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

October 21, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Oct-21 (PDF)

L109 - Wed 21 Oct 2015 / Mer 21 oct 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 21 October 2015 Mercredi 21 octobre 2015

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Legislative pages

Oral Questions

Health care funding

Health care funding

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Health care

Health care funding

Elder abuse

Health care funding

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Renewable energy

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Manufacturing jobs

Highway safety

Correction of record

Visitor

Deferred Votes

Invasive Species Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur les espèces envahissantes

Members’ Statements

Highway safety

Manufacturing jobs

Optometry services

Health care funding

Community Health and Wellbeing Week

Concussion

Taxation

Automated vehicles

Bowmanville Hospital Foundation

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Women’s History Month / Mois de l’histoire des femmes

Waste Reduction Week

Women’s History Month

Waste Reduction Week

Women’s History Month

Waste Reduction Week

Petitions

Concussion

Privatization of public assets

Student safety

Hydro rates

Information technology services

Water fluoridation

Ontario farmers

Diagnostic services

Lung health

Renewable energy

Long-term care

Public transit

Ontario farmers

Opposition Day

Health care funding

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Hon. Jeff Leal: Just for the record, Mr. Speaker, I’m very pleased that the Montreal Canadiens are on a 7-0 streak right now, which is great.

I move that, pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 112,

An Act to amend the Energy Consumer Protection Act, 2010 and the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, when the bill is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment and at such time the bill shall be ordered referred to the Standing Committee on General Government; and

That the Standing Committee on General Government be authorized to meet on Monday, November 2, 2015, from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. and Wednesday, November 4, 2015, from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., in Toronto for the purpose of public hearings on the bill; and

That the Clerk of the Committee, in consultation with the committee Chair, be authorized to arrange the following with regard to Bill 112:

—That notice of public hearings be posted on the Ontario parliamentary channel, the Legislative Assembly’s website and Canada NewsWire; and

—That the deadline for requests to appear be 12 noon on Thursday, October 29, 2015; and

—That witnesses be scheduled to appear before the committee on a first-come, first-served basis; and

—That each witness will receive up to five minutes for their presentation, followed by nine minutes for questions from committee members; and

—That the deadline for written submissions be 6 p.m. on Wednesday, November 4, 2015; and

That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be 10 a.m. on Thursday, November 5, 2015; and

That the committee be authorized to meet on Monday, November 16, 2015, from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. and Wednesday, November 18, 2015, from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., in Toronto, for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill;

That on Monday, November 16, 2015, at 5 p.m., those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. At this time, the Chair shall allow one 20-minute waiting period, pursuant to standing order 129(a); and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House no later than Thursday, November 19, 2015. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and

That, upon receiving the report of the Standing Committee on General Government, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading, which order may be called that same day; and

That, when the order for third reading of the bill is called, two hours of debate shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, apportioned equally among the recognized parties. At the end of this time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

The votes on second and third reading may be deferred pursuant to standing order 28(h); and

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister Leal has moved government order number 41. Minister, you have the floor.

Hon. Jeff Leal: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I just want to say good morning to my wife, Karan; my son, Braden; and daughter, Shanae. Right now we have a group of 25 French-language students from Paris visiting our community, and we’ve been able to show them that wonderful Peterborough hospitality.

Our government is strengthening and enhancing the capabilities of the Ontario Energy Board in order to further protect electricity ratepayers by boosting consumer protection and improving the ability to ensure the continuity of service.

Bill 112 proposes legislative enhancements to the Ontario Energy Board Act, OEBA, and the Energy Consumer Protection Act, ECPA. These enhancements include the following key elements:

—increasing consumer protection by amending the ECPA, including banning door-to-door sales—and frankly, I know that a number of senior citizens right across the province will be thankful for this measure;

—improving consumer advocacy through processes that give consumers a direct voice in the OEB proceedings, including enabling the cabinet to set requirements;

—reinforcing the OEB’s ability to ensure reliability and continuity of service to all customers in Ontario in the event of a failing transmitter or distributor;

—enhancing the OEB’s ability to levy penalties for non-compliant activities—very important, Mr. Speaker;

—strengthening the OEB’s oversight of utility transactions and structures;

—clarifying relationships among local distribution companies and their affiliates; and

—providing tools to cabinet to ensure that critical transmission infrastructure is built.

Our government is committed to putting energy consumers first. We are introducing legislation to strengthen and enhance the Ontario Energy Board’s role to ensure it continues to have a robust set of tools to regulate the energy sector and, indeed, protect consumers.

If passed, these changes would provide the OEB with stronger compliance and enforcement powers by: increasing the penalties that could be levied against companies that are not complying with the OEB’s legislation, rules and directions; enhancing ability to ensure reliability and continuity of service if distribution or transmission companies are unable to fulfill their licence obligations; and enhanced oversight for ensuring best practices on utility consolidation activities.

If passed, this legislation would enable the OEB to give consumers a stronger voice in OEB hearings and proceedings—a very important requirement.

It is urgent—very urgent—that we pass this bill so that the government can provide better protections for consumers now. I’m sure all parties can agree that there’s an urgent need for these stronger consumer protections. All parties have stated in the Legislature that they will be supporting this bill in second reading. During second reading debate, the honourable gentleman from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke stated, “I do want to say that we’re going to support this legislation.” The honourable gentleman from Windsor–Tecumseh stated, “This is legislation that at the heart has a good intent.

I think on this side of the House we will be supporting it.” With all parties’ support for second reading, it’s now time we move forward with Bill 112 and bring it before committee.

I was at the East City Coffee Shop in Peterborough last week, having the opportunity to have lunch with a number of my friends, and this bill was at the top of their discussion. They were telling me, “Bill 112 has got to get through the House,” and I said, “Charlie, I will guarantee that this will happen.” Then we went on and had a great breakfast.

With all-party support for second reading—this is what they’re interested in at the East City Coffee Shop—it’s now time that we move forward with Bill 112 and bring it before a committee. In the last Parliament, this Legislature was ground to a halt and wasn’t able to move forward. Only 39% of government bills were passed in the last minority government. That’s compared to more than three quarters of the bills that were passed going back to 1990. The voters of Ontario sent a clear message last June. They wanted your government—our government—to get on with the business of governing in their best interests.

There has been considerable debate on this bill and the ideas of the bill, and we’ve heard a wide range of viewpoints, opinions and perspectives—even from the East City Coffee Shop in Peterborough. It is time that we had second reading and referred this bill to committee. In committee, stakeholders will present their views; we’ll be able to hear directly from the public their thoughts on this bill. In committee, members will have the opportunity to move amendments to the bill—I know this is important in Barry’s Bay. At the same time, this House could move to a substantive debate on other matters.

There are a number of important pieces of legislation that we’ve already introduced, which the government would like to debate in the House and move through the legislative process. I know that on Friday, when I’m at the East City Coffee Shop, the boys will be interested in Bill 85, the good government act; Bill 109, the employment and labour statutes act; Bill 113, the Police Record Checks Reform Act; and Bill 115, the Electoral Boundaries Act. We’d like to spend time debating the other important pieces of legislation currently before the House, but we cannot until Bill 112 is dealt with.

I urge all members on all sides of this House to support this motion and help pass this bill as soon as possible.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate? The member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Wow, I’ve got to visit that coffee shop and see what they’re serving besides coffee. He has been drinking something that ain’t coffee. It’s Liberal Kool-Aid, and he has overdosed on it. He’s wild this morning. He has overdosed on Liberal Kool-Aid. Let’s just think about what he said: There has been ample debate on this bill.

First of all, let’s start out by making it very clear that we’re supporting the bill. That’s not the point. We have members in this House who want to speak to that bill. He talks about how important this bill is. Then why do we not have the ability to speak to it? Do you realize, Speaker, that in the Progressive Conservative opposition here, we have actually had three members get to speak to this bill: myself, as one of them, Mr. Walker and Mr. McNaughton—or the member for Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound and the member for Lambton–Kent–Middlesex. Three members of this caucus got to speak to this bill.

It is an issue that is important to the people in our ridings. Consumer protection involves every one of us. We all care about it. We have our thoughts on it, and we have input from our residents on this bill. That’s what we do in this House: debate legislation. But once again the party of the guillotine has moved to stifle debate and shut down this House, shut down democracy. Three of 27 members got to speak to this bill.

Now, a good number of Liberals spoke to the bill, because they have a new strategy. It’s called speed debating, or stand up, burp, sit down. Stand up, burp, sit down: That’s about what has happened with the Liberals on this bill. They get up and say, “Hi. I’m supporting the bill. Let’s move on.” Then the House leader will stand up and say, “We’ve had 27”—35 or whatever—“of our members speak to this bill.” They haven’t really spoken to it. They’ve announced a few of the talking points, and then they figure debate should be over.

There are some issues involved in this bill. There are some concerns with regard to amendments. And then the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Affairs—

Hon. Jeff Leal: And food.

Mr. John Yakabuski: —Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Well, you’d better be careful of what you’re adding to your food because it’s affecting your judgment.

He gets up and now he talks about how we’re going to have committee on this bill. Right. We’re going to have committee on this bill for four hours one day—on Monday, November 2, from 2to 6—and on Wednesday, November 4, from 4 to 6 for the purpose of public hearings. The member says—

Hon. Jeff Leal: I’m going to get a coffee, John.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yes, get another coffee. You’re probably having withdrawal symptoms.

Interjection: Can you bring me one, Jeff?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Is it the east side coffee shop? What is it called?

Hon. Jeff Leal: The east side coffee shop coffee is better.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I know that, but what’s the name of the coffee shop?

Interjections.

Hon. Jeff Leal: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. I’m leaving.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I haven’t been invited to the coffee shop. I’d like to be in the conversation; it would be nice to go to the coffee shop.

Through me; thank you.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Certainly, Speaker. When I finish the debate, perhaps I can get you a coffee. He’s headed to the east gallery coffee shop. I hope they’re not adding the same stuff that he’s been drinking at the other coffee shop.

Six hours of public hearings. He stands up there and professes with a straight face—actually, it wasn’t a straight face. He was actually kind of laughing because he thought it was kind of humorous himself that there is going to be ample ability for the public to comment on this bill.

Interjection: They’ll be allowed five minutes.

Mr. John Yakabuski: They’ll be allowed five minutes, and it’s going to be in a six-hour time period here in Toronto. According to the Liberal government, this is not only the centre of the universe, it is the universe. You know what? There are people elsewhere in the province of Ontario who would like to have the opportunity to speak to this bill, to speak to the possible amendments that could be made to this bill. But they’re not going to get the chance. They’re not going to get the chance to speak to it because debate is being shut down by the Liberal majority.

They keep talking about this great majority that the people of Ontario gave them last year. Now, of course, they’re all chortling and grinning like the Cheshire cat because they think that now that Justin Trudeau is the Prime Minister of Canada, everything’s going to be perfect in the province of Ontario. I can hardly wait for the reaction from Premier Wynne when Justin says, “No, no, no and no.” Then, all of a sudden—but we’re not going to hear that lament that we’ve heard for the last 12 years in this House: “We need a strong federal government.

We need a federal partner that works with the provinces.” We’re not going to hear that because they’re still in love. Provincial Liberals, federal Liberals: It’s going to be a love-in, and we’ll never hear any criticism of the federal government anymore.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Get back on topic.

Mr. John Yakabuski: A new age has come to the Legislature of Ontario. There will be no more criticism of the federal government from the provincial government—unbelievable. We’ll see how much the world changes.

Let’s get back to the bill. Let’s get back to the matter at hand.

Hon. Michael Coteau: There we go.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I say to the minister, we’re not speaking, actually, to the bill. You see, this is a motion, not the bill. I want to caution—

Interjection.

Mr. John Yakabuski: He shouldn’t be speaking at all, and I should be speaking through you, right?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I couldn’t agree with you more, but it doesn’t seem to work out that way.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’m trying.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): You’re getting better. Thank you.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Speaking through you, to the motion, it is a motion for time allocation. It’s a fancy name for a motion for shutting down democracy, stifling debate.

Interjection: The guillotine.

Mr. John Yakabuski: The guillotine has fallen once again. The guillotine has fallen on the Ontario Legislature.

If there was even a discussion—as I said, I made very clear, in my opportunity to speak to this bill—and I appreciate the fact that they actually gave us that because, who knows, the next time they bring a bill forward, maybe they’ll just ram it through. Oh no, sorry; the standing orders don’t allow them just to ram it through. There has to be a minimal amount of debate, and that’s what we’re getting in this Legislature these days.

We’re not getting extensive debate where each and every member of this Legislature, whether they’re the official opposition, the third party or the government members, which—we might as well have one member speak from the government side, because it’s just like a record that’s skipping: It only lasts about as long as a skip in a record. They get up, say a few words, sit down, and they’ve participated in debate and they’ve represented their constituency.

Well, nothing could be further from the truth—nothing, Speaker—because they’re not visiting the coffee shops. The only shop they’re visiting is the corner office on the second floor. They go by in the morning, punch in the clock and pick up their marching orders. Go in the morning—tchick, tchick—punch in the clock, pick up their marching orders, one dose of Kool-Aid and away you go to the House, and that’s what you’re going to do for the day. The puppeteer is working hard in the corner office pulling the strings, and all the puppets are here going, “Yes, sir, yes, sir, three bags full.”

What we really need is honest, open, wholesome debate on an issue, and because the province feels Bill 12 is of such importance, it should be incumbent upon them to try to extend the debate for as long as the opposition and the third party deem it is necessary. This is not a place to rush things through. This is a place for careful consideration, so that when a law is passed, it is done right.

My son is training as an apprentice carpenter—

Hon. Jeff Leal: And a good one, too.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Oh, yes, he’ll be a good one.

They have an old saying: “Measure twice, cut once.” It is a simple saying, but it’s so true. Why would you want to cut that piece of lumber before you have ensured that you’ve got it right? If you cut that two-by-four and you’re an eighth of an inch short, well, that thing is going to be a little weak because it ain’t gonna fit right.

Interjection: You’ll need a new two-by-four.

Mr. John Yakabuski: You’re going to have to throw it out or use it for something else and get out another two-by-four.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Who’s good at that?

Mr. John Yakabuski: The Liberals are good at that because they’re good at wasting.

And not only that. They’re here trying to rush this through, but if they get it wrong, is it not possible—and I say this directly through you, Speaker, of course—if they get it wrong, then we’ll have to do it over again?

It’s your time. It’s the time invested by this group, this Legislature. We’ve got two hours to debate this motion, and I’m trying my level best to use every logical argument I can come up with why this is wrong and why we should allow the people in this Legislature to debate it more fully. If we have it wrong and we haven’t given it enough time, then we have done a disservice to the people of Ontario, a disservice to this Legislature. So what would be the crime for us to say: “Whoa, hold on. Let’s take another look at this. Let’s get the views of some more members of this Legislature”?

I know my colleague from Nipissing, who was also the energy critic before me, also has lots to say about this. He also was the mayor of North Bay. I’m sure that while he was the mayor of North Bay he heard plenty about consumer issues with regard to door-to-door sales on energy contracts. We’ve all heard about it. If you’ve been in municipal politics or you’ve been in provincial politics or you’re in federal politics, we’ve heard about it, because it has been an issue. What would be the big mistake about getting it right?

I look across the floor to my colleague from St. Catharines, and he’s like a season ticket holder when it comes to time allocation debates. He never misses a game. If the Blue Jays were on time allocation—and I fear their time might be allocated, but we’re all hoping and praying that tonight they can get it right, get the offence going, and also get those pitches painting the corners, making sure that we’re getting those calls and that we’re not getting hit to death by the Royals. But the member from St. Catharines, I know he loves baseball—he’s a sportsman. He loves hockey, he loves baseball, but apparently he loves the sport of guillotine slashing as well.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Loves baseball, loves hockey.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Loves baseball, loves hockey, but what he loves more than anything else is the sport of beheading by the guillotine of the government, the sport of beheading, because that is essentially what we’re doing here, Speaker. We are cutting the head off debate, we are cutting the head off the opposition, and we are rendering this a single-party state, and that is wrong. People expect more.

I want to say to the member from St. Catharines—I’m not saying it to him directly, Speaker; I’m saying it through you. I want to say that this conversion to the master executioner, to the man of the knife—you know, there’s Mack the Knife. Remember that song, Mack the Knife?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I do.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Well, I don’t even know if I can use his name. It doesn’t sound quite as good.

He’s the man with the knife, and he’s going to love his job. If you’re going to be an executioner, you’d better love your job, because you’re going to have a hard time sleeping at night because that’s a tough job. But you know what? He’s got to have a hard time sleeping at night as well, with what he’s doing with these guillotine motions.

But I say to you, Speaker, that he did not come by that at birth. He did not grow up loving the guillotine. Clearly, it is learned behaviour. You would think that someone of that vintage—and I’m not suggesting he’s old. I’m just saying—

Interjections.

Mr. John Yakabuski: No, no. Speaker, I know—

Interjections.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Speaker, you know the old saying, “You can’t teach an old dog new tricks.”

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: That’s not true.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Well, it’s not true. You’re right, I say to the member from Barrie. She’s with us and apparently awake, and look at that.

You can’t teach an old dog new tricks? Well, the power of the Kool-Aid of the corner office can even do that. Because you see, the member from St. Catharines used to deplore the use of the guillotine.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Say it’s not so, Jim.

Mr. John Yakabuski: No, no, and I have had my crack research team bring up some statements of the past. When the man from St. Catharines—

Hon. Jeff Leal: The gentleman from St. Catharines.

Mr. John Yakabuski: The gentleman from St. Catharines, the man who has become the guillotine—Dr. Slash—used to believe that the use of the guillotine was wrong. I don’t know if these quotes were at the time of the debate over capital—oh, no. My goodness, these debates are not that old. I thought maybe it had something to do with capital punishment, because he’s certainly in favour of the capital punishment of debate.

This is a quote from the member from St. Catharines, now the deputy House leader, the most experienced, the most tenured member of this Legislature. You know what? I’m going to tell you, when he was in opposition, some of the things he came out with were valid. I just want to read one of them, if I may. This is from the member from St. Catharines on December 11, 2001. I’m not sure what bill they were debating, but that’s the point, Speaker: It’s not necessarily the bill itself; it’s the idea that this place should be shut down.

“This is indeed an interesting bill, but what’s even more interesting right now is the time allocation motion that faces us. For the people who are watching this perhaps on their television sets at home, I should clarify that. That is the choking off of debate, the ending of debate or the government allocating how much time there shall be for the debate on a piece of legislation.” He was explaining what was happening here, and he was dead right.

He went on to say, “We are operating in this Legislative Assembly at this time almost exclusively on what are called time allocation motions. That’s most unfortunate, because it’s what you would call anti-democratic.”

Now, I just want to run this by you, in no particular order. This is since the Wynne government won their “big majority.” Time-allocated bills:

—Bill 6, Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act;

—Bill 7, Better Business Climate Act;

—Bill 8, Public Sector and MPP Accountability and Transparency Act;

—Bill 10, Child Care Modernization Act;

—Bill 15, Fighting Fraud and Reducing Automobile Insurance Rates Act—how did that work out, boys? Never mind, I won’t ask;

—Bill 18, Stronger Workplaces for a Stronger Economy Act;

—Bill 21, Safeguarding Health Care Integrity Act;

—Bill 35, security for courts, electricity blah, blah, blah act;

—Bill 57, Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act;

—Bill 80, Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act;

—Bill 91, Building Ontario Up Act—they shouldn’t have passed the tearing down Ontario act; oh no, that passed the day you got elected; and

—Bill 103, Protecting the School Year Act.

I’m not even sure if this is a comprehensive list, but that is no less than 12 bills since they came back here in 2014—no less than 12 bills since they came back here in 2014.

We’re only asking—and we have to ask; we almost have to plead at the feet of the Queen, because we do not have the legislative authority or the power to compel this government to do anything. We don’t. It’s the way our parliamentary system works. But we are prepared to plead to change your ways. It is not too late to repent. We will forgive you for your sins if you change your ways and allow this Legislature to do what our forefathers intended it to do, which is to debate legislation. That’s what we’re asking for: for you to allow the Legislature to do what our forefathers intended it to do.

Don’t change history because it’s a matter of Liberal convenience. Don’t affect the future for decades to come. You have the chance to do something right, and I know it hasn’t been something that’s been at the top of your list, but you can do this right by allowing this Legislature to debate bills until the members have decided that the debate has been exhausted, it is time to move on and we are satisfied that the people of Ontario have had a wholesome debate on this issue.

My colleague Mr. Smith from Prince Edward–Hastings will also be speaking on this issue. I have a strong suspicion that there will be some amendments proposed to this motion, because it’s the right thing to do.

I pass to the Chair now, and I thank you for this opportunity, Speaker.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s always a pleasure to be able to rise in this House, but today, not so much. I would like to say that it’s always a challenge to follow my colleague from Renfrew-Pembroke-Nipissing, I think?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Close enough.

Mr. John Vanthof: Great speech. On behalf of the NDP caucus, we would like to agree with most of it.

What time allocation is, really, if you think about it, is a failure by the governing party to actually work in a democratic system. That’s what time allocation is. Because the way the system is supposed to work is, the government has every right to put forward a bill, and it’s the opposition’s role to bring forward the comments and changes, or their opposition to the bill, in order to make it better. It’s the duty and the responsibility of opposition members to be able to speak to this bill and try to make it better, to try to either change the government’s mind on the whole bill, or to try to make improvements. That’s our duty.

With time allocation, the government is basically saying, “We know better, and we’re going to shut you down.” It’s especially egregious with this government, who were elected on a pledge of openness and transparency. Time allocation is the exact opposite. It’s the exact opposite. As I’ve said, it’s a failure of them to be able to work within a democracy. In a majority government, they should be able to talk to the other parties. There would be some bills that we don’t have a problem with, that we could move through the Legislature faster.

There are some bills, as this one—there are some major problems in this bill, and myself and my colleagues will expand on that a bit later in the limited time we have. That’s a big problem with time allocation, because they’re limiting the time for members to propose changes here in this House. Even more egregious, and perhaps most egregious, is that they’re limiting the time of people, everyday people, who should be able to participate in democracy. They’re limiting their time by limiting the time of committee hearings and also by limiting where committee meetings are held.

If you look at this bill, Bill 112, it has two main issues; the one issue is door-to-door sales, retail sales of electricity, stuff like that, which we’ve all had experience with. It’s a huge problem, but it’s not just a huge problem in downtown Toronto, where these hearings are going to be held. It’s a huge problem in one of my colleagues’ ridings, Kenora–Rainy River. It’s a huge problem in Timiskaming–Cochrane. I’m sure it’s a huge problem in ridings across this province. I’m sure people who have dealt with this in ridings across this province would appreciate the opportunity to be able to participate in the process of making a law that is going to help curb this problem.

But this government has decided that, “No, not only are we not going to listen to the opposition, but we’re not going to listen to the people who are actually impacted by this.” This government is saying, “We know better.” They claim to be open and transparent, but deep down they are telling the people of Ontario, “No, we know better.” That is perhaps the most egregious thing about time allocation.

This government system, our parliamentary democracy system, has been developed over hundreds of years, and it works. But time allocation is a chip against this parliamentary democracy; it really is. People outside of this House think, “Oh, well, they just want to get things done fast.” We’re not making breakfast here; we’re making laws—laws that stand for years and years; laws that can help people or laws that can hurt people.

Many of my members would like to be able to have the chance to speak to this bill because they have had people who were impacted by door-to-door retail salespeople. Some people don’t even know. I’ll give a personal example. My mom recently moved to a retirement home, and as we were helping with selling the house and cleaning it out, I discovered that my mom had a door-to-door retail contract and was paying way too much for natural gas, unbeknownst to me, the MPP. I’m sure that happens to people all across the province.

So the more we could talk about this issue and bring this issue out, the better it would be for the people of Ontario. Why couldn’t we have a committee hearing in Thunder Bay or in North Bay or in Woodstock or in the Minister of Agriculture’s riding in Peterborough? Why couldn’t we have committee hearings throughout the province on this issue? Why? Because the government doesn’t want to talk about this issue.

Interjection: Why?

Mr. John Vanthof: Why is that?

What is even more egregious with this bill—believe me, this thing is pretty serious. This bill should really be two bills.

The one side is, “Yes, we’re going to do something about door-to-door sales.” They’re not banning door-to-door sales, by the way. What this bill does—you can’t actually sign the contract. Those people can still approach people like my mom and do a fantastic sales job and do a big pressure job. They just can’t do the deal on the doorstep. They have to call back. On the other side, where they say this is banning door-to-door sales, it’s not.

But there’s another part of this bill. This is the

part I think they really don’t want to talk about, and that’s why they’re doing everything they can to keep this on the down-low. They’re taking some of the Ontario Energy Board’s powers away when it comes to transmission. You’re saying, “These two things have nothing to with each other,” and they don’t. That’s why this bill is being time-allocated, so they can rush it through without people really figuring out what’s going on.

Out there, a lot of people don’t pay attention to politics, and sometimes for good reason. But on this one, it’s a very important issue. As we all know, the government is talking about—well, they’re doing more than talking about it now. The garage sale, the fire sale is starting for Hydro One. They don’t want to talk about that either, but this bill has something to do with that. The government keeps saying we’re protected by the OEB, the Ontario Energy Board, right? But this bill, while we’re talking about protecting consumers, is taking power away from the OEB and putting it into the government. Really, that’s the issue.

Yes, we are going to be supporting this bill on second reading, but there have to be some major changes done in this bill for it actually to be a benefit to the people of Ontario.

When they change the rules for transmission—we have people in Ontario who don’t have transmission lines going into their communities. The government says, “This will help them.” There’s no guarantee this will help them. If they privatize Hydro One, how are these people ever going to be guaranteed that someday they will actually be connected to transmission lines?

This bill needs to have a very fulsome discussion, and that’s why the government is time-allocating this. They are talking about openness and transparency and how they want to have everyone’s input.

I’ve been an MPP for four years, and I often wonder how it is that the things we should be debating—and the people they should be consulting—we aren’t, and the things we don’t need to debate, we are. This one, we need to debate. On this one, there should be consultation across the province.

The Minister of Tourism and Culture is here. We’re doing culture consultations across the province. I’m not opposed. I think that’s a good thing. The more people we consult on issues that impact people across the province, the better it is.

But on the other side, why don’t we have consultations on an issue like this one? Why don’t we have a committee hearing in somewhere other than Queen’s Park? Why? Why is it important for culture yet not important for something that’s going to impact people perhaps for generations? That is the contradiction of this place.

That’s why time allocation shouldn’t be part of our standing orders. Unfortunately, it is, and our party was part of that. I’m not going to deny that. But it was a mistake. For a majority government to have to time-allocate time after time, specifically on bills like this one which have a big impact on people, is shameful.

We can predict that when the contradiction of this bill comes forward, the government will say, “Well, don’t these people want to stop door-to-door sales?” Of course we do. But they won’t talk about how they’re taking away the power of the OEB with this same bill. It’s two bills, and they’re trying to slip one under. That’s very egregious, especially from a government that claims to be open and transparent.

In the short time we have left, some of my colleagues will want to continue on this, so I’ll leave the rest of our time to my colleagues.

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

Mr. Yvan Baker: It’s an honour to rise to speak to this important motion. I have a monthly seniors’ meeting where we talk about the issues that are important to people in my community, particularly seniors in my community. There are a couple of points I wanted to share with you about that.

The first is that, oftentimes, when I come to those meetings, one of the key questions I get from folks is, “What are you getting done on my behalf? How are you improving the quality of life in our community?” That’s one of the questions.

The other thing that recently came up, and I mentioned this before when I spoke to the bill a couple of weeks ago, was that when I told them about some of the things that were in this bill, particularly around banning the door-to-door sales, everybody in the room was nodding their heads and saying, “This is absolutely necessary.”

One of the folks asked me after the meeting, “When is this going to get done?” I said to them, “Well, it depends on how long it’s debated and how long the legislative process takes.” When I think about that and when I think about the fact that the people in that room and the people in my community want to make sure that a lot of other things also get done to enhance the quality of life for the people of Ontario, I think it’s really important that we get to the business of getting things done on behalf of the seniors who were in that room and on behalf of the people of my community and the people of all the communities that we represent.

Let me highlight a few points. The people in that room and the people of Ontario sent us a clear message last June when we were elected that they wanted us to get a lot done. There has been considerable debate on this bill.

I know that the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke spoke about the fact that there were few members on his side who had spoken to the bill. I’m not sure why that is. It can only be one of two reasons: either the members on the opposite side aren’t excited about protecting consumers or the members on the opposite side are being prevented from speaking to the bill. Either way, they’ve had the opportunity to speak to it. In total, there have been 40 members who have spoken to this bill—40—so for the member to suggest that there hasn’t been an opportunity for the members to speak is not accurate at all.

I think we all know that. The Legislature has been working and members have been speaking to this bill.

The other thing I’d like to say is that by moving this on to committee, what this allows is it allows stakeholders to come forward and for the committee to review the bill. There are members from all parties at that committee. They can consider the bill, speak to the bill, ask questions and make it even stronger.

But the best part about this is that we can get to—and we already know that members of the other parties have said they’re going to support the bill, so we know what the outcome will be. In fact, we know that. The member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke provided some interesting quotes. The quote I’d like to provide is from the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, who stated: “I do want to say that we’re going to support this legislation....” The member for Windsor–Tecumseh stated, “This is legislation that at the heart has a good intent.

I think on this side of the House we will be supporting it.” If that’s where we’re going to go, there is an opportunity here to bring it to committee and make it better, if there are any concerns.

There is an urgent need to protect consumers. The people at those seniors’ meetings in my community care about that, the people in my community broadly care about that and the people of Ontario care about that.

The other thing that the people of Ontario want us to work on is a whole range of other issues. There is a number of pieces of legislation that have been introduced which we want to debate and I’m sure the people in our communities would want us to debate and get to work on so that we can get things done on their behalf: Bill 85, the good government act; Bill 109, the employment and labour statute act; Bill 113, the Police Record Checks Reform Act; Bill 115, the Electoral Boundaries Act, and I could go on. These are important pieces of legislation that enhance the lives of Ontarians, of the people in my community of Etobicoke Centre.

Speaker, I started by talking about the people in those seniors’ meetings who I meet with on a monthly basis, who tell me how they want us to get things done on their behalf. I got elected to get things done on their behalf.

Let’s move this bill along. It’s a good bill. All parties support it. Let’s keep getting things done for the people of Ontario.

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

Mr. Todd Smith: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. Let’s go, Blue Jays.

In response to that last bit of debate that we heard, that was finely ground pork sausage, in my opinion. A bunch of baloney is what that was.

He talked about the fact that 40 people have spoken to this bill. As the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke pointed out, three people in the official opposition have had the opportunity to speak to Bill 112, amending the Energy Consumer Protection Act, something that’s obviously extremely important to the people in Prince Edward–Hastings—

Interjection.

Mr. Todd Smith: —and it’s important to the people from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, as he just mentioned, and to many members of this Legislature. But they haven’t had the opportunity to do their job. The reason they were sent here was to represent them.

We just went through a federal election campaign. You might remember. A lot of you were involved in it. I know your staff were certainly involved in the election campaign that we had, where the federal Liberals were victorious. Throughout that election campaign—and it was 78 days, Mr. Speaker—for 78 days, I heard candidates saying, “I am going to be the voice of”—fill in the riding name—not “the voice of Ottawa in”—fill in the riding name.

Interjection.

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

Mr. Todd Smith: How often did your candidate in Peterborough say that? How often did your candidate in Etobicoke Centre say that? How often did your candidate in—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): You gentlemen know what we are to do. Direct it through me.

No more outbursts from the Minister of Agriculture. Thank you.

Mr. Todd Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought I was looking you straight in the eye during that debate.

It is very, very important for us as legislators, as elected members of this Legislature, or for new parliamentarians going to Parliament Hill in Ottawa—it’s their job to represent their constituents in these seats and bring their thoughts and feelings to this place on pieces of legislation that are affecting their lives.

That’s what members of the official opposition wanted to do on Bill 112. The member from Nipissing was here this morning. He is the former mayor of North Bay. He’s a former energy critic for the Progressive Conservative Party. He had a speech ready to go this morning, to deliver on Bill 112, but suddenly, overnight, as the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke calls it, the master or the minister of the guillotine decided that he was going to end debate on this bill. The member from Nipissing was going to be stifled; he was going to be muzzled.

He wasn’t going to have the ability to represent his constituents on the floor here in the Legislature and bring his concerns and their concerns to Queen’s Park.

That’s not why this place was invented.

We talk about the Blue Jays playing their big playoff game today, game five—must win—against the Kansas City Royals. You know what their job is, those Blue Jays? Their job is to show up at Rogers Centre today. They are going to step into the batter’s box, and they’re going to look at the first pitch. If the first pitch isn’t to their liking, hopefully, they’re going to take it. But when it comes time to hit that one down the middle, they’re going to take a swing at it. If this Liberal government was running the Blue Jays, they would step into the box, they’d be able to look at one pitch, and they’d be out of there. They would be gone.

Their job is to analyze legislation. Our job is to analyze legislation. The job of the third party members is to come here and represent their constituents and talk about legislation that is before this House that affects their lives. This government is not allowing us to do our jobs here at Queen’s Park. They have cut down debate.

The member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke talked earlier about all the pieces of legislation that have been moved to time allocation since the 2014 provincial election. This is the 13th time that a piece of legislation has had a time allocation motion forced on it, right? That means it hasn’t had thorough debate here in the Legislature. This is number 13, Bill 112, the Energy Consumer Protection Act.

As we debated earlier, when I believe our critic for energy was talking about this bill in his hour-long presentation, there is a lot of protection needed when it comes to energy for the people of Ontario because of this government. And it’s because of hasty decisions that they’ve made in the past. Look at the Green Energy Act. Many critics have said that George Smitherman wrote that sucker on the back of a napkin, that it was done without any kind of thought or consultation with those who work in the energy sector. And look at the unintended consequences.

I’ll give Smitherman the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he really thought that it was going to have an effect on climate change or reducing emissions in Ontario. Maybe that’s what he thought it was going to do. That certainly hasn’t been what happened. What it did is it drove businesses out of Ontario for other jurisdictions. Smitherman and McGuinty and company came up with the Green Energy Act on the back of a napkin—

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Go ahead, point of order.

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: I’ve been listening carefully, but I don’t believe that the member is directing his comments to the bill that we’re debating.

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s not a bill, it’s a motion.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Would everyone like me to answer, or would you want to answer for me? We’ll all be quiet now, won’t we?

Thank you for your point of order, but I will point out to you that it is a motion and they are addressing a motion. There is certainly lenience when you’re doing a motion.

Continue.

Mr. Todd Smith: This is just for clarity, and I know you did a good job explaining that, but this is a time allocation motion. It’s a new member and maybe she doesn’t understand, but this is the 13th time that the government has brought in time allocation on a bill, so she should know by now this is a motion talking about stifling debate here in the Legislature, keeping us from bringing the representative views of our constituency here to Queen’s Park. It’s completely unacceptable what’s happening.

So I hope, now, that that member from Cambridge can go back to her caucus colleagues and say, “What we’re doing is wrong,” because if the members for Cambridge—they’re getting their three minutes. The members for Cambridge are getting their three minutes on this bill, right?

That’s what the government is allowing their members to do: speak for three minutes on every piece of legislation so that a member can pop up like a whack-a-mole and say, “We’ve had 50 people talk to this bill,” when really we’ve had three members of the official opposition and maybe a couple of members of the NDP who have talked to this act, the Energy Consumer Protection Act.

It’s not about the bill right now. It’s about what the government is doing—as the minister of the guillotine makes his way back into the Legislature. This is what it’s all about: cutting down debate, stifling debate, putting up that big black curtain and having things occur behind the curtain that the public isn’t supposed to know about. When it comes to the sale of Hydro One, Mr. Speaker, that’s all been done behind a big, black curtain. We’re getting little bits of information coming out as the prospectus on the IPO comes out.

We had the preliminary prospectus that came out about a month ago, but even when they released the preliminary prospectus, what did they do? They did it on a Friday afternoon, going into a long weekend, when there wasn’t going to be a whole lot of media attention on it.

They’re doing something extremely unpopular. More than 80% of the public has said in public opinion polls that they think it’s a bad thing to sell off Hydro One. This government is going to do it because they need the cash. They have a spending addiction; they need the cash. But they’re doing it behind closed doors.

You know, Mr. Speaker, it’s been three or four different times now that the government has had a day where the very unpopular sell-off of Hydro One was going to make headlines in the province of Ontario, so what did they do at the same time? They talked about beer. They talked about wine. They talked about anything but the Hydro One sale, because they know how unpopular it is and they know how popular suds are. Suds are very popular, especially when it comes to craft beer. So what did they do? They talked about the fact they are going to start selling six-packs of craft beer, or six-packs of beer, in grocery stores.

As a matter of fact, when Ed Clark, who is the finance minister’s training wheels, came along, he announced that they were going to be selling beer in grocery stores. You all remember that big sign that said, “Beer in grocery stores.” You know what they did at the same time? They announced that they were selling Hydro One. It didn’t say that on the big screen. As a matter of fact, it was almost like it was an afterthought that Hydro One was going to be sold off.

This government likes to put up that curtain. They like to exclude the public. They like to divert attention when they’re doing something nefarious, like selling off Hydro One. We know how unpopular that is. Not only are they doing something anti-democratic by shutting down debate on this bill, which is an important bill—energy, obviously, is a big issue in the province of Ontario; the Energy Consumer Protection Act is important to people out there—but selling off Hydro One is actually a bigger deal, and they’re keeping that out of the public eye as well.

When it comes to electricity rates, last week, during a constituency week, when a federal election was in its last week, when we were in a week at home, what did the government do? They announced that they’re going to be increasing electricity rates by another 8% on the people of Ontario—another 8% on the peak rates. You know what they did? They put out a press release saying that it was 3.4%—very, very misleading, Mr. Speaker, because it’s going to cost you about 8% more on your hydro bill. Starting next week, November 1, it’s going to cost you more.

These are the kinds of secretive things that are being done. These are the kinds of anti-democratic things that are being done in Ontario, and today is another example of that.

While I have the opportunity now, I would like to move a motion. I move that the paragraph starting “That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill” be struck out and replaced with:

“That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be 12 p.m. on Thursday, November 5, 2015”; and that the third bullet be struck out and replaced with:

“—That following the deadline, the Clerk of the Committee provide the members of the subcommittee with a list of requests to appear; and

“—That the members of the subcommittee prioritize and return the list by 6 p.m. on Thursday the 29th, 2015; and

“—That the Clerk of the Committee

schedule witnesses from these prioritized lists.”

I would move that motion now, Mr. Speaker. I’ll hand it to the page and Michael will take it to the table.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Mr. Smith has moved that the paragraph starting “That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill” be struck out and replaced with:

“That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be 12 p.m. on Thursday, November 5, 2015”; and that the third bullet be struck out and replaced with:

“—That following the deadline, the Clerk of the Committee provide the members of the subcommittee with a list of requests to appear; and

“—That the members of the subcommittee prioritize and return the list by 6 p.m. on Thursday the 29th, 2015; and

“—That the Clerk of the Committee

schedule witnesses from these prioritized lists.”

Continue debate on the amendment.

Mr. Todd Smith: Hopefully, the government will accept this. This is a small, small motion, a simple motion that hopefully will allow more people the opportunity to speak to this bill.

As was pointed out by a couple of different members earlier this morning who have spoken to this time allocation motion from the government, time to participate for the public is very, very minimal on this bill. There is not a whole lot of opportunity. The only opportunity for the public to participate in this bill—again, the committee portion of this bill, the Energy Consumer Protection Act—the only place where the public can participate is here at Queen’s Park. This is a big province. I know the member from the NDP who’s spoken already is from northern Ontario, from Timiskaming–Cochrane.

The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke has spoken about the fact that his constituents deserve the right to participate in any changes or feedback on this bill. He’s from the Ottawa Valley. I’m from Prince Edward–Hastings in eastern Ontario, and I think that my residents should have the opportunity to speak to this bill.

I would ask that the government consider this motion. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this bill today in spite of the fact that I won’t be able to, it appears, speak in full to the actual act that is being debated because I’ve had that opportunity removed. But I’ve enjoyed the opportunity to speak to the motion here this morning.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): We’ll continue debate on the amendment. The member from Windsor–Tecumseh.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Those of us who just went through that federal election when people across the country voted for change across the country—yet we come here and we find out the Ontario Liberal government is the most resistant to change, the most resistant to fresh ideas and the most resistant to new thoughts, better bills and fresh amendments. The Liberal government of Ontario wants us to cut off debate, shut down debate, before the real motives behind their bill come to light. That’s why we have amendments.

I’d like to think that when I stand in this House, I speak not only for the residents of Windsor–Tecumseh but that I speak on behalf of at least most of the people in our great province. The bill that we were to discuss, Bill 112, that used to have the title of the Energy Consumer Protection Act and the Ontario Energy Board Act, of course, now is on the shelf because not only are we talking about cutting off debate on time allocation; we’re talking about amendments to the time allocation.

You’d want to stand in this House and ask why: why the government had combined the two bills, and now, without even having an opportunity to discuss that bill, we’re talking about time allocation and amendments to the motion on time allocation.

Some of us become skeptics. We don’t come here as skeptics but we become very skeptical when we get here because we think that somebody is trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Someone is trying to take away our right to speak, cut off debate and give us time allocation and amendments to time allocation motions. Why do they want to smother debate in this House? Why time allocation bills? You combine a feel-good bill with something that you don’t really want to talk about, then you bring in time allocation, and before we even get into that, we talk about the amendments to it.

There were quotes going around earlier about supporting the bill. I think we all support aspects of the bill that would have stopped the door-to-door salesmen up to a point, but then they buried that aspect of it. They highlight that and they want us to talk about stripping away power from the Ontario Energy Board and putting it in the hands of cabinet, asking us to trust the government. If there’s anything that the people of Ontario have told us lately, you don’t really associate the word “trust” with this Liberal government, going by their actions of late, when you talk about the selling off of Ontario Hydro, for example.

When we talk about the amendment to the motion, that brings us back to the motion on time allocation. We talked about no more signing the deal, but I must say, earlier there was a previous motion—not the time allocation motion, but a bill put forward from our member from Kenora–Rainy River who wanted to do away with, phase out, the selling altogether. Sorry, Speaker.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Just a reminder to the minister and the member from Essex that his member is speaking, and you guys are shouting across to each other. If you want to talk, take it outside.

Continue.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: The

part I think they don’t want us to talk about is the part that strips away power from the Ontario Energy Board and places it in the hands of cabinet. That’s like bringing in time allocation so we can’t talk about that; we talk about amendments to that motion.

Speaker, I heard a phrase the other day. I think it was “sugar-coated weasel burger.” Somebody had suggested that when you put the sugar on top of a motion, you want to highlight something that you’re hiding underneath the real meat. That was, when you combine getting away with door-to-door salesmen with stripping away power from the Ontario Energy Board, you end up with a sugar-coated weasel burger.

I was hoping to talk about that today, but I can’t. Instead, we’re talking about time allocation and the amendment to that motion. That’s all very interesting.

Last week, Speaker, I had a young woman from—Angela Thompson was her name. She came all the way down from St. Thomas to visit me in my Windsor office to talk about the selling off of Ontario hydro. I was hoping to talk about her today. She works in a group home and her boyfriend runs a small business. She’s reaching out to MPPs of all political stripes because she’s outraged and appalled because this government is selling Hydro One. I think she’d be outraged and appalled that they’re bringing in time allocation on this bill, making this a motion and an amendment to the motion that we have to talk about today.

She told me she thought the Liberal government, which wants us to trust it, was being “really sneaky,” in her words, and “untruthful,” in her words. She took a day off work to come down to my office to drive home the point that while we make it sound positive to use words like “broaden the ownership,” those words disguise the negative reality of the Liberals trying to sell hydro. I only mention that because she did drive all the way down from St. Thomas. She felt tricked; she felt taken in. I feel the same way when they bring in time allocation motions. I just feel as Angela Thompson did.

She also told me she tried to get an appointment with the member from London North Centre, the Deputy Premier, Ms. Matthews. My door is always open, but, apparently, if you want to see certain members of the House, you have to apply online and go through a screening process before you get in the door. I didn’t know about that. I don’t know if it’s true, but she told me that she can’t get in to see the member because she doesn’t pass, I guess, the test. That might be a member’s way of saying “Get off my porch.” I don’t know, but I know, when people come into my office, we have an open-door policy.

We don’t always agree with everyone who comes in, but at least we give them the time they need to state their case.

In this House, we like to think we take the time we need to speak on a bill, that it gets a full hearing. Instead, we get time allocation imposed on us, and then the amendments to that motion so that we can’t talk about it.

Speaker, I know my time is rapidly running out and I know the member from Essex wants to get in on this as well. I just say, it saddens me and disappoints me that we don’t have an opportunity to discuss this sugar-coated weasel bill that was being presented, Instead, we have to talk about a time allocation motion and amendments to the motion. Indeed, a lot of people do feel tricked by this.

The Ontario Energy Board is like a gatekeeper. They hold public hearings, and, if you want to do something like build a transmission line, you have to meet their needs test, but this bill would strip that away.

We wouldn’t have the public hearings; we’d strip away the power of the Ontario Energy Board and give it to the cabinet table where, should they choose to take a proposal from a friend and call it a priority project, then that would get government approval, where other people in the queue waiting to have a needs test put on their proposal—say, down Leamington way—in order get power lines in to feed the greenhouses, the queue would be jumped by the friends of cabinet who would have their projects approved.

I guess I’m out of time. At this, I will sit down.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It being 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise today to welcome the Ontario Home Builders’ Association, including president John Meinen, and I look forward to meeting with them later this afternoon. I want to thank them for coming to Queen’s Park.

I also am pleased to rise and introduce visitors who are here today to see page Abby Moreside who comes from the great riding of Oxford. In the members’ gallery today are her brother, Erik Moreside; her former teacher, Karen Miller; and Janet Thompson. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s my delight to introduce a young student from Ursula Franklin who works voluntarily in our office: Spencer Higdon-McGreal. Welcome.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I’m very pleased to rise today on behalf of page captain Jade Mair Douglas, and to introduce and to welcome her mother Shawna Mair and her grandmother Joyce Mair in the members’ gallery this morning. Welcome.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to introduce Constable Michael Robinson and Constable John Tracey from the Stratford Police Service.

Ms. Cindy Forster: We have three members of the Niagara Region Police Association here today. We have Rick Gordon, director of civilian services; Neal Orlando, a sergeant; and Andrew Gordon, a detective. Welcome to Queen’s Park, gentlemen.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: It’s my pleasure to introduce Carlos Coutinho, chief operating officer of CAA South Central Ontario; Teresa Di Felice, who is the director of CAA South Central Ontario’s government and community relations and driver training; and Elliott Silverstein, manager of government relations, CAA South Central Ontario. They are here in the members’ gallery today.

Mr. Michael Harris: I’d also like to introduce folks from CAA: Matthew Turack, division president, insurance, CAA South Central Ontario; Sue Waywell, board chair, CAA South Central Ontario; and Amy Bryson, board member, CAA South Central Ontario. Welcome.

Mr. Wayne Gates: I’d like to welcome a few members of CAA Niagara to the House today: Rick Mauro, who is vice-president of marketing and public relations; Bill Willard, who is vice-president of automotive services, CAA Niagara; and Dave Shaw, who is a board member of CAA Niagara.

Mr. Bob Delaney: I’m pleased to introduce my good friend Bruce Chapman of the Peel Regional Police, who is here for the police association lobby day.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I just want to welcome page Nicole Haim’s father, George Haim. He is here today in the public gallery.

I also want to introduce Elliott Silverstein, who was already introduced, but he is my constituent so I wanted to mention that as well. He is the manager of government relations, CAA South Central Ontario, and his office is also in my riding of Thornhill; as well as Ethel Taylor, board member, CAA South Central Ontario. I’d like to remind everybody that there’s a reception hosted by CAA on the second floor in the reception room following question period.

M me France Gélinas: It is my pleasure to introduce Solicitor Alesia Sostarich, from the firm Arseneau Poulson, who is here from Sudbury.

As well, I have a page from Nickel Belt, Vanessa Morris, and her mother, Josée Morris, is with us today in the gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to welcome the following people from the Durham Regional Police Association: Randy Henning, Tim Morrison, Jamie Bramma, Colin Goodwin, Rob Aukema; and of course also from the Police Association of Ontario, Jason DeJong. I’ll be meeting with all of them later this afternoon.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I’d like to welcome four members from the Windsor Police Association who are here today: Ed Parent, Carol Forbes, Pete Mombourquette and Steve MacDonald. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: I’m honoured to welcome to Queen’s Park today members of the Halton Regional Police and the president of the Police Association of Ontario: Rob Todd, Shane Barnes and Sarah Diamond.

I’m also delighted to welcome from CAA South Central Ontario Teresa Di Felice, director, government and community relations and driver training; Cindy Hillaby, vice-president; and Tracy Nickleford, manager, community relations. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Robert Bailey: It’s a great pleasure for me to introduce, from the Sarnia Police Association, Mike Kahert, Scott Clarke, Miroslav Soucek, Carole Mariuz and Debra Thibert. I welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I would also like to welcome police officers from the Durham region here with the Police Association of Ontario. I see up in the public gallery as well that we have doctors joining us from Oshawa and the Durham region. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I’d like to welcome to the House today, from the Kingston police association, Sean Bambrick, Jason Cahill, Jason Alblas, Graedon Schaule and the new president of the Kingston police association, Cameron Gough. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: On behalf of the member from Wellington–Halton Hills and page John Millar, I’d like to welcome John’s parents, mother Kathleen Millar and father Daniel Millar, who are in the gallery with us today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Granville Anderson: I would like to welcome Chris Leahey, councillor from the west ward in Whitby. I would also like to welcome delegates attending with the PAO from the Durham Regional Police Association. Welcome.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I’d like to welcome the many doctors who will be coming to the Legislature today. In particular, I’d like to welcome Dr. Nadia Alam, Dr. Mark Linder, Dr. Jason Profetto, Dr. Kulvinder Gill, Dr. Brenna Velker, and Tara Bourque, from Sarnia, who is visiting us today.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature today members of the Niagara Region Police Association: Andrew Gordon, Rick Gordon and Neal Orlando. Attending from the PAO is Mark Baxter.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I’d like members of the House to recognize Dr. Jill Bailey from the Dufferin Area Family Health Team, who has joined us here today.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Members of the Police Association of Ontario are with us here today at Queen’s Park. Please join me in welcoming president Bruce Chapman, executive director Stephen Reid, and chair of the board Jim Glena. In addition, please also welcome Larry Wood, Andrea Lamothe, Mark Baxter, Jason DeJong, Jason Barber and Michael Gendron. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’d like to welcome, from the Strathroy-Caradoc Police Association, officers McGuire and Landers.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Today, on National Bioenergy Day, I’m pleased to welcome to Queen’s Park, in the east gallery, Jeff Lyash, who is the new CEO and president of Ontario Power Generation. Mr. Lyash and his colleagues from OPG are doing a great job, and it’s my pleasure to recognize their outstanding work and welcome Jeff to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Michael Harris: I’d like to recognize our page captain from Kitchener, Victoria Gates. She’s got some special guests joining her: her mother, Jacqueline Armstrong Gates; her father, Jeff Gates; her brother Davis Gates and cousin McKenzie Embree. They’re in the members’ gallery. Welcome and congratulations, Victoria.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I’d like to welcome members of the Port Hope Police Association: Mat Lawrence, Nathan Clarke and Terry Teno.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: I’d like to take this opportunity to introduce to the gallery officers Dave Miller and Joel Rehill from the Chatham–Kent Police Service.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I’d like to welcome members of the Peterborough Police Association here today—I’ll be meeting with them later today—and Jeff Chartier, who does such a great job as president of that association.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I’d like to welcome Howard Brown today from the association of professional engineers. They have a reception tonight. We’re looking forward to that.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I am happy to welcome the Professional Engineers Ontario to question period. We have with us PEO president Thomas Chong, PEO registrar Gerard McDonald, PEO president-elect George Comrie, and PEO manager of student and government liaison programs Jeannette Chau. We welcome all of you to the reception tonight.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I’m very pleased to welcome my friend Doug DeRabbie from the Insurance Bureau of Canada. I’d just thank you for the work you’re doing on financial literacy.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I would like to wish happy birthday to my parliamentary assistant, Lorenzo Berardinetti. It’s his birthday today, so happy birthday.

Mr. Arthur Potts: I’d like to welcome Steve Deveaux, who’s here with Tribute Communities, the home builders, and a constituent of Beaches–East York.

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

You’ll notice I gave as much time as necessary to invite all of our guests, because we do want to welcome them and thank them for being here. I have noticed a couple of things during that time. First of all, thank you for being brief and not giving speeches when introducing; that’s good. The second thing is, unfortunately, I noticed that someone was reading from their machinery, which is not permissible. I remind all of you that you’re not to use those implements in the House for anything, actually.

Legislative pages

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would also now like to introduce the members to our new pages this week. So if they could assemble, we will introduce our pages:

From Whitby–Oshawa, Julia Cooper; from Essex, Marco Di Laudo; from Burlington, Michael Douglas; from Halton, Julia Empey; from York West, Symrin Flora; from Kitchener–Conestoga, Victoria Gates; from Thornhill, Nicole Haim; from Mississauga–Erindale, Irene Hu; from Perth–Wellington, Faith Knechtel; from Peterborough, Sebastian Lingertat; from Scarborough–Guildwood, Jade Mair Douglas; from Simcoe–Grey, Samuel Martin-Chase; from Wellington–Halton Hills, John Millar; from Oxford, Abby Moreside; from Nickel Belt, Vanessa Morris; from Algoma–Manitoulin, Kyle Preuss; from Windsor–Tecumseh, Cameron Rodzik; from Beaches–East York, Gavin Shepherd; from Brampton–Springdale, Soham Shah; from Toronto Centre, Shirley Wu.

These are our pages for this week.

Oral Questions

Health care funding

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. The numbers don’t lie. The numbers don’t spin or evade the truth. Last year, the federal government—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): This applies to all sides.

Please continue.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Last year, the federal government gave $652 million more for health care than the previous year, but this Liberal government increased the health care budget by $598 million. There’s a difference of $54 million—$54 million that should have gone to fund patient services, nurses and home care. Instead, this Liberal government diverted the money to pay for their own scandals, like gas plants and Ornge.

Mr. Speaker, will the Premier explain why she took $54 million from health care in Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The Leader of the Opposition seems—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): As one can notice, it happens on both sides. Now let’s stop it.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It seems that the Leader of the Opposition is carrying on a tradition of that party of not really understanding the math, having a bit of a challenge, so let me just go through this. The PC leader is simply wrong when he talks about the $54 million from the Canada Health Transfer. If he looks at last year’s public accounts and compares it to our 2015 budget—look at those projections—he’ll see that there’s no $54-million gap.

What there is instead is over $100 million in additional funding for health care, over and above what was in those projections. I would just ask the Leader of the Opposition to take a look at the numbers and do the math.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Start the clock.

I can read this very well. I’m going to move to warnings immediately, so calm down.

Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: The government may applaud their $54-million cut, but the government’s cuts are having real effects on Ontario patients. There are hundreds of doctors here at Queen’s Park today who have told us countless stories of how the government’s cuts will reduce the care that patients deserve in Ontario. Cuts to physician services and billing caps mean that doctors, who are small business owners, have to cut staff who are providing health care and reduce services provided to their patients.

These highly respected professionals are offended—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Associate Minister of Health is warned.

Mr. Patrick Brown: These highly respected professionals are offended that the government continues to demonize them.

Will the Premier put patients first, stop attacking doctors and recognize the fact that health care is important in Ontario?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: My grandfather was a doctor. He practised medicine after the First World War in north Toronto for 40 years. My father was a doctor, and my daughter is finishing nursing—

Mr. John Yakabuski: You didn’t cut his wages.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke is warned. And whether you hear me or not, the warning stands.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I only make that point because it is very important, to me personally and to our government, that we have a very strong working relationship with our health professionals. It’s extremely important. It’s why we increased the health budget to a total of $50.8 billion this year. That’s an increase of 1.2%. We’re increasing physician compensation by 1.25% over the next three years. The money that is going into health care is increasing. It’s increasing year over year, and we will continue to work with our health professionals, because they’re so critical to the well-being of this province.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: You’re not going to find a single doctor in the province of Ontario who believes your argument that you’re not cutting health care. It is a well-known fact that you took $54 million from the federal health transfer to spend in other areas.

What I can’t believe, Mr. Speaker, is that to make up for this diversion of money, this government is asking doctors to compromise quality care. They owe it to their patients. Doctors want to deliver quality care to their patients, and you’re diminishing that. They’re forcing emergency rooms to take on more patients when those patients lose their family doctors.

Why won’t the Premier do the right thing, restore the $54-million cut and recognize the fact that no one in Ontario believes you’re not cutting health care?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: The right thing would have been a member who was sitting in the Harper government fighting on behalf of the people of Ontario to provide for more increases. Since 2004-05, program spending in the Ministry of Health has increased by more than $18 billion while CHT has only increased by $6.8 billion.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You never know when I’m going to hit.

Finish, please, and wrap it up.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Wrapping up, sir.

He makes reference to the budget, which talks about projections. The actuals that were recently published show that spending for health care has actually increased by $1.1 billion, well over the $50 billion. Every single dollar of the—

Interjections.

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

New question.

Health care funding

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is to the Premier. Premier, the doctors and patients here today are victims of your scandals and waste. Billions of dollars have been squandered to benefit Liberal friends and special interests, because it’s more important to this Liberal government to pay millions in bonuses to Pan Am executives than to make sure 800,000 Ontarians get a family doctor; because it’s more important to this Liberal government to dole out millions from eHealth to Liberal-friendly consultants than to make sure addiction clinics don’t shut down.

Mr. Speaker, how can the Premier tell the doctors who are here today, and their patients, that paying for her scandals is more important than funding front-line health care?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I want to welcome the doctors who are here today and acknowledge their presence. I want to say I’m proud to be part of their profession.

I also want to say I had a meeting with the OMA executive, with the president of the OMA, Dr. Michael Toth, yesterday. We talked about a number of issues. I reiterated the government’s interest in negotiating and getting back to negotiating.

We’ve never actually stopped that process. We followed a process that was agreed to in writing by the OMA back in 2012 that led to an umpire, to retired judge Warren Winkler, coming up with a proposal, accepting the government’s offer and imploring the OMA to accept that offer.

Regrettably, the OMA didn’t. We are implementing the offer that was presented and endorsed by retired judge Warren Winkler, but we had a very positive discussion yesterday with the OMA. I’m happy to talk about that in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Back to the Premier: Hospitals across Toronto are operating at 115% capacity. Hospital beds are filled with seniors who now wait 69 days to get to a nursing home, an increase of 18 days since—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The President of the Treasury Board is warned.

Carry on.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Thank you for that, Speaker.

Health Quality Ontario reported that half of Ontarians are not able to

schedule a timely visit with their primary care provider when they are in need, yet this government responds by cutting over $800 million to doctor services, forcing clinics to close and sending more and more people to hospitals’ emergency rooms.

Mr. Speaker, where are this Liberal Premier’s priorities? Will the Premier reverse her health care cuts before the next set of clinics closes in this province?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Health?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, the examples that the member opposite just gave are precisely the reason why we’ve asked our physicians—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: The comments and examples made by the member opposite are exactly the reason why we’ve asked our physicians—after a 60% increase over the last decade, to the point where they’re the best-paid doctors in this country, as they deserve to be, we’ve asked them to hold the line, take a modest reduction so we can actually invest in home and community care, so we can invest in our hospitals, so we can invest in the other health care workers who are at the front line, working hard, like our PSWs.

When I met with the president of the OMA yesterday, we had a very good discussion. I presented to them another opportunity to create, as Warren Winkler asked us to do, a task force to look at the future of physician services. He embraced that and endorsed that. The OMA previously did as well.

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

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Mr. Speaker, the health minister is asking doctors to take a pay cut to pay for their scandals: the gas plants, eHealth and smart meters.

Back to the Premier: The Health Quality report found that less than half of patients hospitalized for heart failure or chronic lung disease saw a doctor within the week after discharge. For those hospitalized with a mental illness or addiction, the numbers are even worse, with more than two thirds of those patients failing to see a doctor within seven days of their release—which is why the Liberal government’s cut to physician services makes no sense at all.

The cost of these cuts will not be measured in stats or dollars and cents. The cost will be measured in the suffering that seniors will endure when they wait hours in the ER because they can’t get an appointment with their doctor, if they’re lucky enough to have one at all.

Mr. Speaker, does the Premier care nothing for the suffering that these cuts will inflict on the people of this province, who deserve timely, quality health care?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, first of all, we aren’t cutting the budget for our doctors. Our doctors’ budget is increasing by 1.25% this year. It’s increasing by 1.25% next year as well.

We’re bringing 700 net new doctors into this province this year alone. That’s three times the rate of population growth. We’re continuing to provide the services that people depend on.

We’re not talking about health services and the delivery of health services. We’re talking about one thing: We’re talking about compensation to our doctors, who are the best-paid in the country, as they deserve to be.

I want to get back to that important discussion I had with President Toth of the OMA yesterday, where we provided them with the opportunity to work in partnership with us to create a task force on the future of physician services, to look at a whole broad range of issues, including compensation.

We’re prepared to negotiate today, tomorrow, going forward, working in partnership with the OMA.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Against the public’s wishes, the Premier is plowing ahead with the unnecessary sell-off of Hydro One. Based on the initial share offer, the Premier is now projecting the sale will generate $2 billion less than originally forecast.

My question for the Premier is this: Where is the $2-billion shortfall coming from—repayment of the debt or from axing infrastructure projects?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, let’s just be clear on what’s happening right now. We are broadening the ownership of Hydro One in order to finance what is the largest infrastructure investment in Ontario’s history.

This release of the prospectus is the first step in a process. The leader of the third party knows, I think, that the final price has not been set. This is a process whereby the price will be set.

We are on track to realize the $9 billion that will allow us to invest $4 billion in infrastructure—infrastructure that is sorely needed in our urban, rural and northern communities. We are going to make those investments, and we are making those investments because we know that economic prosperity in the immediate future and in the long term depends on those investments.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the Premier has never needed the money from the sell-off of Hydro One to build infrastructure. There are other options, and the people of Ontario have been telling her loudly and clearly to change course.

When the profits from the sell-off were estimated at $4 billion, that sum represented only 3% of the $130 billion of the Liberals’ promises on infrastructure spending. Now they stand to make over $2 billion less on this unnecessary sell-off.

The people deserve to know where that loss of $2 billion is going to be coming from. What does that mean to the Premier’s promises? Is the Premier planning on paying down less of the hydro debt, or will she start axing some of her infrastructure projects?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, let me be clear: The price has not been set yet, and we are on track to realize the $9 billion.

The reality is that the lack of a plan that the leader of the third party put forward means that had she had the opportunity, none of the projects that we are on track to deliver would have been delivered. I’ve asked her in this House before, and I will ask her again: Which of these projects would she have cancelled, Mr. Speaker? Would she have cancelled the electrification of the Barrie line, which would increase weekly trips from 70 to 200? Would she have axed the Milton line 15-minute peak-direction service? Would she have axed the new alignment of Highway 7 between Kitchener and Guelph?

Or would she have cancelled the $1 billion for the Hamilton LRT? Is that the project she would have cancelled? Because she had no way of financing all the projects that we are delivering as we speak.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This Premier hasn’t even sold off the first tranche of Hydro One shares, and it looks like she’s already down $2 billion for her infrastructure promises.

The Premier has insisted time and time again in this House that without the money from the sell-off of Hydro One, every single project in Ontario is at risk. Now that she’s going to have $2 billion less from the sell-off of Hydro One, Ontarians deserve to know which projects she’s going to be cutting. Is it going to be all-day, two-way GO in Kitchener-Waterloo? Is it going to be the Maley Drive extension in Sudbury? Is it going to be public transit projects right here in Toronto? This Premier needs to let the people of Ontario know which projects she’s cutting when she doesn’t get the money that she says she needs—but she doesn’t—from the Hydro One sell-off.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, Mr. Speaker, at least we’ve got the NDP talking about infrastructure. At least they’re talking about transportation infrastructure; that’s a first. The fact is that the leader of the third party had no plan to build infrastructure, so she hasn’t talked about infrastructure for three years.

We are engaged in the first step in a process to realize the $9 billion, $4 billion of which will be invested in infrastructure. She knows perfectly well that the price has not been set yet. She also knows that it is necessary for us to make these investments in infrastructure and that there are projects all over the province that have already been begun, that are on track to be begun, and that we are working on.

So I say to the leader of the third party: We are electrifying the Barrie line. We’re electrifying part of the Kitchener line, the Lakeshore line. We’re expanding Highway 7 between Kitchener and Guelph, and improving—

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I don’t need the theatrics. I know what to do.

New question.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. The incoming federal government has just promised $125 billion over 10 years for an infrastructure program—

Interjections.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The incoming federal government has just promised $125 billion over 10 years—

Hon. David Orazietti: And you don’t want that in your ridings?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Government Services is warned.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: —for an infrastructure program to begin immediately. Presumably a significant amount of the money will flow to Canada’s largest province. The Premier has insisted that the only way she can fund Ontario’s infrastructure needs is through the sell-off of Hydro One. Well, now there’s another obvious solution.

My question for the Premier is this: Will she do the right thing, abandon her plan to sell off Hydro One and demand Ontario’s fair share of the new federal infrastructure project money?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It’s wonderful to hear the leader of the third party supportive of the new federal government. It’s as it should be.

Mr. Speaker, when I go to municipalities around the province, which I do regularly, and all of our members are talking to municipal leaders all over the province, there is no shortage—in fact, there is a wealth of need in this province. The fact is that infrastructure was neglected. When we came into office, there was a huge infrastructure deficit across the province. We have been working on that. We have been working with municipalities. We haven’t had a federal partner. We would have been able to do more had we had that federal partner. Now we do.

So we have a plan. We’ve got a plan that we are implementing. If the federal government will work with us, we can do more, and more is needed in this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, what’s needed in this province is the maintenance of our public electricity system for the people of this province, now and for generations to come. That’s what’s needed in this province.

The government sell-off of Hydro One was supposed to net them $4 billion towards their $130 billion of promises over 10 years. That’s approximately 3%, or $400 million a year over the 10-year period. With the new federal government promising an aggressive infrastructure program, surely Ontario, Canada’s largest province, can expect at the very least $400 million a year. Here’s an opportunity for the Premier to listen to the people of Ontario, to do what they’re telling her to do: Stop the sell-off of Hydro One, and use the new federal infrastructure program funds to build the infrastructure that Ontario needs.

Will this Premier do the right thing and abandon her wrong-headed scheme to sell off Hydro One? Because it is absolutely unnecessary all the way around.

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The leader of the third party started this round of questions with the contention that we don’t have enough money for infrastructure investment. Now, she’s suggesting that we have too much money for infrastructure because the federal government is going to be working with us.

The reality is that there is a need for infrastructure investment across this province. In fact, as the new leader of the federal government has said, there is a need for investment in infrastructure across the country. It looks different on the west coast than it does in the Northwest Territories. It looks different in PEI than it does in Quebec. But the fact is, there is a need across this country for investment in infrastructure. It’s one of the reasons that I believe that Justin Trudeau won, because he recognized that. He is going to work with the provinces, he is going to work with the territories, and he is going to augment and support the plans that we already have in place.

But that doesn’t let us off the hook. We have to stick to our plan in making investments that we’ve committed to the people of—

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

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This Premier’s plan is wrong for Ontario. It is wrong for the people of Ontario, and this is her chance to make things right. The people of Ontario want this Premier to stop the sell-off of Hydro One. It is absolutely unnecessary. Now that we have federal promises of new infrastructure money for Ontario, this sell-off is even more unnecessary than before, Speaker.

One wonders what the big hurry is to get Hydro One into the hands of private investors. One would have to ask the Premier that very question. But the most important question is this: Why will the Premier not do the right thing? Why will she not do the right thing and stop this unnecessary sell-off of Hydro One, keep it in the hands of the public where it belongs for today and for generations to come?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: So here’s the urgency. The urgency is that we have roads and bridges; we have water systems; we have a need for broadband; we have a need for gas hookups; we have a need for transit systems that have to be built. That’s the urgency. People’s quality of life depends on these investments, and the ability of businesses to expand, move their goods around, whether it’s a rural or an urban community, and be able to draw more investment to the province. That’s the urgency, Mr. Speaker.

When the leader of the third party talks to people around the province, I don’t know if they say to her how critical it is that they have the support of the provincial government to make those investments, but I can tell you, when we go to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, or I go to the Ontario Good Roads Association, or we talk to the cities, the urban centres around this province, they need investment. They need a partner in the provincial government, and that’s who we are.

Health care

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Seniors in my riding and across Ontario worry about the cutbacks to care and wait times, which are getting longer and longer in Ontario. Mr. Birch of Owen Sound was told that he was facing a 14-month wait for cataract surgery. That’s 420 days. Not only does this long wait for cataract surgery put Ontarians at three times over the national average, but it also has serious and grave consequences. People like Mr. Birch could go blind while waiting to access their health care.

My question to the minister: After 12 years of your government and 10 years since launching your wait time strategy, is a 14-month wait the best you can do?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I appreciate the question from a party that didn’t even bother to measure wait times, let alone actually invest in them.

We’ve invested hundreds of millions of dollars in reducing wait times across the province. We were the first party, the first government in the history of this province, to actually measure those important wait times. So we had targets where we could improve on the wait times, and we’ve done that, including on cataract surgery, where in the last decade, the wait time for cataract surgery across the province has been reduced by 152 days, or 49% less.

We’re making improvements. Cancer surgery—among the best in the world—we’ve reduced that wait time by 32%; angioplasty and angiography, by 40%. For knee replacement, we’ve reduced the wait time by 54%.

So it’s a little rich, coming from a party that didn’t even bother to measure, let alone invest in, reducing wait times. We’ve done both and we’ve seen the success.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Bill Walker: Back to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care: The minister says one thing but the people of this province tell us otherwise. Who are we to trust, this government or the people bearing the brunt of your cuts?

My question to the minister is simple. I want to know why you have failed to meet your cataract surgery targets and why wait times have more than doubled from 180 to 420 days for some constituents. Stop counting. Start doing.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: This year alone we’re investing nearly $100 million specifically to reduce wait times on important surgeries and procedures, cancer treatments and other things that are important to Ontarians.

There is regional variation. There is variation across the province. In those cases where the wait times are slightly higher than in other parts of the province, we’re working with our LHINs, we’re working with the hospitals involved, with the practitioners who are providing that surgery or that service as well to ensure that we’re able to reduce those wait times across the province.

We’re doing an investment of a significant amount of money. You never had a plan to do that. You didn’t measure wait times. You didn’t invest. You closed hospitals. This government is committed—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings is warned.

Wrap up, please.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I think I have, Mr. Speaker.

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

Health care funding

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre. This morning, the galleries are full with physicians. They decided to come to Queen’s Park.

After a week in our constituencies, we had the opportunity to connect with the physicians in our own ridings. The truth is that this government has imposed a unilateral agreement on physicians in Ontario. A unilateral agreement is not an agreement. That is why they are here today.

By their action, the government has created unrest within our health care system. What does the Premier have to say to all of the physicians who are here today in the gallery who are worried about her government’s action and what it will mean for the health care of our province and for the patients who need that care?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I said earlier, we have a deep respect for the work that is done by our physicians across this province. As the Minister of Health has said, we’re proud of the fact that they are the best-paid physicians in the country. That’s a good thing. They work hard and they provide a wonderful service to the people of Ontario.

At the same time, we have made difficult decisions on this side of the House. We are increasing physician compensation by 1.25% over the next three years each year. At the same time, we made a decision on putting money into community care and particularly into personal support workers’ salaries, which are among the lowest in the province. We believe that that was important to the quality and integrity of the health care system.

I’m surprised, actually, that we didn’t see this kind of reaction from the NDP at that time. We didn’t see them standing up to talk about support for the lowest paid, and we saw them vote against a budget that put money into those lowest-paid professionals in the province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: I don’t understand how come the Premier and the minister do not see the chaos they are creating in our health care system. Most of the 28,000 physicians in Ontario are not happy right now. They are not happy because they feel disrespected. Nothing good comes when a group of people feels disrespected. They are human beings, just like you and I, and when they feel disrespected, they react just like—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Order.

Please finish.

M me France Gélinas: When will the Premier realize the damage she is doing to our health care system by the way she is treating our physicians? Nothing good will come of this. The unilateral actions are causing chaos. Who will pay the price for this?

I ask again: Will the Premier step up and fix the chaos, respect our physicians and have an agreement that both parties can agree to?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Speaker, I do respect our physicians. I respect them deeply, and I respect the fact that the Minister of Health has met with the head of the OMA and has said, “Let’s sit down again; let’s continue this conversation.” But, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the highest-paid physicians in the country. That is a good thing. It is a good thing that they are paid well. They work very hard. But there is a range of health professionals who need the support of this government if we are going to have a health care system that’s going to meet the needs of the people in this province.

There are people in their homes who need personal support workers not to be in precarious employment but who need a sustainable living wage. That’s why we’ve made decisions to put money into community care and to support those people. I am surprised that the NDP does not understand that. I am surprised that they don’t support making sure that we have equitable pay and that we recognize the importance of the work—

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

Interjections.

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

New question.

Elder abuse

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: My question is for the minister responsible for seniors affairs. The minister recently visited my riding of Burlington to host an important regional round table consultation regarding a topic I feel very strongly about: the prevention of elder abuse in our province.

We know that elder abuse is a problem that often remains hidden due to fear, shame and lack of awareness. Speaker, I’m proud that Ontario was the first province in Canada to introduce a strategy to combat elder abuse. As a member that represents a community with a significant seniors’ population—close to one in five of our residents is a senior—I understand the importance of addressing this complex issue and was eager to participate in the consultation session to contribute to the dialogue for Ontario’s elder abuse strategy review.

Speaker, can the minister please provide this House with further details regarding Ontario’s elder abuse strategy and what our government is currently doing to protect seniors?

Hon. Mario Sergio: I want to thank the member for the question. Let me say that I have had the wonderful privilege of visiting the riding of Burlington, and I can say that indeed it has a lot of seniors. They are very active, very engaged, thanks to the hard work that she’s doing in her particular community.

But let me give you, Speaker, very quickly, what we have been able to do in the past five years alone. We have trained some 25,000 front-line workers in the different sectors of health, justice, social services and education. We have had more than 950 public education sessions reaching out to over 38,000 people. We are financially maintaining and supporting more than 50 local elder abuse networks. This is because of what the people have been telling us, where some of the problems exist, and we are doing that. The OPP have front-line trained staff and annual reviews.

Our retirement homes legislation mandates providers to report any abuse of our seniors. We are doing that, and we will continue to do more.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: I’d like to commend the minister for his continued work in advocating for the safety and dignity of older adults in our province.

At the regional consultation session I attended with the minister, I was pleased to see how many local organizations and community agencies from my riding were represented and participating in this important conversation to provide our government with their thoughts and ideas surrounding elder abuse prevention.

These organizations included the Burlington Age-Friendly Seniors Council, the Halton Regional Police, the Prevention of Elder Abuse Committee of York Region, Family Services of Peel, and the Peel Elder Abuse Prevention Network. The session was an effective dialogue on how we can better understand the increasing complexities around elder abuse—provincially, regionally and locally—and identify ways to build greater awareness and public education around elder abuse issues in Burlington.

Speaker, will the minister please inform the Legislature why our government is undertaking this review and why these consultations are important?

Hon. Mario Sergio: Thank you to the member from Burlington for the supplementary question.

Let me say that addressing and preventing elder abuse is a commitment that we have made within Ontario’s Action Plan for Seniors. We know, Speaker, that we have a challenge. We have a growing seniors’ population, and we have to continue on a regular basis. This is what we are doing, this is what we have been doing—to examine and re-examine some of the plans and programs that we are doing by delivering the best services to our seniors. Unless we do that, Speaker, that we continue to examine our strategy, we won’t be able to do that.

The consultation that we have just completed with stakeholders and the various seniors’ groups—and I’m very pleased that the member was part of the consultation—is, indeed, to get as much information so we can improve the delivery of service to our seniors. We continue to do that because we do care.

We were the first province in Canada to come up with a strategy to combat elder abuse. We will continue to do that for our seniors, Speaker.

Health care funding

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. This afternoon, we will debate a motion calling on the government to restore funding to physician services, including the $850 million slashed from physician services.

The minister and the Premier received a letter from a new family physician practising in Dufferin–Caledon. In her letter, Dr. Maag laid out how cuts will impact the patients in her community. They are considering letting go of some staff and shutting down their blood lab, one of only two located in Orangeville. To quote Dr. Maag, “I would like to be clear with this point: Patient care will suffer.”

Will the government restore the $850 million you have slashed from physician services?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, what we have done is, following the independent conciliator’s advice, we have implemented the proposal that was presented to him and endorsed, which calls not for a cut but for a 1.25% increase in the physician services budget last year, this year, and next year.

I would hope that the member opposite would agree that all we’re doing is sticking to the increase that was presented to Judge Winkler, that he agreed with, because the danger is, if we go over that budget, that 1.25% increase in budget, then we won’t have sufficient funds to be able to apply it to increases in home care, to pay the increase in wage to our PSWs, to address the important issue of nursing recruitment and retention, and those mental health investments that are so important.

We spent a year and a day negotiating with our doctors. We presented 75 proposals to them. We did not get a single answer or advice back from them on which one of those proposals would provide a savings.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Back to the minister: Your numbers don’t add up. The population is increasing. People need to see their family physician.

Front-line physicians like Dr. Maag are saying, “You need to work with doctors. We’re no longer part of the team providing health care. You’ve cut us out.” As Dr. Maag said in her letter, “I would like to be clear with this point: Patient care will suffer. I want the Premier and” the minister “to know that you are outright lying every time you tell Ontarians that their care”—

Interjections.

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

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I withdraw.

Interjections: She’s quoting.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. Stop the clock. I thank the member for withdrawing, but that is not acceptable. To those people in the background who are indicating that I made a wrong judgment, I did not.

Carry on.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I ask again, will the government support this afternoon’s motion that states, “The people of Ontario deserve the highest quality of care in a world-class health care system”?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, the people of Ontario deserve the best, highest-quality physicians in the world, and we have them. I’m proud to be a member of that profession.

I met with the president of the OMA, Michael Toth, and his team yesterday. They are the ones who have refused to come back to the negotiating table. From day one, I’ve said that I’m prepared to sit down and discuss, on a go-forward basis, after accepting the recommendations of our impartial, third-party umpire. They didn’t like the decision that that umpire made. Mr. Speaker, we’re bound to it. We believe that it was a fair offer; Judge Winkler agreed with us.

We’ve put in front of the OMA 75 proposals for how we could find savings so we could slow the growth of that budget to 1.25% a year. The OMA did not respond to a single one of those proposals. They aren’t prepared to negotiate. I had a good meeting, however, yesterday, and I remain hopeful.

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: My question is to the Premier. The Minister of Education has repeatedly said in this House that she is willing and interested to get back to the table and expedite the process of negotiating with the province’s elementary school teachers. But we understand the minister may not be informed. In fact, she may be perplexed about what’s going on at the table. It’s the government that walked away and hasn’t been back since before Thanksgiving.

Speaker, does the Premier know that her negotiating team has not responded to offers on the table or returned to negotiate a settlement since before Thanksgiving?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I want to actually start by informing the House that since we last met or I’ve had an opportunity to speak, the French teachers, AEFO, who represent the teachers in the French public and the French Catholic boards, have in fact ratified theirs, as have the—

Interjections.

Certainly, we have been available to bargain. My people are at the hotel today. I was actually on call. My husband was about to leave for the cottage without me on Thanksgiving because I was there. I was there—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock.

I’m going to use this opportunity to remind everybody to speak in the third person, and you are actually asking your question and giving your answer to the Chair. It lessens the temperature and it stays that way.

You have one sentence. Wrap up, please.

Hon. Liz Sandals: We are absolutely prepared to bargain.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: I notice the minister is wearing pink today. Hopefully, that’s in support of CUPE education workers, who have waited over a year to be heard at the bargaining table and respected.

Back to the Premier: That’s two weeks, with school under way, with no movement from this government on reaching a settlement. Either the minister knows that negotiators for the government have wilfully ignored the latest offers on the table or the minister doesn’t know what’s going on. Either way, it’s a problem, creating chaos in our schools.

There are only a few issues left to resolve. Our elementary school teachers want a settlement. Students and their parents want stability.

Speaker, will this government stop playing politics, direct its negotiators to get back to the table today and work out a settlement?

Hon. Liz Sandals: We actually are at the table with some of the education workers today. We are working on getting settlements with our education workers because we very much value the work that education workers do in our schools.

I want to reiterate that we are quite prepared to return to the table with the elementary teachers; in fact, I understand Mr. Hammond has indicated the same thing, and we’ve asked the mediator who’s on the file to try to actually set up the dates to do just that. Because everybody seems to say, “We’d like to negotiate,” we’ve asked the mediator to set those dates so we can get back to the table. We’re very close to an agreement, and we believe that if we get to the table, we can finish it.

Renewable energy

Mr. Grant Crack: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry.

Today is a great day. It’s National Bioenergy Day, and it’s a chance for Ontario to recognize the many benefits of using biomass energy in our province.

Biomass is globally recognized as a renewable source of energy. Unlike oil, gas or coal, there is no additional carbon released from the combustion of biomass. It emits the same carbon that it absorbed just a few months or years ago.

The use of forestry waste to produce clean biomass energy diverts wood waste from our landfills and reduces the ecological footprint of the forestry industry. Putting wood waste to work is good for the environment and is good for the forestry industry.

Speaker, through you to the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry: What is our government doing to support the great use of biomass in this province?

Hon. Bill Mauro: I want to thank the member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell for the question.

Speaker, in 2003, we committed to closing coal-fired energy generation in the province of Ontario. There were five facilities like that. Two of those facilities happened to be in my riding of Thunder Bay–Atikokan, one in Thunder Bay and one in Atikokan. We invested heavily. We converted both of those facilities so that they could accommodate and provide energy generated from biomass. We have, through that process, I would say, created a new industry in the province of Ontario that’s utilizing biomass. It has created jobs.

This is clean, it’s green, it’s renewable, it’s sustainable. I know that the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change is thrilled with this approach we’re taking. It’s been good for the economy of northern Ontario, it’s good for the planet and it’s helping us meet our reductions when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions in the province as we meet our goals going forward.

It’s a great policy, it’s a great program, and I want to thank the member for the question.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Grant Crack: Thank you to the minister for that update. I know that forestry operations can only realize their full economic potential where there’s synergy between operations. It’s great to hear that Ontario’s forestry operations are finding new opportunities to put their wood waste to work, such as the development of biomass pellets—which, by the way, Minister, I heat my own house with.

Ontario’s forestry industry contributes around $11 billion to our economy and supports about 200,000 jobs, direct and indirect. In 2013, Ontario exported $4.9 billion in forestry products. It’s great to hear that our minister and our government are committed to producing more sources of clean energy, such as energy generated through the use of biomass.

In addition to the boost to Ontario’s forestry sector, could the minister please update the House on the conversion of the coal plants to biomass and how that will benefit Ontario, particularly the reliability of our system in northern Ontario?

Hon. Bill Mauro: The Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: First of all, I want to thank my colleague for the question. The conversion of the Thunder Bay and Atikokan Generating Stations to biomass will keep energy jobs in the community and also ensure a clean, reliable, sustainable and local supply of electricity for the region. The plants are able to ramp the generation up and down very quickly to meet changing conditions on the demand side, helping to maintain electricity reliability in northern Ontario.

Northwestern Ontario is now home to North America’s largest power plant fuelled completely on biomass. It is our priority to ensure that there continues to be a stable, reliable, cost-effective supply of electricity to the region.

The conversion of former coal plants to biomass is playing an important role in ensuring that northwestern Ontario has the power it needs when it needs it. Most importantly, it is clean power.

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Minister of Education. The cost of Liberal mismanagement never seems to end. Last spring, high school students in Durham and Peel were out of their classes, all because of the Liberal government’s failed two-tiered bargaining system. The failure not only cost 26 days out of the classroom for students; we now know through the memorandum of settlement which we obtained that it also cost taxpayers $1 million in a payment to the OSSTF. What’s even more appalling is that this Liberal government took funding from struggling students in order to pay for their own mistakes.

The minister botched up the bargaining. Will she explain why she’s forcing students and taxpayers to pay for her mistakes?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Education?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I think we need a little bit of a history review here. Back before th