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

June 7, 2012

40th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2012-Jun-07 (PDF)

L063 - Thu 7 Jun 2012 / Jeu 7 jun 2012

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 7 June 2012 Jeudi 7 juin 2012

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO ELECTRICITY SYSTEM

OPERATOR ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ

D’EXPLOITATION DU RÉSEAU

D’ÉLECTRICITÉ DE L’ONTARIO

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBER FOR ST. CATHARINES

ORAL QUESTIONS

MANUFACTURING JOBS

WAGE RATES

ONTARIO BUDGET

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

JUSTICE SYSTEM

POVERTY REDUCTION

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

DRIVE CLEAN

PROTECTION OF GREAT LAKES

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

I LOVE ME CLUB

WORKPLACE SAFETY

ROBOTICS COMPETITION

CRISTY NURSE

EVENTS IN ALGOMA–MANITOULIN

SICKLE CELL DISEASE

TRIOS COLLEGE

FRENCHMAN’S BAY YACHT CLUB

RENEWABLE ENERGY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TAXATION AMENDMENT ACT

(FOOD BANK DONATION

TAX CREDIT FOR FARMERS), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES IMPÔTS (CRÉDIT D’IMPÔT

AUX AGRICULTEURS POUR DONS À UNE BANQUE ALIMENTAIRE)

SICKLE CELL AND THALASSEMIA

CARE ONTARIO ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR TRAITEMENT

DES AFFECTIONS DRÉPANOCYTAIRES

ET DES THALASSÉMIES ONTARIO

PREVENTION OF ELECTORAL

FRAUD ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA PRÉVENTION

DE LA FRAUDE ÉLECTORALE

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

PETITIONS

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

ONTARIO HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN

TOURISM

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

UTILITY CHARGES

CYCLING

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

WATER QUALITY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

ADDRESSING ONTARIO’S DEBT

THROUGH ALTERNATIVES

TO PUBLIC SECTOR LAYOFFS

AND PROGRAM CUTS ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 VISANT À S’ATTAQUER

À LA DETTE DE L’ONTARIO

SANS RECOURIR À DES MISES À PIED

DANS LE SECTEUR PUBLIC

ET À DES COMPRESSIONS

DANS LES PROGRAMMES

LIQUOR LICENCE AMENDMENT ACT

(SERVING LIQUOR

IN CERTAIN PLACES), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES PERMIS D’ALCOOL

(SERVICE D’ALCOOL

DANS CERTAINS LIEUX)

INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

(RISK CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS

FOR AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES ASSURANCES

(SYSTÈMES DE CLASSEMENT DES RISQUES

EN ASSURANCE-AUTOMOBILE)

ADDRESSING ONTARIO’S DEBT

THROUGH ALTERNATIVES

TO PUBLIC SECTOR LAYOFFS

AND PROGRAM CUTS ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 VISANT À S’ATTAQUER

À LA DETTE DE L’ONTARIO

SANS RECOURIR À DES MISES À PIED

DANS LE SECTEUR PUBLIC

ET À DES COMPRESSIONS

DANS LES PROGRAMMES

LIQUOR LICENCE AMENDMENT ACT

(SERVING LIQUOR

IN CERTAIN PLACES), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES PERMIS D’ALCOOL

(SERVICE D’ALCOOL

DANS CERTAINS LIEUX)

INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

(RISK CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS

FOR AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES ASSURANCES

(SYSTÈMES DE CLASSEMENT DES RISQUES

EN ASSURANCE-AUTOMOBILE)

ADDRESSING ONTARIO’S DEBT

THROUGH ALTERNATIVES

TO PUBLIC SECTOR LAYOFFS

AND PROGRAM CUTS ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 VISANT À S’ATTAQUER

À LA DETTE DE L’ONTARIO

SANS RECOURIR À DES MISES À PIED

DANS LE SECTEUR PUBLIC

ET À DES COMPRESSIONS

DANS LES PROGRAMMES

INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

(RISK CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS

FOR AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES ASSURANCES

(SYSTÈMES DE CLASSEMENT DES RISQUES

EN ASSURANCE-AUTOMOBILE)

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO ELECTRICITY SYSTEM

OPERATOR ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ

D’EXPLOITATION DU RÉSEAU

D’ÉLECTRICITÉ DE L’ONTARIO

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 8, 2012, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 75,

An Act to amend the Electricity Act, 1998 to amalgamate the Independent Electricity System Operator and the Ontario Power Authority, to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 and to make complementary amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 75, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1998 sur l’électricité pour fusionner la Société indépendante d’exploitation du réseau d’électricité et l’Office de l’électricité de l’Ontario, modifiant la Loi de 1998 sur la Commission de l’énergie de l’Ontario et apportant des modifications complémentaires à d’autres lois.

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

M me France Gélinas: I would request unanimous consent that the NDP stand down their lead today, and I would do a 20-minute.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nickel Belt has asked to stand down the lead. Do we agree? Agreed.

The member from Nickel Belt.

M me France Gélinas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m sorry; our lead on energy is busy in committee this morning, couldn’t be in two places at once, so you’ll have to settle for me.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We’re not settling.

M me France Gélinas: Oh, there you go. That’s pretty nice of you guys.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Depending on what you say, of course.

M me France Gélinas: Exactly.

All right, so, Bill 75, the Ontario Electricity System Operator Act: On the surface there’s a tiny, weeny little part of this bill that sounds pretty good to me. That’s the part where there will be a merger of the Ontario Power Authority and—I’m warning you right now, Mr. Speaker, there will be a lot of short forms. The Ontario Power Authority is referred to as the OPA. We will be merging that with the Independent Electricity System Operator, which is also known as the IESO. OPA and IESO would get merged. On the surface and even in practice—

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: OMG.

M me France Gélinas: My colleague is making me laugh here—it’s something that the NDP has been asking for, and it’s something that we would have no problem supporting. I would even say that we would go a whole lot further. There is an alphabet soup of energy producers, distributors and planners, and we say there could be some opportunity for reduced waste if we were to merge more of those agencies.

But for now Bill 75, the Ontario Electricity System Operator Act, is designed to implement the merger of the Ontario Power Authority with the Independent Electricity System Operator. The problem with Bill 75 is that the government is also introducing many, many other changes that have to do with energy planning and procurement. This is where we disagree with what the bill has to say.

Make no bones about it: The NDP supports the consolidation of Ontario’s fragmented hydro agency system, and we certainly agree with the government intention to reduce waste by merging those two agencies, the OPA and IESO. However, the way they have gone about Bill 75 is that it will remove the independent planning and review required by the present supply planning regime. This is something that we cannot support.

We’re sort of surprised that it has been put in there, because recent events would show you that, when you take away the opportunity for people to be engaged in planning for energy, it doesn’t lead to anything too good. One needs to look no further away than some of the backlash associated with something good: Green energy is something that we can all agree to. But then, when we look at the way it has been implemented, where those wind turbines are being put in places where people feel that they did not have an opportunity to be heard—they wouldn’t have done it that way if they had had an opportunity to be heard.

Some of this, I would say, cost the Liberals quite a few seats in rural Ontario, yet here they go again, coming forward with a bill that would further reduce the opportunity for Ontarians to have a say in the plan.

Don’t get me wrong, Mr. Speaker: We all know energy is at the core of making Ontario work. We need energy to be reliable and available throughout Ontario. We need this to be part of a government plan so that present and future businesses, as well as people, know that there is a plan in place and that energy will be there when they need it so that we can plan new expansion.

I can talk for my riding, Mr. Speaker. We have been selected as the case base for Cliffs resources to develop a new plant that would process the chromite that comes from the Ring of Fire, bring it to my riding of Nickel Belt and process it into ferrochrome. This type of processing plant requires a tremendous amount of energy in the transformation process. They felt that they could do the planning to set up this kind of processing plant in Nickel Belt in part because they knew we had a strong, secure, reliable energy supply coming to that part of my riding, to that part of Ontario, to that part of Nickel Belt.

Are we in agreement that you need to have a strong plan in place, a plan that plans for the future but also gives reassurance to business and people that we will have a strong energy system?

Here we have the merger of the Ontario Power Authority with the electricity system operator, and it will form a new agency, Mr. Speaker, called the Ontario Electricity System Operator, a new acronym called OESO. I hope you haven’t lost me already, because there are many more of those acronyms coming in our future.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: OMG.

M me France Gélinas: My colleague is bringing me off track again here, and I’m having a tough enough time as it is.

This is well-intentioned. The merger is well-intentioned and something that I think we can all rely on and we can all support. But what it also does is eliminate the current integrated power system plan. This is referred to as the IPSP. Really, think of it as, this is the plan; this is how we plan as to how much energy we will need, how we will produce that energy, what type of energy form it will be—will it be green energy, will it be water power, solar, wind, will it be a gas-fired power plant, run of the river? This is the plan. This is something that is important to the people of Ontario.

Unfortunately, with the merger, the opportunity for public and stakeholder participation in energy planning will be greatly reduced. We already know that Ontarians care about their energy supply, that Ontarians want to be engaged in the making of those plans, because it affects them, it affects their neighbourhood, it affects their livelihood, it affects their business and their business decisions.

We know that Ontarians want to be part of this dialogue, but unfortunately, this bill, with the integration of the Ontario Power Authority and the Independent Electricity System Operator into the Ontario Electricity System Operator, will take away the opportunity for the people of Ontario to have a say in this plan. This is highly problematic for us.

There will be changes to energy planning, as well as energy procurement. Bill 75, the bill we’re talking about this morning, removes the Ontario Power Authority’s power and duty to develop an integrated power system plan for approval by the Ontario Energy Board—another acronym, the OEB. If you think there are too many, I agree wholeheartedly with you. I would merge the whole thing together and do like Manitoba does: have one power planner, supplier, operator and distributor, and have it in the not-for-profit, public domain.

But that’s not what we’re doing here today. What we are doing is that Bill 75 removes the power and duty of the OPA for approval of that plan. Basically, the Ontario Energy Board’s duty to review and plan for economic prudence, cost-effectiveness and regulatory compliance will be greatly reduced. The IPSP, which, as I said before, is the integrated power system plan, is replaced by a ministerial energy plan. What does that mean? It means that the minister must consult with the OEB on the impact of the energy plan on consumer electricity bills and on methods of managing that impact.

It also means that the ministry must also refer the plan to the OEB for review of the estimated capital costs in the plan, in accordance with the referral.

This is really different from an independent review of the plan by the OEB. We have limited the amount of oversight. We have limited the ability for stakeholders to test, to be heard, to influence, and basically to be respected in the government’s energy plan for procurement, as well as the consequences of that plan on the rate that we pay.

Make no mistake. It doesn’t matter who plans it; we end up paying this lovely little bill that you urban folks get every month and we northern folks get every two months. But it doesn’t matter; we still get our bills and we will still have to pay for that energy.

We have a system in place right now that gives people some opportunity for shaping that plan. Ontarians have proven that they want to help shape that plan, but now we have a bill in front of us that will limit the amount of consultation that stakeholders will be able to do.

This is a far cry from the independent review of the plan by the OEB that is presently required. It deprives stakeholders of the ability to test before the OEB can proceed.

It also continues a trend that was already apparent before Bill 75 for the government to try to put control over the activities of the OPA and the OEB by a combination of policy imperatives and directives. We see more and more ministerial control of our energy plan, whether we’re talking procurement or planning, and less and less of an opportunity for the people of Ontario to be heard on those plans. It doesn’t matter where you go—certainly in northern and rural Ontario—people have proven that they want to be engaged.

I would say that certainly the people of Oakville, before the election, said they also wanted to be consulted on those energy plans, and they did not want this little gas power plant to come to their city. People have proven over and over again that they want to have a say. They want to be consulted, but we’re taking that opportunity away from them.

I would also say that Bill 75 blurs the distinction between the functions of the OESO and the OEB, so I would like to use the six minutes left to talk a little about the integration and the potential for conflict.

Once we start to have overlapping function between the OPA, the Ontario Power Authority, and the IESO, the Independent Electricity System Operator, it will present a new set of problems for the OESO, the new agency we are creating. Although the short- and long-term forecasting functions of the IESO and the OPA should integrate well, it will be more difficult to integrate the planning and procurement function of the OPA, Ontario Power Authority, with the IESO’s responsibility to administer and enforce market rules.

We in the NDP feel that the creation of an electricity market was a mistake in the first place, and in the short/medium term it has proven to be a mistake. Therefore, we have to be careful to make sure that there is a separation between the generation procurement and the market operation.

Let me give you an example, Mr. Speaker. The OPA currently has the responsibility to make and implement a procurement process for its IPSP, for its plan. The IESO regulation of market participants includes potential parties to OPA procurement. Therein lies the potential for conflict of interest.

I must say that Bill 75 recognizes it and tries to cure the potential for conflict of interest in different ways.

Some of those ways would be that the minister take back responsibility for procurement decisions, or that the board of directors of the OESO is required “to ensure that there is effective separation of functions and activities of the OESO relating to its market operations” and “its procurement and contract management activities.” The OESO is prohibited from conducting itself in a “manner that could unduly advantage or disadvantage any market participant or any party to a procurement contract or interfere with, reduce or impede a market participant’s non-discriminatory access to transmission systems or distribution systems.”

We already know, Mr. Speaker, that there is lots of conflict right here, right now in Ontario when it comes to access to transmission systems. I can tell you of what I considered—I’m no expert—really good green energy projects in my riding that had been given the okay under the FIT program, the feed-in tariff, but couldn’t connect to the grid. I can give you the example of a church in Capreol that was facing the perfect way, had a perfect piece of land to have a few solar panels—quite a few, actually—installed on the roof of the church as well as the grounds of the church.

They did all of their research, they got a FIT contract and then they found out that they could not get access to the grid. So all the work they had done and money they had put out was for nothing.

You can see, I’m sure, Mr. Speaker, that this quickly becomes a source of conflict. If you are creating a new merged identity where those conflicts will be harder to tear apart, then you are just multiplying conflicts. I don’t know what you think, Mr. Speaker, but I don’t think a piece of legislation should be put out there that will be causing more conflicts than we already have. Let’s face it: The energy file is a file that can be very divisive.

I have many, many run-of-the-river or modified peaking green energy contracts going on in my riding, and the opportunity for people to be heard is something that people take very, very seriously. The opportunity for conflict at the local level—conflict that sometimes pits one neighbour against the other, the worst kind of conflict—is alive and present. Here we are bringing forward Bill 75, which has the possibility to make those conflicts worse.

Another way that conflict can be avoided is, the board of directors right now is required to ensure that confidentiality is maintained. However, the OESO will still have the power and responsibility to implement the minister’s procurement decisions. It is not clear right now how the board of directors of the new OESO will keep these conflicting functions separate without, in effect, keeping the two former organizations separate under one roof.

There is a tension between this obligation and the absolute imperative to reduce waste and duplication and bring back coherence in hydro planning that was lost in the disastrous Harris era experiment of privatization and deregulation of Ontario’s electricity system.

The NDP is not convinced that this bill will reduce those tensions, and we’re certainly not convinced that this bill will put out what the government said: a saving in the range of $25 million a year. I would say frankly that this remains to be seen. There are too many opportunities for conflict in this bill as it is now. Although it starts with a good first step of merging some of the operators, it also creates its own set of problems.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments.

Mr. Phil McNeely: I’m pleased to respond to the member from Nickel Belt on this extremely important bill that we have, Bill 75.

This bill was introduced on April 26, 2012. The Independent Electricity System Operator is the system operator—this is a little bit confusing, such a large organization with four or five operating bodies. The OPA is the Ontario Power Authority. There was overlap with these two. This is what this bill is about: It’s about bringing these together. It’s not the only thing that is being done in relation to energy, but they’re being brought together to get rid of this overlap and make the system more efficient, because of conflicting duties when it comes to energy.

That $25 million is one of the savings, but I’m sure there will be larger savings in the future as the planning of our energy system in Ontario has more control of the detail. You don’t have two organizations trying to do two different things when really their objective is the same. We’re going to have one. This is an important step.

We can all be negative about it as well, but there are other things that are happening in the energy sector. The panel has been set up with Murray Elston, Floyd Laughren and David McFadden. They’ll be looking at some of these issues too. I’ll be glad when they come to Ottawa, because Ottawa has had an issue for a long time to do with hydro. We’ve got Hydro Ottawa, which charges about 7% or 8% less than Hydro One. I happen to be in the 7% or 8% higher, and my people there, about 40,000 homes, are paying too much for energy. I’ll get back to that as we move forward, and I’ll be speaking next.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Durham.

Mr. John O’Toole: I did listen carefully to the member from Nickel Belt. I do respect—she spends a fair amount of time on issues. More importantly, what I think she was saying, and I tend to agree with her observation, is there’s a deliberate conflict here. If you really look at the structure of what they’re doing first, the amalgamation of an organization that our leader, Tim Hudak, said was completely unnecessary—the Ontario Power Authority was set up originally to develop a supply mix proposal for the province of Ontario: Where does the generation come from? I think they’ve done the job.

People argue with the commitments to renewable or gas or—you know, this is a government that promised to close the coal plants in 2007.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: How’d that work out?

Mr. John O’Toole: They have made a complete mess out of that file. They use it as sort of a social policy as opposed to an economic policy. I think—

Laughter.

Mr. John O’Toole: They’re laughing over there. But I’m disappointed—because there’s a report here by the Environmental Commissioner called Restoring Balance: A Review of the First Three Years of the Green Energy Act.

What I am saying here is that if you look in to the bill itself—and I think the member from Nickel Belt mentioned it—it says, “The OESO is not an agent of the crown and is composed of its board of directors.... appointed by the Minister of Energy.” I can’t believe it. Even in the

preamble of the bill here, it says that there’s a procurement relationship between the two bodies.

I think it’s an inherent conflict of interest. We are seeing that all the time now with the Ornge helicopter. They’re setting up the same organizations, squandering money—and no accountability.

I want them to respond to what I’ve said. In fact, I hope I get a chance this morning to speak on it.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Algoma–Manitoulin.

Mr. Michael Mantha: It’s a privilege to get up to speak to Bill 75, the Ontario Electricity System Operator Act, and to follow a lot of the comments that my colleague from Nickel Belt has just made.

I’m always the person that will try to put a positive on things. Yes, this was a cornerstone of some of the asks that during our campaign we were asking for: to eliminate a lot of the repetitive services. Eliminating a lot of those repetitive services will bring savings to the consumer. This takes us to that step.

Let’s not forget where these services and where the privatization of hydro—where it all began 12 years ago. It’s important to remember how that began. It’s frightening to hear those types of words still coming out today, where we’re talking about privatization.

This is a small step forward. The other issue that it deals with is that, yes, it will deal with overlapping services and administration costs and responsibilities that are there. Once again, it’s a small step forward that will start bringing benefits to the consumers. This is a good step forward.

But one of the things it doesn’t do is that, although the IPSP was far from perfect and could have used some improvements, at least through that process it provided a very formal and informative way to guarantee that stakeholders and individuals from the public can actually participate in the discussions of consultation and bring their views forward. If we are going forward with this and we’re going to have those discussions, we need to find a way to provide all stakeholders and our general public with the opportunity to provide their input fully to this process to make it very effective.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Richmond Hill.

Mr. Reza Moridi: It’s my pleasure to participate in the discussion on Bill 75. Bill 75 is the act to amend the Electricity Act, 1998. I’m glad to hear that the third party, the NDP, is supporting amalgamation of the Independent Electricity System Operator and also the Ontario Power Authority. As we all know, the Independent Electricity System Operator is an organization responsible for the operation of the system, and the Ontario Power Authority is an organization responsible for planning.

The operation and planning of industrial institutions are closely related to each other, so that’s why we want to amalgamate these two organizations. This amalgamation is going to eliminate duplications, it’s going to save $25 million a year for the ratepayers of Ontario, and it’s going to streamline and coordinate the efforts and responsibilities of these two organizations.

I want just to make a comment about the comment made by the member from Durham asking us to comment on his comment. I must mention, Mr. Speaker, that when his party was in office for eight years, our electricity system was really in a shambles. They made no investment in our electricity system, two or three nuclear reactors had been shut down because of mismanagement, and the price of electricity was deregulated. As a result, there was an $8-billion increase in the stranded debt of the former Ontario Hydro, and now we are paying for this debt retirement on a monthly basis.

These are just a couple of points I wanted to mention about the performance of the PC Party in relation to our electricity system when they were in office for eight years.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member from Nickel Belt, you have two minutes to respond.

M me France Gélinas: First, I’d like to thank the member from Ottawa–Orléans. The part he talks about—the overlapping between the two agencies and the positives that will come out of merging the Ontario Power Authority with the Independent Electricity System Operator, merging that bureaucracy—certainly is something the NDP can and will support. We see value in having less of this alphabet soup of energy procurement, planning, operating, distributing etc. Look at your hydro bill and you will agree that if there were a few less lines, we would all be happier. We agree with that part of the bill.

Then the member from Durham showed the other part of the bill where the possibilities for conflict do exist and will be made worse by some of the provisions in this mix. The OPA is there to look at the supply as to, how will we generate power? Will it be green? Will it be run of the river? Will it be coal-fired? Many, many promises have been made over many election campaigns but very few have actually been rolled out.

The energy file is a polarized issue, and bills brought forward should try to de-escalate those conflicts, not make them worse.

My colleague from Algoma–Manitoulin, like me, like every one of the NDP, supports the elimination of duplication and consolidation in the power industry in Ontario.

To the member from Richmond Hill, we all agree that we need a stable source of energy. People, business and industry depend on it.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate?

Mr. Phil McNeely: I’m pleased to stand in my place in this Legislature to speak to Bill 75, the Ontario Electricity System Operator Act, 2012. As I said before, and it needs repeating to make sure people know, this bill, introduced on April 26, 2012, will join two organizations together: the IESO, the Independent Electricity System Operator, which is the system operator, as has been mentioned, and the OPA, the Ontario Power Authority, which, as my colleague has just said, is the planning function. Bringing these two together is certainly going to accomplish the efficiencies we need to have in our electricity system in Ontario. It’s going to be a step in that direction.

It is not only being done in isolation. As I mentioned in my two minutes, I look forward to the panel reporting, because they’re going to report on a range of issues: long- and short-term financial savings associated with consolidation, benefits for ratepayers, long- and short-term operational efficiencies, potential risks. The Ontario Distribution Sector Panel will report back to the Minister of Energy within a year. All of these issues are very important as we find efficiencies in the energy sector.

I hope they’re looking at a city like my own, which is Ottawa. Was it in 2000 when the city of Ottawa brought together 13 or 14 municipalities, I believe? I attended the last meeting of the group that had put the plan together. I said, “What are you going to do about hydro?” At that time, the municipality that was coming in was Cumberland, and the city of Cumberland at the time did not have their own individual hydro. They had Hydro One providing that. Most of the municipalities had their own. There was Gloucester Hydro, Nepean Hydro, Ottawa Hydro. They were just bringing those together. We were left out.

I asked a question at that last meeting—I think the meeting was in January, and the election was over in October. When I was elected as councillor, I asked, “What are you going to do about having two electrical utilities in one city? It’s not going to be efficient. It’s not going to be fair.” We were bringing all the sewers together, all the water lines together, all the roads together. We were assuming all of those, but they left us with the higher Hydro One—Hydro One rates were higher.

Cities are easy to service, but when you get to the great outdoors in the north and the small communities, it’s expensive. With that 5% or 6% or 7% additional cost on our hydro, we’ve been subsidizing rural Ontario and northern Ontario, as compared to other utility users in the province. We got caught with that.

This is a time, when that panel is going there—that will be some of the discussion. Some of the discussions will be around some of the things that the member for Nickel Belt mentioned: How do we get the community input? How do we make those decisions so that the decisions are made for the people? Those things, I think, will be worked out. I really think it’s important that that panel does their work. I really think it’s important that this legislation goes ahead, as well, and we’ll have a better system here.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it makes a lot of sense to update the structure of OPA and IESO, and it’s the right time to do it. When the OPA was set up, it had the important task of renewing our aging energy infrastructure, eliminating coal and moving to a cleaner energy system. The OPA has done a lot of important work over the past eight years, but now we have a responsibility to ratepayers to take a look at our energy sector and ensure it’s as efficient as possible. I think that’s all part of what this is about.

We are proposing to implement a similar phased approach that has successfully merged GO Transit and Metrolinx, Infrastructure Ontario and the Ontario Realty Corp. These mergers were a success, saving taxpayers money and providing better services to Ontarians, and that’s what it’s all about. Examining every aspect of the energy sector will allow us to provide the best possible value for Ontarians. Merging the OPA’s planning knowledge with the IESO’s operational expertise will make for the most efficient organization possible.

The proposed new agency would be responsible for procurement and market operations, providing opportunities to align contracts, and market rules to benefit consumers. Streamlining the system to reduce the burden on local utilities will ultimately save ratepayers money. Creating an electricity system that is more responsive to changing conditions is part of it.

I’ll go back to the Ottawa situation, which is one of the situations that I’ve been involved in. We’ve had many attempts to have Hydro Ottawa take over all the electricity in the city of Ottawa. That would be to their advantage. Right now, Hydro One has the growth areas of Ottawa. One of the growth areas, of course, is Orléans sector; others are in Manotick, for instance, which I think is still Hydro One, and West Carleton. So a good part of the growth areas do not have the advantage of having Hydro Ottawa working with the city to work these things out.

The issue on trying to get one hydro utility in Ottawa, including the service and support of 50,000 residents outside who are serviced by Hydro One, is always a willing buyer and a willing seller. The municipality wants to get it for nothing; Hydro One wants the full commercial value plus. Over 10 years, it has been fought back and forth. I hope that part of this panel discussion looking at the local distribution companies etc. will look at this. It’s not efficient to have a city the size of Ottawa being served by two local distribution companies. It just doesn’t work. The outages in Orléans were 6% or 7% more.

At one time they were two or three times as bad as the city of Ottawa was. Hydro One has put a lot of investment in our east end, and that has improved it, but it’s not the way to go—one city, one hydro utility. We don’t have two sewer utilities, we don’t have two water utilities, we don’t have two road utilities. Why should we have one service coming in from two suppliers that have different rules and different objectives?

One of the things I’m very proud of that we have done—and it was mentioned by the member opposite that we hadn’t done it—we’re 90% out of coal. When we came in, it was something like 23% to 25% of our energy generation was coal. The estimated cost of that, just from a health perspective—and this was from an independent study—was $4 billion a year. We didn’t get it done when we thought we could get it done. A lot of things intervened. It was a bigger problem, I guess, than we thought, but we accomplished 90% of it.

In 2014, when the carbon dioxide in the world, in parts per million, as has been measured for 40 years in the same way, will have reached 400, which is a disaster area—it’s now 393. When it reaches 400, Ontario will be out of coal. We’ll be the first jurisdiction, certainly in North America but I think in the world, that has taken the coal issue and resolved it. It cost Ontario ratepayers a lot of money, but they did it for the health reasons. They did it to protect our children and grandchildren against climate change.

You know, sometimes with climate change—it’s a buried issue now. Nobody can talk about it. You’re not supposed to. I was disappointed, but Senator Brown, who I happened to take a plane ride from Ottawa to Toronto with, is up there on taxpayers’ money, with Nancy Greene, and they’re working as the deniers of climate change. It’s not happening; there’s no such thing as climate change. It’s very, very important, and anybody from BC—I would like to ask if maybe Nancy Greene would write me a letter and explain to me why she’s not worried about the environment.

To have two senators working as a deniers’ team—it was in the paper. I think Minister Kent may be the lead on that; I don’t know. But climate change is so important.

Ontario did what they had to do. Ontario got out of coal. We should be a leader. We lose some of that leadership because of who the other nations meet at the conferences. Canada has won the fossil award at so many—from Copenhagen to Mexico to South Africa, and we’ll be doing it again. It’s unfortunate.

The Alberta oil sands is controversial, but I know how much it adds to our economy. I know how much it adds to the jobs. But if those oil companies could just take a little bit of the percentage and say, “Well, look, we’re causing 10,000 megatonnes of greenhouse gas a year. What we’re going to do is reduce energy use in your homes in Alberta and across the country. We’ll take that money and we’ll put it toward energy retrofits in our homes,” which are expensive, but which are needed and which have paybacks normally under seven or eight years.

They could do that, rather than taking out page ads showing a beautiful mother, a biologist—it just happened to be a biologist—looking after all the sins of that—

Mr. John O’Toole: Point of order.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Point of order, the member for Durham.

Mr. John O’Toole: According to the standing orders, I think the member is supposed to be addressing Bill 75. I’m not being rude, but he’s talking about tar sands and oil sands, and I can’t see where any of this relates to this bill, which is a restructuring of the service provisions and administration of the energy of Ontario. I would ask him to stick to the topic.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I believe the member is sticking to the topic.

Please continue, the member for Ottawa–Orléans.

Mr. Phil McNeely: Speaker, I can understand where it’s coming from. I mean, these people did not want us to get out of coal. They did not want us to bring in these smart meters. They have been consistent. They didn’t want us to have tobacco bylaws. They had a bill last week promoting pesticides. So I’m not surprised where that comes from.

We have accomplished a lot. We’ve rebuilt the distribution system for the 21st century—we’ve invested $7 billion to rebuild it—and we’ve brought on 9,000 megawatts of new and refurbished clean energy. Of course, the party opposite would be against clean energy. It’s the same as taking smoking out of bars or airplanes. It’s the same as not spraying pesticides on lawns. So they’re against clean energy, and that’s hurt the clean energy industry here, but the Green Energy Act has created 20,000 jobs and is doing important things.

We’re a North American leader, and we all know—or at least people who read the scientific reports know—that within 10 to 15 years you’ve got to be away from coal. It’s going to be difficult for the US and for China, but they’re going to have to get out of coal. Green energy is what’s going to be the new energy—and conservation—and we’re going to have to do that.

So we’re phasing out of coal with its $4 billion in health and environment costs. This was great. This was the thing to go on, and Ontarians have supported us. I’m pleased that Ontarians have supported us. Ontario is the leader in the world in getting out of coal, and that’s where we all have to go.

Joining these two organizations together will let them plan more efficiently, will save taxpayers and customers money. In addition to combining the organizations to form the Ontario Electricity System Operator, the OESO, we’re asking OPA and Hydro One to cut costs. We’re undertaking a review of the feed-in tariffs. We are benchmarking the OPG and Hydro One against national and international peers.

And something I want to see is that we will, through an Ontario Distribution Sector Panel, be reviewing Ontario’s local distribution companies. I think that’s extremely important. That will be important for Ottawa.

I’m proud to be part of the government which is leading North America in greenhouse gas reductions. You know, all countries must get out of coal in the next 30 years; it’s absolutely necessary. Twenty would be better, and 10 would be even better. It’s going to take a long time for those economies to adjust to that.

I think this bill that is in front of us is the right direction. It’s just part of the changes we’re making in the energy sector, and it will be important. I hope that the members of this House will support it.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. John O’Toole: I think the member for Ottawa–Orléans—I want to set the record straight here right now—was impugning motive. He was in violation of standing order 23(i), which says he should not impugn or imply false information on another member. He should know—he’s a very clever gentleman—that the only coal plant that’s ever been closed in the province of Ontario was closed by Elizabeth Witmer.

Now, the truth of it is—this isn’t really relevant to the bill—that in the election in 2003 they promised they were going to close the coal plants by I believe it was 2011. Now, the Minister of the Environment is here, and I know he has been Minister of the Environment a couple of times. The fact is that they’ve changed that and they still haven’t closed the coal plants.

Now, we’re using less coal, and the reason we’re using less coal is because there is no economy. The economy of Ontario uses about—67% or 68% of all the electrons are used by industry: refining, pulp and paper, steel, manufacturing. Those are the very sectors of the economy that have gone off the cliff. I don’t blame it all on Premier McGuinty, but he’s got to take some responsibility for the plight of 600,000 families without jobs. All he’s done—

Interjection.

Mr. John O’Toole: The Minister of Municipal Affairs is a very clever person, but she’s offside on all this as well.

They do not have a clue how serious the problems are in Ontario. Don Drummond told you that you have an economic calamity on your hands. You have turned energy into a complete mess.

Now, in the next while I’m going to get a chance to speak on this. I’ll report on the bill. I’ll talk to you on the bill about what’s actually going on. Most of you haven’t read it.

Interjection.

Mr. John O’Toole: Ms. Cansfield as well.

Interjection.

Mr. John O’Toole: No, you haven’t read it. If you had, your notes would at least tell you that there is an inherent conflict in the bill itself. I’ll make it more clear later on.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Michael Mantha: Now I’m really looking forward to hearing the prior speaker’s comments. I’m going to be listening quite attentively to what he’s going to be highlighting to this House when he speaks shortly.

Again, this really is maybe taking a small step forward, but when you’re taking that step forward, you can’t forget the good that was there in the past by having those checks and balances to make sure that the proper decisions are going to be made, going forward.

When we’re saying that, we really need to make sure there is a process in order to have all of our stakeholders and all of the individuals sit down and really scrutinize where this is going and what this act is supposed to do. It’s eliminating a process, and we need to make sure that it doesn’t weaken it, that it actually strengthens what we’re trying to do.

From where I stand, the benefit needs to be to the consumers. The consumers need to benefit from this—not only benefit through a reduction or a clarity on their hydro bill or their consumption bill, but also with the environment and also with other checks and balances that need to be there. We really need to make sure that those flags are there to be raised when they need to be raised.

It’s really important that we take the time to scrutinize this. I look forward to having those discussions, to making sure that—a lot of what we campaigned on, as a party, during the campaign was to eliminate a lot of the repetitive services and the administrative costs that are there, because that will definitely bring benefits to the consumer.

I look forward to hearing some of the comments that I’m going to be hearing from the prior speaker, because a lot of the reasons why we’re here today are because of actions that that government took then. I’ll sit and listen now.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Richmond Hill.

Mr. Reza Moridi: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, it’s a pleasure to talk to Bill 75. My colleague the member from Ottawa–Orléans very eloquently explained the reason why we are bringing this bill forward, and I’m glad to hear that the third party is supporting the amalgamation of these two Ministry of Energy agencies, the Independent Electricity System Operator and the Ontario Power Authority.

The member from Durham has commented on the burning of coal for the production of electricity. I must indicate that when his party was in power, the burning of coal increased by 127% in Ontario. I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that burning coal costs $4.4 billion to our health care and the environmental system. It is the worst method of electricity production. We made a policy decision some years ago to shut down all coal-fired plants in the province of Ontario, and we have already shut down several of those plants.

By the way, the burning of coal has decreased in Ontario by 90%. Now it’s only 10% in comparison to the past burning of coal, and that will become 0%, to absolutely zero, within less than two years.

Burning coal is the worst way of producing electricity. Instead of coal, we have introduced clean, renewable energy. Now we are producing electricity using energy from the sun. We are producing electricity using energy from the wind. Also, we have introduced biogas and biomass energy into our energy mix in Ontario. This is 21st-century energy-production technology, and we are using that and we have put Ontario on the map as far as renewable energy production goes in the whole continent.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Rob Leone: I listened intently to the member for Ottawa–Orléans. In his comments today, I noticed that he spoke for about 14 and a half minutes on Bill 75, and about 14 minutes of those were actually not on the bill itself, so I’m going to take the liberty of addressing some of the comments he made.

One of the comments he made was the fact—he claims—that Ontario is a green energy leader. What he doesn’t tell you is that Ontario is a manufacturing-jobs leader.

He also says, and the member for Richmond Hill states, that consumption of coal went up and all this sort of fun stuff, but what he doesn’t say is that in Ontario, when we were in office, we created one million new jobs. Jobs, Mr. Speaker, are part of what we’re talking about here, and we’re treating energy policy as part of economic policy.

What he also didn’t say was some of the issues that we’re having with the energy file. I sit on the estimates committee. I notice the member for Richmond Hill also sits on the estimate committee. At estimates, we’re asking the government to table some documents with respect to the Oakville and Mississauga gas plants, documents that are not forthcoming. Certainly, they simply didn’t come when we asked for them and now we’re mired in procedural wrangling.

They’re delaying the work of the opposition to hold this government to account and to actually be transparent, which would be to actually table the documents that the committee has requested. This is what’s going on in estimates today. This is what Minister Bentley, the Minister of Energy, is taking

part in. He doesn’t want to reveal the bad, black holes in energy policy in Ontario, and I say that this House had better see those documents soon.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you. The member from Ottawa–Orléans, you have two minutes for a response.

Mr. Phil McNeely: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Durham. I’d just like to let him know that the Conservatives may have promised to close that coal plant and they may have done that for several years, but that coal plant was closed after 2003, when we were the government. I’d just like to mention that to him.

The member for Algoma–Manitoulin—I can understand where he’s coming from. He’s concerned with some of the consultation and checks and balances that are in the system. I’m not aware of how those are going to play out, but certainly he’ll be able to get that information from our minister.

The member for Richmond Hill, really a good scientist and someone who, as PA to energy, is doing a fine job there—I appreciated his words.

The member from Cambridge—a green energy leader. But I think you have to remember that manufacturing has that 30-cent, 40-cent wage in the Third World. I think that had something to do with it. The downturn in the US has something to do too; they were taking 70% of our products. Sure, energy costs are a cost of manufacturing, an important cost, but the environment has to be higher up the scale in that. To continue with cheap coal is not the solution to manufacturing in Ontario.

I want to thank them all for this. I’m pleased that there’s a good discussion going on in this House about where we’re going with energy and how we can save those dollars. I think that’s what the intent of this bill and this panel is: to bring together these two agencies, make them more efficient and then have a look at the whole system across the province. I’m looking for a good answer for Ottawa when that panel reports in a year.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you very much. Further debate.

Mr. John O’Toole: I wasn’t really sure, at the start of this morning, that I was going to be speaking on this, so I’ll try to stick to the topic. I was going to seek unanimous consent to stand down my rotation, but I don’t think that would be supported.

I do want to start clearly by saying to the previous two speakers, in no respect is this personal in any way. One is an engineer, and the other has a Ph.D in physics, so I know they’re qualified individuals. But at the same time, I know they’ve been given notes that I’m sure they don’t even believe themselves. Because if you knew much about it—in fact, Mr. McNeely said—and he was, I believe, an Ottawa councillor at one time, as I was a councillor. Most of the people here, a lot of them, were; Mr. Leal was, as well, in Peterborough. The local utilities really only serviced urban areas, where there was density.

Hydro One—back then it was called Ontario Hydro—serviced all the hard-to-service areas, where there was no density. It’s very expensive to have 100 miles of wire and only one customer, and servicing that wire in storms and all the rest of it is very expensive.

There were, I think, almost 400 municipal utilities, and they all had different bills, different rates, whatever. But let’s be clear: Utilities do not set the rate. The Ontario Energy Board basically sets the rate for electricity per kilowatt hour, but they do add on charges and services charges, and that is where there were differences. But the rate itself was uniform; in fact, it still is today, pretty much.

At that time for hydro, during the NDP era, it was chaos as well. A lot of it was the expensive solution of generation, which was nuclear. Nuclear energy is very capital-intensive, and it’s a big-footprint type of set-up. I may not agree with it, but that’s the decision that the Ontario Power Authority has made, that over 50% of our energy is going to come from nuclear. All parties have bought into that; there’s not a question about that. Back then, the government had a lot of trouble. In fact, they got to nine cents a kilowatt hour, then they froze the rates.

Actually, during the completion of Darlington, the project went from $4 billion to, I think it was $15 billion by the time it got completed. They could never service that debt until they started to generate electrons. So for the years and delays—the NDP stopped it, the Liberals under David Peterson stopped it. In fact, it was stopped and started quite a bit, until the project finally got completed. Then they could put into the rate the recovery of the $14 billion.

The set-up at that time—it was called the Macdonald commission. Donald Macdonald was Trudeau’s finance minister—a brilliant guy. We’re not into politics here. They realized that the whole Ontario Hydro was in serious trouble. The assets could not generate revenue to pay off the debt. They were, by any measure, bankrupt. The Macdonald commission looked at it and decided to put it into profit centres: the generation side, which was hydroelectric, coal and nuclear—that was basically what they had at the time—and a couple of gas plants. They looked at the supply mix.

At that time, the generation capacity was around 25,000 or 26,000 megawatts. Then they took the wires, the transmission system—these are the big wires—and set up a company for that. That’s a natural monopoly. Whoever gets on the big wires to transmit power, high voltage, it’s a monopoly. You have to be on the wires to get somewhere. The small wires were the utilities. The utilities were a real mess. But we did merge a lot of them; there’s no question about it. In fact, you have a paper out now that you’re going to try to merge them again.

I commend you for that, quite honestly, because there should be a seamless relationship between the consumer and the bills they pay, whether it’s in Mississauga or in Burlington or wherever else. We shouldn’t have all these municipal utilities with different bills. They’ve gone a long way to harmonizing the bills, so you can see what the electrons cost, what the delivery costs are.

I would suspect, to anyone listening, the debt retirement charge is quite problematic. People don’t get it. That’s dealing with the debt that the Macdonald commission talked about. In fact, your revenue from the debt retirement charge, per year, is around $900 million—about $1 billion. Just to keep it simple, it’s $1 billion. You’ve been collecting that $1 billion for eight years. There were reports by economists that said the residual stranded debt of that $25-billion hole in the ground, there was part of it—that’s the residual stranded debt that wasn’t supported by the assets.

That’s where that charge came from—and it’s not me. Look, Donald Macdonald’s commission report explains it to you. I had someone explain it to me, and I took the time, over many years, to read it and ask questions. That gives you a thumbnail sketch of the history.

We committed, in the same election in 2003, to cancel the coal plants, and we said 2014. That’s documented proof. Here’s the issue—and I said it during the election, because I’m fortunate enough to represent the riding of Durham, which is the largest nuclear generation area in Canada. I have a lot of experts who tell me how this system works, and they’re very helpful to me in that way. In fact, the real issue is that the organization right now of the whole system has been kind of messed up a bit. The debt retirement, I believe, is paid off, yet we have the highest rates in North America.

The reason we do is the way you’re trying to pay for the feed-in tariffs. What happens is that renewable energy, wind and solar—and both these engineers understand that—is called non-dispatchable energy by the professionals. In other words, you can’t generate electrons when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining, but you need electrons all the time. So when you have electrons being generated when you don’t need them, like at night when everybody is asleep and low demand, what do you do with those?

You actually have to get them off the system, but what your contract says under the FIT tariff is that you’ve got to buy them. The province has committed for 20 years that whenever you’re generating electrons from renewable energy FIT contracts, you get paid for them. You’re not only getting paid, you’re getting 80.2 cents a kilowatt-hour for microFIT installations.

Now, that 80 cents, if you think of how the system works—and the engineers know—the system, the wire, is like a garden hose. If it’s full of electrons going from the generation—the nuclear plant which is running—and nobody is taking the electrons off the system, the system shorts out. Like a garden hose that was plugged, eventually it would break. So you’re giving those electrons away to Quebec; in fact, you’re paying them to take them.

Now, the problem with the system we have is that there’s not enough interconnect capacity. We have only got about 3,000 megawatts of interconnect capacity with Quebec and Manitoba. Quebec and Manitoba have hydroelectric power. That’s the cheapest form; they’re not going to buy our expensive electrons, especially renewable.

I think the renewable program is a good idea. As far as the coal goes, it was our plan, remember, in 2014. You still haven’t closed them and I put to you now you’re not going to close them. You’re going to be using biomass. The reason is, when you have generation of 5,000 megawatts at the Nanticoke plant, a huge coal plant—it’s all been tooled. The mercury is out of it. They’ve got particulate matter under control. They’ve got a lot of stuff that they could do there. You’re going to actually convert those plants to, I believe, biomass. Because how do you get the electrons out of the plant?

With a transmission system. That grid is worth billions. There’s not enough gas in the area to gasify the plant. I believe those plants will be used. I put that on the record here today. It’ll be another broken promise.

You shouldn’t promise things which you don’t deliver. Now, here’s the deal: You say, “We didn’t know.” Well, if you didn’t know, you shouldn’t have promised. If you promised and you knew, then you lied. That’s how it works. In this system here, there are experts who have said these very things I’m saying.

Now, what does it have to do with this bill? If you want to start on the bill that we’re talking about, Bill 75, it would be important to read a couple of other documents. Our plan during the election was to eliminate the Ontario Power Authority—not discredit it but cancel it. Why? Its mandate was about 70 people, experts, Ph.D.s, and all the rest of it, to figure out what the supply mix should be. They’ve presented the supply mix report.

But the Environmental Commissioner had a few things to say about it in his recent report. It’s worth looking at. It’s Restoring Balance: A Review of the First Three Years of the Green Energy Act. It’s very much worth reading. The reason I say that is that there are a few disappointments in there. I should say this is not me, this is Gord Miller. They’ll probably fire him now. This is what it says—and the Minister of the Environment is here. It starts at Ontario’s “culture of conservation.” Remember that fancy term they used during the election, the “culture of conservation”?

They completely failed—completely failed. Read his report; it tells you. But it goes on to say that there are a few reports that are missing. He’s looking for them—and now they’re never going to be seen.

I’m going to read this here because it’s worth looking at. It’s near the back of the report. Here it is, on page 46, under “Electricity.” It says, “In February 2011, the Minister of Energy issued a supply mix directive (replacing previous supply mix directives of 2006 and 2008)”—so they said there was a supply mix. Now it’s so screwed up, they don’t know what’s going on. Technically, they have way too much renewable. In fact, that’s another whole fiasco. We’ve got people who have invested money and now they’re going to lose it—“directing the OPA to prepare an updated integrated power system plan (IPSP).

In a February 2011 letter, the Minister of Energy indicated he anticipated that the plan would be delivered to the board later in 2011. At the time of writing our report, the IPSP”—integrated power system plan—“had still not been filed with the OEB.

“The years of delay in producing an IPSP raises the question of whether it is still relevant.” That’s how fast the system is changing, so be very careful.

Now what are you doing under this bill? What you’re actually doing is you’re getting rid of the OPA, and the integrated power system plan remains out there.

Here’s what the

preamble of the bill says, which causes me great concern in the context of us asking questions for the last two months or more on the Ornge helicopter affair. Here’s what this Bill 75 says. It says, “The bill amends the Electricity Act, 1998”—which I made all my remarks about—“by amalgamating the Independent Electricity System Operator (‘IESO’) and the Ontario Power Authority (‘OPA’) and by continuing them as the Ontario Electricity System Operator (‘OESO’).” So the OPA and the IESO are gone.

I believe they should just get rid of the OPA. Here’s the point: These companies, these employees—and you’ve gone from about 75 employees to, I think, 400 employees with the OPA. What are they doing? They can’t even get the report in. I think there’s way too much meddling from the ministry itself. The OPA is integrating all this renewable energy and now you’ve got a glut of it and you can’t get rid of it. You can’t actually balance the system, if you know what I’m saying. The system has to be in balance. You can’t run your system on wind turbines. It just doesn’t work.

In fact, I’ll tell you what’s new. There’s an academic report; you might read it. I had someone call me from the University of Toronto. I had lunch with them and they explained it to me. The future is this: They’re going to take off-peak renewable energy at night and create hydrogen or some other gas. The issue then is, how do you store hydrogen? Now they’re talking about the pipelines being part of the ability to store some of this stuff. That’s innovative, and that I support, because why? You can’t store electricity, and this physics professor over here knows that. And you can’t run nuclear up and down; you run it or it’s off. It’s either on or off; otherwise, you wear the system out.

If you look at this thing here, what it says is that the board of this new organization, the OESO, is required to ensure—listen carefully, now—“that there is an effective separation of functions and activities of the OESO relating to its” marketing and “procurement and contract management activities.” Uh-oh. Look at it. They’re even saying it in here. They’re telling Premier McGuinty and his cabinet—hopefully it will be Tim Hudak and our cabinet by the time this thing gets unwound.

I’d say there’s a problem here; it’s called subrogation, and you need to separate—it’s like the Ontario Securities Commission setting the rules and doing the enforcement. It’s a natural conflict. You’ve got to subrogate the two functions, actually. In fact, I think you’re going wrong here because the Ontario Energy Board is the rightful quasi-judicial body to make these decisions. I think you would find some support for this openness, transparency and accountability from Tim Hudak and our caucus.

I say that openly because we believe—we have a document out, and I put this document out for discussion. It’s very important. I encourage people, if you can’t get one, to go online. You can get it. Or give me a call; I’ll get you one—or our critic Vic Fedeli, a marvellous guy and very into this. In fact, he’s responsible for this report. It’s called Pathways to Prosperity.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Seeing the time on the clock, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Michael Harris: I’d like to welcome this morning, all the way from Punkeydoodles Corners, in the riding of Kitchener–Conestoga, Garry Ruttan and Sheila Hannon, proud parents of our legislative intern, Craig Ruttan. Welcome to Queen’s Park today.

Ms. Soo Wong: I’d like to welcome my colleagues and friends from Humber College, Beth Brown and Barb Kennedy, who have come to visit the House.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I’m delighted to have two garage owners from my riding, Gino Sciscente and Sam Vukadinovic. They are here to witness proceedings.

Hon. John Milloy: I’d like to welcome the family of page Andrew Johnson, from the great riding of Kitchener Centre. We have Angela and William Johnson, Andrew’s parents, and Luke and Emma Johnson, Andrew’s brother and sister, who I believe are former pages. So we welcome them to Queen’s Park today.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I would like to welcome to Queen’s Park Ashokkuma Patel, who is the father of Gopi Patel, a legislative page here at Queen’s Park from the great riding of York South–Weston. I would also like to welcome Shawn Cabral, also a resident of York South–Weston and a student at Dante Alighieri high school. Welcome.

Mrs. Julia Munro: I would like to offer a welcome to Kristen Vatrt, who is the mother of page Louis Vatrt.

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I’m very pleased to introduce today Wayne and Sandra Martin, who are here from Guelph and who won lunch with me at a charity auction for the wonderful Guelph General Hospital foundation.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Speaker, they’re stuck in traffic. They’ll be here soon. I have a school coming. St. Anthony Catholic French Immersion School from London is on their way. Welcome, when they show up.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: I want to introduce two members of my family who are visiting from New Delhi, India, today here at Queen’s Park: Triveni Naqvi and Iman Naqvi, and they’re accompanied by my parents, Anwar and Qaisar Naqvi. Welcome to Queen’s Park and to Canada.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I’m pleased to welcome to the Legislature today students and staff from École Immaculée-Conception in St. Catharines, who are here to tour Queen’s Park today. Bienvenue.

Mr. Reza Moridi: It’s my pleasure to welcome Mr. Esmaeil Parsi-nejad, sitting in the Speaker’s gallery.

MEMBER FOR ST. CATHARINES

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): There being no further introductions, the government House leader on a point of order.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent that every party be allowed to speak for up to five minutes in tribute of 35 years of service for the member for St. Catharines, the Minister of the Environment, the Honourable Jim Bradley.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The government House leader has requested up to five minutes for each party to speak on the anniversary of the member from St. Catharines. Do I hear agreement?

Interjection: No.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I am sorry, I heard a no.

All in favour say “aye.”

All in favour say “no.”

I believe the ayes have it.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, 35 years ago this Saturday, James Joseph Bradley was elected to this Legislature to represent the people of St. Catharines. That day marked the beginning of a truly remarkable political career.

The member for St. Catharines has won 10 consecutive elections. In those elections, he has captured, on average, 50% of the votes cast. He has served in six different critic responsibilities. He has served as House leader in government and in opposition. He has been minister in six different portfolios, and he has been our party’s interim leader.

While Jim has technically served for 21 years in opposition and 14 in government, in reality, during all those years, he has been in opposition. Speaker, you will know that Jim’s trademark way of weighing in on a caucus discussion around any new government initiative is to begin by saying, “At the risk of being seen as the skunk at the garden party....”

Jim was first elected at a time when it seemed the only thing protecting Liberals in Ontario were the game laws. But Jim’s constituents saw something in him they never lost sight of: a man of good character, someone who, over the years, has only grown in judgment, perspective and good humour. Jim takes his responsibilities seriously, but not himself. He’s proud to serve in government, but he’s most respectful of the role of opposition. Jim embraces his responsibilities here at Queen’s Park, but his devotion is to the people of St. Catharines.

Jim’s mind is always as open to new ideas about progressive politics as it is tightly closed to progress in technology. For Jim, progress in information gathering is to keep adding individual sheets of notes to the yellowed stack he stores in his breast pocket.

I believe the responsibility of those of us lucky enough to serve in this place is to represent Ontarians at their very best. Jim has been doing that every day for the last 35 years. He has been decent, hard-working and respectful. He has been helpful to those in need, demanding of the strong, and determined to build a strong and caring society for all Ontarians. He has resisted cynicism and steadfastly embraced the noble ideal of public service. More than that, he has nurtured that idealism in others.

You may know, Speaker, that every year Jim hosts a dinner for current and former staffers. As many as 40 show up. Some worked for him 30 years ago. They return to remember a special time in their young lives and to thank Jim for teaching them values that sustained them throughout life.

Jim’s entire adult life has been devoted to helping people—not to getting, but to giving. Jim loves this Legislature and the workings of democracy, and he believes that we in this place can make a difference. And he has a record of achievement to prove it.

As an Ontarian and as a father, I am especially proud of Jim’s leadership in tackling acid rain, bringing the blue box into the world, and now acting to protect our Great Lakes.

Mr. Speaker, if we look around the world, it is impossible not to come to the conclusion that we Ontarians are privileged, and with that privilege comes responsibility—the responsibility to keep making our communities, our province, our country and hopefully our world a better place. For 35 unbroken years, Jim Bradley has assumed that responsibility with enthusiasm and with integrity.

He has proven to be invulnerable at home, and he’s closing in on venerable here. You’ll notice I didn’t say that he is venerable; I said he was closing in on venerable. The problem with being venerable is that it puts you beyond the reach of the leader.

Let me close with this: Cicero said that nothing is more noble, nothing more venerable, than faithfulness and truth. Jim, on behalf of your colleagues and the people of Ontario, I thank you for 35 years of service, throughout which you have been faithful to us and true to yourself. Thank you.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The leader of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition.

Mr. Tim Hudak: I’m pleased to rise today on behalf of the Ontario PC caucus to recognize the member of St. Catharines on the occasion of the 35th anniversary of his election to this place. It was 1977 when Jim was first elected here. Jimmy Carter was in the White House. Knowlton Nash was on The National. Donna Summer dominated disco. A single computer would fill an entire room—in fact, the last bit of technology Jim Bradley invested in. Monte McNaughton, Rob Leone, Michael Harris, Jagmeet Singh—I don’t think they were even born yet. And Jim’s favourite hockey team, the Buffalo Sabres, were only one or two seasons away from winning the Stanley Cup—still are.

By the way, 1977 was also Her Majesty the Queen’s Silver Jubilee, and here she goes again trying to steal the proper spotlight away from Jim this year with her Diamond Jubilee.

After 1977, Jim Bradley rose through the benches very rapidly, and of course for good reason. He was a man very much dedicated to public life as a teacher, a city councillor before that, always involved in his community, caring very deeply for the good people of St. Catharines. He’s a good and decent man. Coming from Niagara, a bordering riding, and following the politics before I even got here, to me as an individual, Jim Bradley’s name always stood in the Liberal ranks among that pantheon of celebrated Liberal names and cabinet ministers. I think of folks like Ian Scott, Sean Conway, Bob Nixon and Jim Bradley.

They were among the major political lights of the Peterson government, and I count Jim similarly as a man of stature and dignity.

The Premier mentioned the blue box program. When Jim Bradley advanced the blue box program across the province, it was highly controversial at the time. Now it’s a program embraced right across our province and part of everyday life. The acid rain debate was also controversial at the time. Those were victories here under Jim Bradley’s leadership as environment minister, as were “polluter pays” fines, to name a few. Jim has taken on a number of cabinet portfolios, but I think the smile on his face is always widest when he’s carrying his environment briefing binder. And look at the many accomplishments he’s had.

Ian, Sean and Bob—great careers; no longer here. Jim Bradley still is. He has not just dedicated the most productive years of his life to this place and his constituents, but he’s dedicated virtually all his adult life to public service, and despite our occasional differences, we’re all the better for it.

I will say Jim always asks about my daughter, Miller. He asks about what he calls his favourite Harris whiz kid, my wife, Debbie: “How is she doing?”

I’m going to let this secret out a little bit here, too, Jim. There was a bit of a—“troika” is probably not the right word—detente between Jim Bradley, Peter Kormos and myself: three different parties, and we all served area ridings for some time. Of course, in our discussions Peter Kormos was the model of centrist moderation, Jim was the wild-eyed gambler, and I was always the soft-spoken guy smack in the middle trying to reach compromise wherever I could. But you know what? I appreciated that.

I don’t know a better term for it, but Jim also comes from that old school. No matter what your political party, if there’s an announcement in Niagara, for example, in my riding, Jim always gives credit to the local member. He respects their position and the honour we all share here, the unique 107 in the entire province of Ontario to have the privilege of sitting in his place. Jim would never let party colours get in the way of that. I respect that, and I appreciate that.

That tells me there’s still honour in this place, there’s still dignity in this place, and there are still people who understand the importance of the role we play, no matter what party we represent. Jim embodies that. We appreciate that, and we respect that.

At times, when folks will be watching at home, those in the audience today may lose faith in the political process, may get a dose of cynicism about politicians. They need look no further than Jim Bradley and his career for reassurance. There is decency in this place. There is honour. There is dignity.

On behalf of the Ontario PC caucus, I thank the distinguished member for St. Catharines for all these things and more. On behalf of the Ontario PC Party, Jim, congratulations on 35 years of making an incredible impact on St. Catharines, Niagara and our beloved province of Ontario. Congratulations.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Trinity–Spadina.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I speak on behalf of the New Democrats in the words that I want to offer on behalf of the member from St. Catharines. I have known Jim for the last 22 years. That is a long, long, long time. I want to say that—I am careful, because we’re not speaking about a man who has retired; he’s still here. As I listened to the Premier and Mr. Hudak, the leader of the official opposition, I thought, “You’re giving him praise for a man who’s just retired,” and I say, “But he’s still here.” So my comments are related to the member who is still here.

I say the reason why he’s still here is because we have no pension. It does take about 50 years to have a pension that is half of what the federal members earn. People make fun of this; I understand. A whole lot of people in the audience think that we do have a pension—God bless—but we don’t. So we are still here, earning a wage, trying to make sure that when we retire we have a decent pension, whatever we’re getting from the government.

One of the things that Jim and I have in common is that we’re not very good with the latest technology—we’re not. But at least I have a BlackBerry over your black book, which I have learned to use ever so painfully and slowly, but I’m getting there. You realize that without it, we’re in the Dark Ages. Jim, please, you’ve got to get on to it, like I have.

Interjection.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: It’s a tiny one, I understand. How do you get your fingers on that?

Jim is a man who respects opposition, and we have been in opposition together. We respect government, and we respect the role of opposition members. That’s something that we all have in common here—at least, Jim and I and many others in this place: We know that in a democracy, we need all the different players to do their job. Government has a job to do and the opposition parties have a job to do. He used to remind us of that every time he was here, and he reminds us of that every time he is there as well. For that, I respect you, Jim.

I want to say that longevity has a lot to do with intelligence, sensitivity, resilience, knowing how to respect the people in the riding, knowing how to respect the people here. One doesn’t last that long unless you have those abilities, those rare abilities, to be able to reflect your constituents over the years, to be able to change with them, and to be able to work in a way that allows you to resist all the political changes—including the changes of the 1990s and the changes of 1995. That has a lot to do with your personality, the respect that you give to the people in your riding and the respect you have for this institution.

Jim, on behalf of New Democrats, we respect the work that you do. You are a good Liberal, and I want to say that, because there are times when I don’t say that of many Liberals. You are one of the finest Liberals this government has. On behalf of us all, thank you.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A point of order from the member for St. Catharines.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I’ll take a moment to respond. I know we are eager to get to the cut and thrust of question period, where all the nice things that the people in the gallery have heard today tend to disappear into the background.

I want to simply thank the members of the Legislative Assembly for the very kind round of applause that you accorded me a couple of days ago and again today, and to thank the Premier for his very kind words, the Leader of the Opposition, and my friend Rosario representing the New Democratic Party.

I have actually sat in this Legislature with five different people whose parents have been in the Legislature. John Yakabuski’s father, Paul Yakabuski, was one of them; Frank Miller was another, Norm Miller’s father, who served as a Premier of this province as well; Dalton McGuinty Sr., the father of the Premier; I remember Elinor Caplan, who is the mother of David Caplan; and Shelley Martel, whose father was Elie Martel. It’s interesting, if you are here for a certain period of time, you see the next generation serving in the Legislature, and each one of them having the marvellous attributes that brought their parents to the Legislature and that desire to serve others.

I’ve also—I’ll put it this way; I don’t want to insult the Premier—gone through seven Premiers now, from Premier Davis to Premier McGuinty, and again, I have an admiration for each one of them. It’s fascinating, though, when people ask about a perspective. I have a good deal of admiration—and people, usually when they’re Premier, have been in the opposition, but not in Mr. Davis’s case, because the Conservatives were in power forever in those particular days; the people across would say the good old days. But I have a great admiration for opposition leaders.

Our Premier would tell you this as well, and anybody who served before they became Premier: One of the toughest jobs that you can have is as an opposition leader. You may be speaking to four people in some basement on a Friday afternoon. You may be going to a lot of events that you are obligated to as the leader of a political party, and it would be nice to be home with your feet up and with members of the family around. So I have a great deal of respect for all members of the Legislature.

My observation has been that regardless of affiliation, regardless of riding, overwhelmingly, the number of people who run for public office are good people. We often don’t know each other in our initial days in the Legislature. The more you learn about people—the more you sit down with them informally, the more you learn about their life story—the more you recognize what good people they are.

We are partisan in this House; that’s part of being a member of the Legislature. But what you find is that people rally around one another in times of sickness, in times of death, in times of stress within family. You’ll find that members of the Legislature gather together and pay tribute to those and are assisting those and understanding those who go through what human beings go through.

All members here recognize as well—and I can tell you, I most assuredly do—the importance of good staff. We are the ones who appear on television, we are the ones who may be on the front page of a newspaper, but we are very reliant upon good staff. I have been blessed with extremely good staff here at Queen’s Park as an MPP, in my ministerial duties and, as we all know, back at the constituency office, where they do a yeoperson’s job there. It is the front line. Many of us would figure we could not do the job that our constituency office staff do.

Actually, the Premier has been annoyed because I plant them all over the government, people who have once worked for me, even in the Premier’s office, as spies, and they tend to do a very good job—not of spying.

The other thing I want to mention—this is hard to believe as well—is that there have been members of this assembly who have been pages before. In the last Parliament I was sitting in, two of the people sitting here in cabinet with me were actually pages when I was elected. They were bringing me water back in those days. One is the government House leader, who’s sitting beside me today. He was a page in those days. I had a feeling he might well be a member of Parliament at one time.

But again, I’m extremely grateful to all of you. Speaker, I should tell you there have been at least 12 Speakers since I have been in this position as well, and they’ve all been very dedicated to the job and we’ve enjoyed having them.

It’s a privilege to serve. It’s a privilege few people have. I think the Leader of the Opposition mentioned this. We have something a little different in the Niagara Peninsula, perhaps—I don’t know; it may happen in other places that Tim made reference to—and that is that those of us who represent the Niagara area, you don’t hear us attack one another personally. We certainly have different views on different issues, but you’ll find that we rally together when trying to defend the interests of the Niagara Peninsula.

So when Cindy would be at a meeting or Tim would be at a meeting or Kim or Peter Kormos who was there for a number of years, and Mel Swart before that, a number of us—by the way, a person some of you here would know, although he’s been gone for a period of time, is Bob Welch. Bob Welch held a lot of portfolios: He was Deputy Premier; he was government House leader. He was a mentor to me. He sat on the opposite side. I sat most of my time in opposition, some of it in government, but Bob Welch took me under his wing.

There’s no need to do that, because in politics—one of the detriments of this job is that one of our jobs is to make the other person look bad. None of us like that, but that’s part of the responsibility. Bob Welch took me under his wing and gave me a lot of good advice, and I’m extremely grateful to him for that. He’s passed on. By the way, when he did pass on, there was a huge funeral, with people from all political parties there.

So thank you very much for your very, very kind words. I enjoy this place. I hope to be here for a period of time into the future. That is always determined by the electorate or by health or something of that nature. I like each and every member of this House and always have. I wish you all well in your personal lives and your career. Thank you for your kindness.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Can the member for St. Catharines remind me what his point of order was?

I just wanted to do a quick echo, and that is to simply say that I personally thank all the members for their very kind words. Their representations are because of the member from St. Catharines’ personal dedication to the job, and I thank you for that. It’s on behalf of all of us that we speak, and for all of us, in terms of the dedication that you all give to this job, day in and day out—not just in this House but outside of the House. So thank you so much.

It is now—

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Yes, you can go ahead and do that. That’s fine.

And dare I say, because there’s so much love in the House today, that it’s now time for question period?

ORAL QUESTIONS

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, this entire week I’ve talked to you about our concern over the hollowing out of the manufacturing sector of the province of Ontario under your expensive energy policies, higher taxes and increased red tape.

We were sad that GM announced recently 2,000 layoffs, with the Impala and the Equinox, which had always been made in Ontario, now moving to Michigan and to Tennessee.

Yesterday, Premier, General Motors briefed the PC caucus on why they decided to move production of the Impala to Michigan and the Equinox to a reopened plant in Tennessee. They detailed for us input costs increasing, particularly electricity and regulatory administration.

Premier, under your government, electricity rates are now the highest in competing states and provinces for industry. Isn’t it time to get off that course and embrace our ideas for more reliable, affordable hydro so that businesses will create jobs again?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’m delighted to take the question. I had been hoping my colleague was going to ask that we dispense with question period today, given the tone and the mood that we had set a moment ago, but that is not to be, and probably rightfully so.

I’m very proud of the fact that Ontario remains the number one producer of cars in North America. That is a standing we have achieved on our watch. We have worked hard to achieve that particular status, especially when the auto sector found itself up against it, in the context of this most recent and terrible recession. When they looked to us for support, Speaker, and we looked to this Legislature for support, we did not find that within the ranks of the opposition. So we worked with Prime Minister Harper, we worked with the Obama administration and we put forward a support package that ensured the continuing survival and growth and continuing prosperity of our auto sector here in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: The Premier misses the entire point. The reason we have the largest auto production in Ontario is because we had reliable, affordable hydro; we had a productive workforce; we had competitive taxes; and we had a regulatory environment that was pro-jobs and pro-growth. I was proud to be part of a PC government that was number one in North America in job creation and investment.

It reminds me of the old line, “How do you get a small business in Dalton McGuinty’s Ontario? You buy a large business and watch it shrink.”

We’re on the wrong path. It’s time to reverse course, Premier. We put out good ideas: reliable, affordable hydro; to get away from your expensive Feed-in Tariff program; to say to business that we’re open for investment again; and to change the attitude of government that says, “Get out of their way, get behind them and make Ontario number one again in North America for job creation.” Why won’t you take up our ideas?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to remind my honourable colleague that we did cut corporate taxes, we did eliminate the capital tax in Ontario, we have reduced small business taxes, and we eliminated tens of thousands of regulatory burdens that confronted our businesses.

To be specific with respect to our auto sector, since the recession, GM has invested in a new transmission line in St. Catharines, GM has invested to expand capacity at their CAMI assembly plant in Ingersoll, Toyota has invested in 400 new jobs at Woodstock, Ford has invested in a third shift at the Essex engine plant, Honda has added 400 jobs, and Chrysler has invested $27 million in the Etobicoke casting plant. That represents hundreds and hundreds of new jobs.

The real reason that we’re doing so well in Ontario when it comes to auto production is in fact the quality of our workforce. We are without compare in that regard, and my honourable colleague should acknowledge that.

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

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: Premier, the government’s function is to create an environment that attracts jobs. Wednesday last, I met with the senior management of General Motors, who stated that there are two key areas that make Ontario non-competitive. They stated that the price of energy and the levels of taxation make Ontario non-competitive.

Premier, what do you plan to do to keep good-paying jobs in Ontario and make Ontario competitive for taxation and energy costs for major employers like General Motors in Oshawa?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: As my honourable colleague might imagine, I’ve had several opportunities over the past several years to meet with representatives of all of our auto companies here in Ontario. I’ve also travelled south of the border and travelled to places as far as Davos, Switzerland, in order to secure new investments here in Ontario.

There are competitiveness challenges around the world; we’ve entered into a new era of globalization. But I can say once again: The reason—and I would ask that my honourable colleagues opposite acknowledge this—that we are number one in North America and that we’ve held that position for nine years running is because we have an outstanding workforce, a competitive business environment—but, I would argue, most importantly, we have a strong partnership between this government and the auto sector here in Ontario.

WAGE RATES

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier. The Premier’s words are cold comfort to the 600,000 unemployed women and men in our province; the 300,000 who have lost good, middle-class jobs in industry.

It’s not simply GM; that’s bad enough. Caterpillar in London shed jobs and moved to Indiana; Xstrata in Timmins, across to Quebec; John Deere outside of Welland moved down to Wisconsin; BF Goodrich moved out of Kitchener-Waterloo, I believe, into the States.

These are good, middle-class jobs. What this also means is, when those good jobs leave our province, there is not demand for workers, and wages stagnate as a result.

Premier, Ontario’s wage growth for families has gone up 0.1% from last year. One tenth of one per cent: That’s dead last in all of Canada. Premier, isn’t this evidence of Ontario’s economic decline under your failed economic policies when wage rates have gone up 0.1%? Isn’t that the definition of failure and misguided economic policy?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’m just a lot more positive about our province, about its state today, and very optimistic about our continuing growth long into the future. The fact of the matter is, we’ve created 340,000 net new jobs since the recession.

I’ll give you just one example. Back in 2003, they had 250 people working in the Bombardier assembly plant in Thunder Bay; today they have 1,300 people working there, and they’re looking for about 160 more. That’s just one example of one business that continues to grow here in Ontario.

I’d ask my honourable colleague to take a look at that particular example and take a look at the dozens of others that are there and demonstrate that, working together, we are continuing to grow this economy, and on the whole, we are continuing to create net new jobs for Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: You know, the Premier’s Pollyanna attitude about Ontario’s private sector economy demonstrates a man who has become dramatically out of touch with what’s happening in communities across our province and at kitchen tables.

Saskatchewan, for the first time in history, has now moved ahead of Ontario when it comes to average incomes. We’re falling farther and farther behind. Wage growth in Saskatchewan, 6%; British Columbia, 3.8%; Newfoundland, 4.7%; Prince Edward Island, 3.9%; Alberta, 3.3%; and Ontario, dead last, 0.1%. It’s actually even behind inflation in Canada, and inflation is at low levels.

This means that families have lost jobs, and those who have jobs are falling farther and farther behind, Premier. I don’t know if I need to shake your—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Question?

Mr. Tim Hudak: —evidence, but families are concerned, and it’s time to take a new course: lower, more competitive taxes; competitive, affordable hydro; and an attitude that says—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: —get out of the way of business, get behind them and encourage investment so our great province of Ontario will lead again.

Interjections.

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

Another reminder that when I say “Thank you,” that is the end of your question or your answer.

Premier.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I want to remind my honourable colleague that it’s 340,000 net new jobs that we’ve created here in Ontario since the recession, which is more than any other province.

I can say as well, by way of an additional specific example, let’s take a look at Telus. In 2000, Telus employed I think fewer than 100 people in Ontario; today they employ 8,000 in Ontario. Last Friday, they made an announcement—

Interjections.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: They don’t like to hear good news, Speaker; I understand that. Apparently, they’re well educated with respect to what’s happening in other provinces, but they might want to learn a thing or two about how we’re doing so well here in Ontario.

Last Friday, Telus announced—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): While I’m asking you, you’re still heckling. Stop.

Premier.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, the good news hurts those folks opposite me, but they’re going to have to hear it nonetheless.

On Friday last, Telus announced $650 million by way of a new investment in Ontario to create 900 more new jobs for Ontarians.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Speaker, you know who’s hurting in Ontario? The 2,000 families who lost jobs at GM, the 600 families who lost jobs at—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Economic Development and Innovation, come to order.

Mr. Tim Hudak: —those at John Deere. We’ve lost 300,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector under their economic policies. It is being hollowed out. It helps to build a strong, secure middle class when you have good jobs in resources and manufacturing.

They’ve created 300,000 jobs in government, and we on this side are very concerned about the reality out there of public sector haves and private sector have-nots. Just the other day, an arbitrator gave TTC workers an 8% wage increase. So much for his public sector wage freeze—8%. It’s not fair. It’s not right.

We need to stimulate the private sector. We need to grow jobs. We need a public sector wage freeze. That’s the way forward for our province so we can grow again, we can create jobs and make Ontario number one in North America for job creation, not number 10 in Canada.

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague purports to speak on behalf of the auto workers and their families. I think we should listen to a representative of the CAW, who in fact represents auto workers and those families. This is what he said. Ken Lewenza said the following: “Mr. Hudak’s approach puts ideology before economics.... If this policy were actually implemented, Ontario would never win another major capital investment by” any “major automaker. That would be a disaster for every auto-dependent community in the province....

“The international reality is that governments have to be at the table, or else these investments” just “don’t happen.”

I agree with Mr. Ken Lewenza. That’s why we’re going to continue to work together, both with labour and with management, to grow the auto sector here in Ontario.

ONTARIO BUDGET

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Last week I raised concerns about the government’s 300-page omnibus bill that grants cabinet sweeping powers to hold a fire sale of public government assets.

Can the Premier confirm that the government now concedes that the bill in fact does exactly that, and will it be amended?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I did in fact indicate the precise opposite yesterday in scrum. The third party particularly have expressed concerns with the language in one part of the budget. With respect to that, we will be bringing forward amendments which I think will satisfy the concerns raised by the leader of the third party.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Last week, when I raised the same concerns that the Minister of Finance dismissed at the time—he dismissed them, and he said that my arguments were full of holes. This raises serious concerns about the changes that this government is still planning to go ahead with. Is the government planning to sell off ServiceOntario? If so, we would like to know to whom.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I would refer the leader of the third party to the 2011 budget, where we outlined a process to determine if in fact we could provide better service to the public. In the 2012 budget, we tabled as part of that our decision to move forward with the privatization of the final one third. I’d remind the leader of the third party that approximately two thirds of those services are delivered privately in Ontario. We require an additional $3 billion in investment to enhance intellectual and computer technology. Accordingly, having done the first two thirds, we’re proceeding with the last third.

I suspect you wouldn’t know the difference between the publicly and privately offered one if you walked into separate different—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What’s very apparent is that the government doesn’t know who it’s planning to sell ServiceOntario to, and that raises some very serious concerns for us over here.

Yesterday, the committee got a legal opinion that was offered that if ServiceOntario was sold to an American company, “personal information of Ontarians could be provided to US national security agencies under compulsion of the US Patriot Act.” Can the government confirm that American companies won’t be able to buy up ServiceOntario?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I can confirm that there will be a full and transparent process associated with the final one third of this particular transaction.

I can’t predict who will or will not be successful in that process. It would start with a request for information. It would be followed by a request for proposals. Any proposal would go through a significant scrutiny that would likely address the types of concerns the leader of the third party has raised. We would ultimately make a determination, based on bids, as to which one would be successful.

This is an appropriate process to transform the way we’re doing government. Our preference is to keep money focused on hospitals and schools. Where service can be better delivered privately, it should be delivered privately.

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My second question is for the Premier. This morning, a security breach at ServiceOntario kiosks has people across Ontario thinking about these very issues. They need to know that their personal information is safe and that it’s secure. Today, the minister is telling them that in some of these privatized kiosks, it actually might not be. Why should people support further sell-offs?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Government Services.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: ServiceOntario was advised by debit card partners of security violations at kiosk locations in the GTA. It is suspected that the attempts made were to gain access to key credit and debit card data that allows replication of debit and credit cards. There is no indication that any personal details held by the Ontario government have been compromised. I directed our officials to temporarily suspend all 72 kiosks across the province. This was done as a cautious measure to allow staff to inspect all kiosks.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, it sounds like the minister is saying, “Just trust us,” and that the government is saying, “Just trust us.” But people across Ontario have a hard time doing that and justifiably so.

Yesterday, in a written submission, Ontario’s Ombudsman noted that his office has been losing its power to provide oversight and to protect the public for years under this government’s administration. He said, “Bill 55 is the latest stage in devolution.”

After the Ornge debacle, does the government really expect people to believe that less oversight and less accountability is actually going to save us money?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: Let me make it very clear: Kiosks are owned by the Ontario government. They are not private kiosks. As soon as we found out that there was a security violation we took very concrete action. As a cautionary measure we suspended all the kiosks, and I directed all of my staff to go and inspect all kiosks in Ontario before they will come up again. That was taken as a cautionary measure. Based on the information that we have, there’s absolutely no violation of personal details held by the Ontario government.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Over the last week, people have seen a government that seems to care a lot more about themselves than the people that they’re supposed to be representing. They’re spending millions and millions of dollars scrapping private power deals in Mississauga and Oakville but won’t tell the public exactly how many millions. They spent millions more in the mess at Ornge and hid information about salaries and expenses from the public.

Is this government ready to finally admit that real oversight protects the public and the treasury? If so, will it back off short-sighted schemes that erode public protection and leave people paying more?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: We take security issues very seriously. As soon as we found out, we took very concrete action. We shut down the kiosks, which are publicly owned kiosks, and I have directed my staff to actually inspect each and every kiosk so that there is no violation of those kiosks. We will continue to make sure that the privacy of information of all Ontarians is protected at all times.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: The deception at Ornge continues. Even the communications department of that organization can’t seem to tell the truth. In a desperate attempt to deflect attention—

Interjection.

Mr. Frank Klees: To the Minister of Health: In a desperate attempt to deflect attention from the report of the growing number of emergency calls that Ornge cannot respond to because of understaffing of paramedics and pilots, Ornge issued a media release late yesterday afternoon. That release boasts of a new team at Ornge. It gives inflated information about the number of paramedics and the number of pilots that have been added to the front line.

What it doesn’t say is that included in those numbers are pilots who are on extended sick leave, who are in administrative positions and who are nowhere near the—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Question.

Mr. Frank Klees: —front lines. It also makes no mention that Ornge has resorted to renting pilots from Alberta for its air ambulance service.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Question.

Mr. Frank Klees: Is the minister complicit in this misrepresentation, or is Ornge keeping her in the dark one more time?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I just caution the member that last part was quite close to impugning motive, so I would caution him on that. And a reminder, when I give you the wrap-up, to please wrap up.

Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I know it’s hard for the member opposite, but there’s very good news at Ornge. I’ve been talking about the progress that we are making, and I’m very pleased to be able to say that Ornge continues to add to its front-line staff team. There’s now a team of 217 paramedics at Ornge. That’s 10 more than there were this time last year. We’ve also got very good news that Ornge currently has 38 airplane pilots; seven more will be coming onboard by mid-July. At that time, they’ll be at 98% of their full complement of airplane pilots.

In addition, Ornge has 69 helicopters and has recently hired five more, bringing the total to 74 by July. At that time, they’ll be at 95% of their complement.

This is great news. I know the member opposite is as pleased as I am with the progress at Ornge.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Frank Klees: The minister didn’t hear my comment and my question to her. Do you know how many of those numbers that are inflated in that release are actually people on long-term sick leave and who will never be on the front line?

But, Speaker, the spin gets better about this new team. As we know, first, the minister appointed, as president and CEO, a civil servant who has no experience in air ambulance. It’s no surprise that the same release the minister read from spoke about a new roster of people: Bruce Farr, who never worked in an air ambulance service in any capacity and, according to the Ornge news release, will be “indispensable” at Ornge; Robert Giguere, who has never worked anywhere near an air ambulance service in any capacity but who managed to chart Skyservice Airlines into bankruptcy, is now a key player at Ornge; and Wayne Howard, who has no experience in any emergency service, is now the VP.

Only this minister could consider that progress. When will the Premier understand his minister needs some help?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am frankly astonished that the member opposite would not think that Bruce Farr will make a tremendous contribution to Ornge. Let’s just see what his history is—a long history of working with the Toronto Emergency Medical Services, EMS. He started as an ambulance driver in Scarborough, moved into the training division, and was eventually promoted to the position of chief of Toronto EMS, a position he held before retiring after 39 years. This man knows ambulance service, Speaker. We’re very proud that he has chosen to join the team at Ornge.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Premier. Last summer, a young girl died in Windsor, and questions are being raised about the role that Ornge played.

Jamie Lynn Ingham needed to get from Windsor to London for emergency surgery. The hospital called for an air ambulance. They waited for three hours for an Ornge helicopter that never came. The system let down Jamie Lynn, it let down her family, and it let down the dedicated paramedics and pilots at Ornge.

I attended Jamie Lynn’s funeral service last July, and I saw the devastation on the faces of her parents, her family, her twin sister, and the devastation that this has caused our community in Windsor.

There are questions that remain—questions that can only be answered by a coroner’s inquest. Premier, will you join me in asking the coroner to call an inquest into this tragic case?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think it is very important, and I think we owe to the families—

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: You resign.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Northumberland will come to order.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We owe the families that have been affected the truth, and I can tell you, the truth can come only with a thorough investigation by people who are non-partisan, who have no political advantage to be gained, people who are committed to the safety of the people of this province.

We know that the coroner of Ontario is informed whenever there is an investigation that results in a death. The coroner is informed. We trust the judgment of the coroner to make professional decisions on which cases warrant further investigation. We know that the coroner does do that, and we respect that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is: Will the Premier initiate a call directly on this specific case; take the evidence at hand and address this specific case that happened in Windsor? The CEO of Windsor Regional Hospital is voicing his concerns about the patterns that seem to be emerging. David Musyj said:

“My concern is we had nine Ornge cases in the past year and in two of them we were given inaccurate information. For those (hospitals) who have not brought forward cases, they should be asking for reviews. We are finding out information a year later that is shocking and disturbing and needs to be fixed.”

Speaker, if hospital administrators don’t have faith in the government and Ornge to solve this problem, does the Premier agree that the coroner should be called to investigate and will he initiate that call immediately today?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, the coroner is an independent officer. The coroner gets the information, can request further information and often does request further information. He has the information he needs. He makes a professional judgment.

I urge the member opposite to speak to the member from Nickel Belt. Read the Sudbury Star. The member from Nickel Belt understands what the coroner means when he says of the completed investigations, “There have been no cases in which issues with air ambulance transportation materially affected the course of the patient’s illness or injury.”

Do not put these families through more pain than they are already going through. Let the coroner do his work.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. David Orazietti: My question for the Minister of Finance. Minister, as you know, the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton has introduced a private member’s bill that may make it cheaper to purchase auto insurance in his own riding, but at the expense of all other ridings in Ontario, particularly in the north, where this would cost much more.

By removing the use of geographic rating factors in determining rates for auto insurance, the bill would have a huge impact on rural and northern drivers in Ontario. If the bill passes, it’s estimated that my constituents would end up paying 30% more for auto insurance. That’s an additional $380 a year. It’s clear the bill does not get at the root causes of higher auto insurance rates and was poorly thought out.

Minister, what’s our government’s plan to ensure that auto insurance rates are fair and affordable?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from Sault Ste. Marie for his question and for his passionate opposition to a bill that will raise premiums in the southwest, in the north, in the east and, frankly, won’t be of any assistance in the greater Toronto area.

The member for Sault Ste. Marie and other members of this caucus have worked over the years on auto insurance reforms that have stabilized the price of auto insurance and kept increases below the level of inflation. In fact, just in this most recent quarter we had another regulatory rate reduction—a very modest rate reduction—and we’ve appointed an anti-fraud task force.

The steps we’ve taken are steps in the right direction that will keep insurance premiums reasonable for all Ontarians, unlike the NDP, who wants to raise premiums for most Ontarians in a plan that frankly will be a total wreck for the delivery of insurance in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. David Orazietti: Minister, I want to thank you for the work you’re doing on auto insurance, but I’m also very concerned that this flawed bill poses serious safety concerns. Specifically, the legislation limits the definition of “driving safety record” to actual accidents, which would mean that if a driver were stopped for impaired driving, running a red light or street racing but did not get into an accident, their premium would not be affected.

In addition, the bill does not take into account the make, model and year of the car, so that drivers with less expensive, more modest vehicles will end up subsidizing the premiums of those with luxury vehicles and sports cars. Given the proposed elimination of geographic ratings, the safety concerns, and shifting costs to drivers with more modest vehicles, I fully expect northern NDP MPPs, like the member from Algoma–Manitoulin, to vote against this flawed legislation.

Minister, what do the experts have to say about Bill 45?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Sault Ste. Marie, who has kept this fight alive to try to prevent an increase in insurance premiums for northerners, for people in the southwest and for all Ontarians.

The chorus of people who are supporting him is growing every day. I’d like to read to the House a quote from the president of the Ontario Provincial Police Association when speaking about this particular bill, the NDP insurance bill: “Safe drivers subsidizing dangerous drivers is an outcome that the OPP Association cannot support. If successful, this bill will punish law-abiding drivers so that dangerous drivers and drivers with poor driving habits can pay less for insurance in this province.”

I urge the NDP members from the north, don’t punish your constituents. Stand up for your constituents. Don’t support a 30% increase. Agree with MADD and agree with the Ontario Provincial Police Association and the strong member from Sault Ste. Marie.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Monte McNaughton: My question is for the Minister of Health. Speaker, by now the minister should be aware of the heartbreaking and tragic situation in Windsor of the death of Jamie Lynn Ingham. Jamie was a six-year-old girl who died while waiting for Ornge air ambulance to respond. While Jamie Lynn’s family waited frantically for an Ornge air ambulance to transport Jamie to London for emergency surgery, we now know Ornge air ambulance was never even dispatched. After a three-hour delay, doctors at Windsor hospital were shocked when Ornge’s medical transport team arrived from London in a taxi.

Dumbfounded after losing three crucial hours that could have saved Jamie’s life, doctors had no choice but to send Jamie Lynn to Detroit via a municipal land ambulance, where she, sadly, died.

Minister, are you prepared to look the Ingham family in the eye and repeat your spin lines that Ornge is a world-class service and that your decisive action is working?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, as I have said, every case is a human tragedy. Every case has a family that is grieving the loss of a loved one.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Northumberland–Quinte West will come to order. Second time.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: That is why we owe them the answers to their questions. We owe them an answer. We owe them the truth. I am not qualified, the member opposite is not qualified, to give the answer to that family.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It is regrettable that we have to get into personalizing towards each other.

Minister.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I rely on people who have no partisan interests, who are not looking for political gain. I rely on the chief coroner of the province of Ontario to use his professional judgment to determine what the cause of death is.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Northumberland–Quinte West is now warned.

Finish; 10 seconds.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, we have a process in place. The process is working. I urge the member opposite not to use tragedy for political gain.

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

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Speaker, in the minister’s own words, she isn’t qualified. I honestly do not know how the minister can sleep at night. It’s clear that the minister’s failure to oversee Ornge has left Ontario’s air ambulance service in shambles. It’s unconscionable to think that critical-care air ambulance paramedics are taking taxis to respond to life-and-death situations. This would be laughable if only the consequences were not so serious and tragic. The minister not only owes the Ingham family an apology or an explanation, but she does owe some words for her failures.

I ask her, now that we know of the death of a child on her watch due to Ornge’s inability to respond, and since she refuses to listen to front-line emergency workers or our party, will she now at least listen to the CEO of Windsor Regional Hospital? Will she admit that she owes an apology to the family and will she write to the coroner under her signature and ask for a coroner’s inquest into Jamie Lynn’s untimely death?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, the coroner of the province of Ontario, the chief coroner, is informed of every single case that the ministry is required by law to inform him of. We inform the coroner. The coroner collects all of the facts. I challenge the member opposite. He cannot possibly know all of the facts. Mr. Musyj, the CEO of Windsor Regional Hospital, has written to the coroner, has requested more information. That is exactly the process that should be followed. This is not a political debate. This is not about political gain. This is about human lives and working to make the system stronger.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Attorney General. Toronto and the province watch in disbelief as more details emerge surrounding the Eaton Centre shooting and the perpetrator. We’ve found out that Mr. Husbands was out on bail and under house arrest for a sexual assault charge since 2010. Two years later, and Mr. Husbands has not gone through the court system. As a matter of fact, he was due to appear in court on those charges in June of this year. Why is this government allowing for justice to be delayed?

Hon. John Gerretsen: First of all, once again, what happened last weekend was a clear tragedy. Our thoughts are with the victims and we hope all of them make a speedy and full recovery.

You know the matter is before the courts. It’s my understanding that the trial you are talking about actually started last fall and is set to continue again this June and, for a variety of reasons, has not continued in a more active fashion mainly due to issues related to the fact that the accused simply wasn’t able to be in court on a number of different occasions.

As you know, bail is set by judges and JPs in this province, based on criminal law set by the federal government. I can assure all Ontarians, by the way, that our hard-working police know exactly who is on bail at any given time. As a matter of fact, our bail enforcement units—

The Sp