was made in last year’s budget. In fact, if you take the two and put them side by side, as I did in the lock-up, it’s a cut-and-paste. Word for word, it’s the same $130 billion, just recycled. But the bad part about all this is that not only is there no new money. They, last year, were going to put this $130 billion in with only needing to sell $3.1 billion worth of assets over four years. That’s all they needed to do. It was going to be the GM shares and a few other little things; $3.1 billion is all they needed to make that $130 billion work.

So why, when the GM shares have already been sold, do we now need to sell $9 billion worth of Hydro One? And as our interim leader told us, they’re not putting the money into Hydro One, which would reduce the hydro bills; they’re stripping it away to put it into this program—ostensibly to put it into this program. That’s why our hydro rates are going to go up.

So now all of a sudden we need $9 billion in hydro sales, we need the LCBO headquarters sold, we need the OPG building to be sold—these are all listed in the budget. We now need more than a dozen billion dollars to make that work. But none of that is actually going in to that $130 billion. It’s all being touted as transit, but it’s a shell game. That money was already in the budget last year. The $130 billion was already accounted for without this $9 billion in hydro being required. They’re talking about previously announced money, and now they’re talking about new money coming in.

All that is only to balance their budget, or to attempt to balance the budget. It’s all about taking money that was already in the transit fund out, putting this new money in, but using the money they’ve taken out to attempt to balance the deficit. That’s all this is about. There’s no hesitation to tell the public that. It was already in the budget.

Why are we in this problem? It’s because this government continues to spend. Spending was up $2.4 billion this year—$2.4 billion. They continue to tell us they’re controlling spending—they’re not. It’s tax and spend. Beer tax, the second installment of the aviation fuel tax kicks in, the Ontario payroll tax is going to kick in, and the mother of all taxes, the cap-and-trade tax on everything, which will be discussed this fall, was in the budget. This is going to be the biggest tax grab that we will ever have seen. Put a tax on everything.

Our leader already talked about the energy sector. They have bungled that sector so badly that people are choosing between food and fuel. It’s to heat or eat. That’s the decision people are making. Many of us, from all three parties, were in Ottawa this year at the pre-budget consultations, where obviously there was no consultation being done. There was obviously nobody that listened to anything; the decisions had already been made. That’s, I think, one of the things that irks me the most: The decisions were made. The budget document would have been prepared as far back as that time.

We listened to Jennifer—her name was Jennifer—a woman on ODSP. She sat in front of us and told our committee—all three parties were there—that she has to shut her power off at 6 o’ clock every morning to turn it on again at noon, only to shut it off again at 3 every afternoon and turn it back on at 7. That’s what she has to do to save enough money to eat. She says, quietly, “I put a few more sweaters on.” That’s what she does. That’s how she survives. That’s the Ontario that these guys have created. That’s the problem. They’ve been living off their credit card and not off their debit card. That’s the problem we have in Ontario.

Speaker, when you think about the repercussions now—not just to the families, because there are going to be repercussions to the families—there are families who are going to have to sit down and have that chat with their kids about, “No, we can’t do that this year. It’s the hydro bill.” Can you imagine that? That Ontario—

I walk to work every morning. I walk by the monument of Sir Adam Beck every single morning. Every morning I look at that and I think, oh my heavens.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: What he would think.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: What he would think now, knowing what has been done and what is being planned by these people to do to our hydro sector.

First of all, when I got elected mayor in 2003, hydro was 4.3 cents a kilowatt hour. That was what we used as an economic development incentive in Ontario. As mayor, I remember touting our industrial park: cheap power; we had cheap land. We had all kinds of good things to attract business. I watched as it deteriorated very rapidly—it deteriorated. Today, our power is more than three times what it cost back then—that’s only 10, 11 years—and it’s destined to go up. In fact, it’s scheduled to go up 42% by 2018.

Now, that’s before this debacle that will unfold. That’s before they sell Hydro One in a fire sale, take the money away and don’t leave us the cash flow to pay our mortgage. We still have the mortgage to pay. There are still going to be bills to pay in Hydro One. Why can’t they realize that? Families do. People are writing to us; I’m sure they’re writing to them as well. I don’t think the email that comes is exclusive to opposition members, which says, “I can’t pay my hydro bill. What are you going to do about it?” It’s sad to have to write this back.

There are going to be consequences. There are consequences to families; there are consequences to business.

Mr. Jim McDonell: Goodyear.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: The member from Stormont, somewhere and somewhere—

Laughter.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: It’s a great riding.

Mr. Steve Clark: Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I’ve been there several times now, talking, actually, about hydro rates with very concerned stakeholders of the member.

But he just mentioned Goodyear. That’s the consequence we’re going to have. Goodyear: not going to expand in Ontario. Why? We’ve become the highest-cost jurisdiction in North America. We have the highest energy rates in North America. We have the highest payroll taxes in Canada. We have a government that has a deficit. Businesses do not like to locate in a jurisdiction that runs a deficit because they know darn well what’s going to happen to them. They’re going to put their hand in that company’s pocket and extract more cash to fuel their spending habit. That’s what’s going to happen.

Speaker, I’m going to refer several times to the new Focus on Finance book here.

Interjections.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: It’s got a hard copy now. It’s got a hard copy. There’s a

chapter in the book that talks about taxes. Why? Here’s a great example of what these guys are going to do. I’m going to lead that into why companies are not coming to Ontario.

Number one, here’s a great example in the Victor mine up in Ontario’s north. It’s a diamond mine. It’s the first and only diamond mine in Ontario. This company explored, they spent their own money, they dug into the ground and they found where diamonds were in Ontario. They started to go into building the mine site, but before they were done, they got a knock on the door one day from the province of Ontario telling them, “Oh, by the way, we’re now introducing a diamond tax in Ontario. Every rock you pull out of the ground, we’re going to tax. But don’t worry, we’re going to tax all diamond mines in Ontario.” Of course, the Victor mine is the only one in Ontario.

Why? They saw an opportunity to dig in and extract some cash from yet another company that is now reluctant to be here, but they had already spent billions getting here. So off they go. Now their pocket’s a little lighter, but they’ve put people to work.

I talked to the people in the Ring of Fire; I talked to all of the companies there. I’ve been there four times now and I can tell you why there’s nothing going on there. First of all, these guys talk a mean game, but have not done a thing, not spent a penny. In fact, they haven’t even applied for any of the federal money that’s waiting there for them—a billion dollars waiting for them; haven’t even applied.

I can tell you what’s wrong. We’ve asked. I think it was our member from Parry Sound–Muskoka who asked a question in the Legislature one day: “Are you contemplating a chromite tax?” That’s the mineral that was found in the Far North. You know, the minister and the Premier would not say no.

You have to imagine these guys putting their business plan together. First of all, there’s nothing happening up there; there’s no way to get there; there’s no way to get the ore out. They’re worried. They are all individually worried that the second they start production, these guys are going to put a chromite tax in. Why not? They did it before. They did it to De Beers in the Victor mine. They have no shame. They will do that. That’s the kind of thing that’s holding them back.

Why is the government doing it? Because they have a spending addiction. They cannot stop their taxing and spending. It’s an endless cycle, watching them tax more only so they can spend more.

The bond rating agencies are catching up to them, though. Moody’s said last week that they continue to see risks in the province’s budget. They went on to say, “Deficits have shown little progress in the past few years, and in fact have increased from 8.1% of revenues in 2012-13 to 9.2% in 2014-15.” That’s what’s happening, Speaker. They’re spending money we don’t have.

Moody’s concludes, “The return to balanced budgets by 2017-18 still faces considerable risks in our view.”

They also suggest, “Provincial economic forecasts have tended to overestimate growth.”

Here’s what happened last year in the budget. The finance minister gave his budget forecast. I stood in this very place and said to him, “Your forecasts are wrong. You’re budgeting too high. You will not make those numbers.” The Bank of Canada said that you won’t make the numbers. The Conference Board of Canada said that you won’t make your numbers. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business said, “Hang on. Our businesses are slowing down. They’re not fuelling that number you think you’re going to hit.” The Ontario Chamber of Commerce told us we had 2,700 fewer businesses in Ontario last year than the year before, and these guys pump up the revenue number.

What happened four months later? Only four months later, they had to stand here sheepishly and kind of shuffle their feet and say, “Aw, shucks. We were off by half a billion dollars”—half a billion dollars. They had to restate after only four months.

So that’s exactly what Moody’s said last week: “Provincial economic forecasts have tended to overestimate growth.”

They say they’re going to hit a number—a made-up number. They’re not going to hit the number. We know that they fake the numbers. We’ve seen it time after time after time. They fluff the numbers.

Last year, in fact—I’m reading from an article—“Sousa”—they’re referring to the finance minister—“said the province has demonstrated it can control spending, noting it managed to trim its deficit by $1.6 billion over the previous projections.” Speaker, that would be pretty darn funny, actually, if it wasn’t so sad.

He’s saying, “We said the deficit would be $12.5 billion. It was only $10.9 billion. Aren’t we great?” Well, you fluffed up the number to start with. We know you did. We have your own documents from the gas plants scandal that told us you purposely fluffed up your numbers—but then not even making the fluffed-up number.

One of the rating agencies said the only reason they met that $10.9-billion number was “a $335-million reduction in interest on debt (reflecting lower-than-anticipated interest rates)”—thank God rates went down—that “accounted for over half of the reduction from plan after taking into account the reserve.” They had a billion-dollar reserve there. They didn’t use that, obviously. It was in there to fluff it up.

So you’ve got money you didn’t spend and interest that you didn’t spend. Of course you made your number. Your fake number of $10.9 billion was still higher than the fake number that they had in earlier.

Speaker, we’re surrounded by all kinds of fake numbers.

Moody’s is on to them. There’s no question that Moody’s is on to them. Moody’s said they still have strong concerns. There are risk concerns that they have, and we’re going to see in the next days and weeks if that plays out into a ratings change for us. That would be devastating for Ontario.

I can tell you again, when I served as mayor of the city of North Bay, we did the prudent, fiscal conservative things that were necessary to turn our economy around. In my seven years, we had five upward bumps of Moody’s—five—till we matched the province of Ontario. We had one of the highest ratings of any municipality in Ontario, tied with Ottawa, tied with the province of Ontario. It was a great day when we hit that.

After I left office and came here, it was a very sad day when Moody’s downgraded the province of Ontario for their fiscal mismanagement and dragged along with them all of the other municipal and crown agencies that match the province. They couldn’t have a rating higher than their guarantor. They all got dragged down. The city of North Bay’s rating got bumped downwards through no fault of their own, just for achieving the title of being tied with the province of Ontario—one of the highest ratings brought down. It put borrowing costs up. It put borrowing costs up at hydro.

All the hydro utilities, municipalities like Ottawa and North Bay and many of the universities—all got dragged down along with the laggards here at the province of Ontario, who brought our ratings down. That was a shameful day, and a very expensive day for taxpayers.

Speaker, I want to refer to a few sections in Focus on Finance because this is exactly what we said would happen in the province of Ontario.

Moody’s debt-rating agency last year changed their outlook from “stable” to “negative.” Why? They expressed their concerns over the government’s ability to eliminate the deficit in three years. They said, “It can’t be done.”

Remember, Speaker: At the time, the debt was going from $9.2 billion—got bigger, to $10.5 billion. It skyrocketed to $10.9 billion. We’re going the wrong way, and Moody’s acknowledged that, so they changed their outlook from stable to negative. They said, “Ontario’s persistently large deficits, and its tendency to delay the most significant cost-cutting measures towards the latter years of its projected timeline for returning to a balanced budget, increase the risk that the province will be unable to achieve its goal.”

What happened? The first paragraph in Moody’s comment says absolutely clearly that they can’t control their spending. What did they do? Spending is up $2.4 billion this year. Moody’s is right. They can’t control their spending. They live off that credit card, knowing, Speaker, that you and everybody else here is going to have to dig into their pocket a little deeper and pluck out money to pay them. That’s the addiction they have, knowing that it’s fuelled with the ability to continue to tax you.

The Conference Board of Canada said that Ontario can’t meet its pledge to balance the books by 2017 without spending cuts or tax hikes. Well, they’re getting the tax hikes right, according to the Conference Board of Canada. They deny it, but we’ve seen them. We’ve seen the tax hikes: $100 million on beer; the aviation fuel tax.

Down near the member from south—

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: —from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry. I’m going to learn that one.

When I was visiting the member’s riding, we passed by Prescott to get there. Just over the border from Prescott is an American town called Ogdensburg. Ogdensburg is a sleepy little town. It has a beautiful museum that Frederic Remington—his former house. It’s a sleepy, quiet little tourist town. They’re building an airport. Why? Because they want people from Ottawa to drive to Ogdensburg, cross the border and fly cheap, just like they do in Detroit, Niagara, Buffalo and everywhere else.

What do we do? We are raising the aviation fuel tax. It’s a tax. It’s a $100-million tax. This is what’s happening. They tax and they spend—spend $2.4 billion more than they did last year.

The Auditor General said it best, Speaker. She said that Ontario’s debt continues to “grow faster than the province’s economy,” which could have “negative implications” for the province’s finances. But her conclusion was the most striking. She concluded that the consequences of high debt will result in what she called “the crowding out” of other spending. What does that mean, Speaker, “the crowding out” of other spending? It means—

Mr. Jim Wilson: We see it in health care.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: We are. Our leader is saying that we’re seeing it in health care. I’m going to give those examples in a moment.

Our interest rate—if interest were a government ministry, it would be the third-largest ministry. After health, education—interest. Can you imagine that this is what we’ve turned to in the province of Ontario?

Mr. Jim Wilson: At low rates, too.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: And it is low rates. When those rates go back to normal—not if they go back to normal; when they go back to normal—can you imagine the devastation on our government budget and our pocketbook that that will have? Our rates are going up because of the increased spending. Our interest is going up 5.7% next year. That’s the fastest-growing line item that we have in our budget.

The Auditor General said that we’re going to start to crowd out the services. Here’s what happened last year. It’s very simple: We’re paying interest with our health care dollars. We cut diabetes testing strips. We cut cataract surgeries. We cut physiotherapy for seniors. We’re now using the money that went into those very important issues to pay our increased interest. That’s the Ontario that these people have built. That’s a shame. That is a shame.

In my hometown—I’ve said it many times standing here—we’ve lost 94 front-line health care professionals, including 54 RPNs. We’ve lost 34 part-time health care professionals, including nurses. We’ve had 43 people at Ontario Northland fired this year. We’ve had 54 people at Nipissing University fired this year, including 22 professors. This is what’s happening, and not just in my community. I use my examples. Every single person here—and on that side, by the way—can give those same examples.

Mr. Robert Bailey: If they were free to speak.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: If they were free to speak; you’re absolutely correct. That’s what’s happening.

The Auditor General has said that you’re going to see a crowding-out. And boy, did it ever happen fast. She only said that in December.

She also said in December to look for a ratings downgrade. Shortly after, we heard from Fitch, and we heard from Moody’s, when Moody’s went from stable to negative. That’s very serious. That has serious consequences. That reverberates through the financial community.

You have to wonder why we have companies—well, I guess we really don’t have to wonder why we have companies like Kellogg’s, Heinz, Caterpillar, Wrigley and, in your neck of the woods, General Mills leaving Midland. The list goes on and on. Every single one of us, and again, every single one on that side, has these stories as well. When you have a jurisdiction with the highest energy prices in North America, the highest payroll taxes in Canada and the highest-cost jurisdiction—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Order.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I’ll stick with the Auditor General. I realize that when the Auditor General presented these facts, the Minister of Energy patted her on the head and said, “Now, now, you just don’t know math.” I remember. I was in the room that day watching him, in a condescending way, pat her on the head. I watched that.

The Ontario Chamber of Commerce came out with a report titled—and I think the title kind of gives it away. They’re talking about the state of Ontario’s debt and deficit. The title of their report is How Bad Is It? I think it’s pretty bad, and I think they know it.

Here’s what they’re saying. “Some experts are calling it a crisis,” and they believe the government “should be taking every step” to balance their books. They also state, “Ontario’s fiscal situation is becoming increasingly dire.” Those are their words. Those are the words of the 60,000 businesspeople in Ontario: “increasingly dire.” That’s not very encouraging to hear. That is not what we need to hear from our business community. They go on to say, “We are likely to reach a state of crisis unless the province cuts spending and changes the ways it does business.”

Well, what did we see last week? Some $2.4 billion in more spending. That’s not going to make the chamber of commerce or the families that work for all of the companies that are members of the chamber of commerce very happy. They asked to cut spending. They increased spending. They asked to change the way you do business and they just give you more of the same. That’s what they’re doing—more of the same.

Our leader spoke only a half hour ago about one of our five asks: to put the patient close to health care. What do these guys do? Some $750 million is being spent on bureaucracy now, on 69 of these health links. As if the CCACs and the LHINs weren’t enough, we now have the links to deal with.

Speaker, they’re putting people farther away from an MRI machine, a CAT scan or even a Band-Aid. They’re putting people farther away and spending money to do it, bloating bureaucracy—$750 million. They ask that you change the way you do business. What do these guys do? More of the same. Crank it out, spend more money: $750 million on yet another level of bureaucracy.

The Fraser Institute had a study called Ontario’s Debt Balloon. Again, the name kind of tells you where we are: Ontario’s Debt Balloon. They calculate that 66% of the increase in debt since the 2000 recession is directly attributable to day-to-day expenses. This isn’t about stimulus money to get the economy going, a one-time shot. This is paying the day-to-day bills. You can’t run your family like that.

As our leader said, we’re going to see Hydro One being sold off. That money coming in is just going to pay the bills. In business, we call that burning the furniture to heat the house. That’s all it’s going to do. What are you going to sell next year or the year after? You haven’t fixed the problem. We call it a structural deficit. Well, that’s a bit technical. What that means is you’re paying for things you can’t afford. That’s one-time money. When you sell hydro, you don’t have another one to sell. You’re using that money to pay your day-to-day bills.

That’s like at home. You can’t pay your hydro bill that month, so you sell the china that your aunt gave you. You’ve got no more china to sell the next year. You’re running out of things to sell off. That’s no way to run your household—you’d never do that—and that’s no way to run the province, but they use that credit card every day.

Can you imagine that? Sixty-six per cent of that money is to pay day-to-day bills. I don’t hear anybody over there arguing. These are facts. Their expenses exceed their revenue on an annual basis. Every year, they spend more money that they don’t have.

It also states in Ontario’s Debt Balloon that Ontario’s debt has grown by $117 billion since the recession largely because of government borrowing to fund day-to-day expenses, not infrastructure investments. They tell you one thing, but they’re doing the other. They’re telling you what you want to hear, but the reality, the facts that come out eventually—when we can get at them—tell us the real story, the different story. Again, they’re talking about selling hydro to pay for transit. Don’t believe a word of that. That is not what’s happening in Ontario.

Jamison Steeve is a name we remember from earlier. He’s now at the Institute for Competiveness and Prosperity and at the Martin Prosperity Institute at the U of T. He penned a Toronto Star column called “Ontario Needs Major Shift to Get Economy Back on Track.” I’m actually going to agree with Jamison this time. He states, “Ontario’s economy is not producing as much wealth as planned, hoped or expected.... It is time for Ontario to take a new course to grow the economy.” But they didn’t listen; more of the same.

Interjection.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Yes, you’re absolutely correct.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business told us that 97% of small businesses are concerned about the state of Ontario’s economy, with 67% very concerned. In addition, 91% of small businesses want to see the provincial budget balanced by 2017-18. Why? Again, because they know that if there is this annual deficit, as we’ve seen it growing, hanging over their heads—they know darn well that these guys are coming in, putting their hand in their pocket and they’re going to take more tax away from them. Business knows that.

They do not want to locate in a jurisdiction that can’t manage its own money because they know darn well they’re going to come after them to pay their bills. That’s what’s happening.

One of the things that we saw in the budget here on page 199, if I remember correctly, is probably the most egregious yet surprising thing that we saw. I spent seven hours in the lock-up with our leader, reading through the budget page by page, trying to find something of excitement. My eyes popped when I came to page 199 and saw this chart. This chart here is called “Ontario’s Record against Deficit Targets,” a fancy name for, “Look at us; we did way better than we said we were going to do.”

But Speaker, let me—this is the chart here in the budget on page 199. It starts with a deficit of $24.7 billion. We’ve been able to determine that that is a fake number. I’m going to read to you right from the briefing documents.

This was a briefing document that we obtained through the gas plant scandal hearings. The gas plant scandal hearings not only proved to us that the gas plant scandal itself cost $1.1 billion, it also proved to us the level that this government would go to to keep us from ever learning the facts: Ctrl-Alt-Delete. Delete, delete, delete, delete, delete. We learned all about that.

But in the 300,000 pages—of course, I digress slightly, because the first day we got the documents after a punishingly long wait of many, many months—we finally got the documents, 36,000 of them dumped on us—almost everyone here, 30 of them, if my memory serves me correctly, including 12 cabinet ministers, stood on this floor telling us, “You have all the documents.” I remember that. I’ll digress just a bit because I have to get that out of my system.

Two weeks later, it was another one of those shuffling of the feet, “Mea culpa, we found 20,000 more documents.” There they were; they must have been under the carpet. So they give us the 20,000. As we got into the scandal hearings, under sworn testimony from the Ontario Power Authority, we learned that they were told to keep those 20,000 documents from us ever seeing them. That’s the kind of level that this government goes to to keep us from ever learning the facts.

So this chart on page 199—I can’t believe they used it again, because we outed the fact that this chart is a fake. Yet they must not have had the right hand and the left hand talking to the chart-producing person, because they put the same fake chart in again.

“In one briefing document prepared as ‘Confidential Advice to Cabinet,’” these were senior finance officials repeatedly warning the Premier “that the economy has not regained full strength since the recession, with higher unemployment and growth still dragging.” This secret document stresses that the facts and figures presented in the 2014 budget are only “‘a plan’ and are ... aspirational and notional figures”—they’re not real figures—

Mr. Jim McDonell: Imaginary figures.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: —they’re imaginary. Thank you. I’m still quoting—“with no substance behind them and confirms the government has no real plan to balance the budget.

“In fact, the Ministry of Finance admits” that this fake number here, the $24.7-billion deficit, is complete fiction, “‘was never a real expectation’ and ‘was a deliberate policy’ to project ‘a worst-case outcome.’” In other words, it was deliberately faked. “They also admit ‘the path to balance was then drawn from there, assuming a straight-line trajectory of declining deficits.’”

Now, what does all that technical mean? It means they started with a fake number, knew they had to get to zero, drew a straight line and just filled it in. That was their deficit planning. How much is the deficit next year? Well, where does the line cross? There it is; it’s $12.5 billion. That’s how they budgeted.

We presented this as a fake document, and they’re still using the fake document. That tells us they have absolutely no idea over there what the real budget numbers are. If they had to revert to the fake document we’ve been talking about for two years, it’s scary.

The ministry officials go on to say that “it was assumed that spending would be constrained to whatever it takes to hit these targets.” That’s what they said. They drew a line down until it got to zero—and you’re going to constrain spending: “When you’ve spent $12.5 billion, stop.” They were assuming it. But we’ve got these guys; they don’t know how to constrain spending. Somebody should have told the Ministry of Finance. Basically, someone laid a ruler across, drew a straight line and said, “That’s it.”

The finance officials also divulged, “Over the medium term, we have notional targets by sector that add up to the deficit numbers, but not yet full plans to deliver on them.” That’s saying that we think we know where we want to go but we have no idea how we’re going to get there. This is how they base the budget, Speaker.

This is still a quote: “For the extended outlook, neither sector targets nor plans yet exist.” So we think we know where we want to go in the short term, but we don’t know how to get there. In the long term? We have no idea even where to go. That’s what they’re saying in here. This is the once-secret document that concluded, “in order to hit the deficit targets, spending growth going forward has to decrease dramatically.” Speaker, they didn’t get the memo. It’s up $2.4 billion.

So what do we see as a result of that? We see downgrades from Fitch, downgrades from Moody’s, we see the Ontario Chamber of Commerce—which did a fascinating study of their business just recently. It just came out. They talked about three years ago, when confidence in the Ontario government was 48%. Last year it grew to 49%. This year, Speaker, it tumbled to 29%. Nobody believes them. Nobody believes a word that these folks are saying. Absolutely nobody believes a word that they’re saying.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has told us, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce has told us, and the phone calls from families tell us every day. The seniors that call us who don’t know what’s happening with their hydro bills—they don’t understand it and never had to worry about that before. For 100 years nobody had to worry about a hydro bill. Today, it’s a big issue around families’ tables—that’s those families that at least have a job.

This morning 500,000 men and women woke up in Ontario without a job—still without a job. Last month, over 25,000 people lost their full-time jobs in Ontario. This is the Ontario that has been created by the Liberal Party. This is the Ontario that we live in today. This is the Ontario that our party will not accept. We will not accept that.

Our leader and our members have provided viable, solid plans to change the economy.

Laughter.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Oh, I’m sorry, they’re laughing at lowering energy rates, Speaker. I apologize somehow for the laughter. For daring to suggest—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Order.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: For daring to suggest that hydro bills should be affordable, we get a roar of laughter from the other side. They’re laughing in the face of every family who cannot pay their hydro bill today. That’s what they’re laughing at, Speaker.

They’re bringing forward a payroll tax—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Order.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: —in their own secret documents, the payroll tax—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): The member from Barrie, come to order.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I realize you don’t like that document. It was disclosed long before you got here and it’s going to be brought up every single day because it’s one of the few pieces of truth we actually have. It took not only the Auditor General but it took a police investigation to get our hands on it. Thank God we at least have that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I’d just like to remind the member that when you’re addressing in the Legislature, you address the Speaker, not other members in the Legislature. Thank you very much.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Thank you, Speaker. I realize how it hurts the members on the other side to have that once-secret document brought forward that says that if you bring in a payroll tax, it’s going to cost you 18,000 jobs, maybe 54,000 jobs, depending on how much they gouge out of us. They hate the fact that the document tells us about the 5,000 people who are going to lose their jobs immediately when they bring in their carbon tax. They hate the fact that we talk about the fact that their carbon tax is going to increase the price of gasoline three cents. These are all the things that our party stands against.

We brought forward five budget asks. None of the five were considered. In fact, as we discovered yesterday, as we sat through the budget

schedule page by page—that budget

schedule would have been written weeks, if not months, ago to divest hydro and other things. Speaker, this is their plan all along. For some reason, their idea is to hollow out the manufacturing sector in Ontario. Their idea is to send companies like Goodyear down to Mexico. That’s what they’re doing. They’re sending Kellogg’s elsewhere. They’re sending Heinz elsewhere. They’re sending Caterpillar back to the States to build. That’s what they’re doing, and that’s what this budget will continue to do. That’s why we will continue to stand up against all that is wrong in this budget. I thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of the debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Mr. Bisson moves adjournment of debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Debate adjourned.

Ending Coal for Cleaner Air Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’abandon du charbon pour un air plus propre

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 21, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 9,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act to require the cessation of coal use to generate electricity at generation facilities / Projet de loi 9, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la protection de l’environnement pour exiger la cessation de l’utilisation du charbon pour produire de l’électricité dans les installations de production.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): When this item of business was last debated, the member from Niagara Falls had completed his speech.

Questions and comments?

Mr. Grant Crack: It’s a pleasure to rise this morning in a follow-up to the passionate comments from the member from Niagara Falls.

Why are we introducing this particular act, the Ending Coal for Cleaner Air Act, 2014? It’s because this act reinforces our commitment—this government’s commitment—to end the use of coal at existing generation facilities and ensures that any new stand-alone generating stations will not use coal.

Ontario’s coal-fired plants over the years have cost the people of Ontario an estimated $4.4 billion per year in health care, environmental and financial impacts.

In 2003, prior to our government taking office, coal accounted for 25% of our generation. I can proudly stand in front of the members here today and say that we’ve eliminated all coal-fired hydro generation in the province of Ontario.

This act would amend the Environmental Protection Act. It would prohibit the use of coal at Atikokan, Lambton, Nanticoke and Thunder Bay generating stations after 2014.

Speaker, Atikokan was taken offline in 2012 and was expected to return to service burning bio-mass in August 2014. Having spoken with the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, they’re currently burning pellets, which is a great process that I actually use in my own home. I’m glad to see there’s been another use for that particular facility in his riding.

The province announced the cessation of coal use at the two units in Lambton in October 2013, and the units at Nanticoke stopped burning coal on December 31, 2013. The last coal plant, as I mentioned, the Thunder Bay Generating Station, stopped burning coal at the end of 2014. This is great news. We can continue to move forward with new renewable energy.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments. The member from Huron–Bruce.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Huron–Bruce; thank you very much. I thought you said “Durham East”; that’s why I looked around.

With that, Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to stand up and contribute to the conversation on Bill 9, the Ending Coal for Cleaner Air Act.

I just want to take this opportunity to recognize that we celebrated Earth Day last week. When I closed my comments last week, I suggested that Earth Day should be 365 days a year. I also recognized during my response to the minister that the PC Party of Ontario truly is an environmentally oriented party, although there are other folks who would try and suggest otherwise.

Interjection.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: We were the party that created the Ministry of the Environment. Some of the newer MPPs elected to this House maybe need to do their homework to realize what I’m saying is absolutely the truth. Another fact of the matter is, it was the PC Party of Ontario that actually closed the first coal plant, and that was under the wonderful leadership of Elizabeth Witmer.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, we have to do all we can to ensure that we do indeed have cleaner air to breathe. But we also have to make sure we balance that with people’s ability to pay. I say that because time and time again in my constituency, we’re getting calls from families and seniors saying, “We can’t afford our bills anymore.” This is a worry, and I’m afraid that this Liberal government of the day has totally thrown these people under the bus.

Municipalities are now reaching out to distribution companies, LDCs, saying, “Look, please try not to cut seniors’ and families’ heat off during the winter.” I question if the despair that is being created across Ontario is what the Liberals really had in mind.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: This is a case of the government filibustering itself. Is there anybody in this House who is opposed to the closure of coal plants in Ontario? No, each party has taken pretty well the same position. Have all the coal plants in Ontario been closed? They have. So we’re now debating a bill that, quite frankly, probably doesn’t need to be debated because we’ve already closed the coal plants. Every political party in Ontario has taken essentially the same position, and the government is moving this bill forward through the House.

So you have to ask yourself why. I think it’s very simply this: This government is looking to put forward anything that seems to be progressive in the face of an austerity budget and the privatization of hydro. That’s what this is all about. The government is trying to say, “Look at this shiny penny over here. Look how progressive we are. We’re going to ban the use of coal in Ontario.” Who here in this House is going to vote against that? Nobody. We’re all going to vote in favour.

But the point is that the government needs to do this because they have an austerity budget that they’ve essentially stolen from Tim Hudak’s last campaign document. They’re essentially doing what Tim Hudak said he was going to do in the last election except they’re trying to do it under the guise of being a progressive government, as the Premier says, governing from the progressive centre. Give me a break. If you have a cut and you lose jobs—and it’s probably going to be close to the numbers that Mr. Hudak proposed in the last election—I don’t see that as being progressive. I see that as being a pretty regressive move.

To sell off Ontario Hydro at a time when hydro rates have gone up by 320%, to sell it for $4 billion that the province is going to get for infrastructure when we can do it a lot cheaper by other means—for example, cancelling the HST input clawback that the big corporations are going to get would more than pay for this. This is a shiny penny trying to say, “Look over here. Don’t pay attention to the unprogressive things that the Liberal government is doing.”

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

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: It gives me pleasure to share some comments towards the member from Niagara Falls.

Some of the questions that I hear from the opposition—why are we doing this? Yes, the coal plants are closed. I think we’re all in agreement that we’re going to support this. But Speaker, we know that if legislation is not in place, things could change pretty quickly. Can they change the legislation in place? Yes, but it would be more difficult. Although today in this House we tend to have the same—

Interjection: The PCs would reopen them all.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I think what we’re doing is we’re trying to protect Ontarians.

Let me just tell you a little story that relates not necessarily just to coal plants, but to how cognizant our youth are today.

Just last fall, I went to see, with my grandson, the Belleville Bulls play for the last time—the last time. It’s a huge loss in Belleville. Driving home—he’s 10 years old.

Interjection.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I wasn’t going to go there. Don’t worry; it’s okay. I’m not going to go there.

My 10-year-old grandson—there is a pulp and paper mill in Trenton, right by the river, one of the very few in southern Ontario. There’s steam coming out of the stack—I call it “steam” because they have a steam reformer, because that’s the environmentally friendly way to do things today. And my grandson says, “Grandpa, what’s all that smoke going up in the air?” So I say, “A.J., it’s not smoke. It’s steam.” I was explaining. He paused for a bit and he said, “Grandpa, you can call it whatever you want to call it, but it’s something that’s going in the air and it’s bad for the environment.” Now, that’s a 10-year-old kid.

I would say to you that we’re doing this really to protect the future of my kids, my grandkids and my great-grandkids. Thank you, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member for Niagara Falls for his final comments.

Mr. Wayne Gates: Thanks to my friends and colleagues for their comments on Bill 9, the Ending Coal for Cleaner Air Act.

Bill 9 formally ends the era of coal-fired stand-alone electricity generation in Ontario. The thing that’s most clear is that everyone really seems to enjoy the title of the bill. It sounds good. It’s something that we can pass. After all, who would be against cleaner air? The title of the bill allows you to give yourself a pat on the back, so why don’t we do that? Give yourselves a pat on the back. Go ahead.

One of the major errors here is that the bill does nothing proactive. As we have mentioned time and time again, the coal plants are already closed down. Just as this government is preparing to sell energy assets that belong to the people of this province to make some extra cash—and this is a point that was raised by my colleagues on the other side—a government may turn to coal to save money. So at the very least, this bill will put a stop to that and require consultation, with this legislation. Right now, that’s the best thing this bill is for. Other than that, it’s a pat on the back and does nothing else.

But really, what we should be discussing in this House—there are a lot more important things we could deal with this morning rather than legislating a problem that doesn’t exist. So I’m not sure why this bill was prioritized for this government, but it was.

Let’s think about what’s going on in the province of Ontario today. We have teachers on strike in Sudbury and Durham. We have auto workers in Oshawa who are worried about their job, in St. Catharines. We have CarePartner nurses in my riding of Niagara who are on strike because the employer will not deal with them. I met with those nurses on Saturday, and every patient came and told their story, how they’re not getting taken care of, how they’re showing up six and seven hours late to take care of their parents and their grandparents. That’s wrong. That’s what we should be discussing today. I appreciate the time, Mr. Speaker.

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

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: It’s my pleasure to stand in the House this morning on behalf of the people of Burlington to speak to the Ending Coal for Cleaner Air Act.

This act, along with so many other initiatives put forward by our government, puts the protection of Ontario’s environment and economy, and the health and well-being of our citizens, at the top of our priority list as a government.

If passed, this bill would legislate the protection of health and environmental benefits that come as a direct result of eliminating the use of coal to produce our power.

Coal-fired generating stations produce some of the dirtiest power in the world. These facilities are amongst the largest producers of greenhouse gases, which, as we all know, are a significant contributor to global climate change.

In my riding of Burlington, Speaker, we came face to face with the impacts of climate change last August when a one-in-100-year storm brought 200 millimetres of rain on my community in just a few hours, impacting over 3,000 homes and causing close to $100 million in damage.

Our government’s decision to eliminate all coal-fired generating stations, a prime indication of our commitment to preserving our environment for the enjoyment of future generations, is the largest initiative of its kind anywhere in North America. This underscores our commitment to make Ontario greenhouse gas emissions as low as we can, prioritizing Ontarians’ health and mitigating environmental damage to buildings, crops and ecosystems.

I will reference health in a moment, and I will be joined shortly by my colleague the member from Cambridge, who, as a nurse, can speak very well to the increased number of intakes in emergency departments as a consequence of asthma and what getting rid of coal has meant to those numbers.

To achieve this, it’s not simply enough to eliminate all facilities that currently use the burning of coal as a way of generating power. We must also ensure that these types of facilities cannot be built and/or operated at any point in the future. Opponents of this legislation will point out that there’s regulation that exists already which eliminates the use of coal in power generating in existing locations, but it fails to address any new facilities that may one day be built. This bill does just that: It will prevent the use of coal for producing power at any facility in Ontario, plain and simple, safeguarding our health and well-being now and that of future generations.

This issue does not only affect our environment; it also has a significant impact on the economy. The costs associated with these types of facilities are estimated to be $4.4 billion per year. This includes both short- and long-term health effects attributed to poor air quality, pollution and climate change.

Since we shut down the coal-powered plants, as I mentioned, we’ve had fewer smog alerts, and as someone who suffers from asthma and lives in a riding where close to one in five citizens is a senior, I certainly appreciate—and I know these vulnerable citizens do too—the impact this legislation and this initiative alone has had on our quality of life. This initiative has no added cost to it, only the added benefit of reducing costs.

Businesses that rely on the use of coal for other processes and production need not fear, however, as this bill will only apply to facilities that use coal for the primary purpose of generating electricity. Companies that use coal or its by-products in the production of metals, for example, will be able to continue their operations as normal. There’s no intention of banning the use of coal for these purposes, as there are currently no alternates. Advances in technology must be made before such a step could be made without having significant negative economic impact on Ontario.

This is not to mention the potential long-term health and environmental impacts which we have not yet seen. We have already made inroads into our understanding of these effects but it is difficult to know what will happen in the decades to come. All over the world, governments are making the decision to move away from the use of coal in their power generation facilities, and I am proud to be part of a government that is leading the way.

By becoming the first jurisdiction in North America to completely do away with coal generation and ensure that it can never be used again, Ontario is taking the equivalent of up to seven million cars off the road. This legislation will do much to ensure that our health and enjoyment of our natural beauty and environment that we have come to love and treasure as Ontarians, and expect in our province as well, are protected for the enjoyment of all Ontarians for generations to come.

Thank you very much for this opportunity, Speaker. I appreciate the chance to speak to this very important piece of legislation.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): In fairness to the next speaker, so that she’s not interrupted—it is almost 10:15 at this point in time—the Legislature will be recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I’d like to introduce my wife, Jane, who’s here today. She’s here because our grand-daughter, Madison, is page captain today. But she’s also very proud—she’s a councillor in the township of Severn. She and I—we’re bragging about this now, Mr. Speaker—won the log-sawing contest at the Elmvale Maple Syrup Festival on Saturday in record time.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. I’m also told she’s going to watch how you behave today.

Introduction of guests?

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I’d like to welcome Kevin Gillis to the Legislature this morning. Kevin is the father of page Mira Gillis. Normally, Mira would be attending St. Anne French immersion school in Windsor, but today, she is our other page captain. Her dad is here on this special occasion, so welcome, Kevin.

He also owns about five harness racehorses, so if anyone on the other side wants to talk harness racing, Kevin’s the guy to have that conversation with.

Wearing of ribbons

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The government House leader on a point of order.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Point of order, Speaker: I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent that all members be permitted to wear ribbons in recognition of the National Day of Mourning.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The government House leader is seeking unanimous consent to wear ribbons for a National Day of Mourning. Do we agree? Agreed.

The pins are available in both lobbies.

National Day of Mourning

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: On a point of order: I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent that up to five minutes be allotted to each caucus to speak on the National Day of Mourning and that we observe a moment of silence following our remarks.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mr. Naqvi is seeking unanimous consent that up to five minutes be allotted to each caucus to speak on the National Day of Mourning and that we observe a moment of silence following the remarks. Do we agree? Agreed.

Deputy Premier?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you, Speaker. I will be sharing my time with the government House leader.

Speaker, April 28 is observed across Canada as the National Day of Mourning. On this day, we remember and honour the thousands of men and women who have been killed or injured on the job. Today, we also pay our respects to the families and friends whose lives have been affected by a workplace tragedy.

On behalf of the government, I would like to express my deepest sympathies to those affected by the tragedy of workplace injuries and fatalities. One life lost is one too many.

April 28 was chosen as the day of mourning because on this day in 1914, the Workmen’s Compensation Act was given third reading in this Legislature. Since the 1980s, Ontario has been recognizing the day of mourning. Today, the day of mourning is recognized in more than 100 countries around the world.

This morning, the Premier and the Minister of Labour are attending a National Day of Mourning ceremony at the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. They will remember and honour those workers who have died, been injured or suffered illness in the workplace.

They will also renew our commitment to the promotion of healthy and safe workplaces and the prevention of future fatalities. Our government understands that when workplace tragedies happen, lives are devastated, forever changed. Families, co-workers, whole communities are faced with the very painful reality that their loved one is not coming home or will never be again. These tragedies are immeasurable.

Our government understands that no job is worth a life or an injury, and that more needs to be done to make sure everyone comes home from work safe and sound.

I would now like to give my honourable colleague the government House leader and Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services the opportunity to speak about this important day.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you, Speaker. I would also like to express my deepest sympathies to those affected by the tragedy of workplace injuries and fatalities.

Our government understands that we must make sure that the culture of every workplace in Ontario prioritizes the health and safety of its workers. Every person in every workplace has an important role to play. By working together, we can make sure people come home from work at the end of the day.

I want to acknowledge the work that’s being done by Ontario’s Ministry of Labour and the minister on this important issue. The Minister of Labour will be making a statement in the House later on this important topic, but I want to highlight a few things we have been doing as a government.

The Ministry of Labour, in partnership with our labour and employer partners, is transforming workplace health and safety in the province. And we are making progress. Over the last 10 years we have reduced injuries by 40% in Ontario. This has made Ontario one of the safest places to work in Canada.

We have also been changing how we look at mental health injuries because we know a mental stress injury, such as PTSD, can be as damaging to a person as a physical injury. That’s why the Minister of Labour hosted a summit on workplace mental stress on March 5. Minister Flynn brought together workers and experts from a wide range of sectors and participants to share innovative approaches, best practices on how to reduce stigma by promoting cultural change, and learned from industry leaders how to enhance the mental health and safety of employees.

It’s also worth noting that the government is investing $4.4 million to help the OPP establish an employee wellness section, which will dedicate resources to address mental health issues among members, retirees and their families.

Our government has doubled the number of workplace health and safety inspectors in Ontario. Earlier this month, we took action to prevent falls in the construction sector by making new working-at-heights training mandatory. Also, we are continuing to conduct inspection blitzes throughout the year to raise safety awareness and help prevent injuries and fatalities.

We are making progress on all these fronts. We will continue to work hard to make a difference for workers in Ontario.

Despite this progress, there are still too many people who have been killed or injured on the job. Our work is far from done.

I would like to close by again acknowledging the women and men who have lost their lives or have been injured on the job, as well as their families, friends and colleagues. Our government is standing with you.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It is my pleasure and distinct honour to represent the Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus in discussing today the provincial and National Day of Mourning. I congratulate the Deputy Premier and the government House leader for their words.

Today we are gathered, and we will be gathered again this afternoon, to remember workers who didn’t make it home from their jobs. In this country, when someone leaves for work, we expect that they will come home, but tragically in many cases they do not.

I’m going to give you an example. On May 9, 1992, when I was a grade 11 student in a small town called New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, at 5:36 a.m., our community awoke to one of the biggest mine disasters in the world’s history, the Westray mine disaster. It was a brand new mine, and in the early morning of that Sunday, that explosion of methane gas changed that community forever. I remember that the other students in my class, my younger sister, in fact, even my father, who was a town councillor at the time, worried. In a small town like that, everyone knew somebody who worked at that mine, or was likely related to them.

The opening of the mine brought people from around the world to work in a small town in Pictou county, Nova Scotia, because there were jobs. Unfortunately that work site was not safe, and 26 men, aged from their early twenties into their fifties, died that day.

We would go to school for the following week as they talked openly in public about identifying people’s dental records. We would be in class—I was in law class; I was taking a grade-12 law class in grade 11—and our teacher took the time to walk us through what this meant for our community. I remember politicians coming in from across Canada into the New Glasgow stadium, to fill that place as if it were the biggest funeral I had ever attended. I’m sure every single person in the community was there.

I raise the Westray mine disaster in New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, here today for a reason, because it was that national tragedy in that small town, impacting 26 families and, by extension, an entire country, that changed legislation nationally for better worker protection—Bill C-45.

Years later, I would go on to work at Parliament Hill as a young staffer—very junior. I remember with pride the Westray miners who would come up and lobby the government for change, for greater protection. The Westray mine example speaks to what is so bad that was actually changed, because there were, before that, no criminal protections for any worker, prior to that. The people of New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, and in fact, I think, all of Canada would go on to see the changes that would need to be made to make workplaces safe.

I commend all members of this assembly for greater workplace safety. I would also like to commend the Canadian Labour Congress for their vision on this back in 1984.

As we today speak and remember the people who didn’t come home from work or, as the government House leader said, may have post-traumatic stress disorder, I think it’s important that we continue to understand that lives aren’t simply changed by legislation; enforcement may also protect them.

My experience when I was growing up is something that I hope no other community ever has to experience. It’s important that, I think, we learn from those lessons to make sure that people do come home from work.

Later this afternoon, our colleague the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington will speak on behalf of the Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus. He is right now with the Premier and the minister. He will add his views to why it’s important to remember each year on April 28, on the National Day of Mourning.

But before I end, I think it’s also important that we share a focus on rehabilitating and reintroducing workers back into the workforce. Our goal should always be to have people using their talents to provide for themselves and their families and to live a long, happy, prosperous and healthy life.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further statements.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It is my honour to stand in this House today on the National Day of Mourning to reflect on the people, women and men, who have been killed and injured on the job—on this day, April 28, which we do every single year, to speak on behalf of the Ontario New Democratic caucus as we join with workers across Ontario to mark this day.

Today we stand not only as a caucus ourselves but with other members of this Legislature and with people around our province and around our country. We stand with friends and family to remember those who have been injured, maimed or killed on the job.

We all have a responsibility to make sure that when the workday ends, every single worker makes it home safely after their shift, after their time at work. In Ontario last year, 349 people were killed on the job, thousands were injured, and countless more people dealt with complications due to work-related illnesses and disease. These numbers reflect an unacceptable trend of deaths over the last few years and hundreds, if not thousands, of injuries.

In 2012, 298 workers lost their lives. In 2011, it was 349 workers. In 2010, it was 398 workers, and on and on—far too many people. These are the people who lost their lives. These are the families who lost loved ones. As I said, there are thousands and thousands of others, not reflected in those numbers of people, who were exposed to environmental toxins and who were exposed to stresses in the workplace that led to PTSD. Speaker, many more people were felled with illnesses and with diseases—as those also who were killed.

As a province, we have a duty not only to honour these women and men but actually to ensure that our obligation stretches to make a difference for the future of workers in this province. We do this by making sure, for example, that workplace safety standards actually reflect the changing workplaces that we have in the province of Ontario—workplaces, for example, in construction, manufacturing, mining, firefighting and other hazardous places.

Speaker, in 2009, you may recall that there was a fall on a construction site that led to something called the Dean report, which was commissioned by the government back in 2010. This is a report specifically for workers who are working in high places in the construction industry. We know that in 2014, four years after that initiative, we had seven workers die from high falls in the construction industry. Something is still not working. We saw a couple of deaths just in the last couple of weeks on construction sites in this province. There is something that is still not right when it comes to making sure that these workers are protected on the job.

I’m proud to stand with a caucus that has been working to ensure that this province has greater workplace protections, helping first responders get recognition and treatment for post-traumatic stress disorders, for example; protecting child performers on the job; protecting the rights of interns in the workplace; and many, many other initiatives that New Democrats have brought to this chamber in recent years as well as historically.

Too often, this government has been dragging its feet on some of the most important health and safety measures. It’s important to acknowledge that today, because if we don’t acknowledge it, we’re not going to fix it for the future.

We have now recommendations that have come from a review of the mining health and safety act. It had been 30 years since the mining health and safety act had been reviewed. The workers in that industry were pressuring the government for years and years. In fact, they were calling for a public inquiry because it was so bad, the changes that had happened in the mining industry not being reflected in the language that was supposed to be the legislation that protected those workers on the job.

Now what the government needs to do is act quickly on the recommendations that come from that review that they took on. I congratulate the government for finally taking that review on and doing that work and doing that consultation, but that’s not good enough. The changes that are recommended have to be implemented.

Every injury, every death in the workplace is one too many, but every year we see these tragic events on the construction site, on the factory floor, in the field, underground and on the front lines. Families in the north and across the industrial heartland in rural areas and in our cities are left to pick up the pieces of their lives when their loved ones are suddenly taken from them at work.

Every Ontarian has the right to safely earn a living. Every worker is entitled to the same protection, but the explosion of part-time and precarious work leaves far too many workers vulnerable to greater workplace risks and leaves them with fewer protections to speak up about workplace safety, for fear of losing their jobs.

Every working person in Ontario, and their families, deserves the right of peace of mind. No Ontarian should ever have to worry if a loved one will go to work and never return.

New Democrats are committed to strong safety regulations and enforcement. We’re committed to working with employers, unions, safety specialists, WSIB and the government to make Ontario’s workplaces safer for every Ontarian. We can’t stop until workplace accidents stop. Until then, we mourn for the dead and we fight for the living.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank the members for their statements.

At this time, we have been asked, in the unanimous consent, to spend a moment of silence. I would ask all members of the House to please rise in respect of the National Day of Mourning.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

Oral Questions

Health care funding

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Minister, on page 288 of the budget it clearly shows that the Canada Health Transfer has increased by $652 million this year. That is money the federal government has specifically earmarked for health care in Ontario.

On page 289 of the budget it shows that the Ontario health budget only increased by $598 million. That means there is $54 million missing. That means you took $54 million from the health care budget to pay for your fiscal mismanagement. It’s exactly what the auditor said recently was going to start happening because of your high debts and deficits. You’re crowding out important programs; in this case, health care.

Minister, what did you do with the $54 million the federal government gave you specifically for health care?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Minister of Health.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I think the member opposite, being a former health minister, probably knows that the Canada Health Transfer only represents about a quarter of the health expenditures in this province, roughly $13 billion out of $50 billion dedicated to provincial health care this fiscal year.

For example, in 2014-15, the federal government transferred $473 million, but health spending went up by $1.2 billion. So the federal transfer doesn’t even come close to filling that hole, and the imbalance will even increase in the coming years. In 2017-18—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. That round was the freebie.

Carry on.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: That sharing between federal and provincial that used to be 50-50 is down to 25% from the federal government. That imbalance that we’re seeing, which is going to get worse in 2017-18, will remove $21 billion from health care transfers nationally and $8 billion in Ontario alone.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Back to the Minister of Finance: You can spin this all you want, but they gave you $652 million and your total budget only went up by $598 million. Somehow, somebody along the way stole $54 million out of health care. This is the equivalent—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s too edgy. I’m going to ask the member to withdraw.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Withdraw.

Fifty-four million dollars is the equivalent of 9,000 long-term-care beds. A constituent of mine is desperately waiting for a long-term-care bed; however, none are available. Because of the long waiting list, this resident is in a retirement home—

Interjection.

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: It’s a true story. That home is costing his family over $7,000 a month to cover the cost of the care he needs. That is care he could be receiving if you didn’t divert $54 million of health care money to something else.

I say to the minister again: Why did you cut your share of health care funding when we need more long-term-care beds, for example?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: As I mentioned, that 50-50 sharing that used to exist between ourselves and the feds is now down to a 25% contribution, which is going down even substantially—that $21-billion hole nationally that is about to face us.

I would suggest to the member opposite that that individual in his riding could get the support they need if he had actually started advocating for Ontario instead of the federal Conservative government so that Ontario gets its share, because the federal government has abdicated its responsibility to actually provide support to the province based on the changing demographics.

In fact, the federal Parliamentary Budget Officer has suggested that the federal government has pretty well insulated itself from the fiscal impact of an aging population. We can’t and we won’t do that in this province. I would hope that the PC Party would advocate on behalf of Ontarians instead of the federal PC Party.

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Transportation, second time.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I’d say to the minister that in my first month as health minister in 1995, Paul Martin had the health transfer down to 13%. You’re getting 25% from the federal government.

It’s $54 million that has gone missing. They gave you that money. What did you do with the money? It’s a pretty simple question. That could have paid for the 20 new hospices that you promised in last year’s budget and have done nothing about, including Matthews House Hospice in Alliston. You could use it to build new nursing home beds. You haven’t built one new nursing home bed or long-term-care bed in 12 years. Instead, you took that precious federal money that was given to you, $54 million, and frittered it away on your fiscal mismanagement.

I’ll ask you again, Minister: Where did the $54 million of health care money that the federal government gave to you go?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: As I mentioned, this fiscal year alone, health care spending in this province went up by $1.2 billion. The federal contribution to that was less than the 50% that it used to be. It was $473 million, which left a large gap—a gap which is only going to increase over time as the federal government continues to abdicate their responsibility to address the changing demographics in this province and across the country.

I implore the member opposite, the interim leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, to advocate on behalf of Ontarians and not defend the federal government; to stand up for Ontarians, stand up for health care in this province, and don’t back up the federal government as they continue to withdraw providing that important service.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Government accountability

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning. My question is for the Minister of Finance.

Your team has been busy for weeks, if not months, stripping away any transparency in our hydro sector. Your budget details reveal quite a story. The moment even one single share is sold, Hydro One will not be deemed an agency of the crown any longer.

Schedule 3 strips the Auditor General of powers—no more value-for-money audits over there.

Schedule 10 cuts out the Financial Accountability Officer after six months. In

schedule 11, the Financial Administration Act is amended to limit our ability to obtain any information on Hydro One.

Minister, what’s happening here is the wholesale stripping of access to any information about an asset the people are the largest shareholder of. Is that your idea of being open and transparent?

Hon. Charles Sousa: We are taking advantage of a crown corporation of Ontario—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville, the member from Oxford and the member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound will come to order, and there are a few others I could get.

Hon. Charles Sousa: —to maximize the value of this corporation and make it into a growth corporation, recognizing that we can do better. As a result of that, we’re reinvesting dollar for dollar all the gains that are realized from the broadening of that ownership. We’re making an initial public offering in the months to come, so that we can do the first 50% tranche, which will be applied to the consolidated debt as well as the Trillium Trust, in order for us to reinvest it into transportation, to garner even greater return and again start to employ and make another valuable asset for the province of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, that is an appropriate thing for us to do. The member opposite actually agrees with that, because they’ve advocated for these kinds of opportunities—

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: It’s clear you don’t want us to know anything your government is really up to. We had to scrounge for files in the gas plant scandal hearings, only to find that many were deleted. You’ve taken care of that early this time on the Hydro One sale. You’ve made sure we have no access to anything Hydro One-related. In

schedule 13, freedom of information no longer applies to Hydro One. We don’t get to know a thing. Minister, you gave FIPPA the flippa.

Schedule 38 removes Hydro One from the sunshine list. That was one of the most controversial disclosures last year.

This is one way, Minister, for you to stop the flow of information. Is that your idea of being open and transparent?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, our idea is to ensure that we will have oversight—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Renfrew and member from Simcoe North, come to order. I’m not going to have people shouted down in this place.

Carry on.

Hon. Charles Sousa: We will have oversight. We are appointing a new ombudsman. There is going to be the structure of an initial public offering. There’s going to be an AGM. There are going to be requirements for disclosure in that regard. We also recognize the discipline that’s required in respect to the release of documents and financial requirements of the public corporation that would be established.

Mr. Speaker, what we are not doing is the lack of oversight that occurred with the sale of the 407. We’re ensuring that the public is protected, and we’re taking an incremental approach to what’s necessary with respect to the broadening of ownership of Hydro One—for the benefit, ultimately, of the people of Ontario.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Minister, no AG, no FAO, no FIPPA, and now under

schedule 22, lobbyists don’t have to register any longer.

Schedule 23 excludes Hydro One from the oversight of the Management Board of Cabinet Act.

Schedule 28 takes Hydro One out of municipal freedom of information.

Schedule 30 guarantees the Ombudsman would no longer be able to investigate Hydro One; you’re going to put your own person in that role.

Schedule 37 means no more Integrity Commissioner. Well, considering there’s no integrity left in the system, you won’t need any of those officers.

Minister, at what point does shame kick in?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, stop the clock. Be seated, please.

Minister.

Hon. Charles Sousa: What was shameful is the way that the member opposite and his party sold away Highway 407 for a song, and we’re still paying for it today. What is shameful is what they did when they tried to dismantle the hydro system, which has left a legacy of debt to us still today. We are doing what’s correct to try to bolster the value of the corporation. We’re implementing parameters as well as structure to ensure that disclosure is done and fully transparent.

The member opposite knows that full well. He’s just playing politics. We’re playing for the benefit of the people of Ontario.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the deputy leader. Selling Hydro One is the wrong decision. Ontarians know it. If the Premier was so proud of her plan, she’d actually be calling it what it is, which is a sell-off.

But the Premier knows that Ontarians don’t want her to sell off Hydro One. That’s why she uses terms like “optimization” or “unlocking value” instead.

Will the Liberals finally admit that selling Hydro One is the wrong plan for the people of Ontario?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, what is the right plan for the people of Ontario is that we make the necessary investments in infrastructure. This is all about building new infrastructure.

I know the leader of the third party is planning to hit the road to talk to people about this issue. When she goes to Brampton, I really hope she’s going to ask how they feel about the $1.6-billion investment in the Hurontario-Main LRT. I wonder what they’ll say about that. I wonder, when she goes to Hamilton, what the people there will have to say about the investment in rapid transit there.

Speaker, the truth is that Ontario needs this kind of investment in infrastructure. Our economy depends upon it, and people depend upon it because they’re spending too much time in traffic when they could be at home with their families.

When you go across this province, to the leader of the third party, I’m asking—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, what people need is affordable reliable hydro, not a sell-off to Bay Street. That’s what people need.

During last summer’s election, the Premier kept Ontarians in the dark about her plan to sell of Hydro One. New Democrats did launch a campaign; thank you for recognizing that. We launched it yesterday so that Ontarians could actually make their voices heard. In the last 24 hours, more than 2,000 Ontarians have sent a pretty clear message: People don’t want to pay the price for more wrong decisions by the Premier. They do not like her sell-off plan.

Will the Liberals actually listen to the people of Ontario? Will they listen to those folks instead of their friends on Bay Street and pull the plug on this terrible, terrible plan?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I think it’s time that the leader of the third party came clean about what infrastructure projects she would cancel. As she travels the province, I hope she will come forward and say which ones are on the cutting block. Will it be Connecting Link? Talk about listening to people. Connecting Link is a very important program that we’re restoring, because we heard about it. Will it be—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The banter back and forth is not appreciated, especially when someone is trying to answer.

Carry on.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Will you be cancelling 15-minute service from Union Station to Bramalea? Will you cancel the northern highway projects? Will you end the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund?

Governing is about making decisions. It’s easy to criticize, but we want to hear your plan.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Nobody believes a word this Liberal government says. That’s the bottom line. I can’t say anything else, Speaker. That’s the bottom line.

Selling Hydro One is going to mean higher bills for Ontarians. Hydro One is simply too important to give away, and once the Premier gives Hydro One away, we will never, ever be able to get it back.

Why are the Liberals plowing ahead with a plan that they have no reason for, no mandate for and that people do not want?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I know the member opposite is saying that this will increase rates. I really think she needs to be clear that the Ontario Energy Board will continue to set rates. Nothing is changing. Nothing is changing when it comes to rates.

The Ontario Energy Board has made decisions that have decreased rates in March just this year. The Ontario Energy Board decreased rates by between $100 and $168 for Enbridge and Union Gas customers.

In 2010, Hydro One asked for a rate increase for distribution; the OEB ordered a 9% reduction in a capital request. In 2012, Hydro One asked for a rate increase for transmission; the OEB ordered a 3% decrease.

So nothing is changing when it comes to rates, and I think that the party opposite needs to be honest with the people of this province that that argument just does not hold water.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): New question. The leader of the third party.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I really didn’t think the Liberals could get even more out of touch, but here we have it.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, my next question is for the Deputy Premier. Can the Deputy Premier, the chair of the Treasury Board, justify spending nearly $7 million on high-priced consultants to help the Liberals sell off Hydro One?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, when our government was making the decision around expanding the ownership of Hydro One, we did want to do it in a careful and thoughtful way. We wanted to protect ratepayers. We wanted to protect taxpayers.

One of the things that I think the member opposite needs to understand is that we will be the largest shareholder of Hydro One. We will have a 40% ownership; the next-largest owner would have a maximum of 10%. Key decisions require a two-thirds vote. We will have 40%, and key decisions require a two-thirds vote. We are protecting ratepayers, and we are protecting taxpayers.

Speaker, we are looking to—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And now I’ll say it: The member from Windsor–Tecumseh, come to order.

Carry on.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As I said, Ontario will remain the largest shareholder, with a minimum of 40%. The next highest owner would have a maximum of 10%. Key decisions require a two-thirds vote.

All of Hydro One’s officers will be required to reside in Ontario. The Ontario Grid Control Centre—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, with Liberal math, this side should be the government side here in the Legislature.

The Liberals have spent nearly $7 million on high-priced consultants to help them figure out how to sell Hydro One. They paid millions to KPMG, McKinsey, Deloitte, PricewaterhouseCoopers and a company called Feschuk.Reid, which is Paul Martin’s old speech writers. But the Premier’s office won’t even tell us what work these companies did or what information they provided.

Will the Deputy Premier, head of the Treasury Board, make these consultants’ reports public so that Ontarians can see what they say about rates, about reliability, about the billions of dollars of lost revenues this province will be facing when you sell off our hydro utility?

Interjections.

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

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, the leader of the third party has said quite proudly that she has no faith in the private sector. That might explain why they have no faith in her or her party.

We are moving forward to broaden the ownership because we are committed to building infrastructure. I have heard in southwestern Ontario about the importance of Connecting Links. I have heard this at AMO. I am sure you have heard this as well. We are restoring Connecting Links to provide that much-needed relief.

We’re building transit. We’re building infrastructure. We are increasing service on the GO line. This is exactly the kind of infrastructure investment that this province needs, and we need to bring all our resources available to us in order to make that infrastructure investment.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Liberals have hired some of the most expensive accounting firms in Canada. They’ve hired a management consulting firm that says this about itself: “We’re incredibly expensive....” And they hired Paul Martins’s speech writers. Selling Hydro One is really good for Bay Street and apparently it’s great for consultants, but it’s absolutely the wrong thing for Ontarians.

The Deputy Premier says there is no money for health care; there is no money for education; there is no money for child care. Can the Deputy Premier really justify spending $7 million on high-priced consultants to help the Liberals sell Hydro One? Really? When will this Premier and this Liberal government actually get its priorities straight?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, Speaker, we actually have a lot of faith in the potential of Hydro One. We think that, with this restructured system and with the incentives to get LDCs to come together, we will have a more efficient electricity system. That will take pressure off rate increases.

We have been open and transparent about this, contrary to what the leader of the third party says. In fact, included in the 2014 Liberal platform, the 2014 Ontario budget included reference to maximizing assets. Whether she knows it or not, she ran on that plan too. In October—

Interjections.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Yes, actually, you did.

In October, the advisory council released their interim report. The final report was made public before the budget. We’ve been debating this issue in the House for months. That will continue. Proposed legislation will be subject to public hearings and debate.

We believe this is the right thing to do because Ontario needs the investment in infrastructure, and they need it now.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): In case you didn’t catch on, I was stopping the bantering going back and forth, and I’ll wait for it to finish before we carry on with question period.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Oh, no, it’s going both ways.

Teachers’ labour dispute

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: My question today is for the Minister of Education.

Another day goes by and the minister shirks responsibility. Next week, there will be another 42,000 secondary school students not in the classroom—that’s from the Peel board. Yesterday, when interviewed, the minister said, “It’s up to the union local” and also “what is the local issue” and “the responsibility of the ... local,” all in the span of one sentence. No one is blaming the strikes on the local issues except the minister.

Minister, will you admit right now that students are out of the classrooms because of a dozen years of Liberal mismanagement? Exactly who are you blaming for the mess you are actually in today?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I want to go over the legislation one more time. The legislation—

Mr. John Yakabuski: The buck stops with you, Minister.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew—I’ve got to do this officially. The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Liz Sandals: The School Boards Collective Bargaining Act describes quite clearly that some issues are to be determined at the central table—generally, issues around money and provincial policy—and that other issues are to be determined at the local table.

The School Boards Collective Bargaining Act also makes it very clear that there can be a central strike on issues that are being negotiated at the central table and there can be a local strike on issues that are being negotiated at a local table.

The locals in seven boards requested local conciliation, and they are local strikes. That’s what the law says. That’s the process that—

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

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Minister, your answer today and your comments yesterday shrug off and ignore your responsibility as the Minister of Education.

Next Monday, six days from now, some 80,000 Ontario secondary students will be out of the classroom. On May 10, or just 14 days from now, there’s a possibility that 817,000 elementary school students could be out of the classroom. Surely you do not think for one moment that you are not fully responsible for what is happening to the classrooms here in Ontario.

Minister, what are you prepared to do to get our students back in the classroom so that no one loses their school year?

Interjections.

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

Hon. Liz Sandals: My responsibility is to ensure that we get a negotiated central collective agreement, because the government of Ontario, the crown, sits at the central table only. In fact, my responsibility is to make sure we get that negotiated central agreement, and that’s exactly what I’m doing: working with the parties from a variety of unions to work on central—which is a lot better than what they would do, Speaker, because they said they would fire 22,700 education workers. I don’t think that’s how to solve the problem. I think negotiated collective agreements are how to solve the problem.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Deputy Premier.

Selling Hydro One will pay for less than 3% of the Liberals’ transit and infrastructure promises, but the Premier is doing it anyway, even though she has no mandate and no good reason—although we just heard that Bay Street has already benefited from this plan. She promises the money will go into the Trillium Trust.

While the Premier says one thing, her Harper-style omnibus bill says something completely different. The money from the sale of Hydro One is going directly into consolidated revenues. There’s nothing in the budget bill that says this money must be spent on infrastructure.

Are the Liberals are just trying to spin Ontarians so that they’ll buy into this misguided scheme to sell off Hydro One?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I’m afraid that the member opposite is misinformed because, of the $9 billion estimated for the sale of part of Hydro One, approximately $5 billion will go towards the debt. The book value will go to the debt. The remaining will go into the Trillium Trust, and the Trillium Trust is earmarked for infrastructure projects.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: We had our briefing yesterday. Perhaps you should read this budget book because the Trillium Trust Act is key, obviously, to the Premier’s asset sale plan, yet the Premier’s budget provided no guarantee that the money from the sale of Hydro One will actually go to transit. It looks like the Premier is creating a loophole so that the money doesn’t have to go into the Trillium Trust. Who knows where this money will end up?

If their own budget doesn’t put money directly into the Trillium Trust, why is the Liberal government trying to spin Ontarians about needing to sell off Hydro One?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think what the member opposite is failing to make is the connection between investments in infrastructure and transit, and the need to maximize the value of our assets. They are directly linked. The evidence of that is in the projects that we are moving forward with.

I do believe the member opposite knows that her community—the mayors and the regional chair from Kitchener-Waterloo—have advocated very strongly for enhanced infrastructure investments. That money isn’t going to come out of thin air. There is no pixie dust. When you build infrastructure, you have to pay for it. We’re figuring out how to pay for it so we can build it, because people need it and they need it now.

Youth services

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn: My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Last week in the budget, the crux of the budget was about building up Ontario and building up the people of Ontario. When I listened to the Minister of Finance stand in the House and announce $250 million over the next two years to continue funding Ontario’s Youth Jobs Strategy, it was a clear statement of this government’s commitment to invest in the talent and skills of Ontario’s youth. I’m very proud to be part of a government that continues to invest in our young people and their minds, and nurtures and encourages them.

Many of the young minds we venture to support come from at-risk communities, where it can be much easier to miss opportunities for a brighter and more prosperous future.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, can she provide some insight as to what the government is doing to support these youth in reaching their full potential?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore for a great question, a very important question.

Our budget clearly has focused on building up Ontario’s youth. Our historic and future investments in the youth jobs strategy will continue to help Ontario’s young people secure important job opportunities; however, there are many at-risk youth in our province. I was very happy that we’ve taken action to broaden and enhance the work we began under the youth action plan.

In this budget we are expanding the youth action plan with $14 million this year alone and ramping up to $20 million in 2016-17. We’ll be investing in community-oriented programs to reduce the root cause of violence. Our youth outreach workers—a great program—will build relationships with at-risk youth in the middle years throughout our entire province. It is going to be a great continued investment to help all of our youth succeed.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn: I want to thank the minister for her answer and all the encouraging news about how we continue to support and bolster the success of at-risk youth in Ontario.

I can see the results of these programs in my own riding of Etobicoke–Lakeshore. Through the Youth Opportunities Fund, the peer mentorship project at the Franklin Horner Community Centre is providing a variety of activities to help youth overcome barriers that might prevent them from reaching their full potential. These programs include team sports, painting, sculpting, cooking, dance classes—all taught with positive role models to help our at-risk youth.

Can the minister please share with this House how our new investments will build upon and intensify the success we’ve already realized from the initial youth action fund?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: The new investments in our budget really build on the work that was started by my colleague, the Honourable Dr. Eric Hoskins, when he was at children and youth services. I want to acknowledge the work he started in 2012.

Since then we’ve created over 27,000 youth opportunities, and our violent crime rate has decreased by 30% since 2003, so Ontario now has the second-lowest youth violent crime rate in the country.

We invested in employment and training programs like the Youth in Policing Initiative, to give opportunity to youth to thrive through great programs, arts programs and sports.

We’ve done all of this under the first youth action plan, and because of it, we will have more youth on a good path to adulthood. I look forward to continuing this legacy.

Hydro rates

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, we’ve warned you of the suffering that you’ve inflicted through your reckless hydro policies. Our offices have been inundated with messages from residential and commercial ratepayers, who have no idea how they’ll deal with the ever-increasing energy burden you’ve laid upon them.

To make matters worse, on Friday, rates are going up a staggering 15%. That’s 15% on electricity that was already way too high.

Skyrocketing rates are an enormous drain on manufacturing and small businesses. They kill jobs and send them to other jurisdictions. Yet you’re still bent on signing expensive energy contracts for intermittent, unreliable power.

Minister, will you stop doubling down on your failed energy experiments and enact a consumers-first energy plan that protects Ontario hydro ratepayers?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I appreciate the questions that I get from my Conservative critic. He’s often bombastic, and he often has a very different

interpretation of reality.

The announcement that was made by the Ontario Energy Boards was not 15%. What he really fails to appreciate is that when he says that we have the highest electricity prices—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I believe the member would really like to be able to ask his supplementary.

Finish, please.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: When he says we have the highest electricity prices in Canada, he’s wrong. When he says we have the highest prices in North America, he’s wrong. We have invested $34 billion in this system to make it reliable, after they ran it into the dump—

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

Supplementary.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Surprisingly, Mr. Speaker, we’re going to disagree.

Minister, once the new rates come into effect this Friday, Ontario will have the highest electricity rates in Canada. That’s right. We’re now surpassing that industrial powerhouse, Prince Edward Island, in having the most uncompetitive rates in the country.

Your arrogant mismanagement of the hydro system has real-world consequences. Just ask the people of Napanee, who are losing out to Mexico with Goodyear’s new multi-million-dollar planned expansion.

Minister, Ontarians cannot afford your hydro increases, due to your expensive energy experiments. Will you stand up now and begin to reverse the damage you’re inflicting on Ontarians?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: He alluded to the Green Energy Act and the renewables that we’re dealing with in terms of experiments. Well, I have a quote here, and it’s from the critic from Nipissing—

Mr. Victor Fedeli: He was alluding to the 15% increase.

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

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: “Taking advantage of locally available green power resources is a good fit with the long-range development strategy we have for the community. I am particularly pleased with the relationship we have struck with West Wind Development Inc. for the first half of the project. I am confident that the company’s reputation as a responsible wind power developer”—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The deputy House leader is warned, and the member from Nipissing will come to order—second time.

Carry on.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: —the member from Nipissing says, will “put North Bay ‘on the map’ as a showcase for the sensitive and responsible development of this great renewable energy source.”

He is a great endorser—

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Too bad you didn’t warn us about the cost.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. You’re finished.

The member from Nipissing is warned.

New question.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Deputy Premier. The budget act says this in

section 7 of

schedule 9: “If, at any time ... the number of common shares of Hydro One ... owned by the minister ... ceases to be greater than 10% of the outstanding common shares of Hydro One ... from that time ... share ownership restrictions ... apply to the minister....”

Speaker, the Premier is promising that the province will own 40% of Hydro One, so why is she making plans for Ontario to hold less than 10% of Hydro One?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I can assure the people of this province, Speaker, that the government will hold a minimum of 40% of the shares. The next—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek will come to order; that’s the second time. The member from Essex, come to order; that’s the second time.

Carry on.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, we are introducing legislation that would mean the government cannot own less than 40% of Hydro One shares. No other shareholder would be allowed to own more than 10%. Key decisions require a two-thirds vote, and we will own a minimum of 40%. We will retain that important control. All of Hydro One’s officers would be required to reside in Ontario, head office—

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Well, it’s clear the Deputy Premier needs a briefing from her finance officials.

The Premier keeps insisting that she’s only going to sell 60% of Hydro One, but yesterday we learned there is nothing to prevent the public ownership from getting diluted far beyond 40%.

When the Premier first won her seat, the Ontario Liberals were committed to keeping hydro in public hands. Now she’s planning to sell 60%. What’s to stop her from selling 70%, 80%, 90% or even more?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Speaker, it is critical for us to put in legislation the parameters by which to protect the public interest. We have said all along that Ontarians will have at least 40% ownership of Hydro One.

But the point being made here is the fact that Hydro One may become a growth company. In fact, we hope it will be, so we can access even greater dividends for the benefit of the public, and in so doing, we have to protect the interests of the public by ensuring that we always retain that 40%.

We will work collaboratively to ensure that no one or group of shareholders can have more than 10% ownership of Hydro One, and we will continue to do that. Legislation will be required to enforce that. We’ll work together with all members of this House, who should be supportive of this for the benefit of the people of Ontario.

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Mr. Arthur Potts: I’m delighted to have this opportunity to put a question to the Associate Minister of Finance.

I know that retirement security is top of mind for many Ontarians all across the province. Certainly my constituents in Beaches–East York, particularly those in their twenties and thirties, are particularly concerned that they do not have access to a workplace pension plan, and they are concerned about their future. They are concerned that they will not be able to maintain a reasonable standard of living during their retirement. In fact, many have even told me they’re concerned that they will never have the luxury of being able to retire.

That’s why they are all thrilled now to see that our government is moving ahead with the creation of the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan. Just last week, I was pleased to see that the budget outlined important progress that we were making toward implementing that plan.

Speaker, through you, will the minister please provide us with details about the steps the government is taking to move forward with the implementation of the important plan?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I want to thank the member from Beaches–East York for that very important question.

Mr. Speaker, last week’s budget announced an important next step for our government in taking the enhancement of the retirement security of millions of Ontarians and moving that forward. Our government is introducing legislation to establish the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan Administration Corp. This entity will be responsible for administering the ORPP. It will be a professional, independent pension organization.

Ontario is a global leader in pension administration and management. The pension plans such as teachers’ and HOOPP are recognized as top performers internationally. The Economist called Ontario plans “maple revolutionaries.”

Mr. Speaker, we’re