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

October 5, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Oct-05 (PDF)

L104 - Mon 5 Oct 2015 / Lun 5 oct 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Monday 5 October 2015 Lundi 5 octobre 2015

Introduction of Visitors

Fatal traffic accident

Oral Questions

Executive compensation

By-election in Sudbury

Privatization of public assets

By-election in Sudbury

Housing Services Corp.

Privatization of public assets

Road safety

Ontario economy

Home care

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Mineral exploration and production

International trade

Long-term care

Health care funding

Notice of dissatisfaction

Members’ Statements

Max Keeping

Economic development

Max Keeping

Hospital funding

Taxi industry

Events in Beaches–East York

International Plowing Match

Davenport-Perth Neighbourhood and Community Health Centre

Senior citizens / Personnes âgées

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Ontario Agriculture Week

Correction of record

Petitions

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Gasoline prices

Water fluoridation

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Privatization of public assets

Lung health

Health care funding

Privatization of public assets

Public transit

Taxation

Privatisation des biens publics

Employment standards

Wind turbines

Hospital funding

Orders of the Day

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

The House met at 1030.

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

Prayers.

Introduction of Visitors

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: I’d like to welcome Lyndsay Macdonald, Bethany Grady, Matthew Taylor, Jessica Kerridge, Heather Burt, Rashin Lamouchi and Denisa Argyo. They are here as child care advocates.

I’d also like to welcome Paul Elliott, the president of OSSTF, and I’d like to wish his members and all teachers a happy World Teachers’ Day today.

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to welcome Matteo Guinci. He is my staff in the constit office in the great riding of Markham–Unionville.

Mr. Chris Ballard: I’d like to introduce Ben Williamson from the Premier’s youth council. Ben is also a resident of Newmarket–Aurora.

I’d also like to welcome the Aurora Montessori School class to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Bob Delaney: On behalf of the member for Scarborough Southwest and page Krishaj Rajbhandari, I’m pleased to welcome his mother, Jasmine Rajbhandari, and his sister Isha Rajbhandari. They’re in the public gallery this morning.

Mr. Michael Mantha: I’d like to welcome page captain Grace Maili Sengfah; her mother, Ja Kai Shwe; her father, Sai Shwe; and family friends Cathleen Mungal and Janelle Mungal. They will be here in the members’ gallery this morning. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m not sure whether they’re here—oh, they’re just coming in now. It’s my pleasure to introduce to the House a remarkable and inspirational group of young people, the Premier’s Council on Youth Opportunities. Thank you very much for being here. The group was established in 2012 and provides advice directly to me. I’m very happy to have had a chance to meet with them this morning, and I know they’re going to be having great deliberations all day.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I’m pleased to welcome to the Legislature, from my riding of Etobicoke Centre, a delegation from the Consulting Engineers of Ontario. They are led by their chair, Mr. Bruce Potter, of B.M. Ross and Associates, and their CEO, Mr. Barry Steinberg. The Consulting Engineers are here today for their inaugural Queen’s Park day to meet with all of us as part of their 40th anniversary. I would invite everyone to join us at the reception in the legislative dining room this afternoon.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I’d like to welcome the delegation from Fanshawe College that is here today having a reception after question period. President Peter Devlin is here, and somewhere in this building is a former MPP for Middlesex, Bruce Smith.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Further to the Fanshawe introduction, we’re delighted to have them here today. They’re hosting a luncheon reception, and I invite all members to join us from 11:30 to 1:30 in room 228 to showcase Fanshawe College’s excellent programs, including a gourmet lunch prepared by Fanshawe’s culinary students.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’d like to introduce Leah Hollins, who is chair of Canadian Blood Services. I’d like to take this opportunity to encourage all members of this House to visit blood.ca to see how you and your constituents have the power to give life.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I’ve noticed a very good friend of ours, Pierre Cyr, is also in the audience. He now works with Canadian Blood Services and is a proud resident of the great city of Ottawa. Welcome, Pierre.

Mr. Monte Kwinter: On behalf of the member for Eglinton–Lawrence and page Anna Farley, I’d like to recognize the page’s mother, Manjusha Pawagi; her father, Simon Farley; and her grandmother Asha Pawagi.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I have a number of friends in the gallery. There are many members of the Citizens’ Climate Lobby here. This has been one of the most powerful groups for advocacy on climate change. I’d like to welcome them today.

I also would like to welcome the many engineers from Professional Engineers Ontario and the Consulting Engineers of Ontario. My dear friend Barry Steinberg, who is also a great environmentalist as well as an engineer, is here today.

M me France Gélinas: I have a visitor from Sudbury. Her name is Cathy Orlando. She is with Sharon Howarth and Marilyn Eriksen from the Citizens’ Climate Lobby. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further introductions? Seeing none, it’s time for—a point of order from the member from Oshawa.

Fatal traffic accident

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe we have unanimous consent for a moment of silence to recognize the three people tragically killed and the 16 others badly injured in the tractor-trailer accident Friday night in Durham region.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Oshawa is seeking unanimous consent for a moment’s silence for the traffic accident that took place. Do we agree? Agreed.

I would ask all members, and visitors as well, to stand, if possible, and observe a moment of silence.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

Oral Questions

Executive compensation

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. The top three highest-paid energy executives in British Columbia are the managing director of Powerex, the president and CEO of Powerex, and the president and CEO of BC Hydro. Combined, those three executives are paid just under $2 million a year in compensation. But here in Ontario, the Premier agreed to pay the new Hydro CEO over $4 million.

Mr. Speaker, can the Premier explain why BC is able to pay their top three hydro executives less than half of what Ontario is paying their new Hydro CEO?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Energy is going to want to speak to the details of the company, Hydro One, right now. What I want to do is just make it clear that our intention in broadening the ownership of Hydro One is to leverage a current asset and allow us, as a government, to invest in the infrastructure and the new assets that are needed for the 21st century.

Now, I know that the Leader of the Opposition is not supportive of that, but the fact is if we do not make those investments, if we don’t invest in roads, bridges, hospitals, schools and transit infrastructure, we’re not going to be competitive. We’re not going to be able to compete with other jurisdictions in the world, and we’re not going to be as productive as we need to be. People and goods are not going to be able to move in the way that they need to.

We are making those investments for the future productivity of this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: The question is again for the Premier, and it is on Hydro One executive compensation. In BC, hydro bills are half of what they are in Ontario. BC’s Liberal government isn’t forcing seniors to choose between heating and eating. Hydro One’s new multi-million-dollar executive salaries will have to be paid through higher and higher hydro bills. Citizens on fixed incomes cannot afford to pay higher and higher hydro bills, but that is what is going to happen.

Why is the Premier making life more and more difficult for people in Ontario just so that she can hand out lavish executive compensation for Hydro One?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I heard someone heckling that I hadn’t understood the first question. I actually had understood the first question perfectly, because it is impossible to talk about Hydro One and what we are doing in the broadening of the ownership without talking about investments in infrastructure. That’s what it’s about. The reason we are doing this, and we are doing it in a—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: You see, Mr. Speaker, we’re committed to building infrastructure. The party opposite had no plan to build infrastructure—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Chatham–Kent–Essex, come to order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: When they were in office, they didn’t build infrastructure; they filled in holes that had already been dug for transit. They didn’t invest. We have been investing and we are going to continue to do that.

The Leader of the Opposition knows that Hydro One will be regulated by the Ontario Business Corporations Act, the Ontario Securities Act and the Ontario Energy Board. He knows that executives will have to file information with the Ontario Securities Commission, and that information will be disclosed.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again for the Premier: Hydro One executive pay is out of line with the rest of Canada. The CEO of BC Hydro is paid $495,000. The annual compensation for the president of SaskPower is $482,000. Last year, the head of Manitoba Hydro was paid just shy of $500,000. The new CEO of Hydro-Québec will be paid $480,000. The combined salaries of the six hydro executives in four provinces is still less than the $4 million being paid to the new Hydro One CEO. Not surprisingly, ratepayers in those four provinces are paying less than they are in Ontario.

The Premier could have issued a directive to the Hydro One board setting limits on executive compensation, but she chose not to. Mr. Speaker, why didn’t the Premier set limits on Hydro One salaries when so many people in Ontario are struggling with their hydro bills?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: When we look at comparable Toronto Stock Exchange companies, the pay will actually be set at the medium-to-low range. The base salary for the new CEO is $850,000, with some incentives.

The Premier is right: The issue is infrastructure. By broadening ownership, we are able to access billions of dollars without coming from taxes, without reducing services and without raising debt.

That government doesn’t know anything about infrastructure, either in the general economy or in energy. Their average investment in infrastructure when they were in government was $2 billion a year. They under-invested in the energy sector, so we went into deficit. We were importing a billion dollars a year. We lost transmission service, we lost distribution service and we had to invest $34 billion to make up for their—

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

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. People in Ontario are tired of watching the Premier spin and evade question after question on the Sudbury by-election corruption scandal. They’ve been writing to me, calling my office and posting online, asking when will the Premier answer a direct question.

On tape, Gerry Lougheed Jr. told Andrew Olivier that Pat Sorbara and the Premier would talk to him about job options available to him in exchange for stepping aside. People deserve to know if the Premier instructed Gerry Lougheed Jr. to say what he said. Yes or no, will the Premier testify at the corruption trial to deal with allegations that everyone in Ontario is talking about?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I have a lot of faith in the process that is in place. I have faith in the authorities. We have—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Regrettably, it looks like I’m going to have to get—I’ll let you finish the sentence.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We’ve worked with the authorities, and I will continue to work with the authorities. The Leader of the Opposition knows full well that there is an issue that is now in front of the courts and I’m not going to comment any further. I’ve answered 107 questions in the House, I’ve talked to media and I’ve talked outside of this House. I’ll continue to work with the authorities.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: A prominent Liberal recently said, “It’s really frustrating to see the level of mistrust and disgust” people have with parliamentarians. He said that someone must show some leadership and actually come clean, and the only way to be able to do that is for everybody to testify under oath. The Premier must hear this a lot, because the person who said this was the federal Liberal leader. Those were his words. Will the Premier take her friend’s advice and testify under oath, yes or no?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Again, I think I’ll remind the member opposite about the convention in this House and the constitutional convention that exists when it comes to matters relating to—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Well, how come the Speaker hasn’t ruled it out of order, then?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to remind the member from Renfrew he’s out of order. Please come to order.

Finish, please.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: As I’ve stated before many times in this House, there is a constitutional convention in our country where even the Supreme Court has indicated very clearly that if a matter is before the courts, it should not be discussed within Parliament. The kinds of questions that the members opposite and the leader of the official opposition continue to ask is a direct interference in issues that may come before the court.

The Premier, during the course of this matter, has been transparent to Ontarians and has been transparent to this Legislature. She has answered almost 110 questions relating to this matter, and we will leave it to that.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: It’s a simple question, and yet the Premier continues to avoid answering it. I’m not asking the Premier to tell us specifics. I’m not asking the Premier to tell us what she will say on the stand at court. I’m simply asking the Premier to answer a straightforward question. I’m asking the Premier if she will waive her parliamentary privilege and testify under oath at the trial of Gerry Lougheed Jr., yes, or no?

Interjections.

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

Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I will again give a very simple answer to the member opposite, and I hope he really carefully listens to the advice that his own deputy leader, the member from Leeds–Grenville, once gave to us in this Legislature. The member from Leeds–Grenville said, “Stop interfering in an ongoing investigation and let it run its course.”

I think the member from Leeds–Grenville was correct then, and I hope he—

Interjection.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): In case he didn’t hear it: the member from Leeds–Grenville. And if he did hear it and he chooses to continue, I’ll warn him.

Carry on.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, just like he’s trying to speak to me across the aisle, maybe the member from Leeds–Grenville can just whisper in his leader’s ear the same piece of advice that we shouldn’t be interfering in a matter that is before the courts.

Again, I remind the Leader of the Opposition, who I’m sure has a high regard and respect for the Supreme Court of Canada, that it said clearly that a well-known rule of parliamentary practice holds that no member of the House of Commons should comment upon any matter that is pending before the courts.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. This Liberal government’s record is one of scandal, wasted public money and disappointment. It is no wonder that Ontarians don’t trust the Liberals, and it is no wonder that more than 80% of Ontarians don’t want this Premier to sell off Hydro One.

When the Liberals last experimented with privatization, we got the Ornge and eHealth scandals, billions of dollars down the drain and literally nothing to show for it.

Why should Ontarians trust the privatization of Hydro One won’t be yet another Liberal disaster?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, the question that I would put back to the leader of the third party—because she knows full well that the reason we are broadening the ownership in Hydro One is to build infrastructure. She knows that. What she doesn’t talk about in her questions and, I’m assuming, in her town halls is what we are able to buy and invest in by doing this, by making this very hard decision.

I would ask the leader of the third party: Which part of the $130 billion over the next 10 years that we are investing would she not invest? Which projects? Would it be the Barrie line that we’re electrifying so that weekly trips will increase from 70 to 200-plus, the GO Transit? Would it be the Kitchener line which will increase weekly trips from 80 to 250? Would it be the Lakeshore East line, the annual ridership up from 10 million to 32 million? Are those the lines that she would cut if we did not make this—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Every single time people open their hydro bills, they are reminded about how badly the Liberals have handled the energy file. Hydro rates have nearly quadrupled since 2003—$2 billion wasted on smart meters, and another billion dollars wasted on the moving of gas plants.

Ontarians also remember that it was this Premier who said that she would be surprised if the Liberal gas plants cost even $40 million.

With this record, why should Ontarians trust that this Premier will sell off our hydro system in a way that makes sense to Ontarians?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The leader of the third party has full access to the information about the protections that we have put in place. She knows the people of Ontario will retain 40% ownership of the asset. She knows that we have put protections in place in terms of the ability to remove the board, the ability to remove the CEO. She knows that the Ontario Energy Board, which she has described as an independent body, has been setting electricity rates and will continue to set electricity rates.

I would ask the leader of the third party again: Would she cut the Stouffville line that we’re increasing trains on? Would she cut the ride increase on the Richmond Hill line? Would she cut the LRT in Hamilton, the billion dollars that we are investing in Hamilton? Does she think that’s a project that should be cut? Those are the things we’re investing in, and presumably, those are the things she doesn’t think need to be done.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This Premier continues to present Ontarians with a false choice between infrastructure and public hydro. Everyone knows, except perhaps the Premier and the others over there who drink the same bathwater, that this choice is absolute nonsense.

What is particularly troubling is that the Auditor General said that this government managed to waste $8.2 billion on their infrastructure financing scheme. And now Infrastructure Ontario is embroiled in a fraud scandal.

Given the Premier’s record on waste, on energy, on privatization, why should anyone trust her to sell off our most prized public asset: hydro?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The leader of the third party knows we made it clear in our budget and platform that it was going to be necessary for us to leverage assets in order to invest in new assets. In fact, she’s acknowledged that she knew that. In fact, she ran on the same plan—fiscally, financially—that we had in place and acknowledged in public that she would look at assets. So she understands that it is very important for us to have the money to invest in these assets. It’s not possible to just continue borrowing.

I’d ask her again, would it be the project which is the new alignment of Highway 7 between Kitchener and Guelph that she would cut? Would it be the Maley Drive extension in Sudbury that she would cut? Maybe it’s the four-laning of Highway 11/17 between Thunder Bay and Nipigon. Again, those are all projects in which we’re investing that apparently she doesn’t think are necessary.

By-election in Sudbury

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Premier. People’s trust in this government is badly shaken. This Premier promised to do things differently, but now they see a Liberal insider criminally charged for doing the Premier’s dirty work, all so the Premier could get a win for the Liberal Party. Will the Premier begin rebuilding the people’s trust in her government and tell Ontarians exactly what her role was in the Sudbury bribery scandal?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’ve been very open with the Legislature, the media and the public about the allegations related to the Sudbury by-election. The leader of the third party knows that. In fact, I’ve answered 107 questions in the Legislature. Now it’s 110, 111 questions. I’ve addressed these questions in dozens of interactions with the media.

There is a process in place. I have faith in that process. I’ve co-operated with the authorities. I will continue to co-operate with the authorities. She knows this is a matter that’s now before the courts, and I’m not going to comment further on it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, it’s precisely because of answers like that—with 110 questions but really no answers—that the people don’t trust this Premier and what she’s saying. She has had many chances to rebuild the broken public trust. That’s what she came in here saying she was going to do, and I would say that she has failed miserably in that regard. She could have been upfront about getting Mr. Lougheed to offer a bribe to the former Liberal candidate in Sudbury. She could have asked her deputy chief of staff to step aside when she was implicated in the bribery scandal. Instead, this Premier has arrogantly absolved herself of any responsibility whatsoever.

Why should the people of Ontario trust this Premier when she has refused to take responsibility for the Sudbury bribery scandal?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I’ve said, this is a matter that’s before the courts. I have answered many, many questions about this. I’ve been very clear about the situation from my perspective, and I’m not going to comment further.

When I ran in the election and when we put forward our plan, what we said we were going to do was invest in people in this province, in their talent and skills. We said we were going to invest in infrastructure. That’s exactly what we’re doing. We said that we were going to increase the wages of some of the lowest-paid people in this province: personal support workers, early childhood educators, developmental support workers. We’re doing that. We said that we were going to index the minimum wage. We’re doing that.

We have followed through on the commitments that we made to the people of this province. We will continue to do so. That is our record.

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The public trust is important for any government, and yet this Premier seems determined to break that trust at every turn. Whether she’s selling off Hydro One without a mandate or being implicated on tape ordering a bribe, the trust of the people of Ontario has been very much shaken. I agree with the Chief Electoral Officer—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): If I heard what I thought I heard, I’m going to ask the member to withdraw.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I think they told you to tell me, but I will withdraw, Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. I don’t expect that to happen again.

Please finish.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I agree with the Chief Electoral Officer, who said that references to the Premier on Sudbury tapes threaten the government’s integrity. Why should Ontarians trust anything that this Premier says?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: This province is at a very important juncture in terms of our economic viability. The commitment that I made to the people of this province is that we would make the investments that will allow us to compete globally, that we will build the infrastructure that is necessary and that we will make sure that our young people have every opportunity to get post-secondary education and get the training that they need. We said that we will make sure that people in this province have retirement security, even if we don’t have a federal government that will work with us.

Those are all things that the leader of the third party should be working with us on. She should be supportive. If she is not, then I think she has to explain to the people of Ontario why building a future for this province that is bright and prosperous is not something she would support.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

New question.

Housing Services Corp.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Could the minister explain how his independent review of the Housing Services Corp. failed to turn up the fact that the Housing Services Corp. paid a board member to go on a luxury eight-day, seven-night sightseeing trip with a private driver, winery tours, whale-watching, a visit to a nature reserve and meals at award-winning restaurants in Cape Town, South Africa?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I think the member opposite insists on too strict a paradox to have this government act and do what their government, who put in the Housing Services Corp., refused to do.

The member opposite refers to this as a rogue agency. It is not a rogue agency. It’s an agency that you, sir, when you and—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): To the Chair, please.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: —rogue agency that they put in place. So we were proud to work with the Housing Services Corp.—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Finish, please.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: We were proud to work with the Housing Services Corp. to do an independent review to lead to a changing of a number of their practices. The concerns are legitimate; we share the concerns. We have different choices. We choose to look at what’s broken—

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

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the minister can’t explain how a luxury South Africa sightseeing trip slipped through, perhaps he can explain why his review failed to report that Toronto Community Housing is losing $6.3 million a year because the ministry is forcing them to purchase through the Housing Services Corp., and why the review failed to turn up that housing money is going to pay for trips to England, Australia and California, or for alcohol, or $300 for flannel shirts and meals in fancy restaurants, including $8 for water?

How many more of these examples do we have to find before he calls in the auditor and has her open the books so that we can get this mess cleaned up?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: This from the party that downloaded social housing with no supports. They’ve got a lot of nerve.

Mr. Speaker, I could share with the House that the independent review—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Please finish.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: The independent review—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Ted McMeekin: —led the government and the HSC to refine its business practices, streamline the organizational structure, reduce overhead and administrative costs, enhance corporate reporting and transparency, revise board remuneration to be consistent with cabinet guidelines and a number of other changes, including a revisit by the group that did the study.

The new Leader of the Opposition, the member from Simcoe North, has said that when the government does things that are right, he’d stand and applaud. Well, sir, if you want to stand and applaud, you can start any time—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I loathe the idea of throwing anyone out.

New question.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier. A little over a week ago, the government quietly released a supplement to its budget estimates. It turns out that there was an additional unbudgeted expense that wasn’t mentioned in the original estimates, and it’s big.

The government has agreed to pay a $2.6-billion tax bill owed by Hydro One to the Ontario Electricity Financial Corp., which will use the cash to pay down the debt. This means there will be $2.6 billion less cash available for things like infrastructure.

Why is the government spending the transit money on an unbudgeted $2.6-billion tax break for Hydro One’s new private owners?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, under the tax provisions, if an LDC were to sell its assets over 10%, there was a departure tax that was paid by the vendor—not the purchaser, the vendor. In this particular case, Hydro One, as a vendor, is required to pay to itself $2.6 billion in tax. That $2.6 billion is being reinvested in its own corporation. It’s a total wash. It’s a total equalization of receiving from one hand and returning with the other. And the member knows, because this was explained to him in estimates and he seemed to accept it. But in this particular show in here, he decides he is going to try to put an implication of some wrongdoing.

It’s perfectly normal and perfectly appropriate.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, Ontarians are paying a $2.6-billion tax bill owed by Hydro One. This expense wasn’t accounted for in the budget—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Please finish.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: In exchange for $2.6 billion in cash, according to the Hydro One prospectus, the government gets $2.6 billion worth of shares in Hydro One, except we already own 100% of Hydro One. The minister says this transaction is “fiscally neutral.” To me, it looks like an accounting trick.

Mr. Speaker, $2.6 billion in real cash is leaving the treasury to pay off Hydro bondholders. In return, the government will get $2.6 billion worth of shares in a company it already owns 100% of. How can this be fiscally neutral?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: It can be fiscally neutral just by that member listening to what I said in answer to the first question, and that is quite simply that a departure tax is payable by any utility that sells more than 10%—

Interjections.

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

Finish, please.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The government is the people of Ontario. We’re paying $2.6 billion to the government, the people of Ontario, and that is being put back into Hydro One as it moves forward. It’s a total wash, and I really don’t understand the emotion and the diatribe that we’re getting from this member, because it’s clear. It has also been cleared by the auditors—

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

Road safety

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. This summer, the Halton Regional Police initiated the Reducing Rural Speeds Project in the north end of Burlington. This safety initiative aims to reduce the speeds of vehicles travelling along rural roads in order to promote safer driving habits. As part of this initiative, police conducted a summer safety blitz which saw them hand out twice as many tickets to drivers this year than last.

Of the almost 100 non-speeding-related tickets handed out by the police, the vast majority were for distracted driving. Mr. Speaker, distracted driving truly is an epidemic that not only affects those living in my community but indeed all Ontarians. Can the minister please tell members of this House what our government is doing to help prevent this senseless and preventable crime?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I want to begin by thanking the member from Burlington for the question, and also for being an outstanding champion for road safety, not only in Burlington but right across the province of Ontario.

The evidence truly speaks for itself: A driver who uses a cellphone is four times more likely to be in an accident than drivers who are focused on the road. That’s why our government is leading the charge against distracted driving. As of February 2010, police began issuing tickets for this completely preventable offence. And with the passing of Bill 31, the Making Ontario’s Roads Safer Act, in June of this year, drivers now face stiffer fines and penalties upon conviction. In fact, Ontario now has among the highest fine ranges in Canada.

Speaker, our government also made regulatory changes that apply three demerit points upon conviction for distracted driving.

There is no easy solution to changing inappropriate driver behaviour, but our government will continue to work as hard as possible to discourage texting behind the wheel.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: I want to thank the minister for his response. We’ve all seen how distracted driving can negatively impact the lives of others, but it is not just drivers who are affected by this behaviour and these poor choices. All members of this House know that Ontario’s roads are amongst the safest in North America, but it is extremely important that we consider the safety of everyone using our roads. This means keeping our roads safe for drivers, yes, but in particular, for our most vulnerable road users: cyclists and pedestrians.

In the minister’s response, he mentioned the passage of Bill 31. Can the minister please provide members of this House with further information on how Bill 31 is already making Ontario’s roads safer for all road users?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Again, I thank the member for her follow-up question. She’s 100% right: Our government takes the safety of all road users very seriously.

In addition to the distracted driving provisions contained in Bill 31, we’ve taken significant steps towards improving the safety of pedestrians and cyclists on our roads. This includes requiring drivers of motor vehicles to maintain a minimum distance of one metre when passing cyclists on highways; increasing the fine for those who improperly open or leave open the doors of motor vehicles; and requiring drivers to remain stopped at pedestrian crossovers or school crossings until those crossing the street are off the roadway.

I was very pleased to see that Bill 31, this past June, passed here in this Legislature with all-party support. These provisions, combined with stiffer distracted driving penalties, will help ensure the safety of drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. Speaker, this truly is another great example of how we can work together to keep all Ontarians safer on our roads.

Ontario economy

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Premier. There are new discoveries in a recent report by Philip Cross. The title, Ontario—No Longer a Place to Prosper, sums up the facts revealed by the former chief economic analyst for StatsCan.

It turns out that the Liberal spending spree was in full swing years before the recession, and growth fell just as much in the years before the recession as it did afterwards. So all their excuses blaming their tax-and-spend policies on the recession have now been debunked. The fact is, Ontario’s declining economy is a direct result of failed Liberal economic policy, and it is the Liberals who raised costs, hurting families, seniors and businesses.

When will the Premier realize that she is the one keeping Ontario from realizing its full potential?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the Fraser Institute report ranked Ontario number one in North America for foreign direct investment. I think that’s a really good thing.

I think it’s wonderful that since August 2014 Ontario gained 64,000 net new jobs. We’re increasing the job number in this province, Mr. Speaker. Our unemployment rate has gone down. In fact, unemployment in Ontario is 6.8%, which is under the national average of 7%. We are making investments in order to be able to compete globally.

I introduced the Premier’s youth advisory council at the beginning of the day. It’s very important to me that we hear from young people. They are the people who are going to be looking for those jobs. They are the people who are going to be creating those jobs. That’s why the investments that we’re making are so important.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: That response tells us this Liberal government has absolutely no intention of listening to the experts.

If the Fraser report is not enough, we’ve heard the same facts from the Ontario chamber, the federation of business, the manufacturers’ association, and the list goes on. They all told us the same facts: Since the Liberals took office, all of our numbers and our jobs have headed south.

It’s unfortunate they didn’t listen to the Auditor General last year. She told us that if the Liberals continue down this destructive path, they will crowd out the services Ontarians deserve. We know what that means in my hometown of North Bay, where they just fired 158 front-line health care workers, half of whom were nurses.

When will this government realize it’s their own mismanagement that is costing the people of Ontario their jobs?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I really appreciate the opportunity that the member opposite gave me to talk about North Bay regional hospital. We know that there are some changes under way. Nothing has been finalized. In fact, the LHIN is expecting the final version of the hospital’s improvement plan on October 16, in just about a week’s time. They’re going to review that. They’re going to continue to discuss this with the hospital. It’s not true at all that 50% of the individuals are nursing staff; it’s far less. In fact, many of them will be through attrition. But even more important, it’s not even decided yet.

This is a plan which still has to go through the LHIN. It has to be approved by the LHIN and the ministry as well.

It’s important and prudent—I would suggest that the member opposite read the CEO of the hospital’s op-ed of a week ago, where he explained very succinctly why the changes are being made.

Home care

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée.

Speaker, the Auditor General’s report clearly shows that 39% of the CCAC budgets that is supposed to go to patient care actually never reaches any patients. That’s almost $1 billion of public money that never finds its way to patients’ homes, to provide the home care that people need and depend on. I’ve asked the minister before if he knew this, but he did not have an answer.

So I’ll ask him again today: Did the minister know that nearly $1 billion of the money that he sends to CCACs, the money that he oversees, never really gets to the patients who need home care?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Well, Mr. Speaker, what I will do is stand up and defend the hard work of our front-line health care workers in our CCACs, including the thousands of individuals who work as care coordinators, who develop patient plans—they purchase equipment and services for individuals at home. The member opposite describes that as overhead. I don’t. I actually think that’s an insult to the hard-working nurses and nurse practitioners who are our care coordinators and who are providing that patient care and making a difference to the more than 800,000 individuals around this province who do receive services.

Mr. Speaker, I have accepted, endorsed and agreed with all of the recommendations of the Auditor General. This government intends on implementing every single one of her recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: As you read through the auditor’s report, you clearly see the government’s failures. The home care system in Ontario is failing patients on eligibility; it is failing on wait-lists; it is failing on care levels and on quality of care. Our home care system is broken, and it needs to be fixed.

The Auditor General’s recommendation is that the entire structure of home care delivery needs to change. Does the minister agree that it is the structure that needs to change? Because none of his 10-point plan talks about structure.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: The 10-point action plan that I released earlier this year was all of the recommendations from Gail Donner and her expert panel that advised us on what to do. She said, very importantly, that form follows function. We made 10 changes that will improve the quality of care. The Auditor General has now given us a road map to allow us to make those structural and governance changes, if required.

But I have to say, I’m not going to take lessons from the party opposite, from the third party, the party that delisted home care from OHIP when they were government.

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Mr. Joe Dickson: My question is for the Associate Minister of Finance.

Over the past few months, there has been a growing awareness in my community about the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan. My constituents are pleased to see our government taking action to close the retirement savings gap for millions of Ontarians, particularly seniors.

Businesses in my riding are eager to learn more about our government’s plans to enhance retirement security across the province. Businesses are already beginning to make plans for the implementation of the ORPP. Some business owners have spoken and have asked how the government will be phasing in the enrolment of the plan and when different employers will begin making contributions. I know the minister recently announced the enrolment

schedule for the ORPP.

Mr. Speaker, through you, can the minister please update the House on when businesses will be enrolled in the plan?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I want to thank the member for that very important and timely question. Our goal is that by 2020, every employee in Ontario will be part of the ORPP or a comparable workplace pension plan.

We know that businesses need time to plan in order to implement the ORPP. I heard this throughout my consultations with businesses, particularly small businesses. Our staged approach will help ease the transition for business. Large businesses without registered workplace plans will be the first to start making contributions in January 2017. Medium-sized businesses will begin in the following year, and small businesses without workplace plans will begin making contributions in 2019.

As well, all employers will see their contribution rates phased in gradually over three years. This is a reasonable, responsible approach that ensures that we balance the retirement security of Ontarians with the needs of business.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Joe Dickson: Thank you to the minister for that response. I know that business owners in my riding will be glad to hear about the steps our government is taking to help businesses plan the implementation of the ORPP. Specifically, I know that small businesses, such as my own in my riding, will appreciate that they have additional time to adjust to the introduction of the ORPP.

Mr. Speaker, again, through you to the minister: Some businesses in my riding offer their employers a defined contribution plan that just falls below the comparability test put forward by our government. They are curious what different options are available to them, and they’re wondering whether they will automatically be enrolled in the ORPP if their plans do not meet a comparability test, or are there ways for them to adjust their plans to be exempt from the ORPP. Mr. Minister—

Interjection: Madam Minister.

Mr. Joe Dickson: Madam Minister—I was thinking of Mr. Speaker; he’s always on my mind—could you please outline the options available to Ontario businesses—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Well, I’m on yours.

Minister.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I want to thank the wonderful member from Ajax–Pickering for that great question and the work he’s doing on behalf of his constituents.

Our enrolment

schedule outlines that employers who offer registered workplace pension plans that don’t meet our comparability threshold will start in 2020. This gives these employers well over four years to adjust their plans, if they choose to do so. For example, a company with an existing DC plan would have two options: They could increase the contribution rates to 8% or they could alternatively contribute to the ORPP. Either way, they would have until 2020 to decide what to do with their existing plan.

Mr. Speaker, this is a responsible, reasoned and proven approach that balances the needs of businesses today with the needs of workers in the future, like our young people here from the Premier’s advisory council.

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Mrs. Julia Munro: Speaker, my question, through you, is to the Premier. The Premier has said that the mandatory Ontario pension plan will be good for the province, yet recent studies show that 90% of small business owners are opposed to the ORPP.

An employee making $45,000 a year would pay just shy of $800 towards the ORPP, with their employer contributing an equal amount. While larger businesses may be able to absorb these added costs, smaller businesses will be forced to either reduce the size of their workforce or the hours those employees are able to work.

Mr. Speaker, we all know it’s impossible to save for retirement if you don’t have a job. How many job losses will it take for this Premier to axe her job-killing payroll tax?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Associate Minister of Finance.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: Mr. Speaker, what a great question from the opposition, because it is important that we talk about retirement security in this province. Just last week, we heard that the numbers of—

Interjections.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: Mr. Speaker, we know that our population is aging. We know that two thirds of Ontarians do not have a workplace pension plan today. That’s why we’re taking leadership to implement the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan.

The member opposite knows full well that the ORPP is not a payroll tax. Let’s look at the evidence. The Globe and Mail called this idea “bogus phrasing” and said “this money is really deferred salary for workers to access in retirement.”

When people retire, they need to have the opportunity to continue to consume in retirement, and that is what we’re doing by strengthening retirement security with the ORPP.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Julia Munro: Mr. Speaker, again through you to the Premier: Premier, the ORPP’s administrative costs are expected to range between $130 and $200 per member per year, so a worker who contributes $800 per year will lose up to 25% of their contributions off the top in fees alone. That doesn’t sound like a very good return on investment to me. Ontarians won’t be saving more; they will just be losing more off their payroll stub.

Let me remind you: When you feel the strong hand of government in your pocket taking the money, that’s a tax. Will the Premier commit to saving jobs and abandoning the poorly planned, job-killing payroll tax?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: As I was saying, the member opposite knows full well that this is not a payroll tax. This is deferred compensation for the members who contribute to the plan. We’re ensuring—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Shouting people down is not impressive at all.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Nor is making comments while I’m trying to get control.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: From the Canadian Payroll Association: “It is not a payroll tax.... It is a pension plan, not a tax.”

From pension expert Keith Ambachtsheer: “People making this claim should be required to take ... economics 101.”

Mr. Speaker, this is about ensuring that we have retirement security for the people of Ontario. If we had a willing federal government in Ottawa that would co-operate with Ontario and ensure that we can manage this plan as efficiently and effectively as possible, this would be better for the people—

Interjections.

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

New question.

Mineral exploration and production

Mr. Michael Mantha: Mr. Speaker, good morning to you. My question is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Today, Northern Superior Resources has gone to trial with the Ontario government over its failure to set real guidelines on the mining process in Ontario. NSR is the fourth mining company since 2009 to bring legal action against the government over the exact same issue.

The failure to get consultations under way demonstrates the misguided priorities of the Liberal government and is paving the path for further disputes. Why has this government failed to do their job in creating a plan for resource development and jobs in the north?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I think the member understands that I certainly can’t speak about a specific case that may be before the courts, but I will say that we endeavour in every way and work as hard as we can to work as closely as we can with the companies that are bringing potential opportunities forward in the province of Ontario, as we work very closely with the First Nations and try to bring organizations, groups and communities together for that purpose as well. That will be our continued goal, and that’s something we have had great success with in so many ways.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Mantha: Again to the minister: From 2005 until it lost access to the area of the claims in 2012, NSR spent over $12 million in acquisition, maintenance and exploration. Other companies like Cliffs, Noront and KWG have equally spent tens of millions and have grown extremely frustrated or given up entirely, leaving the province, all stating that the Liberal government has not set any real guidelines on development.

If the government continues to mismanage mining development in the north, we will see the lawsuits pile up and the jobs will be lost—gone forever.

I ask again, as I’ve asked several times before, will the minister act now to actually develop a plan for good, value-added job creation that treats First Nations as partners?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: We are very proud of the work we’re doing with the consultations with First Nations as we are with the mining companies in the province of Ontario, and we have got a great story to tell. It’s unfortunate that the member is choosing to focus on some of the challenges we have when there are such great stories to tell.

We continue to be the number one jurisdiction for exploration in the country, let alone in North America. We continue to have increasing mineral production—$11 billion in 2014. We continue to open up new mines. The member knows that well, as do all members of the House. Those opportunities will continue to happen. Whether we’re talking about Goldcorp’s Cochenour expansion or Rubicon Minerals, the new opportunities at New Gold, Greenstone gold—these are opportunities that will require us to work closely together in a very positive way, and, of course, that’s something I look forward to continuing to do with my colleague across the House.

International trade

Ms. Harinder Malhi: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade.

Ontario is home to many of the top-ranked post-secondary institutions in the world. Our universities and colleges are known for their prestigious faculty, dedicated students and innovative programs. I, like many others, enjoy watching to see what new and exciting things will come from our schools each year.

Last month, I was proud to see one of Ontario’s great innovators, Ryerson University, achieve international recognition and some phenomenal opportunities with the help of the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade. In August of this year, the CEO for the UK-based organization Innovation Birmingham visited Ryerson after six months of communications fostered by the Ontario international offices in the United Kingdom.

In September, on your trade mission to the UK, I saw that Ryerson signed a memorandum of understanding with Innovation Birmingham. Speaker, through you to the minister, could the minister provide more information about this MOU?

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to thank the member from Brampton–Springdale for asking the question.

There’s a very strong economic tie between Ontario and the UK. We have a shared political and cultural heritage and a similar economic growth pattern. The most important thing in engaging the world and expanding trade and investment opportunities is building relationships. Ontario is eager to develop mutually beneficial commercial relationships with Birmingham companies and organizations.

As the member knows, on my last mission to the UK, Ryerson University signed a partnership agreement with Innovation Birmingham. Under the agreement, Ryerson and IB will launch the Next Big Idea Contest and showcase the possibility of virtual incubation and collaboration. It is already clear that great things will be coming out of this mission.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Harinder Malhi: I’d like to thank the minister for his answer. I know the ministry has been working diligently to promote Ontario’s trade interests around the world. It is great to hear that an emphasis is also being placed on fostering non-competitive relationships in various countries as well.

I’m sure these efforts will bring about even more beneficial partnerships between countries and allow for further innovation, like we’re seeing at Ryerson. I’m particularly excited to hear about the Next Big Idea Contest.

Future relationships can be modelled on the relationship we saw in the UK: two cutting-edge innovators, Innovation Birmingham and Ryerson University, teaming up with a major UK bank and with the Ontario government to help companies, organizations and regions go global.

Speaker, could the minister provide more information about the Next Big Idea Contest and how it will help foster relationships in the future?

Hon. Michael Chan: The Next Big Idea Contest is intended to discover innovative IT companies and provide them with the opportunity to scale up internationally. It has been running in India for three years and is in its second iteration in the UK.

The first outcome of the agreement between Birmingham and Ryerson is proposed to be the second edition of this contest. It will be open to existing Ontario and Birmingham digital media and IT companies, whose services and products can be scaled to reach the global audience.

There will be one winner for Ontario, ready to grow into the UK, and one winner from Birmingham looking to invest in Ontario.

Speaker, I am excited to see what great partnerships and even better ideas come out of this contest.

Long-term care

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is to the Associate Minister of Long-Term Care. The provincial auditor tells us the two ministers responsible for health care in Ontario are failing miserably when it comes to living up to their responsibility to protect Ontario’s senior citizens.

Here are the facts: You have not brought in standards of care in home care, and you have no standards of care in our nursing homes.

This minister is supposed to be the one protecting our seniors, standing on guard for them and implementing tough standards. On the other hand, she has missed inspection deadlines, issued zero work orders, and as a result, long-term-care residents have died from neglect or abuse.

I ask, will the minister bring in the standards of care? Yes or no?

Hon. Dipika Damerla: I thank the member opposite for his question.

The fact is that we have been taking a number of steps to beef up our implementation and our inspections. For example, Mr. Speaker, in 2014, for the very first time, we inspected every single home in Ontario—across the province. What’s more, we are continuing this in 2015.

What’s really egregious here is the fact that when the party opposite were in power, they forgot to inspect homes at all for long periods of time. For them to say that we are not inspecting is a little rich, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Bill Walker: Back to the Associate Minister of Long-Term Care: These people are our parents, our grandparents, and the minister continues to neglect them. They’re left to sleep in soaking diapers, developing broken skin and bedsores.

It has been 10 years since an inquest made the specific recommendation to this government to bring in standards of care at long-term-care homes, but it has done nothing.

As a result, neglect and death continue to happen. Most recently, sadly, it happened to Fatemeh Hajimoradi and Dorothy Benson, who died from bedsore complications.

I ask, why will the minister not stand up here and admit that when it comes to living up to her responsibilities to protect Ontario’s frail senior citizens, she has been nothing short of a very, very bad failure?

Hon. Dipika Damerla: Again, I thank the member opposite for his question.

I just want to assure Ontarians and this House that the safety of our residents in our long-term-care homes is my number one priority.

When our families place their seniors in our long-term-care homes, they do so with the trust that we will look after them. I’m very conscious of this trust, and I take that very seriously.

That is why we are committed to providing increased support to long-term-care home operators. In fact, this year we increased funding to long-term-care homes by 2.5%, and since coming to office, we have increased funding for long-term-care homes by 85%.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to continue to say that the safety of our long-term-care residents continues to be a priority.

Health care funding

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Constituents have been contacting my office in London and telling us that they have been waiting for years to get an appointment at the London Health Sciences Centre for surgery or to see medical specialists for diagnosis.

London’s surgery wait times for diagnostic scans and surgeries are significantly higher than the provincial wait times. Michael Allen, a two-time cancer survivor, was diagnosed in January 2015 as high risk for heart attack and stroke, and he only got into surgery last week after he suffered a stroke in September. Gail Silvestro had to go to Strathroy to see a specialist due to London’s wait times and now will be waiting at least a year for surgery in order for her to be able to walk.

The people of London are tired of waiting for this government to take action. When will this government stop failing the people of this province, putting lives and well-being at risk with appallingly long wait times for crucial surgeries?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I appreciate the question. The member opposite didn’t have the opportunity to mention that we were the first government in the history of this province to actually begin measuring wait times for important surgeries, as well as ER wait times.

When we began in 2003 to measure wait times, because we inherited the legacy of cuts from the Progressive Conservatives, we had the worst wait times in all of Canada when we came into office. Now, we have the best wait times, the shortest wait times, in all of Canada.

We continue to work on this. We’re making hundreds of millions of dollars of investments to continue to decrease those wait times, whether they’re for surgeries or for ERs, other processes and services. That’s an obligation and a responsibility that we take extremely seriously.

Notice of dissatisfaction

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Pursuant to standing order 38(a), the member from Oxford has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing concerning the Housing Services Corp. This matter will be debated tomorrow at 6 p.m.

There are no deferred votes. This House stands recessed until 1 p.m.

The House recessed from 1142 to 1300.

Members’ Statements

Max Keeping

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Rare in a city of almost a million people that its entire population would agree that one man was the heart, the soul and the pride of his community, but that’s Ottawa’s Max Keeping.

Born a proud Newfoundlander, he took the nation’s capital by storm. Max never forgot what Ottawa gave to him or, for that matter, who he was. What he received he gave back tenfold. He was a philanthropist, donating many hours and millions of dollars for charity, including to our own Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario. He was a children’s champion. He supported organizations like Child and Youth Friendly Ottawa, and made his newscast kid-friendly. He was the first in Canada to do so.

He was a broadcaster, the public face of CJOH, now CTV Ottawa. Max was a guest in eastern Ontario homes during the supper hour news for almost four decades. He was a trusted face, even when the toughest news was about to be delivered.

He was also a family man. He was devoted to his sons and his grandchildren.

Although Max was the most important person in Ottawa, he never once had an air about him. Instead, he made every single person he spoke to feel that they were the most important person in the room.

When he passed last week, fellow broadcasters, politicians, NHL players, hospital CEOs, farmers—everyone had a Max Keeping story. He was a celebrity we all knew personally, and that was a real credit to his humanity and his humbleness.

His life, how he embraced others, his kindness and his love of community is now our lesson, one which I know will be honoured by Max’s family as well as all of us in Ottawa. On behalf of the Ontario Legislature, I want to thank Max for his lifelong contribution to the city of Ottawa, and I wish to convey my most heartfelt condolences to his family and his grandchildren. There will never be another Max Keeping.

Economic development

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I rise today to share reflections on two conferences I attended over the weekend in London.

The first was Manufacturing Matters, organized by the London Economic Development Corp. Bringing together more than 400 manufacturers and service providers, this was the largest gathering ever of southwestern Ontario’s manufacturing sector, demonstrating that manufacturing remains vital to London’s economy.

The second was called The Future of Work, organized by the London Poverty Research Centre. Two leading economists, Armine Yalnizyan and Mike Moffat, presented data showing that in Canada’s changing labour market, a job is no longer a ticket out of poverty. In a region that has lost one third of its manufacturing jobs over the past decade, this is a trend that took root early and deeply in London.

At the first conference, we heard about the demand for skilled workers to fill new jobs in advanced manufacturing, and the value of co-ops and internships to address workforce needs.

At the second, we heard about the twin forces of globalization and automation that have led to plant closures, the displacement of skilled workers and a generation of young people facing precarity as the new normal.

My take-away? Not only must we provide young people with opportunities to participate in paid co-ops and internships, but we must also support older workers whose skills are less easily transferred. We must create more affordable housing, increase child care spaces and build transit to get people to work. While doing everything we can to spur innovation, we must also ensure that no one is left behind and that every Ontarian has a place in the new economy.

Max Keeping

Mr. John Fraser: I’d like to join the member for Nepean–Carleton in saying a few words about Max. Last week, Ottawa lost one of our true leaders, Max Keeping. Max was a journalist, a philanthropist and a true community builder.

As anchor for CJOH nightly news, he found his way into our living rooms for over 30 years, and the news always included community. He had attended thousands of events for charity over that time. In his career, he raised more than $100 million.

As a builder, he reminded us all that community matters, and he knew how to bring us together. Max could throw a good party. However, first and foremost he was a champion for children. As a cheerleader for the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario and other causes, he helped us find our way to our pockets to support children’s needs: saving the cardiac program at CHEO, more support for children’s mental health or scholarships for children in care. He wanted every child to have an opportunity to succeed.

I had the pleasure of working with Max on many occasions, and it was never about Max; it was always about someone else. Communities need individuals who give expression to our collective desire that all of our children have a chance to thrive. Max was ours.

Max, thank you for your unwavering commitment to our community and our children. To his family, our condolences. Max, we will miss you. God bless.

Hospital funding

Mr. Todd Smith: Fall is in the air, and because it is, that can only mean one thing: Another round of cuts and staff uncertainty at Quinte Healthcare hospitals. To make up for an $11.5-million funding shortfall created largely because Ontario’s Liberal government can’t manage money, jobs and services will be cut at hospitals in Picton, Belleville, Bancroft and Trenton. Money is being spent on debt that people in Prince Edward–Hastings want spent on the services they need in their hospitals.

This morning, we learned that in order to close the $11.5-million shortfall, QHC is proposing a reduction of nearly all surgery services at Trenton Memorial, $4.5 million in direct care cuts and changes that one QHC executive calls “very hard on our staff.”

During the years of this government, QHC has been the recipient of almost continual funding shortfalls from the ministry.

Speaker, if I could, I’d like to direct some comments directly to my constituency back at home: The deficit this government is running is costing you your health care services. QHC has had to come up with $25 million in cuts over four years to make up for funding shortfalls because the Liberal government at Queen’s Park doesn’t have any money left. The government says money is going into better home care services, but the Auditor General says services are being cut there too to pay for fat-cat salaries.

The third-largest expense in the budget is how much we pay to service our debt, and it’s also the fastest growing. That’s why cuts like this have gone from being rare to happening annually.

Taxi industry

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I rise today to raise the concerns of taxi drivers and limousine drivers across my constituency and across Ontario. Taxi drivers are raising concerns around Uber. Their concerns are that Uber perhaps doesn’t pay HST, which means lost revenue for the province and the country. They’re concerned that Uber drivers often don’t claim that income and that’s another source of loss of revenue. They’re also raising awareness and concerns around the fact that perhaps Uber drivers don’t pay for commercial insurance, which may leave drivers and passengers unprotected.

They continue to raise concerns around the lack of training, that perhaps Uber drivers may make roads more unsafe in our province. They also raise concerns regarding the lack of accountability, that drivers are not accountable against specific complaints. Finally, they raise concerns around the safety of vehicles which aren’t subject to municipal standards.

Our taxi and limousine drivers provide an essential and important service in our province. They are well-trained professionals whose vehicles meet municipal standards and they provide an important service which must be respected by this government. This government has a responsibility to address their concern and I ask the government to address the concerns raised by these drivers. They certainly provide a very important service. They are well-trained professionals who deserve that respect.

Events in Beaches–East York

Mr. Arthur Potts: I want to spend a moment here to tell you a little bit about what I did during the opportunity of the legislative recess over the summer.

Certainly, a great highlight for me was when the Premier of Ontario, Kathleen Wynne, came to Beaches–East York. During her visit, we went to Toronto East General Hospital, where she made a very significant funding announcement: $125 million over the next year for improvements for hospitals across the province, including $1.7 million for Toronto East General Hospital to renew its aging infrastructure. So the Premier and I toured the hospital’s new and very unique Chest Centre. It’s the only facility in Toronto providing various lung health services under one roof. The new CEO, Sarah Downey, who has been there for about six months, is just doing a fantastic job.

We then went on to Centre 55, a great community hub in Beaches–East York. The Premier and I met some of the hundreds of campers from across the community. We were greeted by Debbie Visconti, Nancy Culver and Jason Balgopal, who run the place. The campers were very interested in the Premier’s visit and they asked her lots of great questions like, how did she get into politics? It was excellent.

We then went down to Queen Street, where we went to the Beacher Cafe. Thank you so much to Kumiko Martineau and her staff, who made our visit on the patio such a great experience.

I was also pleased to take the Premier out for some mainstreeting on Queen Street East. We dropped in at Tori’s Bakeshop, Arts on Queen, and the Remarkable Bean, a wonderful coffee shop in the riding, but we held off on going to the matinee movie at the Fox. Maybe we can do that another time.

So my appreciation to all the residents and the businesses we interacted with that day. It was a wonderful, wonderful visit.

International Plowing Match

Mr. Jim McDonell: I’m proud to stand here today to commend the organizers of this year’s International Plowing Match and Rural Expo, held in Finch, Ontario, in the great riding of Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry. What started as a dream for Stormont Plowmen’s Association member Jeff Waldroff turned into the largest event in the history of Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry. I want to commend Jeff and IPM chair Jim Brownell for organizing such a great and extremely successful event.

Almost 83,000 people attended the 2015 IPM. The community assembled over 1,200 volunteers, with over $500,000 in donations and another $600,000 in in-kind work. The event was capped off with terrific weather that allowed the visitors to take in all the many sites. Whether it was the dancing tractors, the many exhibitions, farm machinery, seed companies, service delivery companies, or dealers of all kinds, it really was a great event. It was a chance to showcase what we feel is the best area of Ontario, in eastern Ontario, where people came down and saw the great crops—agriculture at its finest.

We’re looking forward to next year. It’s in Wellington, Ontario, and it will be another great event.

Davenport-Perth Neighbourhood and Community Health Centre

Mrs. Cristina Martins: I rise today to recognize a fantastic organization in my riding of Davenport, the Davenport-Perth Neighbourhood and Community Health Centre.

The DPNCHC, as it is so fondly referred to, supports people in the Davenport-Perth area who are suffering from economic and social barriers, and empowers them to enrich their lives through the community. It also provides a space for people to meet and connect across all ages and cultures. From the Ontario Early Years Centre to the Youth Leadership program for teenagers to computer training for seniors to the EdgeWest clinic, this facility prides itself on providing services to everyone.

On August 20, I was honoured to invite Premier Kathleen Wynne to the DPNCHC for a tour and to host a community round table meeting with her and community organizations to discuss issues that we face in Davenport.

Events like this show how our government understands the importance of health and community centres like this one. I’m proud to continue to uphold this commitment by supporting the DPNCHC through the Ontario Trillium Fund.

Mr. Speaker, on September 12, DPNCHC celebrated their 30th anniversary. I was humbled to be a part of the celebrations and to see a whole community come together and recognize the wonderful work that this organization does for Davenport. I want to thank executive director Kim Fraser for leading this organization into its 30th year and ensuring that it continues to be such an integral part of this community.

Thank you very much, DPNCHC, for all the work you do. Happy anniversary.

Senior citizens / Personnes âgées

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Last Thursday was the International Day of Older Persons. As a former social worker and co-owner of a retirement residence, I understand the value seniors provide to our communities. It is their contribution we can build upon, and their guidance and experience we can learn from to improve our society. We must appreciate the contribution of seniors and the wealth of knowledge and wisdom they bring to our province and our communities.

The Canadian population surpassed a milestone last Tuesday: For the first time ever, there are more senior citizens than children.

Il est prévu que le nombre de personnes âgées vivant à Ottawa fera plus que doubler au cours des 20 prochaines années, avec une projection de 250 000 individus. Nous devons donc planifier en conséquence.

I am proud to share that in 2013, the city of Ottawa was inducted into the Global Network of Age-friendly Cities and Communities by the World Health Organization. This is thanks to the city’s Older Adult Plan and Age-Friendly Ottawa, an initiative led by the Council on Aging. With the first term of the Older Adult Plan finishing at the end of 2014, the city of Ottawa is currently refreshing the action plan for the 2015 to 2018 period.

This year, the Council on Aging of Ottawa received over $18,000 through the Ontario Age-Friendly Community Planning Grant to collect data to measure the city’s progress in achieving their age-friendly community goals. This is a great initiative on the part of the Ontario government, and I hope other communities take part and take advantage of it.

Merci, monsieur le Président.

Le Président (L’hon. Dave Levac): Merci beaucoup.

I thank all members for their statements.

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Ontario Agriculture Week

Hon. Jeff Leal: I just want to say at the outset that because I’m speaking in about 25 minutes to the Advancing Women conference on agriculture, I can’t stay in the House to hear the comments from my honourable friend from Huron–Bruce and my honourable colleague from Timiskaming–Cochrane. I just wanted to let you know that. I’m not skipping out; I just have a speaking engagement, so I wanted to let you know that. Thank you so much for extending me that courtesy.

It’s my honour to rise in the House today, so close to Thanksgiving, in celebration of Ontario Agriculture Week. This week is about recognizing and celebrating the people who bring good things that grow in Ontario to us, Ontario’s hard-working farmers. These are the people who look out at their empty fields each spring morning not knowing what will happen or what the next few months will hold, wondering whether mother nature will co-operate to make those fields bountiful by our fall.

Every time, every year, time and time again, farmers remain committed to the cause of helping to feed Ontarians, Canadians and, indeed, the rest of the world. Farmers are unwavering in their commitment and determination to this cause. Ontario farmers are passionate about what they do. They have to deal with the uncertainties they face each and every day.

Farmers are deeply rooted in tradition, yet are progresssive and innovative. They are constantly mastering new tools and new technologies, creating new methods to be more effective to help make their farms profitable, while growing the highest-quality and safest food in the world.

Ontario’s farmers produce more than 200 agricultural commodities, everything from quinoa to kale to ginseng to bok choy. They are recognizing and fulfilling today’s global demands, creating specific meats, produce and other agricultural food products to meet the needs of consumers around the world and right here at home.

Ontario farmers are, at the same time, keeping our economy strong. In 2014, Ontario’s agri-food exports were $12.5 billion, with people in regions as far as the Middle East, Japan and China enjoying great things that are grown, raised and harvested by our farmers right here in Ontario.

Ontario is home to a diverse range of agricultural products. Ontario is the largest area for winter wheat, grapes, apples, peaches, sour cherries, pears and plums in Canada. We grow almost 99% of the country’s ginseng, which is known as the highest quality in the world. We have 1.5 million maple taps. More than half of Canada’s greenhouses are located here, and we have the largest share of the Canadian nursery and sod areas.

As a sector, Ontario’s agri-food industry employs more than 780,000 individuals in communities right across the province, contributing more than $34 billion in GDP, second only to the auto sector.

Ontario’s agri-food sector, as it has historically been, is a cornerstone of our society, a major force in the province’s economy, building and contributing to our high quality of life, envied around the world.

Ontario’s farmers are the best environmental stewards of our farmland because they depend on that land for their livelihood. Mr. Speaker, this is a challenging task, and farmers take it seriously each and every day. These are the people who have made sustainability their watchword and are finding new ways to reduce waste and to farm in an environmentally protective way while growing enough food to feed our province, nation and indeed the world.

Ontario farmers support their communities through youth programs and food donations to ensure our rural communities are a vibrant place to live.

As always, I want to recognize the member for Sarnia–Lambton, who came up with the idea that farmers’ surplus could be donated to food banks—and get a tax credit. That’s a very important initiative.

These are the people who depend on our government to invest in our infrastructure, create jobs, work with local leaders and help rural Ontario thrive.

Mr. Speaker, Ontario farmers work tirelessly to make this province great and provide us with the safest, highest-quality, most delicious foods each and every day.

Our government—your government—is proud to support Ontario farmers by creating a supportive and dynamic business climate that helps them to play a valued role in growing our economy and growing Ontario’s future.

Let’s give Ontario farmers our support and thanks not just here today or this week during Agriculture Week, but year-long.

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize those 1,053 farms that are in the wonderful riding of Peterborough.

Remember to recognize and thank those who grow, harvest, or make your food when we enjoy our Thanksgiving meals this coming weekend with friends and family.

I want to remind this House to take the opportunity to give to those who don’t enjoy the same privileges that you and I enjoy each and every day.

Enjoy Ontario Agriculture Week, everyone.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Responses?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: It’s an honour to stand today to recognize Agriculture Week. On behalf of Patrick Brown, our leader of the PC Party of Ontario, and my colleague Toby Barrett, PC critic for the agriculture, food and rural affairs file, and our entire caucus, I would like to say thank you to all farm families across Ontario.

I must say that I appreciated the overview that Minister Leal shared moments ago outlining our overall industry. It’s easy to recognize how the agri-food industry in Ontario lends itself to be second, if not first, in overall economy significance. Thank you to him.

As many farmers across this province are working this week to harvest their crops for the year, we have to recognize so many contributions to Ontario by celebrating Agriculture Week.

Agriculture has been an important part of Ontario’s history since before our first Lieutenant Governor, John Graves Simcoe, surveyed land for the purpose of farming homesteads for the early Loyalists who would settle in Upper Canada. These proud farmers cleared land, raised livestock, grew crops to support their families and communities—a tradition which I am pleased to say still continues to this day in Ontario.

So important are these men and women to Ontario’s economy that former PC Party MPP Bert Johnson, who proudly served from 1995 to 2003 for the riding of Perth, stood in this very House and received the support of his fellow members to officially recognize this industry through Ontario Agriculture Week.

Interjection: A great guy, Bert.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: He is, and I thank him for that. He’s still a wonderful advocate for Perth county as well as our agri-food industry.

I’d also like to recognize that Local Food Week, which is now celebrated in June, serves as an excellent way to bring together the farmers who produce our food, the retailers who sell it, the restaurants that prepare it and those who enjoy it every day. Agriculture Week serves to remind us all of the value that primary agriculture and its related value-added industries bring to our province and our economy.

But we cannot simply praise without offering our support to them as well.

I found it interesting that the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, just moments ago, spoke to how farmers are constantly mastering new tools and new technology. A perfect example of this was how over the last couple of years, farmers and industry were reacting and improving their technologies and their work habits to minimize bee kills. Unfortunately, last year this Liberal government implemented a policy that will hurt Ontario farmers. Of course, I’m talking about the regulations banning neonicotinoids.

As my colleague from Haldimand–Norfolk pointed out a couple of weeks ago, 28,000 members of Grain Farmers of Ontario have had to go to court to seek a stay of the regulations banning these neonicotinoids. Farmers are looking for predictable, bankable and sustainable paths forward, not knee-jerk actions that result in economic damage that is significant and irrevocable. Ontario agriculture should be a safe investment based on sound policies.

And speaking of safe, I know right now Ontario farmers have been successful in bringing in silage corn, and they’re busy combining beans, following up immediately with planting winter wheat. So I just would like to respectfully remind everyone to share the roads.

To change tune a little bit, Paul Harvey’s famous 1978 “So God Made a Farmer” speech was revised a couple of years ago for a Super Bowl ad, and I’d like to encourage everyone to take a moment to look up both. He opens by saying, “And on the eighth day, God looked down on his planned paradise and said, ‘I need a caretaker.’ So God made a farmer.” From there, he invokes for the listener a scene that has changed little in almost 40 years.

A powerful statement captures and shows how dedicated, hard-working, loving and selfless our farmers are: “God had to have somebody willing to ride the ruts at double speed to get the hay in ahead of the rain clouds and yet stop in midfield and race to help when he sees the first smoke from a neighbour’s place. So God made a farmer.”

I’d also like to recognize that not only do we need to recognize farmers, we need to recognize farm families.

It’s so great to hear that Minister Leal is now on his way to participate in Advancing Women in Agriculture. It’s a tremendous program, and I congratulate the planners, and I tell them today that I look forward to catching up with them later this evening.

I also will say that during the CWP outreach program, we’ll be taking a look at how women have made a difference in the agri-food industry as well.

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s an honour to be able to stand here today, on behalf of my leader, Andrea Horwath, and the NDP caucus, to recognize Ontario Agriculture Week.

The agri-food sector in Ontario is a $34-billion business, second only to the auto sector—and I agree with the president of the federation of agriculture, Don McCabe, who said it’s number one because you can’t eat cars. It’s a very good comment.

We produce in Ontario a myriad of products, from milk to bok choy and ginseng—it’s 200 products, and we produce them all. We produce many of them better than anyone else in the world. We have some of the highest safety standards, the strictest regulations. Regulations aren’t a bad thing if they make sense, because they assure people’s safety, and we do that.

Ontario Agriculture Week is the week before Thanksgiving. I think I can speak on behalf of farmers: Farmers hope not to be celebrating Ontario Agriculture Week at receptions and at meetings, and even at a party or two, because where they want to be this week is in the field. They know that Thanksgiving is a celebration of the harvest, and they know that you can’t celebrate the harvest until it’s in the bin. No one knows that better than a farmer.

Probably the best feeling in the world for a farmer is a beautiful day, a bumper crop, and all your equipment is just humming. It’s a beautiful feeling, Speaker, a feeling that can’t be matched.

But along with those types of feelings comes the other types of feelings, where it’s raining, where your crop is damaged by hail, where your animals are dying. We also know the other side, and that’s why we truly do celebrate Thanksgiving. We are thankful for everything that we are able to reap off the land.

I think Ontario Agriculture Week, this week, is a time when people who aren’t involved in agriculture should truly sit back and thank the people—we have a huge sector, but the people we should really be thanking this week are the actual farm families: 37,000 farm families in Ontario who are involved in the basis of agriculture. They’re the people right now in the combines, in the tractors with grain buggies—and if you don’t know what a grain buggy is, it’s nothing like a baby buggy. Those are the people. And not just the farmers but the elevator operators. Koch elevators in Earlton are open 24 hours a day.

If it’s combining, they’re open, and so are the other elevators in my area and across the province. Those are the things we should celebrate.

Farmers have to deal with so many variables—like the weather, like animal health. What they need, where it can be achieved, is stability. They need stability from their government. I think there are several examples where they don’t feel that stability is here right now. For grain farmers of Ontario to take the unprecedented step of launching legal action regarding a regulation that the government has put in regarding neonics—and not everyone agrees it was a good strategy, but it shows their frustration. They want to protect the environment. They did huge strides before the regs came in.

They need to be respected. The minister said he respected the strides that farmers have been making, but some of the regs don’t respect some of the professionals in agriculture, like certified crop advisers. We need more in agriculture than talk about respect; we need action on those issues.

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the Trans-Pacific Partnership that has been signed today by 12 trading countries. The devil is always in the details. For some agricultural commodities, this will be a good deal, but for some—supply management is one—the jury is still out. The devil is in the details, because one thing that supply management has always been able to achieve in this country is fair prices for consumers and farmers without government subsidization. Now, in this agreement, we’re talking about compensation. That’s a huge step backward. We need to look at the details and decide whether or not this is a good deal for Ontario farmers.

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

Correction of record

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I see a member working toward her desk with a point of order. The member from Oshawa.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise today on a point of order, and I’d like to take this opportunity to correct my record from September 24. It was my privilege to share a poem written by a David Lindeman in tribute to fallen workers. It was my understanding that he had passed away. However, I have heard from him, and I am pleased to correct my record. He has, in fact, not passed away and is alive and well and still advocating for fallen workers. I’m pleased to correct that record—probably not as pleased as he is that he is still alive and well.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All members do have an opportunity, on a point of order, to correct their record, and I’m glad this one was able to be done on behalf of his family.

Petitions

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Mr. Bill Walker: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Ontario government’s proposed Ontario Retirement Pension Plan (ORPP) is a mandatory pension plan which would target small businesses and their employees; and

“Whereas there has been little to no discussion on what the costs would be, or who would pay them; and

“Whereas affected businesses would be hit with up to $1,643 per employee, per year in new payroll taxes starting in 2017; and

“Whereas affected employees would have up to $1,643 per year extra deducted from their paycheques, and it would take 40 years for them to see the full pension benefits; and

“Whereas the Canadian Federation of Independent Business predicts the unemployment rate in Ontario would rise by 0.5%, and there would be a reduction in wages over the longer term; and

“Whereas all of these costs would be shouldered exclusively by small businesses and their employees; and

“Whereas public sector and big business employees who already have a pension plan will not be asked to pay into the plan;

“We, the undersigned, do not support implementation of the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan and petition the government of Ontario to axe the pension tax.”

I fully support it and will send it with page Calvin.

Gasoline prices

M me France Gélinas: I have this petition that was signed by Mr. Michel Laurin from Chelmsford in my riding, and it goes as follows:

“Petition Regarding Gas Prices.

“Whereas northern Ontario motorists continue to be subject to wild fluctuations in the price of gasoline; and

“Whereas the province could eliminate opportunistic price gouging and deliver fair, stable and predictable fuel prices; and

“Whereas five provinces and many US states already have some sort of gas price regulation; and

“Whereas jurisdictions with gas price regulation have seen an end to wild price fluctuations, a shrinking of price discrepancies between urban and rural communities and lower annualized gas prices;”

They “petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“Mandate the Ontario Energy Board to monitor the price of gasoline across Ontario in order to reduce price volatility and unfair regional price differences while encouraging competition.”

I fully support this petition and will ask Alexander to bring it to the Clerks.

Water fluoridation

Mr. Bob Delaney: I have a petition addressed to the Ontario Legislative Assembly, and it’s entitled, “Fluoridate All Ontario Drinking Water.” It reads as follows:

“Whereas fluoride is a mineral that exists naturally in virtually all water supplies, even the ocean; and

“Whereas scientific studies conducted during the past 70 years have consistently shown that the fluoridation of community water supplies is a safe and effective means of preventing dental decay, and is a public health measure endorsed by more than 90 national and international health organizations; and

“Whereas dental decay is the second-most frequent condition suffered by children, and is one of the leading causes of absences from school; and

“Whereas Health Canada has determined that the optimal concentration of fluoride in municipal drinking water for dental health is 0.7 mg/L, providing optimal dental health benefits, and well below the maximum acceptable concentrations; and

“Whereas the decision to add fluoride to municipal drinking water is a patchwork of individual choices across Ontario, with municipal councils often vulnerable to the influence of misinformation, and studies of questionable or no scientific merit;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“That the ministries of the government of Ontario adopt the number one recommendation made by the Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health in a 2012 report on oral health in Ontario, and amend all applicable legislation and regulations to make the fluoridation of municipal drinking water mandatory in all municipal water systems across the province of Ontario.”

I am pleased to add my signature to this and to support it and to send it down with page Gabriel.

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Mr. Jim McDonell: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Ontario government’s proposed Ontario Retirement Pension Plan ... is a mandatory pension plan which would target small businesses and their employees; and

“Whereas there has been little to no discussion on what the costs would be, or who would pay them; and

“Whereas affected businesses would be hit with up to $1,643 per employee, per year in new payroll taxes starting in 2017; and

“Whereas affected employees would have up to $1,643 per year extra deducted from their paycheques, and it would take 40 years for them to see the full pension benefits; and

“Whereas the Canadian Federation of Independent Business predicts the unemployment rate in Ontario would rise by 0.5%, and there would be a reduction in wages over the longer term; and

“Whereas all of these costs would be shouldered exclusively by small businesses and their employees; and

“Whereas public sector and big business employees who already have a pension plan will not be asked to pay into the plan;

“We, the undersigned, do not support implementation of the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan and petition the government of Ontario to axe the pension tax.”

I agree with that and will be giving it to Duha.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by my neighbour, Angela Inglis:

“Privatizing Hydro One: Another Wrong Choice.

“Whereas once you privatize hydro, there’s no return; and

“We’ll lose billions in reliable annual revenues for schools and hospitals; and

“We’ll lose our biggest economic asset and control over our energy future; and

“We’ll pay higher and higher hydro bills just like what’s happened elsewhere;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To stop the sale of Hydro One and make sure Ontario families benefit from owning Hydro One now and for generations to come.”

I wholeheartedly support this petition and will send it to the desk with Siena.

Lung health

Mr. Arthur Potts: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas lung disease affects more than 2.4 million people in the province of Ontario, more than 570,000 of whom are children. Of the four chronic diseases responsible for 79% of deaths (cancers, cardiovascular diseases, lung disease and diabetes) lung disease is the only one without a dedicated province-wide strategy;

“In the Ontario Lung Association report, Your Lungs, Your Life, it is estimated that lung disease currently costs the Ontario taxpayers more than $4 billion a year in direct and indirect health care costs, and this figure is estimated to rise to more than $80 billion seven short years from now;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To allow for deputations on MPP Kathryn McGarry’s private member’s bill, Bill 41, Lung Health Act, 2014, which establishes a Lung Health Advisory Council to make recommendations to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care on lung health issues and requires the minister to develop and implement an Ontario Lung Health Action Plan with respect to research, prevention, diagnosis and treatment of lung disease; and

“Once debated at committee, to expedite Bill 41, Lung Health Act, 2014, through the committee stage and back to the Legislature for third and final reading; and to immediately call for a vote on Bill 41 and to seek royal assent immediately upon its passage.”

I agree with this petition, sign it and leave it with page Kelly.

Health care funding

Mr. Norm Miller: I have a petition that reads:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas patients currently travel significant distances to access acute in-patient care, emergency, diagnostic, and surgical services available at the Huntsville District Memorial Hospital and the South Muskoka Memorial Hospital;

“Whereas the unique challenges of geography and a large population of seasonal residents currently rely on health care services provided by the current two-site model for Muskoka;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“That the Ontario government ensures that the current range of core hospital services provided at both the Huntsville District Memorial Hospital and the South Muskoka Memorial Hospital located in Bracebridge is maintained in the future.”

I agree with this and have signed it.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Peggy Sattler: This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

“Privatizing Hydro One: Another wrong choice.

“Whereas once you privatize hydro, there’s no return; and

“Whereas we’ll lose billions in reliable annual revenues for schools and hospitals; and

“Whereas we’ll lose our biggest economic asset and control over our energy future; and

“Whereas we’ll pay higher and higher hydro bills just like what’s happened elsewhere;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To stop the sale of Hydro One and make sure Ontario families benefit from owning Hydro One now and for generations to come.”

I couldn’t agree more. I’ll affix my name and will give it to page Siena to take to the table.

Public transit

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas there are critical transportation infrastructure needs for the province;

“Whereas giving people multiple avenues for their transportation needs takes cars off the road;

“Whereas public transit increases the quality of life for Ontarians and helps the environment;

“Whereas the constituents of Orléans and east Ottawa are in need of greater transportation infrastructure;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“Support the Moving Ontario Forward plan and the Ottawa LRT phase II construction, which will help address the critical transportation infrastructure needs of Orléans, east Ottawa and” our wonderful “province of Ontario.”

It gives me great pleasure to support this petition and provide it to page Grace.

Taxation

Mr. Bill Walker: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Liberal government has indicated they plan on introducing a new carbon tax in 2015; and

“Whereas Ontario taxpayers have already been burdened with a health tax of $300 to $900 per person that doesn’t necessarily go into health care, a $2-billion smart meter program that failed to conserve energy, and households are paying almost $700 more annually for unaffordable subsidies under the Green Energy Act; and

“Whereas a carbon tax scheme would increase the cost of everyday goods including gasoline and home heating; and

“Whereas the government continues to run unaffordable deficits without a plan to reduce spending while collecting $30 billion more annually in tax revenues than 11 years ago; and

“Whereas the aforementioned points lead to the conclusion that the government is seeking justification to raise taxes to pay for their excessive spending, without accomplishing any concrete targets;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To abandon the idea of introducing yet another unaffordable and ineffective tax on Ontario families and businesses.”

I support this petition and will send it with page Eastyn, from the great riding of Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound.

Privatisation des biens publics

M me France Gélinas: J’ai une pétition qui a été signée par M me Thérèse Labelle, à Val Caron, dans mon comté :

« Privatiser Hydro One : une autre mauvaise décision....

« Attendu que la privatisation d’Hydro One est un aller sans retour; et

« Attendu que nous allons perdre des centaines de millions de revenus fiables d’Hydro One pour nos écoles et nos hôpitaux; et

« Attendu que nous allons perdre le plus gros atout économique provincial et le contrôle de notre avenir dans le secteur de l’énergie; et

« Attendu que nous allons payer de plus en plus pour l’électricité, tout comme ce qui est arrivé ailleurs. »

Ils demandent à l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario :

« D’arrêter la vente d’Hydro One et de faire en sorte que les familles de l’Ontario, comme propriétaires d’Hydro One, en bénéficient, maintenant et pour les générations à venir. »

J’appuie cette pétition et je vais demander à Jacob de l’amener à la table des greffiers.

Employment standards

Mr. Arthur Potts: I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas a growing number of Ontarians are concerned about the growth in low-wage, part-time, casual, temporary and insecure employment; and

“Whereas too many workers are not protected by the minimum standards outlined in existing employment and labour laws; and

“Whereas the Ontario government is currently engaging in a public consultation to review and improve employment and labour laws in the province;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to implement a decent work agenda by making sure that Ontario’s labour and employment laws:

“—require all workers be paid a uniform, provincial minimum wage regardless of a worker’s age, job or sector of employment;

“—promote full-time, permanent work with adequate hours for all those who choose it;

“—ensure part-time, temporary, casual and contract workers receive the same pay and benefits as their full-time, permanent counterparts;

“—provide at least seven (7) days of paid sick leave each year;

“—support job security for workers when companies or contracts change ownership;

“—prevent employers from downloading their responsibilities for minimum standards onto temp agencies, subcontractors or workers themselves;

“—extend minimum protections to all workers by eliminating exemptions to the laws;

“—protect workers who stand up for their rights;

“—offer proactive enforcement of laws, supported by adequate public staffing and meaningful penalties for employers who violate the law;

“—make it easier for workers to join unions; and

“—require a $15 minimum wage for all workers.”

I sign this petition and leave it with page Anna.

Wind turbines

Mr. Jim McDonell: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas an industrial wind turbine development is to be constructed approximately 3.5 kilometres west of the village of Crysler by EDP Renewables; and

“Whereas the project will consist of 25-50 mega wind turbines and this has raised concerns by the citizens of Crysler and surrounding area related to health, safety and property values; and

“Whereas the Green Energy Act allows wind turbine developments to bypass meaningful public input and municipal approval;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“That the Ministry of the Environment revise the Green Energy Act to allow full public input and municipal approvals on all industrial wind farm developments, and the Minister of the Environment conduct a thorough scientific study on the health and environmental impacts of industrial wind turbines.”

I agree with this petition and will pass it off to page Matthew.

Hospital funding

M me France Gélinas: I have this petition that was signed by Ms. Sue Leblanc from Hanmer in my riding. It reads as follows:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Health Sciences North is facing major budget shortfalls leading to a decrease of 87,000 hours of nursing care...;

“Whereas Ontario’s provincial government has cut hospital funding in real dollar terms for the last eight years in a row; and

“Whereas these cuts will risk higher medical accident rates as nursing and direct patient care hours are reduced all across the hospital;”

We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to:

“Stop the proposed cuts to Health Sciences North and protect beds and services.

“Increase overall hospital funding in Ontario with a plan to increase funding at least to the average of other provinces.”

I fully support this petition, will affix my name to this and ask my good page Jacob to bring it to the Clerk.

Orders of the Day

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on September 30, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 112,

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

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): When we last debated this government bill, the member for Toronto–Danforth had the floor. He still has time remaining. I recognize the member for Toronto–Danforth.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Thank you, Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be able to complete my remarks in this second debate on this bill.

Where I had left off I had noted that there was a fundamental problem with this bill in that it was sidelining the Ontario Energy Board and setting Ontario up for a repetition of the huge problems we saw with the installation of smart meters, ensuring that the Ontario Energy Board wouldn’t have the power or the authority to view the rationale and the business case for putting in new transmission lines.

If the Ontario Energy Board had the authority—and it will—to simply review the bills to see that in fact if a hydro tower is put up, it was put up at a reasonable price, that means that the Ontario Energy Board in this new regime would not actually be able to say that a transmission line was useless, was redundant, was simply a cost burden on the ratepayers of Ontario. That, Speaker, is a profound problem with this bill.

The government has put together a bill that has some elements that speak to consumer protection—that’s the sugar-coating of the bill—but the critical elements that relate to the Ontario Energy Board are ones that can only bring grief to the people of this province.

The Ontario Energy Board is being diminished in its role. Even though it is being given some extra powers, its central role in controlling costs is being undermined by this government. I’ll speak about that, those mechanisms of undermining, right now.

I have to say that I followed the Minister of Energy’s speech on this bill. He ranged very widely. He set the goalpost. We can talk about just about anything, given what the Minister of Energy had to say. In this bill, the OEB is going to have its system of intervenor funding change. Precisely what that will be is not specified in the bill, but there is a substantial chance that the provision of funding to independent consumer advocates in the course of assessing a hearing, a proposal before the board, will be undermined.

Currently the OEB pays intervenors who appear at Ontario Energy Board hearings to represent consumer interests. The OEB doesn’t use an intervenor funding model, where they pay intervenors in advance; they use a model that’s intervenor cost recovery. If an intervenor brings forward information or evidence that the OEB judges to be valuable, useful and not frivolous, then that intervenor can recover their costs.

Now, there are risks with any system you use. In this system that we have now, the intervenor may not be able to recover their cost. They may put a fair amount of money up front and that can make it very difficult for consumer groups to protect the interests of ratepayers—consumers, generally.

An approach that’s used in Alberta and Newfoundland is one in which jurisdictions hire a dedicated consumer advocate to represent consumer interests. That seems to be where this government is headed. A ministerial briefing deck on Bill 112 says the new system would “take the form of an independent third party that would provide analysis on how consumers are impacted, or a more streamlined engagement process determined by the OEB.”

There was a letter put forward by the OEB in April of this year announcing phase two of its multi-year review of the intervenor framework, noting that “a number of North American jurisdictions have independent consumer advocates who are part of the regulator or separate government departments.”

We have a system now that has its problems, but we have a system now where consumer advocates, consumers themselves, can independently come forward and make their case before the Ontario Energy Board. They can question witnesses. They can question documents. They can make arguments. They are directly the consumers or advocates selected by consumers, not an advocate that is paid by the board whose continued employment is at the sufferance of the board or the pleasure of the board. We need a system in which it’s very clear that consumers are not dealt out, that their voice is not silenced.

The system we have has worked reasonably well for the last 35 years or so, but I have to say to you, Speaker, that this change in support for consumer intervention at a time when the government’s number one shield to the argument that rates will go up—and they will; they will go up very substantially. Their shield, their argument, is that the OEB is a regulator and it will protect us. What’s happening in this bill is that a significant piece of that protection, the independent voice of consumers and consumer advocates, may well be cut out. That is a step backwards for the people of Ontario and is a risk to the rates.

I want to note another thing that this government is doing to undermine the regulator. In August 2015, the government posted a proposal to the regulations registry to change Ontario regulation 53/05, which governs how the OEB calculates rate increases with respect to the construction of nuclear projects. There are no details, but the purported aim of the proposal is “to reduce volatility in OPG’s regulated nuclear rates during and following the period of Darlington refurbishments, while permitting an orderly recovery of prudently incurred costs.”

For many people with experience in cost overruns on energy mega-projects, this sounds a lot like construction-work-in-progress—CWIP—financing. Those who are familiar with this industry and with this kind of financing are very worried that the government may be creating a recipe for massive cost overruns and waste. I think it’s indicative of the lack of government respect for the regulator that, by regulation, they are trying to change whatever decision can be made by the regulator.

Ontario Power Generation proposed construction-work-in-progress financing for the Darlington refurbishment in 2010. CWIP financing allows generators to recover the costs of projects while the work is in progress, contravening a standard regulatory principle that ratepayers should only pay for electricity they are actually using, from generation projects that are “used and useful.”

Construction-work-in-progress funding forces present-day consumers to pay for energy that future consumers will use. With CWIP financing, consumers also pay in advance for planned construction that may not even take place, or pay contractors that may go out of business with the work unfinished, or pay for expenditures that may turn out to be inappropriate after the final bill is added up and after the cheques have been cashed.

CWIP financing shifts risk onto the public and reduces incentives for contractors to finish on time, or for project managers to keep a lid on costs. With nuclear projects—as you are well aware, Speaker—this risk is especially huge.

There is a good reason why construction-work-in-progress financing is illegal in most jurisdictions and the OEB has repeatedly rejected it in Ontario. Yet this government is moving to sideline the regulator which they say will defend the interests of ratepayers, so they can make a very substantial decision about how nuclear generation is financed in this province, just as in this bill they are sidelining the regulator when it comes to determining or assessing whether or not new investments in transmission infrastructure are going to be assessed for whether they are reasonable and necessary. All that will be assessed will be whether or not the bills that come in are legitimate.

A recent

article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution describes huge cost overruns and delays at the construction-work-in-progress-financed Vogtle nuclear plant in Waynesboro, Georgia. This government may use the OEB as a shield against arguments about rocketing increases in prices, but substantially, in this bill and outside it, they have been undermining that regulator.

On another tack, I want to talk about

section 58.1 of the bill. That’s the requirement that, “A distributor that is licensed under this part to own or operate a distribution system shall maintain its head office in Ontario.”

Then it goes on to detail what that means:

“(

a) the principal executive office for the distributor and its subsidiaries is located in Ontario;

“(

b) the chief executive officer and substantially all of the officers with strategic decision-making or management authority for the distributor and its subsidiaries principally perform their duties at that principal executive office ... in Ontario; and

“(

c) substantially all of the strategic decision-making, corporate planning, corporate finance and other executive functions of the distributor and its subsidiaries are carried out at that principal executive office or elsewhere in Ontario.”

In fact, the new Hydro One or any of the new privatized local distribution companies or regional distribution companies that are going to arise out of the government’s actions on changing the Electricity Act could maintain a small office on Toronto Street, like Conrad Black did with his firm Hollinger, where you had executive functions in one small building.

But to run a multi-billion dollar operation, you need engineers, you need IT specialists, you need people who do billing, you need people who operate call centres. Speaker, you may be aware that a few years ago, this government issued a directive to Hydro One that it could not offshore. It could not send abroad to India, China or the United States any of those functions: the call centres, the IT management, the engineering. From now on, the chief executive officer and the major executives, who can probably fill a small office building, will have to be here, but all of the back office functions can be offshored.

Speaker, as you are well aware, we have people graduating every day from universities and colleges around Ontario who have the skills you need in engineering or information technology to run this system. Increasingly, what we see is a drive to offshore those services.

I had to make a call recently to a newspaper about a problem with delivery, and it was very clear from the accent that the person was operating out of a call centre in the United States.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: How do you know that?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Ma’am?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Americans move to Canada all the time.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Sometimes you ask.

Speaker, the government is setting things up for offshoring large volumes of back office functions with Hydro One and making it possible for all the small, privatized or large, recently privatized transmitters and distributors to do the same. This protection for work in Ontario is entirely inadequate.

I want to move on to the whole matter of regulating energy marketers. I know that many of us in this room have had to deal with the results of energy marketers landing on people’s doorsteps, pressuring them to get into their basements to look at their meters, pressuring them to get their bills. We know the history we’ve had in the last decade in Ontario with people who have been taken to the cleaners by energy retailers.

I want to note that in June this year the Ontario Energy Board put out a report about energy marketers: Consumers Come First: A Report of the Ontario Energy Board on the Effectiveness o