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

September 24, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2015-Sept-24 (PDF)

L099 - Thu 24 Sep 2015 / Jeu 24 sep 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 24 September 2015 Jeudi 24 septembre 2015

Orders of the Day

Strengthening Consumer Protection and Electricity System Oversight Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 pour renforcer la protection des consommateurs et la surveillance du réseau d’électricité

Introduction of Visitors

Jour des Franco-Ontariens et des Franco-Ontariennes / Franco-Ontarian Day

Oral Questions

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Hospital funding

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Consumer protection

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Francophone immigration / Immigration francophone

Government’s record

Labour dispute

Children’s health services

By-election in Sudbury

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Mid-Autumn Festival

Sadia Gassim

International Week of the Deaf

Women’s House

Labour dispute

Eid al-Adha

Privatization of public assets

Mid-Autumn Festival

Yogi Berra

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Estimates

Introduction of Bills

Bayview Farms and Enterprises Limited Act, 2015

Petitions

Taxation

Ontario Disability Support Program

Taxation

Solar farm

Services for the developmentally disabled

Privatization of public assets

Wind turbines

Dental care

Concussion

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Gasoline prices

Lung disease

Private Members’ Public Business

Estate Administration Tax Fairness Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 concernant l’équité de l’impôt sur l’administration des successions

Gender-neutral language / Langage non sexiste

Protecting Victims of Occupational Disease Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection des victimes de maladies professionnelles

Estate Administration Tax Fairness Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 concernant l’équité de l’impôt sur l’administration des successions

Gender-neutral language / Langage non sexiste

Protecting Victims of Occupational Disease Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection des victimes de maladies professionnelles

Estate Administration Tax Fairness Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 concernant l’équité de l’impôt sur l’administration des successions

Orders of the Day

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

Protecting Condominium Owners Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection des propriétaires de condominiums

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Strengthening Consumer Protection and Electricity System Oversight Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 pour renforcer la protection des consommateurs et la surveillance du réseau d’électricité

Mr. Chiarelli moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 112,

An Act to amend the Energy Consumer Protection Act, 2010 and the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 / Projet de loi 112, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2010 sur la protection des consommateurs d’énergie et la Loi de 1998 sur la Commission de l’énergie de l’Ontario.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, I’ll be sharing my time this morning with my parliamentary assistant, the member from Mississauga–Streetsville.

Before I start my remarks, in the moment of reflection we just had here in the Legislature, my thoughts of reflection had to do with the tragic events that occurred in the riding of my critic and good friend the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. We are all shocked by what happened in the community. I’m sure we all share the concern of the member for the events that unfortunately occurred in his riding.

Today, I rise to begin second reading debate of Bill 112, the Strengthening Consumer Protection and Electricity System Oversight Act, 2015. This legislation moves forward one of the vital pillars of our electricity modernization plan announced last spring, our proposed legislation that would strengthen the Ontario Energy Board Act.

As announced in April, our government is broadening the ownership of Hydro One in order to make the largest single investment in transit and transportation infrastructure in this province’s history. Our government’s plan is to make a major dent in our infrastructure deficit by investing $130 billion over the next 10 years in transit, roads, bridges and other economic assets. A significant part of these investments will come from the net proceeds of the broadening of ownership of Hydro One.

It is important to recognize that these billions of dollars in proceeds will pay down debt and pay for infrastructure, and that will be done without borrowing, without adding new taxes or without cutting important programs. This approach will support more than 20,000 jobs each year and provide a major driver for economic growth in every region of Ontario, including the riding of Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, the riding of my energy critic, and it is being done in a way that protects the public interest.

The Ontario Energy Board is a central part of this focus on protecting the public interest. This independent agency has the power to approve or disapprove rate increases. Regardless of the utility before them, the OEB’s mandate is to protect the interests of ratepayers and to set just and reasonable rates. Whether that utility is owned by a single municipality, like Hydro Ottawa or Toronto Hydro, does not matter, they are all included, or by multiple municipalities like York region’s Power Stream, they are also included. They’re all included. And it includes private companies like Fortis, Union Gas and Enbridge.

Let me re-emphasize this point, Mr. Speaker: It is the Ontario Energy Board that sets the rates that can be charged to ratepayers, not Hydro One or Toronto Hydro or Ontario Power Generation or Enbridge. They cannot set their own rates; they never have been able to. That has been the way up until now for Hydro One and it will continue to be that way after Hydro One’s ownership is broadened.

We have heard a great deal of baseless, unmitigated spin by members opposite that a utility like Hydro One, as its ownership is broadened, would see rates rise as a result of broadening ownership. I will repeat again: The OEB sets rates for municipally owned utilities, for generators, for private companies such as Enbridge and Union Gas, and it will continue to set rates for Hydro One.

In the words of the leader of the third party in a letter she copied me on just two days ago—I’d like to read a quote from that, one sentence: “The Ontario Energy Board is legislated to protect the interest of consumers with respect to prices and the adequacy, reliability and quality of electricity service.” So then, when a leader stands up and says that Hydro One will be able to raise its own rates, she is talking against her own words in her own quote in a letter she signed two days ago.

There are numerous examples of times when the OEB has, in fact, received an application to increase rates and delivered a reduced rate for consumers instead. This is done based on facts and evidence filed before the board. This is done based on an open and transparent public hearing process. Plenty of advocates go before these hearings and weigh in, look at the evidence that is used to base rate increases on, and then the energy board makes a determination. This is done with fairness for the ratepayer and with customers foremost in mind.

For example, in 2010, Hydro One asked for a distribution rate increase but received a 9% reduction for its capital request. In 2012, Hydro One asked for a rate increase for transmission and the OEB ruled a 3% reduction for its capital request. In 2011, Toronto Hydro made a distribution request to the OEB and received about 11% less than what they requested. In 2014, Ontario Power Generation asked for a rate increase and the OEB approved half the requested amount. When they applied for a 6.2% rate increase in 2011, the OEB denied their request and, in fact, lowered the rate by 0.8%.

Over the past six months, the Ontario Energy Board has also decreased natural gas rates for Enbridge and Union Gas customers. The OEB reports that in the last six months, the typical residential customer with Enbridge Gas Distribution has seen their bills go down about $105 per year, and Union Gas customers have seen a decrease of $184 a year, thanks to the Ontario Energy Board.

Year after year, the OEB’s mandate is to protect the interests of ratepayers, and indeed, it will continue to do so in the future. Today, we are debating Bill 112, about enhancing these powers to ensure strengthened protection for Ontario consumers, greater compliance and additional enforcement tools.

The OEB has taken important steps to put the consumer front and centre, and indeed, that is a key part of the OEB’s mandate. Building on this success, Bill 112 will do more to strengthen protections for consumers.

I’d like to speak about six key areas where this legislation will increase protection for consumers and ratepayers. First, this legislation would increase the ability of the OEB to levy financial penalties on utilities, including Hydro One, that break the OEB’s rules. The public rightly expects the highest standard from utilities regardless of their size or service territory, or whether they are municipally owned, privately owned or any hybrid thereof, such as Hydro One.

To that end, we are proposing increasing the cap for administrative penalties or fines, to be clear, to a maximum of $1 million, and that’s $1 million for every single day that the contravention continues, be that a gas distribution company, a private utility, a municipal utility, or, indeed, even Hydro One is subject to those fines. This is similar to the Alberta Utilities Commission as well as the Ontario Securities Commission.

Second, the OEB will be empowered to appoint a supervisor in situations where a distributor or transmitter is unable to meet its financial obligations or reliability standards.

Third, to help streamline and clarify the ability of utilities to expand their business beyond electricity delivery, this legislation will provide greater scope to engage in non-utility activities and to participate in the many services related to the energy sector.

In other jurisdictions, utilities that started out strictly in the delivery of electricity have successfully expanded their interests to other services, such as renewable energy procurements, to the benefit of both their ratepayers and shareholders.

As we have seen in jurisdictions the world over, diversifying the lines of business in which a utility can participate can bring about significant value and pay sizeable cash dividends to municipal owners, for example, and that has been happening across this province already. In Ontario, many municipalities would stand to benefit from these expanded changes.

I’m pleased to report that the OEB has already launched a dedicated consultation to help inform how additional consumer advocacy measures could be incorporated into a strengthened Ontario Energy Board. This would permit the ratepayers and citizens to better be able to go before the Ontario Energy Board and make a case for no increase in rates.

Fifth, the legislation before you today would give cabinet the power to designate key transmission corridors to expedite their construction. There has been fear that because of the broadening ownership of Hydro One, we would lose control over how the system itself across the province would operate. This particular amendment retains tremendous power in the province to make those planning and strategic infrastructure decisions.

Examples of such cases could be in the grid connection of Ontario’s remote First Nation communities, a transmission link to the Ring of Fire; or enhanced intertie capacity with neighbouring jurisdictions to support clean energy imports. The broadening of ownership will not impact on these policy decisions that the province will continue to make in any way, shape or form.

That creates a process where the provincial government is firmly setting broad electricity and energy policy through its long-term energy plan by designating core transmission projects to ensure their construction and operation.

Electricity planning will firmly remain with the IESO—which now includes, after the merger, the Ontario Power Authority—a provincial agency, and rate-setting will remain in an enhanced Ontario Energy Board.

Sixth, and finally, we are proposing legislative amendments to strengthen consumer protection in the retail energy market. In recent years, the OEB has received numerous complaints from customers of retailers. Mr. Speaker, you will recall the many questions that have been raised from the other side of this chamber concerning that very issue. We’re taking very, very strong steps with this amendment to rectify that situation.

We know that ratepayers have voiced their concerns that some retailers have used very aggressive tactics to get homeowners, often seniors, to sign up for contracts on the spot, contracts that may not be in their long-term interests. The OEB takes these complaints very seriously, and so does our government. The proposed legislative changes to enhance consumer protection would prohibit the sale of energy retail contracts at the consumer’s home while still allowing retailers and marketers to engage in appropriate marketing and advertising activities, yes, at the door, but again, not to be able to sign contracts at the door.

In addition to banning door-to-door contracts, we are also proposing to extend the cooling-off period, during which consumers can cancel a contract without penalty, from 10 days to 20 days.

These are important changes that will ensure protecttions for consumers are stronger and the system is more fair.

Taken together—all of these items I’ve reviewed—these proposed changes would strengthen the Ontario Energy Board as well as ensure that provincial public policy goals are met through enhanced and expanded legislative tools. These changes would protect ratepayers, they would strengthen the electricity system, and they would promote innovation and transformation that benefits all consumers.

But the bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is this—I’m going to read this very slowly—when the opposition tells the public that broadening the ownership of Hydro One will cause rates to go higher, that is pure and simple partisan spin. There is no basis to that statement in any way, shape or form. Rate-setting since 1960 has been done by the Ontario Energy Board. No utility—gas or electric—has had the ability to set, or as the opposition says, “skyrocket,” their own rates in any way, and that includes Hydro One in its new, broadened form.

The legislation is extremely strong. It protects the public, protects ratepayers and enables, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, billions of dollars to be invested in infrastructure without raising taxes, without borrowing money and without cutting any important programs.

I’ll now cede the floor to my parliamentary assistant.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Mississauga–Streetsville.

Mr. Bob Delaney: Thank you very much, Speaker, and I thank the minister for introducing a very, very important bill, Bill 112, the Strengthening Consumer Protection and Electricity System Oversight Act.

The act would, if passed, enhance the Ontario Energy Board, a board whose function, very nicely described by the minister, includes, among other things, controlling rates set by providers of both electricity and natural gas. The Ontario Energy Board is the only entity that can raise prices or change prices—and it often lowers prices—on electricity and natural gas. As we know, our government has always stood up for electricity consumers, and we continue to be committed to putting the concerns of electricity consumers first.

Now, this is autumn, and just as happens in the springtime, as soon as the weather begins to get cold or begins to get warm, who are the first people who seem to appear at your door? It’s the hawkers who are saying, “I’ve got a good deal”—hydro contracts, water heaters, you name it.

What I’m going to address in some of my remarks are some of the concerns that I and many homeowners have with people who are saying, “I’ve got the greatest deal in the world, and all you’ve got to do is show me your utility bill and let me sign you up for this package.” The first thing you think of as a homeowner is, “This sounds like it’s too good to be true.” As we’ve learned, if it sounds like it’s too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true.

As part of this commitment, last year the Ministry of Energy asked the Ontario Energy Board to review the Energy Consumer Protection Act, 2010, and to report back with any recommendations about opportunities to strengthen consumer protection. The Minister of Energy underlined the government’s commitment to doing all it can to protect energy consumers in light of an evolving retail energy sector, and I think this is a key point. All over the world, providing energy and the things around energy, be they the equipment or whatever, is no longer as centralized as it was when many of us grew up.

When we grew up, there was one major hydro utility. You got everything from it, and all you did at the end of the month was pay a bill. With telecommunications, broadening the services a telecom provider can offer, or narrowing them as the case may be, has actually benefited consumers because the price of telecommunications in constant dollar terms has just fallen through the floor since many of us who are baby boomers were born and raised. It used to be that the cost of making a long-distance call, relative to what you were making, was very expensive. Now, of course, it’s very, very cheap. Let’s talk with that perspective about some of the things that are happening in the energy sector.

As part of that review, the Ontario Energy Board consulted broadly with stakeholders from the energy sector, with consumer advocates and, of course, with consumers themselves. To reach everyday consumers, the Ontario Energy Board hosted focus groups, which are groups of about eight to as many as about 16 people, in which you have a facilitator and you sit down together, usually for the span of about an hour and a half or two hours, and the facilitator walks you through.

It would be called qualitative research, rather than quantitative, in which they ask you a question, record it and develop statistical measures. So a focus group is a qualitative exercise in which you can explore in some depth just what’s on the minds of the people who you’re talking with.

To reach everyday consumers, the Ontario Energy Board did host these focus groups. It solicited input from online workbooks and it surveyed current and former energy contract holders as well as non-contract holders. This research provided insight into consumers’ opinions and experiences with retail energy contracts and with electricity retailers and gas marketers. The Ontario Energy Board also took into account complaints they received through their consumer complaints department and their own enforcement activities.

On June 1 of this year, 2015, the Ontario Energy Board released its report, which was called Consumers Come First: A Report of the Ontario Energy Board on the Effectiveness of

Part II of the Energy Consumer Protection Act, 2010—a title that tells you that they didn’t intend for this to be a bestseller. The report was very useful in helping to shape our government’s proposed consumer protection tools.

Some of the important findings from the report include the need for better energy literacy from energy consumers and that consumers were unhappy with their experiences with aggressive door-to-door sales practices. While the Energy Consumer Protection Act provides some protection for energy consumers, one of the conclusions was that we could actually do more, and part of the research was saying, “Okay, over and above the fact that we need to do more, what does that ‘more’ entail?” This is the sort of thing that you can explore with a focus group.

The proposed legislation before the Legislature today would enhance the Ontario Energy Board’s capabilities in several of these core areas, strengthening consumer protection in the retail energy market and facilitating the government’s ability, if need be, to prioritize critical transmission infrastructure. This is an essential part of our recent efforts to evaluate and to modernize the role of the government of Ontario in the electricity sector.

I want to speak a little bit about a number of priority areas where this proposed legislation would help to strengthen protections for consumers and improve electricity oversight. The first area is that the public rightly expects the highest standards from electricity utilities, regardless of their size and regardless of their service territory. This legislation would increase the maximum level of financial penalties that the Ontario Energy Board can set against regulated companies for non-compliance with board policies.

One could have said in the past that this number, this penalty, which hadn’t changed in many, many years, could be looked upon as a cost of doing business. From the standpoint of consumers, that’s not what we wanted. If there was going to be a financial penalty involved for a retailer that wasn’t adhering to policies and procedures, we wanted it to not only get their attention, but to take their breath away, and in fact, that’s what it does.

The Ontario Energy Board would gain the ability, if necessary, to appoint a supervisor in situations where a distributor or a transmitter is unable to meet its financial obligations or reliability standards. This important measure would ensure that the public’s and ratepayers’ interests would be protected and would ensure continuity of service for affected communities.

I also have to say that this is not intended to alleviate a problem that one can see before us right now, but it is intended to say that at a time down the road, should a problem arise, what we don’t want people to say is, “Well, didn’t you think this through years ago, the last time you revised the act?” The act is being revised so that if we ever need the tools, the tools are there to solve a problem.

As well, the proposed legislation would help streamline and clarify the ability of local distribution companies—such as, in Mississauga, our very own Enersource, a very well-run company—to expand their business beyond electricity delivery. The proposed legislation here would provide local distribution companies with the ability to seek approval from the Ontario Energy Board to engage in non-utility activities and to participate in the many innovations in the electricity sector while ensuring that ratepayers are not adversely affected.

What this means, for example—and I’m going to give you a personal one from the vantage point of being a weekend software coder. I was speaking with some of my colleagues in one of the support programs that I was involved in in the 1990s and in the last decade. In an online group somebody was saying, “Well, you know, it seems that all of the really good applications have been done.

Does anybody have an idea for a proposed new app?” What I said was, “Why don’t you work with the various utility companies in North America and come up with something that allows the connection to an exposed application program interface from a utility that would give consumers the ability to know how they are managing their energy usage?” So that lit up the discussion group, and everybody thought that that was a great idea.

One of the next issues they raised was: How do you go about it? This means, from the vantage point of the local distribution company, if they wish to work with the software provider—and this is not a core activity of the local distribution company, but it does mean that the legislation makes it very clear that the business practices are not restrictive, it allows them to open their minds, to be creative and to make the experience with their customers that much better.

As well the legislation before the House would give cabinet enhanced powers to designate key transmission projects and help expedite their construction to support important public policy goals like the connection of off-grid, remote communities. In specific terms, if there would be, for example, an ore deposit or the development of a natural resource area, in which the province said that, clearly, we are going to build an entire town here. One of the problems was, if you are going to build an entire town, how do you get electricity into the town?

If there is an obvious transmission corridor, it’s difficult enough as it is because, particularly in the north, you’re dealing with a whole host of other parties that you have to work with, including First Nations. What this would do is give cabinet the enhanced powers to say that this is a key transmission project and this transmission project is going to be essential to the development of such-and-such project, so we need to get it going.

As well, it strengthens consumer protection in the retail energy market, something that I mentioned earlier. Many members of this House have had experiences similar to mine where you have taken a call at the constituency office and someone has said, “Well, they came to my door, they were such nice people and they asked for my utility bill. Now I find that I have got a contract with these people. How do I get out of it?” I said, “Well, if they had asked for your bank book, would you have shown them your bank book?

Would you have given them the PIN to your credit card?” “Well, no, of course I wouldn’t.” “Well, why did you give them your utility bill?” What we also have to do, in addition to strengthening some of the measures available in protecting consumers, is—as the focus groups pointed out—enhance Ontario’s ability to provide some consumer education.

I’ve had some of the energy hawkers come to my house and say, “We’re here because the government is forcing us to do this.” So I let them continue for a little while. I remember on one occasion I had just gotten home from work. I had my legislative pass, I pulled it out and said, “See this? I am the government. What exactly am I forcing you to do? Or maybe we should call the police and just wait for them.” The guy just took off into the night.

We know that ratepayers have voiced their concerns that retailers have used this kind of very aggressive tactic. This proposed legislation would include some changes to enhance consumer protection that would prohibit the sale of energy retail contracts at the consumer’s home—prohibit it. There are no weasel words in there. It would prohibit it. It also expands the cooling-off period for new contracts.

As we move toward an increasingly, shall we use the word “transformative” time in the electricity sector, our government knows that these changes are going to provide a strong regulator with enhanced powers to protect consumers.

These are some of the changes that would strengthen our electricity system, would promote innovation, and some of the transformations that are going to strengthen all consumers.

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

Mr. Ted Arnott: I’m very pleased to have this opportunity this morning to respond to the speech by the Minister of Energy and the member from Mississauga, who just presented leadoff speeches for the government on Bill 112, Strengthening Consumer Protection and Electricity System Oversight Act.

We certainly know that there are very high hydro rates in Ontario today, probably the highest in North America. The minister, in his statement, indicated that the Ontario Energy Board sets the rates. That’s not really the whole story, Mr. Speaker. It oversimplifies things, I think. In fact, the local distribution companies, in some cases, as well as Hydro One, actually make the request for the rate increases. The minister mentioned that there have been some that have been turned down by the Ontario Energy Board, but I believe it’s true that the vast majority of the rate increase requests are, in fact, granted by the Ontario Energy Board and have been in the past.

Certainly, it’s a very expensive and time-consuming process. I hear from the local distribution companies in my riding, and they don’t just put together an application on the back of a napkin; they have to detail it and it’s very expensive for them. I think in many cases their requests are in fact granted by the government.

It’s also a statement from the minister this morning, and it was said yesterday by the Premier, that the rates will not rise as a result of the Hydro One sale. Certainly, there’s no one on this side of the House who believes that, Mr. Speaker. We know that time will tell, but I’m certainly prepared to submit to you today my belief that hydro rates will continue to rise in the province of Ontario, and it will be shown over time that, in fact, those rate increases, to some degree, are because of the privatization of Hydro One and the sale of shares in Hydro One.

I’m looking forward to the speech this morning by our critic, the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, who does an outstanding job as our energy critic. Our caucus will certainly vigorously debate this bill and we look forward to that debate and look forward to hearing from the people of Ontario at the committee stage.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the speeches by the minister and his parliamentary assistant.

This bill before us is going to substantially change the ability of the Ontario Energy Board to review transmission projects in this province. It is a very large loophole in the regulatory regime that should be in place in Ontario.

I note that in the past the Ontario Energy Board was bypassed when the Liberals brought forward the smart meter program. That program was not assessed from the beginning; there was no business case that was presented to the Ontario Energy Board. In fact, the Ontario Energy Board was directed to facilitate the implementation of the smart meter program rather than to review its business case or review its impact on the system. This bill continues this tradition of bypassing the regulator so the government can make whatever decision it wants on electricity policy in this province.

The OEB is required to review and approve private sales of transmission companies to make sure they’re in the public interest. Just yesterday, the Liberal caucus voted against a resolution by our party to send the sale of Hydro One to the OEB for review. That sale has not had public consultation and has not had the release of documents to allow anyone in this province to assess, really, what the implications are for Ontarians and their electricity system.

Speaker, to further undermine the regulatory regime in Ontario to benefit the new private owners of Hydro One is a dereliction of duty on the part of this government. It says to the public, “The OEB will protect you,” and in the next breath they make sure that it can’t do its job.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Glengarry–Prescott–Russell.

Mr. Grant Crack: It’s a pleasure for me to stand today and speak to Bill 112. I just want to follow up on some comments made by Minister Chiarelli when he did his opening remarks with regard to the Ontario Energy Board.

I think everyone in the House can recall when gas prices rose significantly about two years ago throughout the winter. Our office was inundated with phone calls. People were concerned: “What’s happening? What is the government going to do?” My response was that rates are controlled by the Ontario Energy Board. They’re a very competent agency of the government. They regulate. They take a look at a lot of the different components of both energy and electricity systems and they set fair rates.

As the minister also alluded to, in the last six months, Union Gas rates have gone down on average just over $100 per year—that was Enbridge gas. Union Gas is about $180 per year.

They do their job, and I’m confident that they can do the same thing with regard to Hydro One. They’ve been doing a great job over the years in controlling the rates and minimizing the increases that are being requested by Hydro One. To me, this shows that the OEB is an effective regulator in the province of Ontario. We can look forward, as we continue to broaden the ownership, that they will take a look at all aspects of the electricity system—transmission and distribution—and set the rates that are fair for Ontario as we move forward.

Another component of this bill that I like is the fact that as we continue to strengthen consumer protection, we’re going to prohibit electricity retailers and gas marketers from going door to door. I know a number of people who have been in a situation where they’ve agreed to enter into a contract and have regretted it later.

This is a great piece of legislation. I congratulate the minister for putting this forward.

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

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’m honoured to rise for a couple of minutes to talk about Bill 112, the Strengthening Consumer Protection and Electricity System Oversight Act.

I listened to the Minister of Energy and his parliamentary assistant, the member from Mississauga–Streetsville, as well as comments from the honourable member from Wellington–Halton Hills this morning. I’m looking forward to hearing what our energy critic is going to talk about when he speaks on the lead on behalf of our caucus.

I just wanted to raise a couple of points and get on the record two big issues that I’m hearing about in my riding of Lambton–Kent–Middlesex. One is the overwhelming and strong opposition to the Hydro One fire sale. I think that everybody in the province of Ontario knows that this is going to result in expensive energy costs and higher electricity bills.

Most members will have heard the news now of what happened with Windsor’s Valiant, a company down in Windsor that, yesterday morning, unfortunately announced that they’re going to expand in Michigan and will be creating 223 jobs in Michigan.

The problem is the fact that we have to get our economic fundamentals right in the province, and that begins with getting electricity costs under control. I just don’t trust where this government is going. I don’t think Bill 112 is going to do anything to create investment in Ontario and to lower electricity costs, or at least get them under control.

The last thing I’d like to mention, and it wasn’t discussed this morning by the minister, is the further development of wind turbines. In my riding, another three or four projects are set to be built, driving up electricity prices even more.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I now return to the member from Mississauga–Streetsville for a two-minute response.

Mr. Bob Delaney: I acknowledge the comments from the members for Wellington–Halton Hills, Toronto–Danforth, Glengarry–Prescott–Russell and Lambton–Kent–Middlesex.

Some of the members seemed to talk about everything except what’s in the bill, so there are a couple of things that I think we need to enhance.

One of the strong points of this bill is to make retailer prices more transparent and clear for consumers, something that I touched on in my remarks and I’d just like to underline. Currently, only the government has the ability to prescribe specific pricing requirements that retailers and marketers must follow. Our proposed enhancements in this bill would ensure that the government and the Ontario Energy Board are authorized to prescribe specific requirements that retailers and marketers must follow when determining the prices that they offer.

Once again, it just says that all of this nonsense that we hear about, the fact that hydro prices are just going to spiral out of control, is completely baseless. The entity that sets prices is the Ontario Energy Board. In my remarks yesterday, I went through a number of instances in which the OEB had taken applied-for energy rate increases and simply rolled them back. If the energy rate increases are not justified, they get rolled back. In fact, among the things I quoted yesterday were decisions by the Ontario Energy Board that resulted in rate decreases.

One of the things about the Ontario Energy Board, whose powers are being increased substantially in this act, is that the Ontario Energy Board is an agency with teeth. It can get the job done. It has, for more than 50 years, and it will continue to do so.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s my pleasure to join the debate on Bill 112. I want to start by pointing out to the member from Mississauga–Streetsville that the minister barely talked about the bill in his leadoff, so let’s not get into that silliness here this morning.

I wondered why the minister didn’t talk about the bill very much. To coin the phrase that I hear from the other side all the time: Did you have the opportunity to read it? Perhaps he hasn’t read the bill, because he was so fixated on the Hydro One sale. This makes me ask the question: Is the minister so taken by the opposition to the Hydro One sale that he is consumed by that? Is he so worried about how that is going over in the province of Ontario that he used his leadoff time to talk about the Hydro One sale?

Everyone knows what’s happening out there with the Hydro One sale and how the people are opposed to it and the polling that has told the government they’re not doing it right. Ever since they announced the Hydro One sale, there has been poll after poll after poll, and every time, the number of people opposing the sale actually goes up, which, as I said yesterday, tells you one of two things, or maybe both: Either the government is doing a very poor job of selling it, or maybe it’s just the wrong thing to do, or perhaps it’s both. I think it’s both.

Then the minister talked about how the opposition is—what did he say? I’ll paraphrase it. He said, “I’m going to say this slowly, so they understand”—

Interjection: Unmitigated partisan spin.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Unmitigated partisan spin, is how he described it. Well, I can tell you, Speaker, if the opposition is guilty of spin, then relatively speaking, the minister is the conductor of the carousel. He’s at the midway, and he’s running the merry-go-round. I’m here to tell you, if you want to talk about spin, there is the spin master, right over there in the Minister of Energy’s seat, because everything that you’re getting out of them is spin.

I got a kick out of it when the prospectus was released last week and he said that yes, the new CEO of Hydro One is going to be paid $815,000 as a base salary, but he’s eligible to be making up to $4 million. But the minister said those are going to be tough—I’m paraphrasing, of course—yardsticks to make, and he’s going to have to really do a great job in order to earn those bonuses. As I said yesterday, it’s sort of like Saäd Rafi had to do a great job to earn those bonuses at the Pan American Games. Right. This guy is going to make $4 million. You can take that to the bank, because he’s certainly going to be taking it to the bank, let me assure you of that.

Anyway, then the minister wants to talk about, and the PA wanted to talk about the OEB and how this is this great protective agency, that nothing slips by it, and their number one mandate and the only reason they exist is to protect the consumer. In the act, that’s exactly what the OEB is expected to do, and in theory, they do that. My friend from Wellington–Halton Hills gave a little dose of reality when he was speaking. He talked about the reality of when an application comes before the OEB.

By the way, the minister was talking about how the OEB has lowered gas prices. Well, the gas distributors actually made an application to lower gas prices because the market has changed. They make applications to raise prices when the market forces them to do so, and they make applications to lower them when the market allows them to do so. This is not about Union or Enbridge trying to profit while the market brings the price of gas down. You remember a couple of winters ago, when the price just went crazy because of a supply issue and the ability to move it through the pipelines? They had to look for price increases, so there were price increases approved by the Ontario Energy Board.

They’re also now looking at reducing those prices on a consistent basis to reflect the changes in their costs, which brings us to the actual way the Ontario Energy Board works. The minister says, “The Ontario Energy Board works in a vacuum, where it just decides that rates go up or rates go down.” That’s just poppycock, and he knows that. The energy board doesn’t raise the rates or lower the rates. It works on the information that is presented to it. But that information so much relies on what is happening in the marketplace, and the biggest impact in the marketplace—

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The Minister of Education, come to order.

Mr. John Yakabuski: The biggest impact in the marketplace when it comes to electricity generation in the province of Ontario is government policy. That’s the biggest determinant in the marketplace in electricity in the province of Ontario: government policy.

Is the minister going to tell me that the Ontario Energy Board on its own has tripled electricity rates since the Liberals came to power? Not at all. The Ontario Energy Board is not interested in dipping into your pocket and tripling energy rates. I don’t think the member for Timmins–James Bay would believe that, or the member from Toronto–Danforth: that the Ontario Energy Board is going to be the entity that says, “Hey, we have to get some more money for those energy companies, so over the 12 years that the Liberals are in power, we’re going to triple electricity prices.” No, no, no. That’s not how it works.

What happens is, it’s what the government is doing and the policies that they’re implementing, such as the now infamous Green Energy Act and the windmills proliferating all across this province.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: It has nothing to do with broadening ownership.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Oh, now he wants to talk about broadening—he has forgotten about the Green Energy Act already. He has forgotten about the tripling of electricity prices.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Minister of Energy, would you please come to order?

Mr. John Yakabuski: The only thing he wants to talk about is Hydro One.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I would just remind the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke: I’ve been very lenient; it’s now seven minutes and I would like you tie it back to the bill.

Mr. John Yakabuski: And we’re talking about the Ontario Energy Board, which this bill is exactly about.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): And that’s what I’m asking you to do.

Mr. John Yakabuski: And that’s exactly what I’m doing: talking about determining electricity rates. I’m responding also to the minister’s speech. If I can’t respond to the minister’s speech, the head of the electricity system in Ontario, then what am I here for?

Mr. Bob Delaney: We’ve asked that for 12 years.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Bad question.

The Ontario Energy Board relies on the information that it is presented to them. So now, for all of these years—you remember when what they called the—the Liberals changed the name. I don’t know if they had to go through the ministry of—who looks after birth certificates, the registrar general. I don’t know if they had to apply for a name change. I know that if someone wants to change their name, they have to apply for it. But the government, just all of a sudden, changed the name from what used to be called the provincial benefit—a nice name: provincial benefit. It must mean a good thing.

They decided that that just wasn’t flying very well so they called it the global adjustment. They changed it to the global adjustment because, boy, if you want to talk about getting dinged. That global adjustment—wait until November, and I say this to the minister: With all of the electricity—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I would say to all members on the government side: When your members were speaking, this side of the House was quiet and listened, so I would ask you to do the same.

Carry on, and keep it to the bill as much as you can.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I most certainly will, Speaker, and I appreciate your admonishment of the government side. I do my best, when they’re speaking, to hold my comments till later.

Back to the setting of those prices: This bill, Bill 112, is all about consumer protection. I want to tell the minister, straight out, that there’s a lot in this bill that we like. We are going to be looking for amendments, because this government gets caught up in its philosophy, and it just wants to be—well, you know what they used to call former Premier Dalton McGuinty? The nanny state Premier. They haven’t forgotten that. In some ways, they’ve actually expanded on that.

So sometimes they take things a little too far. I’m told that people in the ministry have also looked at this bill and said, “Maybe we need to reflect on it a little bit more.” Maybe the minister would like to talk about that. He didn’t talk about it in his speech today because he never really talked about the bill, but maybe they are looking at some amendments that could make this bill a little bit better and a little bit more realistic. I will talk about that as well.

But for right now, we’re trying to respond a little bit to his definition of what the Ontario Energy Board actually does. It was a fair bit of spin. I’ve got a great deal of respect for the minister, but sometimes he can’t help himself, because what the Liberals do is they tell you everything that they want you to know and they conveniently miss some of the things that they don’t want you to know.

Mr. Bob Delaney: Careful; you’re right on the border of 23(i).

Mr. John Yakabuski: Oh, and I would never question his motives for that. No, no, no, Mr. 23(

i) over there. I would never question his motives. As I said, he just can’t help himself. He can’t help himself. Maybe he just forgets to tell the other side of the story.

Do you remember that guy who used to do the radio shows on CBS? It was called The Rest of the Story. That’s what we need whenever a Liberal minister has a speech in the House. Whenever a Liberal minister speaks in this chamber, there should be that—I can’t think of his name now. But they should then have the addition of that guy—he’s probably too old now—come on and then, as he would finish his little talk, he would say, “And now you know the rest of the story.” So I’m taking that role on a little bit myself today, Speaker, and I appreciate the indulgence on the part of the government, that I am going to try to tell the rest of the story when it comes to the OEB.

Over this 12-year period, there have been multiple applications for increases.

To the member for Mississauga–Streetsville who gets up and sanctimoniously says, “They roll back requests.” Well, it’s kind of a negotiation process, where you know that if you go in and say you need 3%—you’ve had your meeting with your shareholders and your analysis and your engineers and your accountants and everybody else, and you say, “Folks, this is what we’ve invested in, new this or new that or whatever, and if we’re going to survive, we need 3%.” Then the negotiator side of it, they’re going to say, “Don’t go to the OEB and ask for 3%,” because you know there’s a lot of pressure on them to make it look like they are doing their job and they are going to roll that back.

So don’t go to the OEB and say, “We need 3%.” You’re going to have to go to the OEB and say, “Look, we’ve cut this as tight as we can. We’re down to the bone. We need 4.5%.” And then, after long, tough discussions at the OEB and all of the accountants milling together and analyzing all of the data, they say, “No, we’re going to roll that back. You’re going to get 3%.” And the minister gets up, probably, in the House to say, “The OEB once again protected consumers by rolling back that application of 4.5%, and they’re protecting consumers.” Fine and dandy; I guess we’ll just have to accept that.

But to imply that the OEB on its own sets rates is just not the case. The OEB takes the information—if a person, an entity, a company, a utility, whatever, can show that their costs have increased, and they have the data to prove it, then the OEB has no option but to allow that rate increase to happen. That’s what has happened over the last 12 years here in the province of Ontario as a result of the Green Energy Act, as a result of giving away electricity. In June alone—in June alone—we gave away $224 million worth of electricity to other jurisdictions. In June alone, we gave away—the net value was $224 million.

Mr. Bob Delaney: What did they give us? Tell us how much they gave us.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I say, to 23(b)(

i) over there: They gave away $224 million in June alone.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): You should continue to speak through the Chair and not worry about the side comments.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Sorry; okay. In June alone. When those kinds of numbers get all bunched together—and this is what is happening. If you think that that’s not going to have an impact on November 1—I’d like to ask the minister. Because of the wonderful management of the Wynne government on the electricity file and the electricity we’ve been giving away and the contracts we continue to sign, I think we can probably expect, maybe, a rollback in electricity rates on November 1. Is that what’s going to happen? He’s not nodding. He’s not acknowledging me.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: You’re telling me Hydro One doesn’t set their own rates.

Mr. John Yakabuski: No, but they have their costs that they have to recover, and they have been driven by your government.

I don’t blame the minister; he wasn’t the minister in 2009, when they came up with that insanity, the Green Energy Act. They never, ever thought about what the impacts would be.

We had a study done at that time by a very reputable firm—worldwide—called London Economics International. They told us point blank that this was going to cost $40 billion. I’ll say that slow: $40 billion. You know what? London Economics was wrong. They underestimated, as we know now from the Auditor General, who has analyzed the data. The Auditor General of this province right here has analyzed the data and has shown that, between 2006 and 2015—and we’re here; in fact, 2015 is three quarters over—the Green Energy Act and the global adjustment will have cost Ontario’s electricity consumers not $40 billion but $50 billion—$50 billion.

Those are the facts, and no one over there is disputing it. So how can you have a $50-billion expense and not increase electricity bills? That’s what the OEB has had to work with. The Ontario Energy Board can’t ignore that $50-billion figure. So every time something happens, when the government relocates a gas plant—or, while we’re at it, folks, why not relocate two, at $1.1 billion? That goes on your electricity bill. Yes, it’s spread out over a 20-year period, but it still goes on your electricity bill—$1.1 billion. Thank you very much to the Liberal government.

Mr. Bob Delaney: Point of order.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): A point of order.

Mr. Bob Delaney: According to standing order 23(b)(i), and despite having lost two elections over this issue, the member continues to refer to a decision already taken by the Standing Committee on Justice Policy, of which he was a member, that was tabled in this Legislature back in February of this year that concluded in 2014 and that has no bearing on the discussion of this bill.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I take your point of order, but I would remind the member that I listen to both sides.

I would ask the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke to continue, but please try to tie it in to this piece of legislation that is in front of us.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you very much, Speaker. We’re tying it in very closely, as I’m sure you have observed.

Whatever he’s come up with there, I have no idea what he is talking about. I was never a member of that committee. I might have been subbed in on it. But first of all, at no time did it ever imply that we can no longer debate the issue in this House: “Oh, I’m sorry. You can’t talk about it anymore.”

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, I’d ask you to speak to the bill in front of us.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yes. I most certainly want to, because there’s much to talk about.

But as I said, Speaker, I wanted to make sure that we talked about the role of the OEB in this debate, prior to losing that conversation, because the minister invited us to by bringing up the subject himself. Out of respect, I want to make sure that the minister has the benefit of our response as well. We would not want to have the minister make a statement and not respond to it. That would be, in my opinion, disrespectful of the minister, and I would not do that. I want to make sure that he has the benefit of my response as his critic.

If there’s more that the minister wants from me on this, I’m sure we can speak about it offline and go into it more deeply. But you know me, Minister. I’m always there to help.

So let’s talk—I may come back to this if I feel there’s something new that I needed to add, but—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I hope you do it soon.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Well, I have a lot of time. Oh, you want to hear it right away? Well, there are times that the best thing one can do, Speaker, is keep them wanting.

So let’s talk a little bit about Bill 112. I didn’t hear a lot from the minister about Bill 112, so I’m not directly responding, but I am trying to offer some constructive criticism, which is what I think, generally speaking, I do in this chamber, try to offer constructive criticism.

Hon. Jeff Leal: Well.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I appreciate the Minister of Agriculture coming over for a closer look.

Bill 112: There are a couple of things. The motive behind this, and I’m watching for 23(

i) or (b), whatever—he can have the whole alphabet if he wants to jump up. But the motive behind this is a good one. He probably won’t object at this point. The motive behind it is a good one, because what we’re talking about here is consumer protection. If the government can’t protect the consumers, then who can? In the same vein, I say there is an old saying, “caveat emptor,” let the buyer beware: We have to ensure that the consumers protect themselves as well.

The genesis of all of this stuff when it comes to electricity contracts goes back several years. I believe David Ramsay actually had a private member’s bill dealing with this when he was a member here, and then I believe it was Gerry Phillips who was the energy minister when we brought in some of the first protective, restrictive legislation when it came to door-to-door energy retailers. I’m sure everybody here would remember that Marketplace exposé where they caught on camera clearly unscrupulous door-to-door energy salespersons misleading the public about how they would benefit by signing a retail energy contract.

So the motive was good and the results, I think, were good because much of that problem has dissipated here across the province of Ontario. The consumers have been educated, but also the regulations have made it—and let me be clear, too: The industry itself was very supportive of the changes, because they saw what happened when an unscrupulous salesperson would decide, on their own, to mislead the potential client.

I can’t tell you how many of these contracts over my time here as the MPP for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke—and particularly probably because I’ve been the energy critic for a good number of years as well—I’ve been able to extract people from. I have so many I could talk about, but I’d like to just talk about one for the time being: my mother-in-law.

My mother-in-law was born in Lithuania. She was displaced during the Second World War. They moved to Germany. They were ethnic Germans living in Lithuania; during the war, they fled back to Germany. In 1954, she came to Canada with my wife, who was then her year-old daughter.

Hon. Jeff Leal: A delightful lady.

Mr. John Yakabuski: She is a delightful lady, and one of the hardest-working people you’ll ever meet in your life.

Interjection: Proud of her son-in-law.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I hope so.

She was visited by a door-to-door representative from an energy retailer several years back, and signed onto one of these energy contracts. Then her bills went up significantly.

Now Elma—her name is Elma Schmidt, or Smith; they’ve anglicized everything—never told me that she had signed this contract. She was probably embarrassed because she felt that she should have known better. But after she was involved in it for several months, I think my wife’s sister Rose found out about it and she talked to me.

To make a long story short, we got her out of the contract—and it was a bad one, but the most egregious part of it was how my mother-in-law, who is not educated, was not dealt with honestly in how she was approached about signing that contract. That was probably the most important part of it when it came down to getting her released from that contract.

But that was not uncommon. One of the challenges was that these took place at the door, and they would get you to sign it right away. What this bill does is it says, “You’re not going to be able to sell an electricity contract at the door.” No door-to-door sales on electricity contracts—I should say energy contracts; not just electricity, but energy contracts—and that’s a good thing, and the industry itself accepts that it’s a good thing. By not allowing the sale of these contracts at the door, we accomplish a lot.

We remove the biggest problem, which was misleading information, getting people to sign immediately at the door. By not allowing the contract to be sold at the door, that will accomplish the greatest benefit and the greatest good for consumers across Ontario.

Having talked to people in the industry, they’re good with that; they’re okay with that. They recognize that that was a challenge for them as well as the consumer when there was too much possibility of high-pressure sales and the wrong people—in the case of the consumer, possibly the wrong people.

But now, some of these same companies have also invested a lot of money in offering other products—it doesn’t have to be door to door; they can be online, they can be voluntary; you have to go to their website or whatever—such things as high-tech thermostats that allow someone to reduce their energy usage and thereby, even in Liberal Ontario, where the price has gone up three times, allow you to reduce your energy costs because you have a more efficiently operating energy system within your home. That’s something that someone would voluntarily want to purchase.

It could be some software, it could be a high-tech thermostat or whatever. But under this bill, even though it’s something I seek out on my own or I want to purchase, I would not be allowed to purchase that for 20 days. The cooling-off period of 20 days, I think as a blanket measure, is excessive. That needs to be looked at and dealt with by amendment by the government. I understand that people in the ministry have also felt that perhaps that’s something that needs to be looked at.

I hope the government actually does some of these things on a realistic basis and not just try to portray themselves as the great protector, because most people in Ontario believe that they’re not the great protector. They are, as the Platters would say, the great pretender. Don’t pretend you’re the protector by overstretching it. Actually do the things that are necessary to protect the consumer, but don’t exaggerate how you feel about this. That’s always the challenge for government to get it right.

I hoped that they would have got this right before they tabled the bill, but there is still that opportunity when we go for amendments after second reading. We’re looking forward to that as well.

The other thing that is a challenge—and as they say, let’s put this into perspective: We removed door-to-door sales. But in the case of selling products, they also want to say you cannot pay an agent a commission for selling a product. My wife is a commissioned salesperson selling real estate. If she sells a house for X number of dollars—well, let’s just make easy numbers. If she sold a house for $200,000, she would get X amount of commission. If she sold that same house for $190,000, she would get less commission. If she sold it for $210,000, she would get more commission.

If someone selling energy-efficient conservation or whatever product is simply going to be sent out there to sell products, but you’re just on a salary, then the low achiever is going to be paid at the same rate as the high achiever. Do you think people who work in the securities exchange, in the Toronto Stock Exchange, don’t work on commission? Do you think the person selling you your car doesn’t work on commission? This is how we incentivize the best performance. To simply say that because there has been a problem—and we acknowledge there’s been a terrible problem in the sale of energy contracts.

But to simply say because there has been a problem, we should eliminate the ability of one person to honestly work harder to get ahead, that’s not the Canadian way. That’s not how we work.

We have to really ask ourselves: Are we overreaching by trying to achieve a goal—that we’re actually hurting the consumer because we may not have the best salespeople out there? If you’re a top salesperson, you know your products. You work hard to understand—

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

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

L’hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Il me fait plaisir aujourd’hui de vous présenter deux invités : le président de l’Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario, Denis Vaillancourt, qui est ici avec nous, et le directeur général, Peter Hominuk. Ils sont venus nous rencontrer, la première ministre et moi, aujourd’hui pour discuter de beaux dossiers francophones. Merci d’être ici.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I’d like to introduce, in the gallery, Atikokan’s Mayor Dennis Brown, former Timmins mayor Jamie Lim, former chief Georjann Morriseau and Christine Leduc from the OFIA, who are here for the anti-SLAPP legislation.

M me France Gélinas: I am extremely proud to introduce Rick Bertrand, who is the president of United Steelworkers Local 6500 in my riding, and who is here in support of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act that we will be debating this afternoon.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Please help me welcome the parents of our page Kelly Hu: her mother, Feng Hu, and her father, Eddie Hu. Her brother Alex was a page here just two years ago.

Mr. Bill Walker: It’s my pleasure to introduce John and Shirley Reaburn, owners of Carson’s Camp in Sauble Beach, and Paul and Kathy Walker, partners in Walker-Bumstead Financial and my favourite cousins. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Cindy Forster: I’d like to introduce some people in the members’ gallery. They are OPSEU health professional members from CarePartners in Norfolk and Niagara: Erin Warman, Julie Reid, Laurie Filson, Angela DiPietro, Karen Goldhawk, Perry Wong, Pat Maclaren, Nellie Wolff, Patricia Fowler, Beverly Haden and Marian Landry. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

We also have page Alex Wang’s mother and father here today: Meng Wang and Pike Wang. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’d like to give a warm Queen’s Park welcome to Mr. Jeff Mole from the Community Enterprise Network, who has joined us in the members’ gallery today.

Mr. Norm Miller: I’d like to welcome in the west members’ gallery today, from the University of Toronto, Michael Da Silva and Nicolas Buhite, who are here visiting today. Welcome.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I would like to invite all members to join me in wishing our Minister of Energy a very happy birthday.

Applause.

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

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise to welcome a number of my constituents from the great riding of Oxford. As I explained yesterday, they are here today to raise awareness that the proposed landfill site in Oxford would put our drinking water at risk.

I don’t believe they’re in the gallery yet, but we want to welcome the mayor of Ingersoll, Ted Comiskey; and Bryan Smith; Mike and Emma Farlow; Bonnie and Neil Dennison; Bonnie Hartley; Sarah, Aleksandr and Suzanne Crellin; Christina Crawford; Wayne Walden; Glen Sauder; Leo Walsh; Reed Elliott; Deb Tait; Derek Verveer; and John and Yetty Joosee. I want to welcome them all here and thank them for all their hard work.

M me Marie-France Lalonde: Il me fait un très grand plaisir de présenter aujourd’hui notre invitée spéciale au caucus de la francophonie : M me Élizabeth Allard, présidente de la Fédération des aînés et des retraités francophones de l’Ontario.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Joining us in the Legislature today are Susan Kitchen, Barrie Shepley, Mercedes Watson, Jeremy Cross, Stuart McLaren, Eric Belahov, Clarissa Oleksiuk and Brooke Rosenfeld, who are coaches representing many different sports here in Ontario. Let’s give them a big round of applause.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: There are a number of guests here from the great riding of Northumberland–Quinte West, showcasing what the riding has to offer. I hope everybody has an opportunity to attend rooms 228 and 230 for some refreshments between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I introduced the whole group earlier—I see that the mayor of Ingersoll is in the gallery now. Ted Comiskey, welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We have with us today in the Speaker’s gallery a parliamentary delegation from the Health Services Committee of the Nairobi County Assembly of the Republic of Kenya. Please welcome our guests in a warm way.

Remarks in Swahili.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That was another language, in case you didn’t know: Swahili.

Jour des Franco-Ontariens et des Franco-Ontariennes / Franco-Ontarian Day

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Attorney General on a point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Attorney General is seeking unanimous consent to pay tribute to marking Franco-Ontarian Day and the 400th anniversary of francophone presence in Ontario, with representatives from each caucus speaking for up to five minutes. Do we agree? Oui. Merci beaucoup.

Attorney General.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in this assembly for the sixth consecutive year to mark Franco-Ontarian Day, which we are celebrating tomorrow on September 25.

Dear colleagues, it is a symbolic day, of course, but above all, it is Ontario’s official recognition of the fundamental contribution made by the province’s francophones to its economic, social and cultural prosperity.

Today, 400 years later, as a community we are proud of who we are. We take responsibility for our institutions and we know how to persevere. We have every reason to celebrate the advancement of Ontario’s francophonie.

Monsieur le Président, je vous assure que nous célébrons en grand. Je pense à la grande série télévisée Le Rêve de Champlain de TFO, qui vient d’ailleurs de recevoir un prix Gémeaux, et je les félicite. Je pense au nouveau parc commémoratif à Penetang et à la grande reconstitution historique de l’arrivée de Champlain—un évènement spectaculaire. Je pense aussi aux 62 projets locaux et régionaux que nous avons financés, à l’édition spéciale de la Franco-Fête de Toronto et à la vitrine incroyable qu’elle a conférée au 400 e dans le cadre des jeux Pan Am, ainsi qu’à l’édition spéciale du Festival franco-ontarien à Ottawa.

À l’occasion du 400 e anniversaire, l’Ontario a aussi été l’hôte de la 20 e Conférence ministérielle sur la francophonie canadienne, a conclu un important partenariat avec le Musée royal de l’Ontario, et a aussi dévoilé une pièce de monnaie commémorative en collaboration avec la Monnaie royale canadienne. Et ce n’est pas encore terminé, monsieur le Président.

Today, more than 600,000 francophones call Ontario home. This year, all of them are celebrating. But as I always say, the 400th anniversary celebrations are not only for Franco-Ontarians; they are for the entire province, which is why I invite all members to join in for the last few months of celebration.

J’invite tous ceux qui sont disponibles ici et à Toronto à venir demain à 16 h 30, avec la première ministre, là où le drapeau franco-ontarien sera hissé en avant de l’Assemblée législative. Alors, je vous invite, monsieur le Président, et je vous souhaite à tous et à toutes un joyeux Jour des Franco-Ontariens et des Franco-Ontariennes. Merci.

Le Président (L’hon. Dave Levac): Merci. Further comments?

Comme la députée provinciale de Thornhill et porte-parole des affaires francophones, j’ai organisé, à la dernière Exposition nationale canadienne, une journée commémorative pour célébrer cette étape importante. La Journée francophone à l’Exposition nationale canadienne a été organisée en collaboration avec les organisateurs du comité du 400 e et des membres de l’Exposition nationale canadienne.

En utilisant le #Champlain1615 et d’autres outils de médias sociaux, le comité du 400 e a créé un kiosque vidéo fantastique. Ce kiosque vidéo a pris part dans plusieurs festivals à travers la province de l’Ontario cet été. Des francophones, et bien sûr des francophiles, ont été invités à prendre part à un simulateur de canot qui les a emmenés dans un voyage tout comme Samuel de Champlain a fait en 1615.

J’espère que beaucoup d’entre vous se rappellent du nom Maxime Brinck-Croteau, athlète d’escrime des Jeux panaméricains de 2015. Maxime, un francophone de la ville de Markham, a promu son école d’escrime avec son collègue qui a porté un costume de Samuel de Champlain—si amusant!

J’ai hâte de célébrer la journée francophone ici à Queen’s Park avec la cérémonie de lever du drapeau demain. Je souhaite à tous les Franco-Ontariens un merveilleux 400 e anniversaire cette année. Je tiens également à leur souhaiter un super 40 e anniversaire où nous célébrons la première cérémonie de lever du drapeau franco-ontarien qui a eu lieu à l’Université Laurentienne en 1975.

C’était quelque chose que j’ai beaucoup aimé : participer à tous les évènements pour les communautés francophones ici à Toronto, dans la région de York, à Ottawa et autour de la province. J’ai aussi voyagé, avec des membres des autres partis, aux réunions cet été et même l’année passée.

Alors, à tout le monde, bonne fête, bon anniversaire, et joyeuses célébrations autour de la province.

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

Je commence en remerciant Denis Vaillancourt et Peter Hominuk d’être ici aujourd’hui. Ce sont le président ainsi que le directeur général de l’Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario. Je suis contente que vous vous soyez déplacés pour cet évènement que je qualifierais de quasi historique. Ce n’est pas souvent que ça arrive à l’Assemblée.

J’aimerais lever le ton un petit peu, mettre ça plus léger, pour vous parler plus spécifiquement du 40 e anniversaire du drapeau. Pourquoi? Parce que le drapeau a été fait par des gens de Sudbury. C’était Gaétan Gervais et un de ses étudiants, Michel Dupuis, qui ont créé le drapeau. Je vais vous raconter quelques petites anecdotes que CBON, la radio de Radio-Canada à Sudbury, ainsi que Prise de parole, la maison d’édition, et l’ACFO de Sudbury ont partagé par rapport à cette journée assez historique.

Notre drapeau, comme on le connaît, le drapeau franco-ontarien, est un produit de la révolution culturelle du Nouvel Ontario qui s’est passée dans les années 1970. On a vu naître, à Sudbury, Prise de parole et le Théâtre du Nouvel-Ontario. Certains d’entre nous vont se souvenir de quelques chansons de canaux. C’était dans ce mouvement-là que le drapeau est né.

Notre drapeau, le premier, a été bricolé, monsieur le Président. Il a été bricolé en utilisant des ciseaux et du carton. Ils ont essayé différents arrangements. La fleur de lys a été prise d’une photo dans un dictionnaire, puis la fleur de trille, ils l’ont prise d’une enveloppe d’une lettre qu’ils avaient reçue du gouvernement provincial. Ils ont mis ça ensemble, et ça a été notre premier drapeau.

Il y avait, par contre, un autre drapeau franco-ontarien. Celui-là avait été fait par le Conseil régional d’Ottawa-Carleton et a vraiment été hissé le 24 juin 1975; donc, plus de trois mois avant. Mais les gens de Sudbury avaient été au Bureau du droit d’auteur du Canada et leur ont dit que le nom « drapeau franco-ontarien » avait déjà été pris et ce drapeau franco-ontarien était vert et blanc. Eux, le rouge et le bleu, ça les intéressaient pas trop parce que ce sont des couleurs assez politiques; ils voulaient demeurer apolitiques.

Mais, connaissant Gaétan comme je le connais, si c’était à refaire, il mettrait un peu d’orange quelque part, j’en suis certaine. Mais notre drapeau est vert et blanc : vert pour l’été et blanc pour l’hiver.

Quand le drapeau a été hissé pour la première fois, ceux qui l’avaient fabriqué, Gaétan et son étudiant Michel, sont demeurés anonymes. Ils ne voulaient pas que les gens sachent que c’était eux et que ça venait de Sudbury parce qu’ils voulaient que ce soit un symbole rassembleur. Ils voulaient que ça rassemble tous les Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes. Je vous dirais que cela a été un succès assez phénoménal.

On a dû attendre, par contre, 25 longues années avant que l’Assemblée législative ici reconnaisse notre beau drapeau comme étant l’emblème de la communauté franco-ontarienne. C’est fait; c’est depuis le 21 juin 2001 que c’est reconnu, et on a maintenant la journée franco-ontarienne qui se déroule le 25 septembre à toutes les années.

C’est sûr que, cette année étant le 400 e anniversaire de l’arrivée de la francophonie en Ontario, les célébrations sont beaucoup plus animées, je vous dirais, que dans les années passées. C’est sûr que demain, il y aura des levers du drapeau franco-ontarien partout en Ontario. Vous pouvez aller sur le site du drapeau et vous allez voir. Je pense qu’il y a près de 100 différents endroits où on va lever le drapeau franco-ontarien. Je sais que tous mes collègues ont très hâte de participer demain. En même temps, c’est une autre façon de célébrer nos 400 ans d’histoire franco-ontarienne.

Madeleine a déjà—je m’excuse—

Une voix: La ministre.

M me France Gélinas: C’est correct. Elle a déjà mentionné qu’on avait gagné des prix avec Le Rêve de Champlain à TFO et qu’on a eu des simulations de l’arrivée de Samuel de Champlain partout en Ontario. Si vous n’avez pas eu la chance, il en reste quelques-unes. Ne les manquez pas; c’est vraiment bon. En général, bonne journée franco-ontarienne à tout le monde demain. Merci.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Oxford on a point of order.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Mr. Speaker, earlier, during the introductions, I introduced a group of great constituents from Oxford who were not yet here in the gallery. They have since then arrived and I’d like to welcome them to Queen’s Park. I did refrain from renaming them.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would have actually stopped you.

I thank all members for their thoughtful comments and appreciate the celebration here in the House.

It is now time for question period.

Oral Questions

By-election in Sudbury

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is to the Acting Premier. We learned this morning that Gerry Lougheed Jr. has been charged with bribery in connection with the Sudbury by-election. Both the Premier and the Minister of Community Safety stood by Mr. Lougheed despite the damning evidence that all Ontarians heard when they listened to those tapes.

The law-abiding people of this province knew what they heard on those tapes was illegal. Now, through their good work, the OPP have confirmed that what your top Liberal fundraiser did in December was in fact illegal. Gerry Lougheed Jr. has stepped down as chair of the Greater Sudbury Police Services Board. Did he resign voluntarily? Or did you ask him for his resignation?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Of course we are aware of the charges that have been laid against Mr. Lougheed. I am very pleased that the police have informed Pat Sorbara’s counsel that she will not face any criminal charges.

We have been open with the Legislature. We have been open with the media. We’ve been open with the public about allegations related to the Sudbury by-election.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m recognizing the sensitivity of this and I will deal with it accordingly. We will put the questions quietly and we will have the answers quietly. Thank you.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, we have faith in the process. We have co-operated fully in the investigation. We will continue to do that. As this is now a matter before the courts, we will not have further comments.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Acting Premier, you can’t hide behind that line. The reality is that Pat Sorbara is an integral part of this active investigation. She was in those tapes. She was part of the conversation with Gerry Lougheed Jr., I believe: “I am [talking] to you, on behalf of the Premier.” Pat Sorbara is part of this active investigation. Have you removed her from the Premier’s office while these charges proceed through the courts? If not, why not?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I want to reiterate that the police have informed Pat Sorbara’s counsel that she will not face any criminal charges. We have confidence in the police to do their work. We have co-operated with the investigation. We will continue to co-operate with the investigation.

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

Ms. Sylvia Jones: To the Acting Premier: Mr. Lougheed was charged today. Part of that charge came about as an investigation that included Pat Sorbara, that included your new member from Sudbury. We need to have some assurances that what is happening in the Premier’s office is separate and—

Interjections.

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

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Shouting down my questions is not going to make this issue go away.

Speaker, through you to the Acting Premier, will you ask for Pat Sorbara’s resignation while these proceed?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let me repeat—and I do know that the member opposite—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m at the edge of going to warnings, and I’ll do so.

Please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As I have said now three times—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Nepean–Carleton.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: —the police have informed Pat Sorbara’s counsel that she will not be facing any criminal charges. The member opposite, I know, has questions prepared, but that is important news.

As we have said, we will always co-operate with the investigation. We have confidence in our police. We will co-operate fully, and as I say, this matter is now before the courts.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is for the Acting Premier. Today is the day that Ontarians across the province have been waiting for, and perhaps it’s the day the Premier has been dreading. We have the unprecedented situation of criminal charges being laid against a key Liberal fundraiser for allegedly bribing Andrew Olivier on behalf of the Premier of Ontario. This case strikes right at the heart of the Premier’s office.

Acting Premier, will the Premier step aside while these charges are before the courts?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. I’m coming to the Minister of Agriculture. It’s a little late, but I’m telling you this is the second time.

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I know your questions were written before question period; however, I am very pleased that the police have informed Pat Sorbara’s counsel that there will be no criminal charges laid against her. This matter is before the courts. We have confidence in the independence of the police. We will co-operate fully. The Premier has always maintained that her staff did nothing wrong, and we have faith in the process.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Back to the Acting Premier. We in the Ontario PC caucus have been demanding what the vast majority of the people of Ontario have been asking for ever since these tapes became public. Through the actions of Gerry Lougheed Jr. and Pat Sorbara, the Premier has soiled and diminished the integrity of the office she holds. Nothing short of stepping aside will satisfy the people of Ontario.

The Premier thinks she can defy Ontarians with Hydro One, but she cannot defy them when it comes to alleged criminal activity. Will the Premier step aside or does the Premier think she, too, is above the law?

Interjections.

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

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We will not second-guess the work of the OPP. There has been an independent investigation. The police have informed Pat Sorbara’s counsel that there will be no criminal charges laid against her. We will continue to co-operate fully with the investigation. The notion on the other side of the House that they know better than those who have investigated this is kind of—you’re entitled to those opinions, but they’re pretty wild opinions.

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

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Back to the Acting Premier: This Liberal government has been mired in scandal after scandal after scandal. These criminal charges are just the start, with four outstanding OPP investigations. The Premier has to stop grandstanding; the jig is up. The Premier needs to accept the consequences of her scandal-ridden government. The Premier must step aside or lose all confidence of the people of Ontario. Acting Premier, will she do it?

Interjections.

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

Deputy Premier?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I can only imagine that these questions were written before today’s question period, before you were informed that the police have informed Pat Sorbara’s counsel that there will be no criminal charges laid against her. You might want to refresh the questions, but let me tell you again: We are not going to second-guess—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton is warned.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We will not second-guess the work of the police.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Deputy Premier. The Premier has defended Gerry Lougheed Jr. and refused opposition calls to force him to resign from the Sudbury police services board.

Now that he has been charged, it does immeasurable damage to the reputation of that board and to the Premier’s credibility. Instead of defending Liberal insiders, the Premier needs to put the interests of Ontarians ahead of the Liberal Party.

Ontarians deserve an answer. Who ordered Gerry Lougheed to break the law?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As I said before, the police are doing their investigation. We have co-operated fully with that investigation; we will not interfere with that. This matter is now before the courts, and we’ll have no further comment on that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Deputy Premier, Gerry Lougheed Jr. is charged with one count of counselling an offence not committed and one count of unlawfully influencing or negotiating appointments. We could very well see the same charges laid against the Premier’s own deputy chief of staff; who knows?

The question becomes—I ask again: Who gave the order to Gerry Lougheed Jr. to ask him to break the law on behalf of the Liberal Party? Who gave that order?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Maybe the member opposite missed it when I said that the police have informed Pat Sorbara’s counsel that she will not face any charges. This speculation is unfortunate at best. This is a matter that is before the courts, and we will respect the independence of the courts and the police.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: To the Deputy Premier: We all heard the tapes. We heard what Gerry Lougheed said, we heard what Pat Sorbara said, and it was very clear: They were acting on behalf of the Premier, one Kathleen Wynne.

I ask you again: Both Lougheed and Sorbara said they were calling on behalf of the Premier, so again, who ordered them to break the law?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: It is nothing short of astounding that the member opposite thinks he knows better than the police who have investigated this. The police have informed Pat Sorbara’s counsel that there will be no criminal charges laid. I respect the work of the police; I respect the work of the court system, so we will have no further comment on this. The member opposite does need to, I think, respect the work of the people who investigated this.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Through you, Speaker, back to the Deputy Premier: The Premier and yourself as Acting Premier both stood in this House and defended the actions of both Mr. Lougheed and Ms. Sorbara. The Premier has publicly said, with apparent knowledge, that the conversations Mr. Lougheed is now being charged with having were an attempt to keep Mr. Olivier involved, and that the decision as to who would run as the Liberal candidate was hers.

Mr. Lougheed is now charged with counselling an offence; he said he was there on behalf of the Premier. So I ask again: Who ordered him to break the law?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I think the member opposite actually needs to respect the independence of the police and respect the independence of the courts. Let the courts do their work. We will have no comment on this. It is a matter before the courts.

But as I said earlier, I am pleased that the police have informed Pat Sorbara’s counsel that she will not face criminal charges. I know the member doesn’t want to hear that, but that is what the police have told the counsel.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Through you, Speaker, to the Deputy Premier: The Premier and yourself were like on autopilot, saying that you were taking this oh, so very seriously. It turns out so did the Chief Electoral Officer and so did the OPP.

The question is, will the Acting Premier tell us what the Premier knew and when she knew it?

Interjection.

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

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I am again repeating that the police have done their work. The courts are doing their work. That is independent from government and certainly independent from the political process. If the member opposite thinks that there should be political interference in matters like this, I could not disagree more strongly, Speaker.

Let’s let the courts do their work. We will support any investigation. We will co-operate fully, as we have done and will continue to do.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The Premier and the Acting Premier finally need to read that the writing is on the wall. The Premier and the Acting Premier both stood in this House and defended the actions of both Mr. Lougheed and Ms. Sorbara. But now charges have been laid and holes in the Premier’s story are being blown wide open. Lougheed said that he was acting on behalf of the Premier. That’s what was said on the tapes. It was clear to everybody who listened to those tapes.

My question to you is this: What did the Premier know, and did she order Mr. Lougheed to break the law?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, Speaker, we are aware that charges have been laid against Mr. Lougheed. We are also aware that the police have informed Pat Sorbara’s counsel there will be no charges laid against her.

We have been open with the Legislature. We have been open with the media. We have been open with the public. We have co-operated fully with the investigation. The Premier has maintained and continues to maintain that her staff have done nothing wrong.

We have faith in the process. We have faith in the independence of the courts and of the police. We have co-operated. We will continue to do so, Speaker. This is a matter now before the courts, where it belongs.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Leadership is all about honesty, integrity and accountability. With this morning’s news about the criminal charges being laid against one of the Premier’s own in Sudbury, the leadership of this Premier and her government is yet again under a cloud of shame.

In the past, this government was prepared to say anything in order to hang on to power. They did this with the gas plant scandal, the eHealth scandal, the Ornge scandal and, most recently, they did it with the Sudbury by-election bribery scandal.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Deputy Premier: The police have done their job; will you do yours and will your Premier resign?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, Speaker, I’m happy that at least that member respects that the police have done their job.

The police have done their job. The police have done their job independent of political interference, and the police have informed Pat Sorbara’s counsel that she will not face any criminal charges.

We respect the independence of the police. We respect the independence of the courts. That is a responsible position to take, Speaker. We have co-operated fully and will continue to do so.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Bill Walker: Back to the Deputy Premier: We’re asking your government to show integrity, to stand by higher principles. Your government is under four investigations. This is unprecedented in the history of this Legislature. You’ve wasted billions on the gas plant scandals. You’re not listening to people on the fire sale of Hydro One.

But you’re not above the law. Will you do the honourable thing—will the Premier do the right thing and resign?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I know the Premier and all of us fully understand that we are not above the law. We are respectful of the police. We are respectful of the courts. We have co-operated fully, Speaker, and the police have informed counsel—

Mr. Paul Miller: That’s choice.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And that’s the second time for the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek.

Interjection: He’s not in his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. It’s irrelevant.

Please finish.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, we have co-operated fully with the investigation. It has been conducted free from political interference, as well it should be. No charges are going to be laid against Pat Sorbara. The matter regarding Mr. Lougheed is before the courts, and that’s where it will be dealt with.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Listen, Deputy Premier, this just doesn’t cut it. The reality is this: The tapes clearly say that Ms. Sorbara, in his own words, was there on behalf of the Premier of Ontario—or, Mr. Lougheed. Correction: Mr. Lougheed.

Again through you, Speaker: Everybody has heard the tapes. It is crystal clear that Mr. Lougheed was very clear on why he was there. He was meeting with Mr. Olivier, in his own words, because he was there on behalf of the Premier of Ontario. So we’re asking you one simple question: Will you confirm today that, in fact, the Premier of Ontario did give him those orders and he was acting under her direction?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The deputy House leader is warned.

Finish, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, again Inspector Clouseau across the way here thinks he can do a better job.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Order, please.

I’m going to ask the Deputy Premier to withdraw.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I withdraw, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would remind everyone: It’s an exact reason why we in this House have the tradition of identifying people either by their title or their riding. I would ask you all to respect that.

Carry on.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The member opposite, I know, is interested in doing his own investigation, and that is certainly fine, but I trust the police to do their work. They have conducted their investigation. They have come to a finding. We are aware that Mr. Lougheed has been charged, and we are aware that Ms. Sorbara will not be charged.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The facts are these: The tapes were very clear in saying that Mr. Lougheed was there on behalf of the Premier. The Ontario Provincial Police have conducted an investigation. Elections Ontario has conducted an investigation. Both have come to the same conclusion: that in fact Mr. Lougheed offered a bribe to Mr. Olivier and said he was doing so on behalf of the Premier of Ontario.

I ask you again: Can you confirm, yes or no, if that direction did or didn’t come from the Premier of Ontario, one Kathleen Wynne?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: On this side of the House, we believe in letting the police do their work. We co-operated fully with the police. They have come to a conclusion. We’re aware of that conclusion. We trust the police. We trust the court system to do their work in a completely independent way.

Hospital funding

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Ma question est pour le ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée.

The University of Ottawa Heart Institute is Canada’s largest cardiovascular health centre, dedicated to understanding, treating and preventing heart disease. The heart institute delivers high-tech care with a personal touch that shapes the way cardiovascular medicine is practised. They provide care to more than 80,000 patients each year and provide training to more than 100 physicians annually. They serve patients locally in my riding of Ottawa–Orléans, which is the home of the largest francophone community in Ottawa, as well as patients across the province and country.

You might even say that the University of Ottawa Heart Institute is close to my heart and the heart of my constituents, because they provide services in both official languages.

Along with my colleagues in Ottawa, we were with the minister recently when he announced infrastructure funding to the Ottawa Hospital. Can the minister tell this House what our government is doing for the University of Ottawa Heart Institute?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I appreciate the question from the member from Ottawa–Orléans.

It’s important that our government support a range of advanced cardiac services provided by the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, procedures such as bypass surgery and angioplasties. In fact, in January of this year, our government announced that we would be investing $162 million in the expansion of Ottawa’s heart institute to help even more patients access that high-quality care that they provide.

Since 2003, our government has committed over $172 million in capital projects alone to the Ottawa heart institute, which are all either complete or currently under way. We continue to support our Wait Time Strategy at the heart institute. In fact, since 2005, the wait times for angioplasty alone have been reduced by 52% by the heart institute.

We’re extremely proud of the work the institute does. We’ll keep working to support it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Merci, monsieur le Ministre, pour votre réponse.

I was absolutely delighted this summer when I was able to stand beside you at the Ottawa Hospital to announce that our government is providing over $10 million to the 17 hospitals in our Champlain LHIN, including over $9 million to five hospitals in the Ottawa area.

The investment of over $9 million to improve infrastructure in Ottawa-area hospitals is great news for residents of the Ottawa community and surely for Orléans. I was disappointed recently when I heard the Leader of the Opposition suggest that our government was cutting funding to the Ottawa heart institute, and similarly to the Ottawa Hospital.

Can the minister tell this House more about the investments made in the hospital system in Ontario and how those investments will affect the Ottawa region?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Thank you again for the question from the member from Ottawa–Orléans.

As the Minister of Health I’m committed, as this government is, to a strong publicly funded health care system and hospital system that efficiently provides high-quality patient services for all Ontarians.

Hospital funding in fact has increased by 56% since 2003. That’s $5.7 billion, and it’s a total of $1.4 billion just for hospitals located in Ottawa and in the Ottawa region alone.

At the Ottawa heart institute, we’ve increased funding by 68%, an increase of more than $48 million. We’re making additional investments to other hospitals in the area, like CHEO, the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, where we invested nearly $1 million this year in that hospital and others, specifically for chronic pain programs for children across this province.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Acting Premier.

It’s a shameful day in Ontario. The Premier’s key Liberal operative in northern Ontario is charged with two criminal offences. We now have an influencing scandal in Ontario. Gerry Lougheed was clearly heard on audio recording stating he was representing the Premier. He asked a prospective Liberal nominee to step aside in favour of the Premier’s hand-picked choice, and he proposed to use taxpayers’ money to smooth the way with the offer of a job.

We’ve all heard the tapes. What Lougheed said is no different than what the Premier’s chief of staff, Pat Sorbara, said. So shouldn’t she step aside until we hear about charges from the Chief Electoral Officer?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, Speaker, once again I have to express concern that the member opposite thinks he can do a better job investigating than the police can.

The police have done a thorough investigation. We have co-operated fully with that investigation and we will continue to co-operate fully. The police have come to a decision. We are aware that charges have been laid against Mr. Lougheed and we are also aware that charges will not be laid against Pat Sorbara.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Acting Premier, Speaker: I heard that same stuff during the two years of the gas plant scandal, so don’t go lecturing us. We’ve always known that Lougheed and Sorbara acted in bad faith when we heard the tapes. We knew that when the Chief Electoral Officer tabled his report and we know it to be true today.

The Premier’s fingerprints are all over this criminal scandal, much as she may protest otherwise. The OPP believes Lougheed illegally influenced Andrew Olivier to step aside for her hand-picked candidate. Now her fall guy is paying the price for this illicit behaviour.

Pat Sorbara is heard on tape delivering the exact same message as Gerry Lougheed, allegedly offering the same bribe. Shouldn’t she step aside until we hear about the charges under the Election Act?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I have been listening very carefully, and I understand the sensitivity of this topic. I’m going to counsel all members to use their language very carefully, to ensure that you’re not making accusations of a criminal nature to any member. It was getting close. I’m not saying it did. But I’m asking you to measure your words, please.

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The member opposite is second-guessing the work of the police. I have a problem with that. I think the police have conducted a thorough investigation. We have co-operated with that investigation. They have come to a conclusion. The fact that the member opposite believes his investigation is superior to the police investigation is a remarkable assertion.

We respect the work of the police. We respect the independence of the police. We respect the courts, and we will let the courts do their work.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Again to the Deputy Premier: We ask people in society to always take responsibility for their actions. We ask our children to take responsibility for their actions.

In this case, we know the law has potentially been broken because criminal charges have been laid against Mr. Lougheed. We know that, in fact, what was said on those tapes by Mr. Lougheed and Ms. Sorbara—that they were acting on behalf of instructions from the Premier. They were there on behalf of the Premier to do the work that she wanted them to do.

So I ask again: Is the Premier, is the Deputy Premier, is anybody in this government prepared to take responsibility for the actions of those people who acted on your behalf? Is the Premier prepared to do that? Yes or no?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Premier, from the very beginning, has been very open and transparent, has co-operated fully with the police investigation.

We have confidence in the police. We have confidence in the court. They have come to a conclusion. We know what the results of that are, and we will let the matter be dealt with in the appropriate place, and that is in the courts.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Speaker, through you to the Deputy Premier: Two investigations have concluded the same findings. The Elections Ontario investigation found that in fact there is a case to be made against those two individuals when it comes to a breach of the Election Act. It was very clear on the tapes, what was said. They were there on behalf of the Premier of Ontario. The Ontario Provincial Police, as a result of its investigation on the criminal charges side, has charged Mr. Lougheed.

So I ask you the question once again: Whose orders were they acting under? Were they doing this on behalf of the Premier? Yes or no?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, once again, I have confidence in the police to do their investigation. They have done a very thorough investigation. They have conducted themselves in a non-partisan way. I believe that is the way justice is served here in Canada: to have independence between the police, the courts and government.

We have co-operated fully, and the matter is now before the courts.

Consumer protection

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: My question is to the Minister of Government and Consumer Services. Our government continues to demonstrate strong support for consumers and has enhanced consumer protection and awareness in various sectors over the years.

Speaking with my constituents in Scarborough Southwest and speaking to other residents across Ontario, I keep hearing that Ontarians want access to the services they need without being subject to harmful practices. Our government addressed this concern across various sectors by passing the Stronger Protection for Ontario Consumers Act in 2013.

While Ontarians have benefited from the legislation’s door-to-door protections for many months now, I understand that the Minister of Government and Consumer Services was joined by the Credit Counselling Service of Sault Ste. Marie this summer for an important announcement.

Mr. Speaker, my question is: Would the minister please describe the new protections that Ontarians can count on from our government?

Hon. David Orazietti: I want to thank the member from Scarborough Southwest for asking about important consumer issues and certainly for his advocacy in his riding for consumers.

We passed Bill 55, the Stronger Protection for Ontario Consumers Act, which protects against aggressive, high-pressure, door-to-door sales strategies, especially for water heater rentals. It provides reforms that help to improve debt settlement services, to make them more affordable and more accountable, and it provides measures that make the real estate market more open and transparent.

As of July 1, we implemented new rules that add accountability to debt settlement in the following areas: Debtors cannot be charged fees until they start making payments to their creditors; we’ve capped debt settlement fees at 15% for a series of payments or 10% for a lump sum; and contracts must be clear and cannot misrepresent the services they provide. Additionally, new rules give all consumers a 10-day cooling-off period.

Speaker, we’re pleased that we’re making progress to help protect vulnerable consumers.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: Through the Speaker, my supplementary question to the Minister of Government and Consumer Services is the following: With an increasing amount of Ontarians falling into debt, I’m pleased to note that the minister is focusing attention on implementing adequate protections. I understand that the Stronger Protection for Ontario Consumers Act also includes measures to increase accountability and competitiveness in Ontario’s real estate sector that were implemented July 1. I’ve always felt that Ontario’s real estate professionals are among the best, contributing billions of dollars to our economy and providing jobs across the province.

Efforts to help the sector grow, while adding consumer protections, would be welcome in my riding of Scarborough Southwest and in every riding across this province.

My question is to the minister. I want the minister to please update the House on how our government improved the home buying and selling process for Ontarians this past summer.

Hon. David Orazietti: Again to the member from Scarborough Southwest: A fair, accountable real estate environment has been an ongoing priority for our government. When the act was passed in December 2013, home sellers and buyers were immediately given more power to negotiate both fees and commissions when working with real estate professionals.

I’m pleased that the new rules that came into force this past summer provide greater protection and transparency for homebuyers in multiple offer situations. The rules ensure that realtors cannot mislead homebuyers about offers because they require real estate salespeople and brokers to only present offers in writing. They also require brokerages to retain copies of all written offers for the period of one year, and they also allow a person making an offer on the property to ask about the number of offers that have been made.

These reforms, Speaker, act on stakeholder feedback and will help the Real Estate Council of Ontario better regulate against phantom offers. This is one of the important changes we’re making—

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

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Premier. This morning I had the honour of attending the opening ceremony of the National Peace Officers’ Memorial Run. During that ceremony I was reminded of the courage and integrity shown by the men and women of Ontario’s police services in upholding the laws of our country.

That stands in stark contrast to the news today that the Premier’s key fundraiser has been charged with bribery. Those charges are laid because the Premier allegedly—

Interjections.

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

Start the clock.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Those charges are laid because the Premier allegedly sent Gerry Lougheed Jr. to offer Andrew Olivier a job in exchange for not running in the Sudbury by-election.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has disgraced her office—

Interjections.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Speaker, the Premier has disgraced her office. The people of Ontario are demanding that she step aside during this court case.

To the Acting Premier: Will the Premier step aside?

Interjections.

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

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m happy to hear the Leader of the Opposition speak about the respect that he has for the police officers. We share that. We are blessed in this province to have superb police officers. It is because of our respect for those police officers, Speaker, that we respect their work in this case, among others.

The independence of the police is a critically important part of our democracy. We respect the work. We’ve co-operated fully with them. We share the respect, and that’s why we have let them do the work.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Acting Premier: During the course of the Ontario PC leadership campaign, I travelled to every small town, every large town in Ontario. I heard again and again that people are sick and tired of this scandal-plagued government.

They’re sick and tired of a government that doesn’t respect their hard-earned tax dollars. They’re sick and tired of a Liberal Premier who thinks her government can get away with breaking the law. They want this Premier and this Liberal government to be held accountable. The criminal courts will now do that.

Mr. Speaker, back to the Acting Premier: Will the Premier show an ounce of integrity and step aside during this trial?

Interjections.

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, Speaker, I think if anybody wants to talk about the integrity of politicians in this place, the Premier is a woman of impeccable integrity.

The Premier has co-operated fully with the police investigation. She has been open. She has been transparent. She is committed to doing the right thing every single time, Speaker.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question, through you, Speaker, is to the Deputy Premier. Deputy Premier, what does it take for your government to finally admit its role in this entire scandal?

Mr. Lougheed is on tape. He says clearly that he’s acting on behalf of the Premier when he goes to meet with Mr. Olivier. Mrs. Sorbara on the phone does the same; she says she’s doing this on behalf of the Premier. We have an Elections Ontario investigation that found that, in fact, the law had been breached, and we now have criminal charges, on behalf of the Ontario Provincial Police, against Mr. Lougheed.

So I’m going to ask you again: Will the Deputy Premier stand in this House today and finally admit that, in fact, these people were acting on behalf of the Premier’s instructions?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Once again, I have to say that the police have done a thorough investigation, an independent investigation, a non-partisan investigation. They have reached conclusions, Speaker. They have informed Pat Sorbara’s counsel that she will not be facing any criminal charges.

I understand the politics of the member opposite. I understand what he’s trying to do. But when you think about our justice system, when you think about our police system—

Mr. Paul Miller: It has nothing to do with politics. You’re guilty. Guilty is guilty.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek is warned.

Finish, please. Wrap up.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I’m doing my best to ignore some of the heckles from across the floor, but I have to say the independence of the police is fundamental to our democracy.

We respect the independence of the police. We respect the excellence of their investigation capabilities. The matter is before the courts, where it will be dealt with independently.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Again through you, Speaker, to the Deputy Premier: The Deputy Premier says this is all about politics. This is all about Liberal politics. It’s exactly what’s going on. The government and the Liberal Party tried to game the system in such a way that gave them an advantage in the Sudbury by-election.

The tapes are clear. The tapes say, “I am here on behalf”—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Children and Youth Services—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m trying to admonish you while you’re talking, Minister. And the Minister of Economic Development will also come to order.

Please finish.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The tapes are clear: They were acting on behalf of the Premier of Ontario. This is what they said on the tapes. It’s what Mr. Olivier said, as well.

The Ontario Provincial Police have come to a conclusion. Elections Ontario have come to a conclusion. So I ask you again: Will the Deputy Premier finally admit that, in fact, it was the Premier of Ontario who directed these individuals to offer Mr. Olivier a bribe?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: What the member opposite is saying is that he knows better than the OPP; that is what he is saying. I respectfully disagree with him, Speaker. The OPP have done their investigation, which has been a very thorough investigation. We have co-operated fully with that investigation. And I will take the decisions of the OPP over the decisions of the member opposite any day of the week.

Francophone immigration / Immigration francophone

Mr. Grant Crack: My question is to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade. Minister, for 400 years, francophones have been building and shaping Ontario. Dans ma circonscription de Glengarry–Prescott–Russell, il y a plus de 60 % de francophones, et nous sommes chanceux d’avoir une communauté francophone vibrante et forte.

I know that much of our government values diversity of all sorts, whether it be race, religion, nationality or language. Je sais que les francophones de l’Ontario contribuent de façon essentielle à la grande diversité de la province.

I was pleased when your ministry brought forward Ontario’s Immigration Strategy, which set a target of 5% francophone immigration. The constituents in my riding have been equally excited and pleased to see their government commit to increasing francophone populations. Speaker, could the minister tell us what our government is doing to meet this target?

Hon. Michael Chan: Merci beaucoup for the question. I want to thank the honourable member for asking it. Speaker, I cannot agree enough with the member. Ontario’s francophone population is as proud, strong and vibrant as any, and we are committed to helping it reach that fantastic target of 5% immigration.

Just today, my ministry announced the creation of a group of experts, comprised of 11 francophone community members from a variety of sectors, regions and areas of expertise. It also includes a representative from Ontario’s French Language Services Commissioner. This group met for the first time in June of this year, and I look forward to seeing what they will achieve going forward. We have the tools and resources here to help francophone newcomers succeed and continue to protect and celebrate francophone culture in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Grant Crack: I’d like to thank the minister for his answer and the hard work that he does on this file. Je suis heureux d’apprendre qu’il y a un groupe d’experts en immigration francophone et je suis convaincu que mes commettants à Glengarry–Prescott–Russell le seront aussi.

It’s true that, like many other diverse populations, our francophone community faces unique challenges when immigrating or integrating into Ontario. Nous savons que notre communauté francophone est essentielle au développement économique et social, entre autres, de l’Ontario. C’est pour ça que nous devons continuer à trouver des solutions innovantes pour augmenter l’immigration francophone en Ontario et les aider à relever les défis.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, what exactly will this group of experts be discussing, and how will it benefit francophone immigration in my riding, the great Glengarry–Prescott–Russell?

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you again for the question.

Speaker, we are very, very excited about this group of experts. The 11 leaders in their fields are volunteering their time and their expertise to benefit the province by helping us increase the number of francophone immigrants to Ontario and ensure the sustainability of Franco-Ontarian communities.

The group will examine how to promote, welcome, integrate and retain francophone immigrants in Ontario. In spring 2016, they will provide us with a report of their findings and recommendations. This information will be used to inform future decision-making and improve existing supports for francophone newcomers. Building stronger francophone communities is part of the government’s economic plan for Ontario, and this group will help us do just that. Merci, Speaker.

Government’s record

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: My question is for the Acting Premier. Yesterday we learned from the Auditor General of the sad state of access to front-line health care from the CCACs, which some have described as criminal. And sadly, today we have learned that the Liberals are willing to engage in criminal activity to get what they want. So, simply, I would like to ask the Acting Premier: Will the Liberal government and the Liberal party stop breaking the law to benefit their own interests?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I appreciate the question. The comment about the CCACs: Of course, the last part of the comment we don’t agree with at all. Yesterday we received the report of the Auditor General on our CCACs. I welcome that report. In fact, I endorsed it on behalf of the government. I said that I agreed with all of the recommendations, and we accept all of the recommendations, and we plan on implementing all of her recommendations. It was an important road map, quite frankly, for us to use going forward. We’re putting it alongside the actions that we’ve already taken this year that flowed from the expert panel appointed by the government, Gail Donner’s group—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: —to actually help us and provide us with good advice, leading to even better quality of care provided through our home and community care services. That’s what we’re doing. We’re embarking on those changes, and I’ve welcomed her repo