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

March 28, 2019

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2019-Mar-28 (PDF)

L084 - Thu 28 Mar 2019 / Jeu 28 mar 2019

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 28 March 2019 Jeudi 28 mars 2019

Orders of the Day

Fixing the Hydro Mess Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 pour réparer le gâchis dans le secteur de l’électricité

Introduction of Visitors

Premier’s comments

Oral Questions

Public transit

Public transit

Autism treatment

Police services

Public transit

Infrastructure program funding

Health care

Hospital funding

Greenhouse gas emissions

Correctional services

Natural gas

Arts education

Police sector compensation

Tenant protection

Fish and wildlife management

Visitors

Decorum in chamber

Introduction of Visitors

Environmental Commissioner of Ontario

Members’ Statements

Education funding

Visitors

High-tech industry

Trans community

Taxation

Hospital evacuation

Osgoode Care Centre

Education funding

Pope John Paul II

Coptic community

Introduction of Bills

Peter Kormos Memorial Act (Trillium Gift of Life Network Amendment), 2019 / Loi de 2019 commémorant Peter Kormos (modification de la

Loi sur le Réseau Trillium pour le don de vie)

Labour Relations Amendment Act (Replacement Workers), 2019 / Loi de 2019 modifiant la

Loi sur les relations de travail (travailleurs suppléants)

Petitions

Injured workers

Long-term care

Campus radio stations

Animal protection

Fish and wildlife management

Automobile insurance

Veterans memorial

Tenant protection

Fish and wildlife management

Animal protection

Fish and wildlife management

Affordable housing

Autism treatment

Private Members’ Public Business

Supporting Ontario’s Community, Rural and Agricultural Newspapers Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur le soutien aux journaux communautaires, ruraux et agricoles de l’Ontario

Hellenic Heritage Month Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur le Mois du patrimoine hellénique

Student assistance

Supporting Ontario’s Community, Rural and Agricultural Newspapers Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur le soutien aux journaux communautaires, ruraux et agricoles de l’Ontario

Hellenic Heritage Month Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur le Mois du patrimoine hellénique

Student assistance

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Let us pray.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Fixing the Hydro Mess Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 pour réparer le gâchis dans le secteur de l’électricité

Mr. Phillips, on behalf of Mr. Rickford, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 87,

An Act to amend various statutes related to energy / Projet de loi 87, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne l’énergie.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I recognize the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.

Hon. Rod Phillips: Speaker, I’ll be sharing my time with the member from Markham–Stouffville.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Markham–Stouffville.

Mr. Paul Calandra: It’s obviously a great honour to be able to rise today to speak to this bill, to speak on behalf of the people of my riding, Markham–Stouffville.

Mr. Speaker, as I’ve said in other speeches, before we were even elected to government, the Progressive Conservative caucus that was in the opposition was focused on the hydro file. Part of the reason why we were so focused on the hydro file—and my colleagues who served then and the candidates who fought so hard in the lead-up to the last election will know—and the reason we fought so hard is that we saw the damage that was being done to the province of Ontario because of the hydro mess that had been created by the previous Liberal government.

Since we got elected, Mr. Speaker, we have been methodically taking a step-by-step approach to bring back our hydro system, to put it back into a system that Ontarians can rely upon, that our small, medium and large job creators can rely upon and, obviously and most importantly, into a system that our taxpayers can rely upon.

For decades, one of the things that helped build our province, one of the things that separated us from other provinces and other states that we competed with, was the fact that we had a strong, stable, reliable and cheap energy sector. It’s what drove our manufacturers and it’s what gave us confidence in those long winter months. That was an advantage that we lost, not because we had a bad energy sector, colleagues, but exclusively because we had—

Interjection: Bad government.

Mr. Paul Calandra: Bad government. For decades, this province was run by a Progressive Conservative government. Colleagues, you’ll recall: 42 years of strong, stable Progressive Conservative government in this province that created a magnificent infrastructure; a magnificent infrastructure built on a hydro sector that helped us become—and we’ve heard it talked about time and time again: Ontario was the engine of the Canadian economy. As we know, colleagues, a strong Ontario means a strong Canada. When Ontario is booming, so too is the rest of the country. That was what we lost because of bad policy decisions.

I’m going to talk a little bit about what this bill does, Mr. Speaker, but I think it’s also important to note that when governments make poor decisions, it is the taxpayer who pays the price for it—and it’s not just the taxpayer of the province of Ontario; it’s across this country. People pay the price for bad decisions and bad government.

In a very real way, as much as Progressive Conservatives have always built the economy and focused on building communities, focused on building a strong economy, an economy that helps pay for health care, an economy that helps pay for schools and post-secondary education, an economy that helps build our transportation and transit infrastructure—the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation, who is here beside me, my seatmate, has been undertaking a massive review of all of our transportation infrastructure across the province, and we’re starting to see some of the benefits of that.

Over the years, it has been policies that have been built by the Progressive Conservatives, backed by a strong energy sector, that have helped us build and pay for this massive infrastructure and the economy that we’ve had to pay for it.

I’m going to talk, obviously, about the bill. It’s the next step. Where we’ve gone wrong, in large part, in this province over the last 15 years of the Liberal-NDP coalition government, was that we lurched from ideological solution—or lack of solution—ideological disaster to the next in terms of energy policy. We knew when we got elected—we fought to get elected; we fought for the opportunity. We knew that when we got elected, we were going to have to do something about it.

We also realized that we could do one of two things: We could follow the approach that was the hallmark of the previous government; or we could take our time, we could do it properly, we could consult, we could work with communities, we could work with industry, we could work with the sector that helped build a strong Ontario, and step by step we could unravel the bad policies that were put in place, make those policies that did work—because there were a few that did work—better, reduce the costs to our taxpayers, to our ratepayers, and really sit down with our small, medium and large job creators and find out how we could do things better.

That’s what we are doing. That’s what we are doing with this bill. It follows on the work that we already did on the green energy file and on the Green Energy Act, and I’ll talk a little bit about that later on. It follows, of course, on the immediate work that the Premier, the cabinet and the government caucus worked on with respect to eliminating contracts for power that we didn’t need. As I said, this is the next step.

This particular bill focuses on three areas. It focuses on energy conservation; it focuses on modernizing the Ontario Energy Board—the first two areas that we talked about; it talks about changes to the rate structure and how we finance some of the bad policies that were brought in by the previous Liberal government.

Let’s start talking a little bit about some of the elements of the bill. One of the first things that you’ll see in the bill—and I think it’s critical to how we move forward—is how we deal with energy conservation. No doubt, there is a role for conservation in the energy sector. It is important. It’s something that consumers and all of us focus on daily. Part of the reason why we focus on it so much is because the horrifying cost of electricity that was brought on by the previous government forced Ontarians into looking at different alternatives.

There are some programs that work, and there are many others that don’t work, and that’s what the government has looked at. We looked at how the financing of this was handled. Under this bill, we’re eliminating those energy conservation programs that don’t make sense; that cost too much; that cost ratepayers more than the benefit that we get back.

Madam Speaker, we’re focusing our efforts on low-income and Indigenous communities because we know there is still work to be done there. We know there is still work to be done in low-income and Indigenous communities, so we’re going to continue to focus our energy conservation efforts there.

We’re also working closely with our small, medium and large job creators because we also understand that there is work to be done there. Obviously, despite the fact that we’ve had tremendous job gains since this government took office—built in part by the hard work, for instance, of the member for Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill and the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade—removing red tape is extraordinarily important. But obviously the high cost of energy is something that we all, on both sides of the House, continue to hear about, and we all focus on that. So we’re working closely with that sector as well.

What we’re doing in the bill—as you know, Madam Speaker, we’ve decided that we have to centralize some of these energy conservation programs. We’ve decided we have to eliminate, as I said, the ones that don’t make sense and focus on where the demand is greatest, where the need is greatest, on programs that actually work. We’ve done that. But we’ve also lifted the program up to the IESO.

The reason we’ve done that is so that we could centralize and have a more focused program, a program that allows our local distribution companies access, and we can work through the IESO so that demand and conservation work together and not against each other, as we have seen in the past. Now, the result of this is going to be a savings, colleagues, of some $440 million—$440 million. Some will say that it seems to be, you know, common sense that conservation would work closely with generation so that trying to do the right thing doesn’t cost you money. That’s what we’re doing. So it’s a very, very important step.

Now, when you talk about transitioning this program, Madam Speaker, let’s look at some of the benefits of transitioning this program. It’s estimated that by doing this, some of our small, medium, and in particular our medium and large job creators, which we all fight for—in all of our communities, we fight for small, medium and large job creators. But it’s estimated that somewhere between $15,000 and $30,000 a month could be saved by some of our largest electricity users. Think about that for a minute, Madam Speaker. Think about that for a minute: $15,000 to $30,000, not a year, but a month—a month. Think of how many jobs that alone creates.

We have talked a lot about GM, General Motors, in this House. I know, Madam Speaker, you have, obviously, a tremendous passion for your community, and you’ve been fighting very hard, and I commend you on that. But think of what that means to a large consumer like General Motors. Think of what the savings for them will be. Imagine working with our largest job creators to bring down their costs so that they can invest in Ontario, so that they can create jobs, so that they can support our communities. But then think about the fact that for 15 years we put obstacles in the way of doing that very thing.

Well, Madam Speaker, and I know colleagues will agree with me, GM is not just Oshawa-based. While we want to do the best for the workers in Oshawa—and we will; that’s why we’re working so hard to create jobs and to get out of the way so that our small, medium and large job creators can create jobs—it completely ignores the fact that across this province—General Motors, for instance, employs over 5,000 people, and in communities like St. Catharines, they employ people. Across this province, they’re building engines. But it’s not just in General Motors. It’s not just for General Motors. It’s all the subsidiaries.

The member for Markham–Unionville is here. In his riding, there is a medium-sized manufacturer who has suffered greatly under the impact of high energy costs; barely able to make ends meet because of the cost of high energy prices, not to mention all of the red tape, all of the forms that they have to fill in, the job-killing bills that were brought forward by the previous Liberal-NDP coalition.

Some 70 employees at this facility: Do you know what they do? They compete to build parts for General Motors. They’ve built parts for them in the past. Some of those parts, colleagues, make it on to vehicles that, in all honesty, were built or are built in Mexico, but the parts are made here, shipped to Mexico by workers who live in Markham, go to school in Markham, raise their children in Markham, go to the same arenas and grocery stores that we go to.

I had the opportunity to sit down with their chief designer, a fabulous guy by the name of Eddie Ribeiro. He works very hard. He called me because he had heard that the city of Toronto had passed a motion—I believe it was the city of Toronto he was talking about—to ban the purchase of vehicles from General Motors. We had a very long conversation as to what that would mean for them. What would that mean for them if they did this? As I said, a little over 70 employees. He spends a great deal of his time—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I recognize the member from Sudbury on a point of order.

Mr. Jamie West: With respect to the member from Markham–Stouffville, I’m excited to learn about this plan for energy. I don’t understand what auto parts and auto—is it coming back to electricity? Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I will remind all members to speak to the piece of legislation before them—and to make his remarks germane to the bill.

Mr. Paul Calandra: And I appreciate it. I think that really highlights the problem that we have in government, doesn’t it? How does energy conservation and how does the high cost of energy relate to people making auto parts? Well, of course it does. When the price of energy is so high, guess what happens to that company in Markham? They can’t afford to make parts. They lose employees.

When we have ridiculous motions like we saw at the city of Toronto to ban the purchase of cars from Mexico, guess who suffers? Chief designers like Eddie Ribeiro, the people who are working on the assembly line at this Markham manufacturer, the over 1,000 people expected to be working in the member for Markham–Thornhill’s riding at the GM engineering centre: That’s who suffers when we don’t look at government as a whole, and that’s what we are doing.

So when we talk about energy conservation, when we talk about removing $15,000 to $30,000 a month from the bill of our small, medium and large job creators, this has a huge impact on their ability to create jobs. It has a huge impact on where they decide to make investments. That’s why, in the bill that we brought forward, we took a deep look at energy conservation and we took a deep look at how it could best be delivered.

That’s why, in the bill, we’ve decided to move it to the IESO, to involve the local distribution companies, to eliminate those programs that didn’t make sense, to focus on our Indigenous communities and our low-income Ontarians, and to bring better value for money in those programs.

I appreciate the intervention of the honourable gentleman and I thank him for allowing me—probably just allowing me—to better correlate the two. I do appreciate him giving me that opportunity.

So we move a bit further. I want to get into the OEB for a little bit, the Ontario Energy Board. We are making some changes here, obviously. If there is one board that requires change, it is the Ontario Energy Board. As much as the previous government deserved to be changed, the Ontario Energy Board really is another one of those elements, a vestige of the previous Liberal-NDP coalition, that requires some massive modification.

Ontarians have lost their trust in the OEB. They have lost their faith in the OEB. Every time they open their bill, they are frustrated. And you know what? It’s not on the local distribution companies. It’s not on my—Stouffville is serviced by Hydro One and Alectra in Markham. I know that others—I’m not sure, Mississauga—

Interjection: Alectra.

Mr. Paul Calandra: Alectra as well. They’re not angry at Alectra; they’re not angry at our local distribution companies, because they understand it’s reliable. They do a good job. When you turn on the lights, for the most part, it’s there. When there’s an outage because of a storm, they’re there. The people who work for our local distribution companies work hard. The people who work the lines work hard and they are doing a great job. But again, ideological decisions by the previous government have caused people to have lost faith, so we are making changes to the Ontario Energy Board in this bill.

Madam Speaker, as you look through the bill, you’ll see that we want to maintain—we want to restore the independence—I shouldn’t say “maintain,” but we want to restore the independence of the Ontario Energy Board, and that’s what this bill does. We separate the adjudication functions from the administrative functions, and that’s important. It’s important because not only does there need to be oversight but there needs to be a clear delineation between the two.

We have heard time and time and time again of the outrageous amount of paperwork that is required for OEB decisions. Time and time again, we’ve had local distribution companies come to us and tell us that for even the smallest of applications, thousands of pages have to be put together; thousands of hours have to be utilized in order to get even the simplest of decisions. Obviously, that is unacceptable to the government. I think it’s frankly unacceptable to all of us in the House. None of us want our distribution companies—those costs are our costs, let’s not forget.

When we ask a local distribution company to come before the OEB and they have to provide 100,000 pages of documents, it’s us who are paying for it. It’s ratepayers who end up paying for it. That’s why this bill is making changes to the Ontario Energy Board.

As I said, we’re separating the administrative functions from the adjudication functions. We’re streamlining the process. We’ve heard time and time again, as the members on this side of the House and Conservatives on the other side of the House have been going across the province and in their ridings talking about red tape, how we can make things better for small, medium and large job creators. We’ve also heard from our local distribution companies, the people who provide hydro, that we had to do something with respect to the Ontario Energy Board, and we are. We’re moving forward with very important changes. I think the results of that will speak for themselves in the coming months.

It’s something that we heard—not only us; we heard for a number of years that something had to be done, and the government has listened and we’re moving forward with those changes. We’ve heard from stakeholders that they really wanted us to focus on independence but also making decisions faster, clearer, easier to understand—the requirements that companies that are appearing in front of the OEB—so that they understand what it is that they are required to present and it is a more focused decision-making process. We’ve done that.

I’m very excited by this because it’s part of restoring people’s confidence, not only in government but in the institutions that support government. That is just so important for Ontarians. So that is the next step in this bill.

But we also have to look at other aspects. Colleagues on both sides of the House will recall, during the last election when we knocked on doors, the fury over hydro prices. I’ve often talked about individuals—I’ve talked about my own father-in-law, an 88-year-old retired Presbyterian pastor who doesn’t focus on government too often, but when it came to hydro prices, he knew all about it. He was frustrated and he was angered by it. Make no mistake about it: People don’t differentiate; they want governments to do something about it. Whilst it was the Liberals that led us into this, they want us to fix it.

We’ve heard, from previous bills that we brought before the House—and I’m willing to bet, colleagues, that we’re going to hear it very soon again: The NDP are going to tell us that we own this; it’s now ours. In a very real way, it is. But do you know why? Because we fought for the opportunity to fix it. That’s what we did. When you fight so hard to get something, you do it because you want to fix it.

I can appreciate that this is lost, perhaps, on the NDP because they’ve only had the honour of serving in government once. I think we would all agree that it was probably the most disastrous close to five years in the history of this province. As disastrous as the Liberals have been, the record of horror under—I’ve said this a few times—Bob Rae, who I like personally, really pushed me to get into government, to be honest with you. I was so angry and frustrated by the horror of the Bob Rae NDP government that he motivated me to run.

Truth be told, when I got elected to the federal Parliament and I saw Bob Rae, I did take the opportunity to go over and tell him, “You motivated me to run.” He’s a really nice guy, though; I’ve got to be honest with you. He’s a very nice person. I liked him a lot. But by gosh, that five years was a horrible five years, wasn’t it, colleagues? We all remember that. Whether you were a small business owner, whether you were a student, whether you were in health care or whether you were in municipal government, it was a disastrous five years. It really was.

Mrs. Nina Tangri: Rae days.

Mr. Paul Calandra: Yes, Rae days. If you were a public servant, you got stuck with Rae days and they forced you not to work. If you were in health care, they closed hospital floors. They closed floors of hospitals, colleagues. That was their solution to health care. You remember this. They closed hospital floors—still paid for the lights, paid for the hydro and paid for the beds, but they thought, if they closed the floor nobody would notice that there were no nurses.

Mr. Jamie West: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I recognize the member from Sudbury on a point of order.

Mr. Jamie West: The same concern as prior: I don’t see how this relates to electricity. If we want, we can discuss how Mike Harris also closed hospitals.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Thank you. I will remind the member, who does indeed have the floor, that his remarks have to be consistent with the bill, which is pertinent to energy. As I look at the bill, I’ll encourage the member to stay the course.

Mr. Paul Calandra: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do promise you—I have 33 minutes, so I want to take the time to truly explain how it all comes together. As I said earlier, I think when we rush things in this place, when we rush policy, that’s where we run into mistakes.

The member opened the door to allow me to talk a little bit about the Mike Harris government, so I’m going to take that opportunity to talk about the Mike Harris government. How does health care relate to energy? Well, guess what? Our hospitals pay for hydro. And guess what? They’re struggling to pay their bills. Do you know why? Because of the mess. On April 1, they’re going to struggle even more because of a carbon tax by the Trudeau Liberals. They’re going to really struggle. We heard just this morning that there was a poll in the Toronto Star of how stressed out Ontarians are by the increasing costs to them.

The member brought up Mike Harris—not the great Mike Harris that we have sitting here from Kitchener, but another Mike Harris, a Premier. It relates back to energy, and I’m going to explain to you how it all relates back to energy. I’m going to explain it to you now. I appreciate the honourable member; I know he’s raising these points in good faith because he wants to see the connection. As I said, under the Bob Rae government we had hospital closures—not hospital closures, but floors. We have constantly heard this refrain for I don’t know how long: Mike Harris closed hospitals.

But when you look, did Mike Harris close hospitals? No, colleagues, he didn’t close hospitals. You know what he closed? He merged boards.

I used to live for a short period of time in Scarborough. Our local hospital was called Centenary hospital. Well, guess what? Apparently, Centenary hospital was closed. You know why? Because its board merged with Ajax hospital to become the Rouge Valley hospital. So if you’re sick, you can still go to what used to be called Centenary hospital in Scarborough or you can go to the Ajax hospital. Both still exist. Both provide excellent care. Thanks to Progressive Conservative governments, they have been expanded and invested in. But the NDP, in their accounting, call that a closed hospital. Why?

Because we had the audacity—Mike Harris had the audacity—to merge and reduce the bureaucracy. Wow, holy mackerel. What we did here, colleagues, is we created efficiencies, created a better hospital. And why did we merge those two boards together? I’m getting around to the point, Madam Speaker. Why did we merge those two hospitals together? Because they’re connected communities. They were connected communities that worked together often. That’s why we merged those two hospital boards together.

Fast-forward to today—in fact, a few years ago—when we started hearing from communities across the province, from hospitals, from schools, from the boards of education. In fact, I think it was the mayor of Oshawa who, if I recall, sent out a letter to the previous energy minister, and I think—and please correct me, colleagues from Durham, if I’m wrong on this. I recall that he sent a letter explaining how difficult it was becoming to provide services to the people of the city because the cost of keeping the lights on was increasing so much. Imagine, communities were starting to worry.

You’ve heard it from us a lot: You had to choose between heating and eating. But now we were having communities tell us, “We can’t afford to keep the street lights on.” It’s not because we were under-taxing or the community was wasting money. It’s not because it wasn’t being run properly. It’s because provincial government had made a decision without any regard to what impact that would have in other jurisdictions.

We saw this through the green energy program as well, didn’t we? We saw this through the Green Energy Act. People come to us and say, “It was short-sighted to cancel the green energy contracts. Why would you have cancelled 700 contracts for power that we didn’t need?” Well, because it was power we didn’t need, and it was almost $1 billion worth of contracts that we couldn’t afford for power we didn’t need. But the most egregious part of that was that it was done without the consent of our local municipal partners.

And across the province, I don’t think our municipal friends had been more angry as they had been with what was the Green Energy Act. You see time and time again: a windmill and an unwilling host; windmill, unwilling host; windmill, unwilling host. But did it matter? No, it didn’t matter.

We said when we got into government that we have to do something about how the previous Liberal government financed their schemes in hydro. We all knew. The Auditor General herself—I’ll read a quote, if I can. This is from the Auditor General’s report in 2017. She said that “it was known that the planned financing structure” undertaken by the former Liberal government “could result in significant unnecessary costs for Ontarians.”

She went on to say, “The substance of the issue is straightforward. Ratepayers’ hydro bills will be lower than the cost of the electricity used as a result of the electricity rate reduction. However, power generators will still be owed the full cost of the electricity they supply, so the government needs to borrow cash to cover the shortfall to pay them.”

We all knew that. We all thought that. We all heard about that. The Auditor General and the FAO were very clear that the program that the previous Liberal government had put in place was not in the best interests of Ontario taxpayers. Forget the fact, just for a moment, Madam Speaker, that their policies led to horrifying job losses in the manufacturing sector, led to shaken business confidence; all small, medium and large job creators were in fear of making investments in the province. Forget that. If you put all of that aside—obviously you shouldn’t, but if you put all of that aside, at its core, the programs that were created in the dying days of the previous Liberal government—

Interjection.

Mr. Paul Calandra: Bless you, member for Peterborough, who had a very successful night, I’m told, at the Special Hockey Day. So congratulations to the member.

They went into panic mode, and we see this all the time with Liberals, don’t we? We see it right now federally. My gosh, they get themselves into panic mode, right? They get into panic mode. This is what they think: They put all these plans and schemes in place and you hear, “Don’t worry. Forty or 50 years from now, you’ll thank us for doing this.”

Well, 40 or 50 years from now, if we weren’t elected, there would be no ability to pay for anything. But what was most egregious was that they then set up to cover their tracks—thought nobody would notice. Who was going to notice? Nobody would notice. People don’t pay attention. “We can borrow money from here, hide it over here, do three or four”—it was like a Ponzi scheme that they had created: “Confuse people so much and maybe we’ll get around it.”

What we’ve said in this bill is that we have to disentangle this. We sat down and we looked at the reports by the FAO; we sat down and looked at the reports by the Auditor General. We’ve taken them; we listened to them. We said, “Look. In the financing, going forward, for our ability to reduce rates for the Ontario ratepayers, we are going to make it clear, easier to understand, and we are going to listen to the officers of Parliament—the Auditor General and the FAO—and we’re going to make sure that we follow it.”

I know our whip, in particular—just a tower of strength during that. He really set out, often, to us as candidates—if there was any arrogance, I will say, in being a former federal member of Parliament and thinking, “Oh, you know, I have all the answers,” the gentleman from Whitby really helped me understand when I came in, and I know for a lot of my colleagues it was the same thing. You know, he was fighting about—sorry. I’ll just stray a little bit, Madam Speaker, if you’ll forgive me, but it does come back. He was fighting for education. I remember clearly the fight that he was on with education. It was about the costs of education.

Part of the things that he was talking about—he was hearing from boards and administrators across the province that the ability to run schools was becoming extraordinarily challenging, not just because of the policies—again, the ideological policies, on which the debates can wait for another day—but back to the cost of financing and running our education system, the basic building blocks. The member for Whitby was highlighting for us the challenges that people were facing across the province. He and a number of others, as I said, were towers of strength in helping us better understand, as new candidates at the time and as new members, the challenges that we faced.

But we’re going a step further here, too, Madam Speaker. We’re going a step further because we also are going to look at the industrial rate, the—sorry; I’m at a loss for words—rate that our largest industrial consumers pay for hydro. Now, why are we doing that? Obviously, colleagues, we’ve made the first step. We’re bringing down the cost of the bills for our largest consumers, and we’re doing that while holding the line for residential ratepayers. We have to do that, right? We have to do that.

And there are challenges coming forward. We know that April 1—we’re hearing it all the time now. We really are. It’s going to be something, on April 1, when we see the gas prices start to increase by five cents a litre just simply because of a carbon tax, a carbon tax that will have no measureable impact on reducing greenhouse gases. It will have no impact whatsoever on it, in a province that has done a good job of meeting its greenhouse gas targets.

Now, Madam Speaker, I’m going to—it may seem like a stray, but if you’ll forgive me, and I know the member from Sudbury will put me back on track if he thinks I’m straying, as will you, Madam Speaker. But if you’ll forgive me, you will see that there is a correlation between this bill and some of the other things that we are doing. Part of every speech that I’ve given in this House is talking about how government is working together. I know many of the ministers have talked about this in their answers. Government is doing something unique now.

We’re actually working together to address issues, because you can’t work in silos. I know that when the member for Etobicoke Centre comes to me and says that they want to put more money into transit and that we need more subways—well, guess what a subway runs on? It needs electricity to run. So when the member for Etobicoke Centre comes to me and says, “We want to make more investments,” I know that I, as the parliamentary assistant, am going to have to work with other members and other colleagues to bring down the costs so we don’t bankrupt the system before it’s even built, and that’s what we’re doing.

The reason I want to talk a little bit about green energy before I get back into the large ratepayers—we’re so close to April 1. I’m really worried about this, Madam Speaker. I really am. I’m worried about this in a community like Stouffville. We’ve seen big shifts in house pricing over the last little bit. We struggle for infrastructure in terms of transit and transportation. Having said that, I was very excited yesterday when the Minister of Transportation and the parliamentary assistant listened to the members of provincial Parliament from York region. We fought really hard, and they listened and they gave us more GO train service, so I want to thank them for doing that.

The members for Markham–Unionville and Markham–Thornhill and myself have fought really hard for some transit, for some extra GO transit infrastructure, and we got that. We also were fighting for some improved infrastructure. The minister of culture was fighting for some improved infrastructure for the roads, and we got that.

Coming back to what’s about to happen, the carbon tax on the 1st of April: Why we are so frustrated and why we’re so nervous about this, Madam Speaker, is because Ontarians have paid our price, haven’t we? We’ve done our part.

We’re doing our part when it comes to greenhouse gases and meeting our Paris targets. A couple of years ago we were told that meeting the Paris targets was—we had to do it. Come hell or high water, we had to meet those Paris targets. Guess what? Ontario is meeting those targets. How are we doing that, colleagues? The Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, the Premier, and the other members of cabinet and caucus have been focused on this. How can we do this without costing people more money? How can we do this without putting more money onto the hydro ratepayers, as the previous government did?

Do you know how we did it? Again, because of Mike Harris. You know what Mike Harris did? Not this Mike Harris, but I know he’s going to continue on that. Mike Harris decided that we shouldn’t be burning coal anymore, that it was a dirty fuel, that it would not make sense for the province of Ontario to burn coal—it was causing smog days—when we had incredible assets like Bruce Power, Darlington and Pickering. We had to revitalize those assets. We had to bring them back into production and bring them back to efficiency. Premier Mike Harris understood that that was the way to a clean environment.

He also understood that that was the way to baseline, dependable, cheap power—through our nuclear industry. He made those investments.

He made the commitment, and as so often happens—I know, colleagues, sometimes it could be frustrating as Conservatives—the hard work and the lifting is done by a Conservative government and it takes the Liberals so little time to ruin everything that we have done. Whether it’s federally or provincially—I know as a federal government; and my colleagues who were in Parliament—we left a balanced budget. Canadians’ taxes were at the lowest level they had been since the 1950s. Imagine, since the 1950s, we balanced the budget, cut taxes to the lowest since the 1950s.

We made the most massive investments in infrastructure in Canadian history, and in three short years, “sunny ways” has led to “shady ways.” It is a disaster, and guess what? The same crew that was here is actually there.

But it was Premier Mike Harris who set Ontario on the path to a greener economy, a greener future, and a healthier future for all of Ontario, Madam Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Paul Calandra: Yes, I know all sides of the House are clapping for this and they’re excited about it. They’re maybe not so loud in the NDP benches, but I know that they really feel the same way.

The reason that is important, Madam Speaker, is because the previous government thought it would be funny, and that nobody would notice if they tried to hide it on the electricity bills. “We’re going to say we’re doing our part but we’re going to hide it in the electricity bills; nobody is going to notice.” Guess what? When you open your bill and it went from $110 a month to $150 a month, you noticed. And when you’re in a rural area and your bill went from $100 to $700 a month, you know what? You kind of notice. Do you know what you did—what I think everybody would do: You looked and said, “Well, how the heck did that happen?”

So, the first thing you do—I know I’ll take some blame for this. The first thing I do when my hydro bill goes up is I call my daughters down and I say, “Listen, what the heck is going on? Turn the lights off.” I say “close the lights,” but I’m told I’m not supposed to say “close the lights.” It’s not open and close the lights; it’s turn them off. I call them down and I say, “Listen, turn the lights off. You can’t leave the lights on all night. You can’t go to school and have your bedroom light on.” But lo and behold, they then say, “No, it wasn’t me. I had my lights all turned off.”

Then you dig a little deeper. You call your hydro company and say, “What the heck? I know that I’m not using more. I started looking at my results, and what the heck?” The price is going up despite the hard work. I’ve got my timer set to wash my clothes in the middle of the night. I’m getting up at 6 o’clock to put them in the dryer before the rates go up. In the middle of the winter, I’m hanging them all over the basement—we’ve all done this. Your clothes are strewn everywhere. Your kitchen table has clothes—

Mr. Mike Harris: Melanie is really proud of you.

Mr. Paul Calandra: Yes.

They’re strewn everywhere. This has been the reality of the province of Ontario.

One of the wealthiest jurisdictions in the world has been impoverished by dumb decisions.

We have seniors who are getting up in the middle of the night to cook dinner for the next day. This is incredible.

Imagine: You want to have some people over for dinner. Your bill is getting a little bit high. It’s winter, so you’re up all night cooking, you’re freezing it, and then you’re welcoming them the next day. Or you just don’t have people over until it’s summer and you can host them outside, because you can’t afford to cook in the province of Ontario in the wintertime; it’s too expensive for people.

That wasn’t the legacy that Premier Harris, Premier Eves, Premier Miller and all of the Conservative Premiers—Robarts and Davis—left. They left us a strong, stable nuclear sector which was responsible for base—and I know we’re going to hear this a little bit later on, as well. It’s a shame I only have 11 minutes. At the close, I might ask for unanimous consent to continue for another hour, Madam Speaker.

Let’s look at nuclear just for a second, because it ties in to what we are doing in meeting what the FAO and the Auditor General asked government to do very vociferously—and colleagues on both sides know this. We had an electricity sector—and we still do. Our nuclear is providing us with electricity at some of the lowest costs—6.8 cents. That’s what we’re paying. Pickering is running at an efficiency level that is absolutely incredible. This gives us the economic advantage. When you look at Ontario’s nuclear sector, this is clean. This is something we should be proud of. I know that we’re proud of it.

I encourage all members to take a tour of Pickering; if you’ve ever been to the Kennedy Space Center, this is the equivalent. What Ontario has accomplished in nuclear is absolutely incredible. Yes, our American friends might have put rockets in space and a man on the moon, but Ontario has the solution—and we have proven it—to make our environment cleaner.

The reason why we are meeting our targets is not because of silly schemes that we hide on the electricity bill; it’s built on the backs of the men and women in our nuclear sector, and we should be proud of them for that. We should be selling this across the country. We are in the absolutely ridiculous position in this country where we buy energy from other jurisdictions. Imagine, we purchase oil, for example, from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. That’s unacceptable. But when you look at our nuclear, what are they doing? Medical isotopes come from our nuclear. Cobalt-60 and the gamma knife come from nuclear.

When you look at a recent Ontario Chamber of Commerce report, and I encourage all members to get this report, it talks about the massive amount of investment that comes from our nuclear industry—some 60,000 jobs, 700 companies are participating in the refurbishment, $5 billion of economic activity. And what does that give us? It gives us the lowest energy prices in Canada. It helps our small, medium and large job creators. It makes the difference when you’re investing. And do you know what? It is the nuclear industry that killed smog days.

It is the nuclear industry that allowed us to build more transit and transportation. That is the sector that will give us all of the benefits that we need, going forward, and we should be very, very proud of that; I know I am, and I know my colleagues are. Regardless of whether we agree or disagree on it, I would hope that the members opposite would agree that the men and women who work in this sector—it’s something that we should all be proud of.

I know it’s going to probably be referenced and I know some would suggest, on my side, to not talk about it, but I can’t not talk about it. I read yesterday a little bit of the Environmental Commissioner’s report, and I know it will probably come up. If you ever needed to know why we needed to cancel a position, read that report, colleagues. Read that report. In that report, it talks about how some of the things that we’re doing on energy conservation will cost taxpayers. I don’t know where this commissioner has been.

I don’t know what the commissioner has been looking at, but some of the same policies that the commissioner is actually asking us to continue on, some of these inefficient policies, are what have cost Ontario taxpayers billions and billions and billions of dollars. It is what has killed our competitiveness. It’s outrageous. And when you go through some of the findings in this report, as a taxpayer, as a ratepayer, as a small, medium or large job creator, you will look back and you’ll say, “Thank goodness the government had the good sense to eliminate a partisan position,” because that’s what it had become.

I encourage everybody to read some of what the findings are and compare it to what the government has done. You will be frustrated. The one good part of it, which I found really astonishing, was that I believe in the report she did cite the fact that Ontario purchases oil from other jurisdictions.

I have just a few minutes left.

Why does this frustrate me? And it is in the context of this bill. Because we will hear that oil is bad now. We buy oil, colleagues, from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. I don’t know anybody who wants to live in Venezuela right now; I truly don’t. When you see what the socialist government of Venezuela has done to their country, one of the richest countries, flush with oil—they’re impoverished. They don’t have hospitals that function; they don’t have food for their people. They are impoverished.

Interjection.

Mr. Paul Calandra: And we get it from Saudi Arabia.

It would be a lot easier, colleagues, you know—one of the largest owners or suppliers of oil is, guess who? Canada. Guess from where? Alberta and Saskatchewan. I hear this from people: “Why do we not have oil independence right here in the province of Ontario?”

Miss Kinga Surma: A sustainable economy.

Mr. Paul Calandra: Sustainable, from a reliable source, clean. Thankfully, I know that this is something the Premier has been focused on right from the beginning. This is what makes it so good to be a Progressive Conservative in this caucus. It’s not just about lurching from one issue to the next. It’s about four years of government, it’s about looking at what’s best for Ontarians, and it’s about putting together something that is not only good for Ontarians but is good for Canada. The Premier has said we have to tear down interprovincial trade barriers. The Premier has said we want oil.

But there are those, especially in the opposition, who fight against it, that somehow it’s better for our refiners in New Brunswick to be refining foreign oil than it is to be refining Canadian oil. Obviously, I disagree with them there.

Madam Speaker, let me just, again, summarize where we are and where we’ve been and where we’re going. As I said at the beginning, this is another step. We heard yesterday on Bill 66 that it was an omnibus bill—was it yesterday or the day before? Sorry. Now, this is a 28-page bill, colleagues. Bill 66 is a 28-page bill. Imagine that Bill 66—the NDP says it’s an omnibus bill. It’s too much for them. They can’t handle it. It’s too much. But I guarantee you, they’re going to get up and say, “Well, you don’t go far enough.

It’s just another little step.” They’re going to call for omnibus action in energy, but the problem with doing that is that it doesn’t address the infrastructure—not just what creates energy. It doesn’t address the infrastructure deficit that we have in terms of the reliability, and people’s feelings that the government is doing the right things. We have to do things in a structured fashion, and that’s what this bill does.

So the Green Energy Act that we repealed? The reason we did that first was because it was for power that we didn’t need, that people didn’t want, that was too expensive. And we moved forward. We moved forward with the Green Energy Act, making some changes there. We moved forward with Bill 66, making changes there. The minister has moved forward with this bill, and in this bill we start to tackle some of those issues that will give Ontarians more faith and trust in not only government but in the institutions that support it.

We’re listening to the Auditor General and the FAO. That’s why we’re changing and eliminating the Liberal scheme. There’s no point in calling it anything else; it was a scheme. It’s a scheme that cost billions of dollars for Ontarians.

Interjection: It still is.

Mr. Paul Calandra: And it still is, exactly. It’s costing billions of dollars, but what we’re doing will save $4 billion. That’s good news.

We’re transforming the Ontario Energy Board so that it is clear, it is concise, it is dependable and people know what they have to do, so that our distribution companies aren’t spending hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars for hundreds of thousands of pages of reports that it doesn’t need. We’re changing it. We’re making it independent again, separating administration from adjudication. Because that’s the right thing to do.

We’re looking at energy conservation and we’re saying what works and what doesn’t work. The programs that don’t work or have already succeeded to the point that we don’t need them anymore? They’re being eliminated or folded; they’re being brought up to the IESO. In the process of doing that, we are saving $440 million on top of the $4 billion that we’re saving. When taken together, this is an important next step.

Will there be more, Madam Speaker? I know you’ve been waiting for the conclusion to see if there will be more. Yes, there is going to be more.

Interjection: Stay tuned.

Mr. Paul Calandra: Stay tuned, exactly. There is more to come, because you don’t disentangle 15 years of schemes and bad policy overnight. If you do it overnight, guess what? It will be wrong. The hallmark of strong, stable, Progressive Conservative governments for 42 years was doing the right thing—

Mr. Michael Parsa: Common sense.

Mr. Paul Calandra: Common sense, for a change. Doing it right and doing it in a fashion that our partners understand: work with people, work with communities, work with our municipal partners, work with those who are helping to fund the programs and services that we do, and by doing that, the light at the end of the tunnel is finally here. People are optimistic again. They trust their government and they know that we will do all that we can to put more money back in their pockets and give them a strong, stable economy.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Questions and comments?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It’s intriguing to hear the parliamentary assistant talk about this bill. Some of my colleagues intervened about the fact that the parliamentary assistant was meandering all over the global map in his comments, and that’s because in the end there isn’t a lot to talk about with this bill. It’s pretty thin. We’ve got a bill that takes the failed and bankrupt so-called Fair Hydro Plan that the Liberals put forward, a massive borrowing of money to reduce hydro rates, and it’s been whitewashed, it’s been relabelled—given the Premier, I’m sure “labelled” is the correct term—and put back on the table.

We’re going to be borrowing billions of dollars to deal with hydro prices, without actually addressing the underlying problems of privatization, overinvestment in gas plants, a failure to actually assess in a critical way the Liberal business plans on nuclear refurbishment. It is an empty plan.

On top of that, the Ontario Energy Board changes don’t deal with the fundamental problems that we on this side have been raising now, literally, for decades. I referred to the Ontario Energy Board under the Liberals as a glove puppet for the Minister of Energy. It has been downgraded to a sock puppet—so not as fancy, but it’s the same thing. Do you address the fundamental issues as to whether or not the Ontario Energy Board can criticize and assess crazy policies coming forward from the government? The Fair Hydro Plan—there was no hearing when that came forward, the “fair” hydro plan.

The parliamentary assistant can tell us: Would such a crazy plan be subjected to OEB referral or assessment in the future? Not from anything I’ve seen there. However, it does look like there are going to be a lot more positions available for failed Conservative candidates to be appointed to. Instead of a board, we’ve got a board of directors and a commission. To my mind, Speaker, this speaks to a bankruptcy of thought, not to an addressing of the issue.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Deepak Anand: It’s always a pleasure to rise in the House and talk about the wonderful things we do here. What a wonderful morning, listening to the member from Markham–Stouffville on an important issue. Member, I can tell you, we’re willing to listen to you for another hour. You were amazing. You know, I just want to say you are a champion on this file.

Madam Speaker, the question is, why are we talking about it? Why are we talking about this bill? Why are we talking about energy? The reason is because Ontario’s economy relies on energy. It relies on electricity that we produce for goods and services. It’s a $15-billion industry and accounts for 8% of Canada’s GDP. That’s why we’re talking about it.

Bill 87, the Fixing the Hydro Mess Act, is an important piece of legislation. After the previous government neglected their duty to Ontario, they left behind a large mess. Our government is dedicated to working on cleaning up this hydro mess. What we’re trying to do is we’re trying to increase the transparency in our electricity system and make life more affordable for all Ontarians. We made a promise when we got elected to make the province affordable, and that’s what we’re doing. That’s exactly what we’re doing.

We’re making sure that we are having a centralized, conservative approach in order to reduce costs in the inefficient program that the previous government introduced. We need an approach to conservation and energy efficiency that focuses on targeted programs and initiatives that benefit those who really need it.

Madam Speaker, we are going to save $442 million for our taxpayers. We want to create jobs. We believe in prosperity for every Ontarian. These results are based on facts. This is the right thing to do, and I’m thankful to the minister for doing this.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Jamie West: I want to thank the member for Markham–Stouffville, the parliamentary assistant, for his comments. I also want to apologize for interrupting twice. I’m just excited to learn about how we’re going to fix electricity, how we’re going to fix hydro. We began talking about auto parts and Mexico and Bob Rae, and I was lost on it. In one of the comments, he said that the hospitals weren’t closed. The hospital I was born in and many people in Sudbury were born in, Sudbury General Hospital, doesn’t exist anymore. We used to have the General, we used to have Laurentian; now we have Health Sciences North. I know the government is focused on math, so two; take away one; one.

But I am excited about electricity and hydro and how we’re going to fix this because, like all of us, we heard this at the door. All of us heard stories of people waking up in the middle of the night to do laundry or run the dishwasher, hang their clothes and cut costs, and prices going up and up—and it has to get fixed. We know it has to get fixed. That’s why I kept saying, “Let’s get back on track,” because I want to figure out how we’re going to it fix it.

In Sudbury, we’re a mining town—nickel capital of the world. We have the Big Nickel. One of our concerns with mining is the high cost of electricity. You take a smelter like Glencore, who has an electric furnace—imagine tonnes and tonnes of molten metal electrically heated and the cost of electricity that will be.

You take any of our mines—we have dozens of mines in Sudbury. You take any of those mines and you think of the cost of running your hoist, your skip to bring things up and down, to bring the cage to bring the workers down. You think of the cost that it takes to bring ventilation underground. Everything you breathe has to be brought from the surface, and running those fans is their biggest cost. It’s killing us. It’s killing us in the OMA in Ontario to pay for electricity. That’s why I’m excited about this, because it has to be fixed.

I know the government isn’t in favour of electric vehicles, but mining is in favour of electric vehicles because it’s going to reduce health costs for diesel particulate matter when we get rid of diesel equipment. It’s going to reduce the amount of ventilation so they will have to pay less for electricity, bringing air down to replace the air that’s being used by diesel equipment.

It’s very important, and I apologize again to the member for interrupting.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further questions and comments?

M me Gila Martow: On parle ce matin au sujet du soi-disant « plan d’hydro équitable ». L’adjoint parlementaire vient de nous parler—il est aussi mon voisin, le deputé de Markham–Stouffville, juste à côté, dans la région de York, à côté de ma circonscription de Thornhill. On comprend qu’on veut améliorer la transparence et la responsabilité de notre gouvernement. C’était notre plan, c’était une promesse et c’est ce dont on discute aujourd’hui. On travaille très, très fort pour le faire.

On sait que tous les francophones en Ontario sont comme nous autres. Les familles sont inquiètes de leurs emplois futurs et des emplois futurs de leurs enfants et de leurs petits-enfants aussi. Elles sont inquiètes du coût de la vie et aussi du coût de l’électricité ici en Ontario. L’adjoint parlementaire a discuté de nos métros—on dit « subways » en anglais, mais on dit métro à Montréal et en Europe. Les métros fonctionnent avec de l’électricité. On vient d’entendre que pour notre « mining sector » aussi, ça prend de l’électricité.

Alors, ce ne sont pas seulement nos maisons et nos écoles et ici à la législature. Ça prend de l’électricité pour avoir une bonne vie pour nos employeurs, nos employés et toutes les familles ici en Ontario. Alors on travaille, et on devrait travailler peut-être plus fort, pour être certain que le futur de l’Ontario sera très, très fort.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I return to the member from Markham–Stouffville for his two-minute reply.

Mr. Paul Calandra: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thank all of my colleagues for their comments.

To the member for Sudbury, you probably know that the hospitals were merged in the 1990s, but the hospital that you referenced was closed, actually, in 2010 by the previous Liberal government.

Having said that, I want to focus a bit more on what the member for Sudbury said. I appreciate all of the comments from my colleagues, but I think the member for Sudbury really hit the nail on the head in terms of what we want to accomplish and why it is so important that we begin to disentangle what we saw in the energy sector by the previous Liberal government. When he talks about mining and the importance of mining and job creation in Sudbury, he’s right; he’s not wrong.

When you look throughout the north, he’s right; they’re not wrong: It’s hydro, it’s the cost of electricity, that has stood in the way of so much of what is happening and what could happen in unleashing the potential of the north.

We have people coming to us, saying that they want to set up, but it’s the unreliability of the infrastructure in the north that we have to focus on, and we’ll do that. We’ll have disagreements, I’m sure, on how we get there, but ultimately, we all agree on the fact that we’ve got to bring more jobs and opportunity. It’s the way we’ll pay for the hospitals. It’s the way we’ll pay for education.

When the member talks about electric vehicles, it’s not that we’re against electric vehicles; I drive one myself. But we have to have the infrastructure in place so that we can actually charge the vehicles in the north. It is the right way to move, but it has to be affordable. It has to be done in a way that Ontarians can afford; it has to be transparent.

By working with members such as yourself and members from all caucuses, we can unleash the potential in the north. We can work on improving our mining infrastructure. We can improve and reduce the cost to our taxpayers and our ratepayers. I know, fundamentally, that’s what we want to accomplish.

I appreciate that you brought me back on track when I strayed, and I guarantee you that we will continue to work not only for the people of Sudbury but all of the north to get this done.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Thank you.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Seeing the time on the clock, this House stands in recess until 10:30 today.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I would like to begin by introducing some very special guests who are with us in the Speaker’s gallery: my riding office staff team, one of whom has worked with me for almost 29 years, which has to be a record of patience: Judy Brownrigg, Karen Thomas, Janice Howie and Marnie Mainland. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Monte McNaughton: I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park today Danielle Marie Wood, who is from London. Danielle has been shadowing me this morning. She’s also the daughter of Robert Wood, who is up in the Queen’s Park press gallery this morning, from Loonie Politics. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Judith Monteith-Farrell: I’d like to welcome four Thunder Bay OPSEU members who work for corrections: Brad Slobodian, Joe Lozer, Ed Arvelin and Mike Lundy.

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: I’d like to welcome the Honourable Peter Van Loan to Queen’s Park today.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: All the way from Timmins, we have people from corrections here who are OPSEU members: Chantal Breton, Ken Steinbrunner, Wayne Stack and Chris Jackel.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Please join me in welcoming Mike Lundy, the OPSEU co-chair of the health and safety committee in corrections, and Chris Jackel, corrections officer co-chair of the ministry employee relations committee, or MERC, as we like to call it. They are joined by excellent corrections staff from across Ontario, here today for their lobby day. Thank you, and welcome.

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: I’d like to welcome Rachel Ginsberg, a University of Toronto social work student.

Mr. Jamie West: Along with my colleagues, I want to welcome OPSEU corrections here—in particular, friends of mine whom I’ve known for years: J.L. Roy, Ken Steinbrunner and Len Elliott.

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: It gives me great pleasure to welcome Laurie Nancekivell and Len Elliott from London, as well as Eddy Almeida and Warren “Smokey” Thomas, as well as all of the OPSEU members who work in corrections. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I know that we’re welcoming folks from corrections today but specifically those on the MERC team, and health and safety: Chris Jackel, Chad Oldfield, Scott McIntyre—of course—Mike Lundy, Gord Kiernan, Janet Laverty and everyone else who does important work across the province. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Chris Glover: I’d like to welcome to the House Ronny Yaron, from my home riding of Spadina–Fort York.

Premier’s comments

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I wish to call the House’s attention to what I’m about to say. Yesterday, March 27, 2019, at 9:50 a.m., the member for Timmins, Mr. Bisson, submitted a notice of his intention to raise a question of privilege. The notice alleges that an answer given by the Premier during question period on December 5, 2018, was deliberately misleading and therefore a contempt of the House. The government House leader, Mr. Smith, Bay of Quinte, also provided me with a written submission in response to the notice that the member for Timmins sent to my office. I am now prepared to rule on the matter without hearing further from the members, as standing order 21(

d) permits me to do.

The member for Timmins, in his notice, alleges that the Premier’s response—that the Premier was not involved in the appointment of Ron Taverner as OPP commissioner, found on page 2815 of the debates of December 5, 2018—was contradicted by the Integrity Commissioner’s report of March 20, 2019.

The notice further alleges that the Integrity Commissioner found that the Premier’s staff and the former secretary of cabinet were involved in the appointment process and that the principle of ministerial responsibility stipulates that the Premier must therefore have had knowledge of this and thereby could not lay claim to having had no involvement in the process whatsoever.

I wish to first comment again on the importance of timeliness when raising a question of privilege or contempt. These questions must be brought to the House at the first available opportunity. As the fifth edition of Beauchesne’s Parliamentary Rules and Forms states on page 25, “Even a gap of a few days may invalidate the claim.”

I also refer members to Speaker Levac’s ruling of April 21, 2015, on page 267 of the Journals, where he categorically rejected a notice to raise a question of privilege because it related to events from four days previous and therefore did not meet the test for timeliness.

The issues raised by the member for Timmins relate to the Integrity Commissioner’s report from seven days ago. I have serious concerns about the timeliness of this notice; however, I will address the substance of the notice this time. But having just now reminded the House of the timeliness requirement, I want to make it clear that it is very unlikely that I will be presupposed to be so accommodating in the future.

I now turn to the test for determining when a member has deliberately misled the House. Previous Speakers have adopted and enunciated the McGee test for determining whether a member has deliberately misled the House. The test is set out on page 775 of the fourth edition of McGee’s Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand as follows:

“There are three elements to be established when an allegation is made against a member regarding the member’s statement: the statement must, in fact, have been misleading; the member must have known that the statement was inaccurate at the time the statement was made; and the member must have intended to mislead the House.”

As Speaker Carr elaborated on June 17, 2002, on page 102 of the Journals: “The threshold for finding a prima facie case of contempt against a member of the Legislature, on the basis of deliberately misleading the House, is therefore set quite high and is very uncommon. It must involve a proved finding of an overt attempt to intentionally mislead the Legislature. In the absence of an admission from the member accused of the conduct, or of tangible confirmation of the conduct, independently proved, a Speaker must assume that no honourable members would engage in such behaviour or that, at most, inconsistent statements were the result of inadvertence or honest mistake.”

This ruling was followed by Speaker Levac on April 29, 2014, on page 422 of the Journals.

It’s important to note that the member for Timmins does not allege that the Premier was involved in the appointment process, nor does the member allege that the Premier had actual knowledge of the actions of his staff and the former secretary of cabinet, only that the principle of ministerial responsibility stipulates that the Premier has knowledge of these actions, even if only vicariously.

In my view, the McGee test requires the member to have actual knowledge that a statement was inaccurate at the time that the statement was made. If a member does not know that a statement was inaccurate, I cannot see how that member could have been found to have overtly and intentionally misled the House. Furthermore, to find that stipulated knowledge can form an adequate basis for contempt would contradict Speaker Carr’s ruling that an admission or tangible confirmation is usually required for such a finding.

Furthermore, the principle of ministerial responsibility as described on page 30 of the third edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice only requires ministers to be accountable for their staff’s actions. The principle does not stipulate that ministers have knowledge of their staff’s actions at all times.

Finally, even if the Integrity Commissioner’s finding did contradict the Premier’s statement, I am not convinced that there is adequate, tangible evidence to support a finding of prima facie contempt. Therefore, I do not find that a prima facie case of contempt has been established.

I want to thank the member for Timmins for his submission and the government House leader for his response.

Oral Questions

Public transit

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My first question is to the Premier. Yesterday, the Premier revealed his intention to scrap long-established plans for GTA transit projects, some of which are already under way. Can the Premier share with us what estimates the government or Metrolinx have provided with regard to how much this rewrite of plans will delay these projects?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, we have been waiting for decades—10, 20, 30 years—to get transit built in this city and into the GTA. Finally, we have a government that is listening to the people. We’re going to deliver transit faster, better and less expensively than any time before. We need to get the city moving. We need to get the GTA moving. People need to get to work. They need to get to school.

We will build a transit system like this province has never seen before. We’re putting tens of billions of dollars—tens of billions of dollars—into the largest infrastructure transit plan ever in North America. We look forward to having the Leader of the Opposition on the new subway trains. We’ll go from one end to the other, and I just can’t wait until we get it built. We’ll get the shovels in the ground.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The city of Toronto has estimated that moving the Eglinton West LRT line underground would add as much as $1.32 billion to the cost of that project, and that’s just one of the projects that the Premier is tinkering with.

Can he tell us how much the people of Ontario will be paying for his rewrite of plans for projects that are already under way?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for York Centre will come to order.

Premier, respond.

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: We aren’t going to make the same mistake that the Liberals and the NDP have done in the past when they built the Spadina line. Just the stations alone ran over $1.2 billion.

We have a fiscally prudent minister—as a matter of fact, the best Minister of Transportation you could ever ask for. I love the Minister of Transportation when he comes up to me yesterday saying, “We have so many projects on the go, so many announcements, fixing transportation infrastructure around this province.”

We’re going to just hit them one after the other after the other, no matter if it’s the $1.2 billion that we invested in Ottawa for their LRT that’s going to go 44 kilometres and 25 stops—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Response.

Hon. Doug Ford: Thank you.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Final supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, everyone from transit experts to the city of Toronto itself say that rewriting transit plans, especially when projects are already well under way, will inevitably add billions more in costs and more delays. And it’s families across Ontario that will be stuck paying the bill and waiting in gridlock.

Is the Premier hiding those details or does he just not know how much it’s going to cost and how much longer it’s going to take?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition I’m sure is not worried about other areas of this great province, but the people of Etobicoke and Scarborough and the downtown relief line—that’s over a million people that have been ignored.

The people of Scarborough, the Scarborough line, since I was there, has been changed 11 times—11 times—and hundreds of millions of dollars have been wasted. In the last nine years, when we got it approved by the federal and provincial governments and the municipality—there are no shovels in the ground. There’s none whatsoever.

Now we’re going to get the shovels in the ground. We’re going to make sure that we have an Eglinton line that extends all the way out west, not to ignore the 350,000 people in Etobicoke and then the 630,000 people that live in Scarborough that have been starved for transit. Help is on its way.

Public transit

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. Speaking of the relief line, the Premier has indicated that he plans to use a so-called alternative delivery method for Toronto’s long-awaited and desperately needed relief line.

Can the Premier tell us whether “alternative” in this case is another term for privatization?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: It’s not another terminology for privatization. It’s about technology. I know maybe the opposition wants to live in the past, in the antiquated system, but there’s new technology that’s out there all around the world. We have a great minister, we have a great head of Metrolinx, we have an incredible minister of Infrastructure Ontario: That’s why we can deliver it, again, faster, better and less expensively. We are going to build the greatest downtown relief line. As a matter of fact, when they showed me the plan, my jaw dropped.

I thought, “Wow, this is thinking outside the box.” Again: less expensive, faster and better. That’s what the people of Ontario and the GTA are going to look forward to.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The city of Toronto and TTC officials say the province has “not given us any specifics whatsoever” about what the plans entail, what it’s going to cost and how much the new plans will delay this long-awaited project. The Globe and Mail calls the Premier’s plan a “scheme so ill-considered it could have been developed between courses of a boozy lunch....”

Can the Premier tell us when the relief line will be completed under his new scheme and who will own it—or does he even know?

Hon. Doug Ford: Boy, the Globe and Mail. That’s amazing. “A boozy lunch”: I don’t even drink, Mr. Speaker, so it must have been a lot of booze at that lunch.

Through you, Mr. Speaker: We are going to get transit built, plain and simple. We’re going to build subways. People want subways. We’re thinking 50 years down the road. We don’t think about a band-aid solution for five years or 10 years. We’re going to build an incredible transit system. When you go on the subway, you see that same transit plan that’s been around since I’ve been in high school, the one line, then another line up. We’re going to have lines all over the GTA, all over Toronto.

We’re having a line going up to Richmond Hill, we’re having one going out to the airport, we’re having people in Scarborough getting transit, and we’re going to have a spectacular, spectacular downtown relief line.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The people of Toronto deserve an end to gridlock, but the Globe and Mail and other transit experts say that the provincial blueprint will result in less new transit built more slowly and more expensively. All the Premier is offering with his rewrite is more delay, higher costs and another generation stuck waiting for reliable transit—and he won’t even tell the people of Ontario, the ones paying the bill, Speaker, how much it’s going to cost in time and how long it will be delayed. When are we going to get those details from the Premier of this province?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members please take their seats.

Premier.

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: I just can’t wait until the minister unveils this plan. It’s absolutely incredible. I’m biting my tongue today. It’s going to be so exciting. It’s going to serve millions of people around Toronto and the GTA.

When you go on the street and you talk to people, they tell you, “I don’t care who builds it; we need it built.” For the last 30 years we’ve seen nothing built. We saw one line built and it went billions of dollars over budget. Again, when we have a prudent fiscal conservative like the Minister of Transportation watching every single penny, it’s going to be on time, on budget, faster, cheaper, and it’s going to be better—the best transit system you’ve ever seen.

Autism treatment

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Premier. Last night, the assembly passed a motion put forward by the member for Hamilton Mountain calling on the government to scrap their scheme to remove support for Ontario’s children with autism and develop a new plan, in consultation with parents, that meets the needs of children and is evidence-based. Will the Premier abide by the majority vote that was taken here in the Legislature yesterday afternoon?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Thank you very much, Premier, for the opportunity to respond to this. We announced last week that we were going to listen and consult with parents and experts to bring in a strong needs-based model, which is what the motion called for. We felt that in the spirit of the request the opposition had asked for, based on the announcements that we had made the week before, we’re in alignment.

Our hope, and why we thought it was important for this debate yesterday to be respectful, was to take the temperature down and not continue to fan the flames of rhetoric, which the opposition has been doing for the past six weeks.

We feel that our plan, which will be implemented on April 1, will clear the wait-list of 23,000 children in the next 18 months. We’re going to a direct funding model. We are going to extend a grace period of an additional six months for existing contracts. We’re going to expand the choice of what parents can spend their annual child budget on, and we’re going to remove the income test. I don’t know what the opposition could argue with.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, even members of the Premier’s own party were unwilling to stand and defend the Ford government’s plan last night. They know that the Premier and the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services’ plan is an indefensible disaster. That’s the problem. That’s what parents know, that’s what we know and that’s what we talked about yesterday afternoon: to try to derail that disaster and put something else in place that actually does the job for families and children with autism.

Will the Premier listen to the advice of parents, the experts and the members of this assembly, stop defending the indefensible and develop an entirely new plan that is truly evidence-based and meets children’s needs?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members take their seats.

The question has been referred to the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Thanks to the Premier of our province, we’ll now be spending more money on autism services than anywhere else in Canada or North America, with an over $600-million budget in this ministry alone. We’re going to continue to work with the Minister of Education, as well as the Minister of Health, to expand our services so that we have better wraparound supports in place.

But I have to ask the New Democrats, when we came forward with the plan that was based on severity of need and based on consultation, and answered their request in their opposition day motion, which they acknowledged yesterday in their speeches, why they can’t take yes for an answer?

They were supportive of clearing the wait-list until this government made that commitment. They were supportive of going to a direct funding model until this government made a decision to do that. They were supportive of expanding choice until this government made the decision. They didn’t like the income test; we removed it. They’ve asked us to consult parents; we’re doing that. Why can’t they take yes for an answer, Speaker? That’s the question.

Police services

Mrs. Nina Tangri: My question is for the Premier. Our government for the people has remained committed to public safety across this great province. The daily duties of a police officer are dangerous, and the brave men and women of our police services deserve our respect and support.

The previous Liberal government’s legislation, Bill 175, represented a significant step backwards for policing in Ontario at a time when the government, the police and the people should have been partners in the name of public safety. It demonstrated to the people of Ontario that the previous Liberal government did not respect the work police do to keep us all safe.

Mr. Speaker, could the Premier please explain how the Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act will make Ontario safer and treat police with fairness and respect?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: I want to thank the champion from Mississauga-Milton—an incredible, incredible MPP, just an absolute champion.

The Liberals and the NDP, if they had it their way, today the people of Ontario would be living with a deeply flawed piece of legislation that ignored the everyday realities of the difficulties when it comes to the jobs of our dedicated police officers, our hard-working men and women who put their lives on the line every single day to make our communities safer. The least thing we could do—all parties—is support our police.

We know we support the police. I can’t say the same for the other parties. But when it comes to Bill 175, it shows very clearly that we’re going to support our police across this province, because we have—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mrs. Nina Tangri: I thank the Premier for his support of our men and women in uniform.

Over the past 15 years, we witnessed the previous Liberal government fail to respect the profession of policing. It is great to see our government act on its commitment to restore the relationship between the government, the police and the people to one of mutual respect. As a member of this government for the people, I am proud to stand here today and know that we have kept another promise we made to the people of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, could the Premier please tell us more about how our government’s Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act will provide better support to our police officers and keep the people of Ontario safe?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: I have to apologize. I said Mississauga-Milton. I meant Mississauga–Streetsville. I apologize to the MPP.

My friends, it’s very clear. It’s very clear that the police need our support. You see, they need support nowhere else more than in mental health. When I sat down with the OPP association—there were about 50 members. They weren’t asking for more money, they weren’t asking for anything else; they were asking for support in mental health.

We have seen over the last year, Mr. Speaker, eight OPP officers take their own lives. That is unacceptable here in Ontario. I have said from day one the leadership of all police departments across this province has to start listening to the front-line police officers. Police officers may see an accident on the highway, and it sticks in their mind forever. Some of these terrible stories I’ve heard from these police officers—they’re absolute heroes. I love our police, and we’re going to support them 1,000%.

Public transit

Ms. Jessica Bell: My question is for the Premier. Experts have been calling for a Toronto relief line for over a century. It’s 2019, and the relief line is ready to proceed. The route has been chosen; the environmental assessment is complete. All we need now is funding. But instead of moving forward, this Premier is taking us back to the drawing board and delaying this project yet again.

A century is enough. Why are you making commuters and transit riders wait even longer for the relief line?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Thanks to the member opposite for that question. On June 7, this government was elected on the promise to upload the subway system and to expand and build transit for the GTA and Toronto, and that’s what we’re doing.

We have hired special adviser Michael Lindsay to work with the city of Toronto on a new partnership that would deliver the expanded role and create an integrated transit system across the GTA, including Toronto. Mr. Speaker, we came to terms of reference with the city. We’re currently working through that program.

We have such a great plan for the city of Toronto and the TTC. It’s going to be wonderful getting people actually moving through the city and getting value for the taxpayers’ dollars as we go forward with our downtown relief line, our extension on to Yonge, the Eglinton West and, of course, going into Scarborough, where they desperately need some transportation.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Jessica Bell: Back to the Premier: A responsible government would work with municipalities to move forward with transit projects and not create chaos. We now have no idea when the relief line will be built. We have no idea how much it will cost.

Hon. John Yakabuski: You guys have never known about costs. You haven’t had a thought about costs in your lives, or a care.

Ms. Jessica Bell: We don’t know whether it will be integrated into the rest of the TTC. We don’t even know what technology you’re going to use. Torontonians don’t want another Union-Pearson Express boondoggle. This has been done before.

Interjection.

Hon. Todd Smith: That was the Liberals.

Ms. Jessica Bell: Premier, can you commit today that the relief line will move forward as planned, will be fully integrated into the TTC, and that riders will only have to pay one flat fare to ride?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry will come to order. The government House leader will come to order. The member for Etobicoke Centre will come to order.

Response.

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Thank you again for that question. Mr. Speaker, I think the NDP are the only people who think the current system is working today. If you would ask every rider going on the TTC, they want expansion to be built. The city has been unable to build any expansion projects. They got one over the last 15 years. It gets mired in the municipal politics.

We are looking at uploading that system, getting the plans put together, putting the funding together and getting the proposals and the expansions built. We are turning plans into projects, as opposed to sitting with just plans in this city. At the end of the day, we are going to commit to building the relief line, the Eglinton West, the Yonge extension and, of course, into Scarborough, because the people of Toronto, the riders of the TTC, expect and need better, and we’re going to deliver that as a responsible government is going to do.

Infrastructure program funding

Ms. Lindsey Park: My question is to the Minister of Infrastructure. This week, I was very pleased to hear that the minister was in Peterborough with the Minister of Transportation and the member for Peterborough–Kawartha to announce $1.62 billion in funding allocated for transit infrastructure in municipalities outside the GTHA. This is part of a much larger program dedicated to making life affordable, making Ontario open for jobs, and I might add that it’s good for the environment, too.

This is big news for the people of small-town Ontario. Providing the right infrastructure in the right place at the right time shows our commitment to not only putting the people first but also returning our budget to balance.

Will the minister please tell us more about this great program?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: I’d be happy to tell you more about this program. I’d like to begin by thanking the member from Durham for that question this morning.

Mr. Speaker, our government is putting people first. This month, I launched $30 billion in funding that will make life better for people right across this province. The Investing in Canada infrastructure program will help keep our roads safer, make our commutes easier and keep communities healthier. It will create and protect good jobs right across Ontario.

The Wynne Liberals promised infrastructure with absolutely no plan to pay for it. That was made clear when we inherited a $15-billion deficit. It’s not surprising that their federal cousins, the Trudeau Liberals, are following the same playbook. They promised infrastructure spending that a Senate committee recently described as “short-sighted.”

Our government isn’t making empty promises. We announced this program after a careful province-wide review to make sure that we got it right. We will make the right infrastructure investments at the right time and in the right place.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Lindsey Park: This is encouraging news from the minister. When our government invests in smart infrastructure, we’re creating jobs, growing the economy and shaping the future for hard-working families in Ontario. While the Trudeau Liberals have been criticized by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Auditor General and the Senate committee, our government for the people is making investments to make Ontario open for jobs with a fiscally responsible approach.

The Investing in Canada infrastructure plan is built to address the needs of communities and delegate funding through several different streams. Would the minister tell us more about the streams announced thus far?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: Once again, thank you to the honourable member for that excellent question.

Mr. Speaker, on March 12, we launched this program with the opening of the rural and northern funding stream. Our government believes in supporting small, rural, northern and Indigenous communities in making crucial infrastructure investments like roads and bridges.

This week, as I said, I launched the transit stream with the Minister of Transportation. That’s $1.62 billion for public transit in municipalities outside of the GTHA. Shorter commutes mean more time spent with families and more goods transported. That means healthier communities and that means more jobs and economic growth right across Ontario.

Our government is listening and has heard the infrastructure needs of our municipalities. We are serving the needs of the people, bringing the province back to balance and showing that Ontario is open for jobs.

Health care

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. Everyone in health care appreciates the work that Cancer Care Ontario does. They provide clinical and medical advice and education for patients and their loved ones. They do the strategic work to ensure that patients across our province receive some of the best-quality care in the world. Cancer Care Ontario took this province from providing passable cancer treatment to having province-wide procedures and a system in place to ensure that cancer patients receive treatment in a timely, equitable, cost-efficient manner, and the outcomes are there to prove their success.

Will the minister commit today to reconsider her legislation and not dissolve Cancer Care Ontario into the super-bureaucracy?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I thank the member very much for the question. I can assure you that Cancer Care Ontario is going to continue to do its excellent work. I absolutely agree with you that they are excellent at dealing with cancer care in Ontario, making sure that there is excellent equity across the province and making sure that they look at innovations, new procedures and so on. They will continue their work. They have excellent care in cancer and also in dealing with renal indications.

The reason why Cancer Care Ontario is now being headed by Ontario Health doesn’t mean they don’t continue to do their work; they will. But because they have such a great model, that model can be used for chronic disease management in other areas, such as in diabetes management, which is in need of some infrastructure, and certainly in mental health and addictions.

There’s a lot of work that needs to be done. Cancer Care Ontario provides an excellent model for that.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question.

M me France Gélinas: In British Columbia and in Alberta, health centralization wasted billions of dollars and patients suffered for decades, yet the government of Ontario is happy to blindly follow down the exact same path.

Given the minister’s confidence in this plan, can she please guarantee that no patient receiving cancer treatment or services and no patient receiving renal treatment will have their care disrupted by the upcoming merger of Cancer Care Ontario into the new super-bureaucracy?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Again, I can assure the member that patient care and patient safety is our utmost consideration. That is why we are bringing forward this plan to make sure that we centre care around patients, families and caregivers, that their needs are always first and foremost in our thoughts and in our plans, and that we will connect care for them, because that’s not happening now.

You will know that, often, when people are discharged from hospital and requiring home care, they don’t know, by the time they go home, who will be providing the care, what care they will be receiving and when they will be arriving. We are going to connect that care.

With respect to your comments about centralization, in fact, we are doing the opposite. We are releasing the boundaries so that local care providers can provide the care that is needed in their communities—not to be dictated by the Ministry of Health, but to be planned and organized locally, because health needs are different in different parts of Ontario, from northern Ontario to Toronto and every other part. We are actually directing care at the local level to surround patients and for patients and families to be—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much.

Next question.

Hospital funding

Mr. Jim Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. She’s one of my favourite ministers; I want you to know that—

Interjections.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: What are you asking for, Jim?

Interjection: It must be the hospital.

Mr. Jim Wilson: —and my favourite topic is the hospitals in my riding, the Collingwood hospital and the Alliston hospital.

As the minister knows, the hospitals are 50 and 60 years old. They’re bursting at the seams, they were ignored under the Liberal government, and they’re waiting for redevelopments. Over the last 15 years—this is the second time now that they’ve both had to present the same documentation for stage 1 in the application process. They’re running out of patience.

We deal with hallway medicine every day. You can imagine the extent of hallway medicine in Alliston, for example, when the building was built for 7,000 emergency room visits and last year did close to 50,000. Collingwood, being a four-season resort community, deals with tens of thousands more visits than it was built for.

The last redevelopment was under Mike Harris in 1998. Alliston got about a $5-million fix and there was about $18 million at Collingwood General and Marine. But over the last 60 years, nothing has really been done, so they’re looking to our government to move forward.

I’d ask if you would come up again and tour to see the need for the redevelopment yourself.

Hon. Christine Elliott: I thank the member very much for the question. You’re one of my favourite members as well, so thank you very much.

We have had several conversations about the Collingwood and Alliston situation. I understand that they are under great strain and that the population has diversified. It is really four-season residents now, where perhaps it used to be more a smaller group of local residents with more seasonal visitors—but there are more families settling there now. I know that there are issues there, so I look forward to working with you on that.

We’re continuing our conversations within the ministry on your community’s needs, as well as the needs of many communities across the province where they have outdated infrastructure and rapidly growing populations. It is a challenge that we need to tackle together. That’s part of our plan to end hallway health care and make sure that all communities get updated—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Thank you to the minister. I know there’s tremendous pressure on the capital side and the operating side, but these buildings are bursting at the seams.

My constituents have noticed that you’ve been able to tour other hospitals in the area, so they’ve asked me to come here today and to say, “Can you have Christine come up? We’d really appreciate it.”

One of the consequences of waiting so many years is, particularly over the last four or five years we’ve had some real superstars in terms of physicians and nurses and staff and board members and even administrators come to both hospitals with the expectation that we would be seeing a new hospital within the last five years. That hasn’t happened, so the morale has taken a bit of a dip in both hospitals. I’m undertaking to visit the board in Alliston in just a few days and the Collingwood board to try to bring morale up and to try to retain those specialists and those physicians and nurses who have come with the expectation of new buildings.

Again, if you could find it in your heart to come up and say hello—skiing season is over, but we’ll take you boating or whatever you need to do—and tour the hospitals and help us boost morale. They’re making this government and all of us politicians look good by not complaining about hallway medicine. You don’t hear complaints from these hospitals. They’re very respectful of the government. They’re very respectful of their member. But they are—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. Response?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Well, I thank the member very much for the invitation.

Certainly, I know that there are many hospitals that have had needs for many, many years. For 15 years, they were largely not attended to. We are going to change that. We know that there are priorities in certain areas because of aging infrastructure with pipes that are ready to burst and roofs that are falling in. That is a sad state of affairs. But we’re going to fix that.

I have been touring across the province the last number of weeks, talking to groups that are already providing integrated health care. It’s wonderful to see what’s happening on the ground and how excited providers and patients are about our plan. But I do look forward to coming to both Alliston and Collingwood, hopefully in the very near future.

Greenhouse gas emissions

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: My question is for the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. Speaker, our government was elected by the people of Ontario on a commitment to bring change to this province. As part of our commitment, the Premier and the Minister of the Environment announced that as of April 1, our government would bring to an end the outdated and ineffective Drive Clean program. Since 1999, drivers across Ontario have needed to complete a Drive Clean test to continue driving their cars. It took time out of their day and no longer delivered effective results.

Can the minister please tell us, this House, what relief the cancellation of the Drive Clean program or emission program will bring to Ontario?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Thank you to the member from Markham–Thornhill. I know he does a fantastic job for his constituents.

Mr. Speaker, our Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan protects Ontario’s air, its land, its water, but we also protect tax dollars. We want to make sure that tax dollars are spent in the right way. The Drive Clean program, when it was put in place over 20 years ago by a Progressive Conservative government, made sense. But programs from 20 years ago don’t necessarily make sense in 2019.

The former Minister of the Environment Norm Sterling said it was time to get rid of the program. The former Liberal Minister of the Environment admitted that the program had little impact. Even the leader of the Green Party, with us today in the Legislature, says that it was no longer as relevant as it once was. But most importantly, Doug Ford said Drive Clean—it’s done; it’s gone. So that $40-million program, as of April 1, is gone from Ontario drivers, and not a moment too soon.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: Thank you, Minister, for that wonderful answer. I am sure most Ontarians would agree that it is clear that Drive Clean was no longer useful and therefore no more an effective and efficient way to protect our environment. I know for a fact my constituents in Markham–Thornhill are happy about the government saving them $40 million every year. Our government committed that we would do right by taxpayers and end ineffective programs taking money out of people’s pockets. The end of Drive Clean is a perfect example.

Mr. Speaker, Ontarians recognize the need to do our share to fight climate change. Minister, can you add more about the Drive Clean program?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member: Thank you for the question.

Instead of spending $40 million for a program that everyone admits was not working, we are focusing on large emitting trucks. We’re focusing on diesel trucks. We’ve all seen those on the highways. So the ministry is bringing in programs to focus on those vehicles.

Of course, as the Legislature knows, in our made-in-Ontario program we’ve also focused on targets to reduce greenhouse gases. So we have committed to the targets agreed to by the federal government internationally for a 30% reduction in GHGs by 2030. We’ve brought in a pragmatic sensible plan: a plan that is sensitive to the fact that we can have a healthy economy and a healthy environment; a plan that focuses on reducing emissions but in a sensible way that won’t punish families and won’t hurt the economy at the same time.

Mr. Speaker, we can get rid of outdated programs that once worked and, at the same time, bring in solutions that protect the taxpayers and protect the environment.

Correctional services

Mr. Kevin Yarde: My question is to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Today, we’re joined by many of this province’s front-line correctional staff. We welcome them all here today. They’re here, Mr. Speaker, because the crisis in corrections under the Liberals is now the crisis in corrections under the Conservatives. Members who meet with our front-line correctional workers today will hear how violence is in fact increasing in this province in correctional facilities and in jails. It was only a month ago that eight correctional officers were injured in an attack at the Toronto South Detention Centre.

Speaker, I would like to know, and corrections officers, corrections staff, would like to know, what this minister has done since the violent incidents occurred to make our correctional facilities more safe?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Speaker, through you, I want to join and thank the excellent work that our corrections officers do every single day across institutions in Ontario. There is no doubt that our government’s number one priority is to ensure safety: the safety of our citizens, the safety of our staff and the safety of the individuals who are housed in our institutions.

In terms of what has been happening in the ministry, I think it’s important to note that earlier this year we launched a wellness and resilience program that specifically is going to help correctional staff build resilience at work, manage stress, enhance personal health and try to reduce injuries related to occupational stress, including PTSD.

This very week, my friend and colleague the Minister of the Attorney General and I announced Guns and Gangs phase two. It specifically has a component that is increasing corrections intelligence and security within our jails.

We are not waiting. We are acting after 15 years of inaction, and we are proactively moving forward on things that make our jails safer and our corrections officers safer.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to ask the member for Niagara Falls to come to order.

Supplementary.

Mr. Kevin Yarde: Without having first addressed the lack of resources, the lack of adequate staffing in order to get our correctional facilities back to zero, it sounds like the government expects front-line correctional workers to do even more with less. Instead, this government continues with the previous government’s failed approach of hiring only enough correctional staff to cover shifts when correctional officers are off sick, on vacation, out injured or on stress leave. My question to the minister is simple—very simple. When will she provide enough staff to get the job done safely and provide the right tools to fix the crisis in corrections?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members, please take your seats.

Minister.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Speaker, through you, as I said in my initial answer, we are actively and proactively engaged in making changes right now that are making a difference. I continue to have conversations with our corrections officers and our front-line staff to understand what opportunities that we need to take.

But let’s be clear: Fifteen years of Liberal inaction is not going to be solved in eight months. I am working very actively with my ministry to make sure that we’re putting stuff in place. I’ve already talked about phase two in the Guns and Gangs announcement that was made this week. We initiated a program in January. We are working to make sure that our jails are safe.

When will you participate in ensuring that we have the tools we need? I want to make sure that, together, we can keep our jails safe and our corrections officers safe. I’m happy to have any kind of positive—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Next question?

Natural gas

Mr. Robert Bailey: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Infrastructure. Expanding access to natural gas lowers heating costs, creates jobs and makes businesses more competitive. Recently, I was with the minister at Truly Green Farms and Cedarline Greenhouses in Chatham-Kent, where he announced that this local business will be able to grow thanks to our government’s new natural gas expansion support program. Our government is committed to tackling high energy costs.

Mr. Speaker, could the minister please tell us more about how this new program will save people money and send a clear message that Ontario is open for business?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: I would like to thank the honourable member from Sarnia–Lambton and my good friend for that excellent question this morning.

I would also like to thank the Minister of Energy for his leadership in bringing affordability back to energy bills across the province.

Speaker, I represent the neighbouring riding of Lambton–Kent–Middlesex and I’ve heard first-hand from my own community about what access to natural gas means for hard-working Ontario families. Our priority, as a government, is creating and protecting good jobs for the people. By lowering energy costs, we are making businesses more competitive and signalling that Ontario is open for jobs.

The Chatham-Kent natural gas expansion project is possible thanks to our government’s new and innovative partnership with the private sector. The construction of two new transmission lines and supporting distribution mains could expand natural gas to an estimated 1,300 households and 200 businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to sharing more about this important milestone in my supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert Bailey: Thank you, Minister, for that answer.

Mr. Speaker, after 15 years of Ontario Liberals passing policies to benefit their insider friends, it is refreshing to see a government that is squarely focused on making life more affordable for families.

While other parties wanted to ban private sector participation, and even natural gas altogether, I am pleased to hear that our government is ending energy poverty. People no longer have to choose between heating and eating.

Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Infrastructure please tell the House more about how our government is helping people in Lambton county and across this great province of Ontario?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: Once again, thank you to the member from Sarnia–Lambton for that question.

Mr. Speaker, we replaced a one-time taxpayer-funded grant program with a sustainable private-sector-led model that will save Ontario $61.5 million over three years.

Expanding access to natural gas will put money back in people’s pockets. Residential consumers can save up to $2,500 per year by switching from electric heat, propane or oil. For Chatham-Kent, the municipality estimates this project alone could bring 1,400 brand new jobs to the greenhouse sector alone.

As Greg Devries, president and CEO of Truly Green Farms and Cedarline Greenhouses said, “This natural gas project is a great example of how infrastructure stimulates the economy.”

This is only the beginning. Our government is bringing prosperity to rural, remote and other underserved communities across Ontario. And, Mr. Speaker, this is yet another example of a promise made, promise kept.

Arts education

Ms. Jill Andrew: Good morning, Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Education. This government’s scheme to increase class sizes will mean arts classes that typically have smaller class sizes will be put in jeopardy.

When asked on Metro Morning about how this will impact arts programs in high schools, the minister replied, “When it comes to the world of work, our students need to have skills in the pathways that are providing jobs.” Essentially, she threw arts education under the bus.

Speaker, let’s be clear: Ask Drake if arts aren’t jobs. There are over 269,000 arts and culture jobs in Ontario, contributing $26 billion—not million—annually to our economy.

Why does the Minister of Education think arts and culture jobs don’t matter?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Before I ask the minister to reply, I’ve got to ask the member for Northumberland–Quinte West to come to order.

Minister of Education.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I am very pleased to stand in this House today and suggest to the member opposite that she should never, ever put words in my mouth, because I come from a family that absolutely values arts and culture. Shame on her for continuing this ridiculous rhetoric that absolutely does nothing but confuse people.

I said that we need to make sure that students have the opportunity to learn science, technology, math, the skills that are going to see them adapt and absolutely be successful in the careers of today and tomorrow.

If the members opposite were tuned in, they would know that the realities are for students, going forward, that we need skilled trades, we need technology, we need math competencies. All of that—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you.

Supplementary.

Ms. Jill Andrew: In fact, the Minister of Education doesn’t listen, because I said to add some STEAM to her STEM. Arts matter too.

When the minister was asked about band classes in high schools being cancelled, she let the cat out of the bag that not every school board would be able to afford band classes. Instead, she suggested that arts enthusiasts could step in and offer these courses, instead of professional educators.

Speaker, the minister’s education scheme will mean fewer classes that enrich students’ learning. I heard from Liz Burnip, an arts educator for 27 years. She said arts education provides safe spaces for students who often don’t fit in anywhere else.

Why is this minister happy to cut arts classes that bring so much value to a young person’s life—classes that have been scientifically proven to create better, more well-rounded students?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members, please take your seats. The government side will come to order.

Minister of Education to reply.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: The fact of the matter is, I need to repeat: Never, ever put words in my mouth. That member has to withdraw what she said, because she’s doing nothing but pandering and creating rhetoric that’s going to confuse people.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Opposition, come to order.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: The fact of the matter is, what I was alluding to when I was speaking to that particular radio program is the reality that not every school across Ontario actually has music classes in curriculum. Some people—if she got out of her bubble in Toronto—in rural Ontario and northern Ontario only have the opportunity to pursue arts through clubs. That is what I was saying.

Interjection.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: So, again, the fact of the matter is, we need to equip our kids with science, math, technology, skilled trades, so that they have career pathways that absolutely—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you.

Stop the clock. I’m going to ask the member for Toronto–St. Paul’s to come to order. She can’t interject constantly while the minister is replying.

Next question.

Police sector compensation

Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos: My question is to the President of the Treasury Board. For 15 years, the Liberals recklessly spent taxpayer money on pet projects and scandals, which resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money being wasted.

Their out-of-control spending put our public services at risk. They showed a complete lack of respect for the hard-working men and women whose tax money they squandered.

Yesterday, the sunshine list was released, and it showed that under the previous Liberal government, public sector wages had far outpaced private sector wages.

It’s unfair that the average Ontarian is earning far less but is being expected to pay far more to support these rapidly growing salaries. Can the President of the Treasury Board inform the House: What is the government doing to restore sustainability, accountability and respect for taxpayer money?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Thank you, MPP Triantafilopoulos, the great MPP for Oakville North–Burlington.

I’ll tell you, folks, when you’ve got a name like Bethlenfalvy, you’d better get Triantafilopoulos right.

Our government was elected on a promise to get spending under control and repair the damage that was left by the previous Liberal government. Since 2003, the number of people on the sunshine list has grown from 20,000 to over 150,000. That’s almost 20,000—or a 600% increase.

Mr. Speaker, we need to ensure the responsibility for taxpayers’ dollars, and that’s why we took steps immediately upon getting elected—for example, we froze executive compensation; we froze external hiring in the public service; now we require all agencies to get approval for bargaining mandates. We are placing reliability and the taxpayer at the centre of everything we do, and we are putting in place structures that create a culture of accountability and efficiency.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos: Speaker, it’s great to hear that the government and the President of the Treasury Board are taking decisive action to ensure that tax dollars are going to the front-line services that Ontarians depend on.

Like most Ontarians, it’s deeply troubling to the constituents of my riding of Oakville North–Burlington to know that, because of the tax-and-spend Liberals, Ontario is now the most indebted sub-sovereign jurisdiction on the planet. Because of the feeble leadership and reckless overspending of the previous Liberal government, we were left with a $15-billion deficit. This is shameful.

The results of the sunshine list, published yesterday, show us areas of clear overspending.

Can the president tell us what the government is doing to fight for the people and eliminate reckless government spending?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Mr. Speaker, through you: Again, I thank my colleague for that question. She’s absolutely right. We’ve got to ensure that we support the front lines—the people of Ontario who support the patients and the people in this great province—and not necessarily the paper-pushers.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, under the previous Liberal government, public sector employees made 33% more than the average Ontario worker—33% more. The disparity is indicative of the unsustainable practices of the previous Liberal government, a government which saddled the people and future generations, as the member mentioned—of $347 billion.

Our government is committed to being accountable to the taxpayers of this province.

Interjection.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: I know it is very troubling to the previous Liberal government to hear all this. That’s why—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. I’m going to ask the member for Ottawa South to come to order.

Next question. The member for Hamilton East–Stoney Creek.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. The government side will come to order.

Start the clock. The member for Hamilton East–Stoney Creek.

Tenant protection

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Tenants in Hamilton are being squeezed out by landlords who abuse the rules to seek rent increases that are higher than the guideline.

Last night, the city of Hamilton approved funding for a tenant defence fund to help tenants defend themselves against unethical practices.

Does the minister think it is fair that tenants should be forced to turn to the city of Hamilton to get the protection that this province is supposed to provide?

Hon. Steve Clark: I want to thank the honourable member for that question. We’re obviously very concerned about a number of issues in the housing space. That’s why our government began consultations on the Housing Supply Action Plan. To remind members of this House, we asked for suggestions on five themes: cost, speed, mix, innovation, and rent. We received over 2,000 submissions. I have to tell you, Speaker, through you to the member, that over 85% of those submissions were from the general public, so there was a wide variety of opinion. We are going to take those consultations and move them forwa