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

December 9, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Dec-09 (PDF)

L133 - Wed 9 Dec 2015 / Mer 9 déc 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 9 December 2015 Mercredi 9 décembre 2015

Orders of the Day

Budget Measures Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur les mesures budgétaires

Introduction of Visitors

Annual report, Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth

Visitors

Howard Sheppard

Oral Questions

Social Assistance Management System

Child protection

Energy policies

Privatization of public assets

Child protection

By-election in Sudbury

Services for the developmentally disabled

Social Assistance Management System

Trucking safety

Fair wage policy

Ring of Fire

Ontario Northland Transportation Commission

Adult education

Hydro rates

Home warranty program

Deferred Votes

Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan Act (Supporting Survivors and Challenging Sexual Violence and Harassment), 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le Plan d’action contre la violence et le harcèlement sexuels (en soutien aux survivants et en opposition à la violence et au harcèlement sexuels)

Members’ Statements

Labour dispute

Technology firms in London

Season’s greetings

Lambton Conveyor Ltd.

Search-and-rescue helicopter

KW Habilitation

Smoking cessation

Glen Agar Residents Association

Estée Lauder

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Justice Policy

Introduction of Bills

Alternative Financial Services Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois concernant les services financiers de rechange

Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario Act, 2015

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

International Human Rights Day

Petitions

Health care funding

Employment standards

Neonicotinoids

Electronic cigarettes

Partner Assault Response Program

Lung health

Health care funding

Ontario Northland Transportation Commission

GO Transit

Lyme disease

Mental health and addiction services

Orders of the Day

Employment and Labour Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne l’emploi et les relations de travail

Wearing of Métis Nation symbol

Order of business

422504 Ontario Ltd. Act, 2015

422504 Ontario Ltd. Act, 2015

The Gage Research Institute Act, 2015

The Gage Research Institute Act, 2015

Zara H.S.L.C.C Inc. Act, 2015

Zara H.S.L.C.C Inc. Act, 2015

1170517 Ontario Inc. Act, 2015

1170517 Ontario Inc. Act, 2015

Larry Blake Limited Act, 2015

Larry Blake Limited Act, 2015

Bayview Farms and Enterprises Limited Act, 2015

Bayview Farms and Enterprises Limited Act, 2015

563523 Ontario Limited Act, 2015

563523 Ontario Limited Act, 2015

1064514 Ontario Inc. Act, 2015

1064514 Ontario Inc. Act, 2015

Precision Pipe Manufacturing Inc. Act, 2015

Precision Pipe Manufacturing Inc. Act, 2015

Order of business

Métis Nation of Ontario Secretariat Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le Secrétariat de la nation métisse de l’Ontario

Métis Nation of Ontario Secretariat Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le Secrétariat de la nation métisse de l’Ontario

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Budget Measures Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur les mesures budgétaires

Mr. Bradley, on behalf of Mr. Sousa, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 144,

An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact or amend certain other statutes / Projet de loi 144, Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre les mesures budgétaires et à édicter ou à modifier d’autres lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Deputy House leader?

Hon. James J. Bradley: Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the parliamentary assistant, the member from York South–Weston, and with the Minister of Finance.

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: This is an exceedingly important bill for the government of Ontario, of course, because what it in effect does is it fulfills the commitments made by the government in the 2015 budget, and it further implements our economic plan to build up Ontario. It makes many changes spanning several different ministries and, if passed, it would enact five new statutes and amend a number of other statutes. That’s why there has been considerable debate devoted to this particular piece of legislation.

The bill implements necessary changes in order to continue to implement our economic plan to build Ontario up, as I indicated. It’s investing in people’s talents and skills. We know that’s the strength of the province of Ontario.

We are making the largest investment in public infrastructure—over $130 billion over the next 10 years; that’s the largest in Ontario’s history. It is designed, of course, to create jobs—which it will—but the advantage of infrastructure investments are the following: They, first of all, generate a lot of economic activity that creates jobs. That’s in the short term and the medium term. Even more important, perhaps—although, to those involved in the construction jobs, that’s exceedingly important—but in the longer run, it leaves a legacy which is very important to our province.

All of us know of roads that require considerable work: some you’re repaving the roads, you’re reconstructing those roads; in other cases, you’re actually constructing new roads for the province to enable economic activity to take place and for people to travel from one end of the province to the other.

We’re also involved in new transit projects right across the province. Speaker, in your own city, the city of Hamilton, there is considerable work to be done in terms of public transit, and there’s a significant investment of somewhere in the neighbourhood of a billion dollars for that purpose. I know that the people of Hamilton are looking forward to being able to move from one part of the city to the other more expeditiously.

Also, the commuter traffic taking place that goes into the GTA from various parts of the province is jammed at the present time. If you and I were to drive into the city of Toronto in the morning—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I’d like to tell the government side that I believe one of your ministers is speaking, and it’s really loud over there.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: We’re doing really well.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Yes, I know. You’re being very friendly, but very loud.

Continue.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Public transit is exceedingly important for the province because it allows us to free up that traffic; it allows people to move from one end of the province to the other. At the present time, it’s a major challenge.

Driving in from St. Catharines—I carry a good deal of material with me back and forth so I’m really compelled to have to drive into Toronto, but many people from various parts of the province would, if they had the alternative, prefer to have the public transit option. But that requires very significant expenditures, first of all, in terms of capital; that is, building the transit itself. Second and as important, in the longer term, is the cost of operating these systems. One must look at the fact, however, that there is a great cost to keeping the roads up to date.

Often people will say, “I pay to have those roads kept up to date.” There’s a gas tax and a number of other taxes which are devoted to all government expenditures, including the construction of roads, but also by freeing up that pathway—those roads—by having public transit available to people is much more convenient.

Secondly, it is also very good for what we would refer to in our particular circumstances as the environment. At the present time there are people from all over the world gathered in the city of Paris engaged in very serious discussions and hopefully coming forward with an agreement that will deal with the issue of climate change. One of the things that expenditures in the field of transit contribute to is the betterment of the environment.

I can recall that at one time in the province of Ontario you had several, shall we say, smog days, as they were called in the province. You’d come into, particularly the GTA, and even other parts of Ontario—there would be smog all over the province. Now those days are rare—at least, they have been in recent years. I attribute a good deal of that to the closing of the coal-fired electricity plants in the province. But also there have been improvements made in terms of emissions from other sources, including mobile sources, which are the vehicles that we have in the province.

We are also creating a dynamic, innovative environment where business thrives, and we’re strengthening retirement security. One of the issues I think that people identified—there was a pretty good consensus; not an entire consensus in the province—was that when people are saving for their retirement, what was available in the present form of the Canada Pension Plan and other pension provisions was not adequate for many people in the province. Indeed, there are a lot of people, as you would recognize, Speaker, who don’t have that option available to them: a defined benefit pension plan.

In fact, the private sector in particular is trying to negotiate their way out of defined benefit pension plans; that is, where a person can look forward to a specific amount of money in a specific period of time. Negotiations are pushing in favour of a defined contribution pension plan, which usually goes into what we would call an RSP, with no guarantee of how much that would produce. For instance, if a person were to contribute to something that was risky, the chances are that they could lose everything. If they were to invest conservatively, we recognize that they are not going to have enough money for retirement. So that is one of the components.

I do want to allow the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Finance, to both elaborate on this. So I will yield the floor at this time, with your permission when you recognize her, of course, to the parliamentary assistant, the member for York South–Weston.

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: No, we’re sharing.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It’s a 40-minute rotation all day, and you go in turn.

The member from Prince Edward–Hastings.

Mr. Todd Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me this morning. It’s a pleasure to rise today and speak to Bill 144, but only because it is always an honour to rise in the House and speak; it’s not a pleasure to address this bill, because this bill shouldn’t even exist.

I know that we have a long history of omnibus bills in parliamentary systems. In fact, the history stretches all the way back to 1968, when the first bill was introduced as part of a review of the Criminal Code. However, the practice of introducing omnibus bills remained a fairly restrained practice and stayed fairly consistent to a theme, which was that the omnibus bill that was being introduced would amend all bills toward a common policy aim.

In 1968, reviewing the Criminal Code required amending several acts to change the legal status of different offences. Other omnibus bills over the years have included items such as the national energy plan and the free trade agreement. However, it wasn’t until the late 1980s and early 1990s that omnibus bills became common practice at the federal and provincial levels.

At first, Speakers actually had to rule whether or not such bills were out of order. What we now know is that it would have been better if they hadn’t opened the door or, if they had, at least introduced a litmus test that omnibus legislation would have to meet in order to be introduced in the first place. However, at the time, the practice was such that the bills were limited to a single matter in terms of size and scope. They dealt with one issue, not like what we are dealing with today. It wasn’t until the omnibus budget bill, or omnibus bills to enact budget matters, such as the one we are debating this morning, became commonplace that they became a problem.

The decision handed down governing omnibus bills in this House actually originates in Speaker Sauvé’s ruling regarding a 1981 omnibus bill brought in by the Trudeau government. Speaker Sauvé said, “It may be that the House should accept rules or guidelines as to the form and content of omnibus bills, but in that case the House, and not the Speaker, must make those rules.” It was that quotation that Speaker McLean used in this chamber in 1995 when ruling on a question of privilege raised by, among others, the current member from St. Catharines, who was just speaking.

Speaker McLean quoted Beauchesne’s Parliamentary Rules and Forms on the matter of omnibus bills, which states: “Although there is no specific set of rules or guidelines governing the content of the bill, there should be a theme of relevancy amongst the contents of a bill. They must be relevant to and subject to the umbrella which is raised by the terminology of the

long title of the bill.” That’s the problem with Bill 144 and almost every omnibus bill this government has introduced since I’ve been a member of this House.

For the first 25 years of omnibus legislation, governments respected the idea that omnibus bills must have a theme of relevancy amongst the contents of the bill. For the last 20 years, governments have relied on the second part of the rule out of sheer laziness to get away with cramming as many unrelated and unconnected amendments into one piece of legislation as they possibly can.

As with Bill 144, this leads to the government abusing House procedure for the purposes of limiting debate on controversial measures which it knows would be subject to greater resistance, particularly from government members, if debated separately. This is particularly true of

schedule 22 of the act, without which the government would not be able to follow through on its plan to privatize Hydro One.

Were that matter to be held separately, Speaker, or were government members ever compelled to vote on any matter related to the sale of Hydro One, they might actually have to act on the disagreement with their government that they so readily voice in private. We know there are a lot of members on the opposite side who don’t agree with the sell-off of Hydro One, and given the opportunity to have that fulsome debate here in the Legislature, that may actually bear out in the votes and in the debate that we have.

The government may argue that the point of omnibus legislation is to save debating time and, on this, even parliamentary experts agree that that’s a valuable objective—but only when the act in question addresses a single issue. It’s unquestionably better for the House to have one vote on free trade or one vote on the National Energy Program than to have 24 votes on them. But, because the use of omnibus legislation is already a time-saving measure, the government should not then be able to enact time allocation on an omnibus bill—but that’s what they’re doing here.

The only purpose for doing so, as has been done in the case of Bill 144, is to stifle debate and opposition here in the Legislature.

As has been previously stated, the original intent for omnibus bills was that amendments to different acts would be made under a common theme. In Bill 144, the amendments are made without a single common thread running through them. This is a bill that deals with, among other things, liquor licensing, the Hydro One sale, the debt retirement charge, illegal tobacco, escheats, business property taxes, horse racing and abolishing the Ontario Economic Forecast Council. No possible common theme could bind together so many different topics aside from the government’s desire to not have each individual act and amendment debated separately in the House.

In his submission to Speaker McLean in 1995, the member for St. Catharines alleged that there was a point at which omnibus bills, such as Bill 144, might go too far and become unacceptable from a procedural standpoint. I ask the member: How is this not such a bill?

Hon. James J. Bradley: Do you want a reply?

Mr. Todd Smith: Question period is in an hour.

Its schedules and amendments have no common theme. In spite of the fact that it’s entitled

An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact or amend certain other statutes, two of its statutes—those pertaining to escheats and the Ontario Economic Forecast Council—are never mentioned in the speech that the finance minister gave to the House or the related budget documents.

I stand to accuse the government, and the Premier, of rank and unbelievable hypocrisy. They’ve spent the last few years railing against the use of omnibus legislation at the federal level and the destructive tone it sets for our politics. I submit to the House that this bill is no better in that regard than any which members opposite have previously opposed.

In his ruling to the House on December 5, 1995, Speaker McLean stated:

“However, omnibus legislation is accepted in many parliamentary jurisdictions in this country and it is something to which this assembly is no stranger. I share the concerns raised by many members here and caution that the use of omnibus legislation should be considered carefully and exercised judiciously. I also urge this House to break ground in this area and develop guidelines and policy as to the acceptable form and content of omnibus legislation.”

This government has made no end of the use of the blunt instrument of omnibus legislation, and I don’t anticipate that that’s going to end any time soon. In fact, in spite of the rhetoric of the new federal government, I fully expect they will find the cudgel of omnibus legislation far too tempting, and they will probably employ it too, because it has strayed from its inherent purpose and it has become an insidious tactic. If a government is low on political capital but wishes to pass an unpopular piece of legislation, it can simply package that legislation with a more popular piece of legislation, which is in no way related, and then push it through.

The reality is that this bill is going to pass. However, I am going to vote against it because it would be an absolute affront to democracy to let it pass without loudly vocalizing the opposition to this tactic.

The only way we can stop this from happening in the future is to write it into the practices of this House that, first, omnibus bills must be on a common theme. It’s not enough simply to include every amended and introduced statute in the

long title; it must deal with a single issue. Second, the use of time allocation on omnibus bills must be prohibited. You do not get to compound one time-limiting technique by using another, even more severe time-limiting technique. It has been 20 years—20 years—since Speakers of this Legislature first started expressing concern about the use of omnibus legislation.

There is a lot we could do to revive democracy, elevate discourse and celebrate divergence of opinion in this chamber, given the opportunity and taking the leadership, but it should start here. If the government will not, and I believe this government never will, surrender the cudgel, then it must be taken from them. If you want better laws, you need better debate; you need more ideas, not less. Omnibus bills such as Bill 144 only make for less debate. It’s an affront to what we’re sent here to do. It can be defined as nothing else and nothing less. For that reason, if for no other, this should be defeated.

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

Hon. Charles Sousa: I am pleased to stand today in the House for third reading of Bill 144, the Budget Measures Act, 2015.

This government has laid out a comprehensive plan to enhance greater prosperity for Ontarians, and the plan is working. Despite a challenging global trade environment, our economy continues to grow. Key indicators with respect to our economy, such as real GDP per capita and employment, show the province continuous to advance. Ontario has recovered from the 2008-09 global recession. Lower oil prices, a more competitive Canadian dollar and solid US economic growth presents opportunities for further growth in Ontario. Private sector economists expect Ontario’s growth to average 2.2% annually in 2016 through to 2018.

In fact, more than 500,000 new jobs have been created since the recessionary low in 2009. The majority of these new jobs are full-time positions and in industries that pay above-average wages.

Furthermore, employment in Ontario is expected to continue to grow, increasing by 0.7% in 2015 and growing by 1.2% annually, on average, from 2016 to 2018. This has also improved Ontario’s unemployment rate, which has improved steadily over the past six years and is now below the national average. Ontario’s unemployment rate is expected to improve to 6.7% this year, down from 7.3% in 2014. It is projected to improve further in 2016, reaching 6.3% in 2017 and 2018.

This is further evidence of the fact that the function of business growth that we’ve tried to inspire is to build more consumer confidence. People, businesses and investors outside of Ontario are also taking notice. For the second year in a row, fDi Intelligence named Ontario as the number one destination in North America for global foreign direct investment. Our efforts to stimulate growth and promote greater infrastructure investment, as well as making Ontario more competitive and more prosperous, is building more confidence as well—confidence that our plan is working.

The Budget Measures Act, 2015 continues this plan. It fulfills several commitments we made in the 2015 Ontario budget.

If passed, this act would help us implement our plan to build Ontario up: by helping Ontario businesses succeed so they can create rewarding, high-paying jobs that contribute to our province’s economic stability and prosperity; by continuing to make the largest investment in public infrastructure in Ontario’s history, with more than $134 billion over 10 years in priorities such as roads, bridges, public transit, hospitals and schools; by investing in tomorrow’s workforce, from the early years through to post-secondary education, to help our people build their talents to get the education and skills required to flourish in the evolving global economy.

We are creating greater prosperity by building a fair society so that all Ontarians can reach their full potential and participate in the economy; and, by strengthening retirement security to help Ontarians maintain their standard of living in retirement.

If passed, this act would help build a stronger economy and, more importantly, enable Ontarians to prosper and succeed. That’s why I ask for the support of this House in passing the Budget Measures Act, 2015.

To further expand on how this bill will help the people of Ontario, I also refer to my parliamentary assistant, Laura Albanese, who will say a few words during her turn.

Again, I ask this House to consider the requirements of furthering our economy and injecting more investment, enabling us to be more competitive in the long term. That is why we must pass this Budget Measures Act.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I, too, want to speak about this omnibus bill, and just to give you a bit of an idea why we call it that.

First of all, it was a bit of a surprise to see this finance bill. You’ll see as I go through my 20 minutes where we reveal the real reason why this bill is here.

Just to read some of the schedules will give you an idea of how wide-reaching, varied and unrelated these topics are. This deals with the Assessment Act, the City of Toronto Act, the Electricity Act, government advertising—of course, we’ve heard from the Auditor General how terrible this has turned out—forfeited property, liquor control, labour relations, OLG, pension benefits, the Trillium Trust, tobacco and taxation. The list goes on and on and on—23 unrelated schedules. That’s why we call it an omnibus bill; it’s packaged together.

When I’m through with my 20 minutes, I think the people of Ontario will have a pretty good idea of what this entire bill is all about. All 167 pages of it are really to overshadow one sentence on page 162, which I’ll talk about in a little bit.

I’m going to talk about burning the furniture to heat the house. We’ve heard that expression before. It’s the title of my newest Fedeli Focus on Finance newsletter—Minister, I know you’re going to enjoy it.

If you’ve read previous editions of Focus on Finance, then you would be well aware that we’ve been warning that the government’s aim in selling off Hydro One and other assets was never, ever, to pay for transit and infrastructure, as they continue to suggest, but, rather to make their massive deficit look smaller. The fall economic statement, introduced 11 days late according to province’s own fiscal accountability legislation, provided irrefutable proof that the government is doing exactly that: They are taking the revenue from asset sales to make up for their ineptness and mismanagement of the finances of the province of Ontario.

Despite the minister saying that we’ve recovered from recession, we still have a massive deficit. They say it’s $7.5 billion; we show that it’s $9.5 billion—their own documents show that it’s actually $9.5 billion. So we haven’t recovered from recession. We’re the province—the former engine of Confederation—that’s now the have-not province and the province that still has our hand out looking for money from the federal government because the Liberals have mismanaged the finances of the people of Ontario.

The government is claiming that they will reduce the deficit in 2015-16 from $8.5 billion to $7.5 billion, but they only achieve this number by booking the proceeds from the sale of Hydro One as revenue. This is proved by the quote on page 100 of their own fall economic statement, which reads, “This increase” in revenue “largely reflects the government’s progress on its asset optimization strategy”—that’s the nice way of saying, “We sold off Hydro One”—“related to the recent Hydro One initial public offering (IPO)....”

On page 101, the government breaks down the $1.25 billion in revenue. They have $155 million coming from traditional taxes and $1.09 billion coming from the sale of Hydro One. That’s in their own document. They booked the sale of Hydro One as revenue, which artificially lowers the deficit, because tomorrow, when they take it out, now we have a $9.5-billion deficit and one heck of a hole in their budget.

In the next few minutes, I’m going to expose the clear and deliberate plan the government implemented to facilitate the sale of Hydro One and put that revenue toward reducing the debt.

It was a long and convoluted plan that was implemented over a full year, all to achieve that one goal. I’m going to talk about how we tie in the government’s 2015 budget; their surprise finance bill, Bill 144, which we’re talking about today; and their fall economic statement. All of those three pieces come together to tell us why there’s one sentence in this that we need to pay attention to. The whole book was written for that one sentence.

It started with the Premier standing under that massive banner that read, in big capital letters—and she was dwarfed by this banner, it was so large—“Beer in Grocery Stores,” and there’s where she stood to announce the sale of Hydro One, of course.

Days after the 2015 budget, we received a binder with 45 schedules, and it was there we learned that all oversight for Hydro One was going to be eliminated: no further access to freedom of information; the Auditor General; the Financial Accountability Officer; and several other officers—the Ombudsman and so on. This was designed to make it virtually impossible for anyone to get accurate information on the details of the Hydro One sale. That’s how it starts.

The first piece of the puzzle was the development of the Trillium Trust. In the 2014 budget, the government established the trust, ostensibly to hold the funds from the sale of assets. But the bill actually states they “may” put a portion of the proceeds into the trust. We tried here to close that loophole, to make them put: “All of the proceeds must be put in the trust.” But the Liberal government voted against those amendments, because we know what their agenda is now. We suspected it back then, but now we know what it is.

This was the first step necessary for putting the asset proceeds straight into revenue and never into infrastructure, as claimed.

The next piece is exposed when you compare the 2014 and the 2015 budgets. Both budgets announced the $130-billion infrastructure expenditure, but in the 2014 version, the original version, only $3.1 billion over four years was necessary from asset sales, and that includes $1.1 billion from the sale of the GM shares—that was year one—then a billion in the next year, a billion in the year after, and half a billion the following year. I’m sorry: It was a billion dollars, and then half a billion and half a billion. That’s the $3.1 billion—no mention of Hydro One. The Hydro One money was not necessary to make the $130-billion infrastructure plan.

But then the 2015 budget came along, and it painted a different picture. It had the exact same $130 billion, the same expenditures, except now, all of a sudden, it needed the Hydro One money, somehow, to make it fly.

Well, we know it was not necessary. The original $130-billion budget already had the expenditures accounted for, and the revenue accounted for. Now we know that this money really was excess—extra money—and now, of course, it was the most obvious indicator of the government’s true intentions. They would, in essence, put the proceeds of the sale of Hydro One into transit but take the already budgeted money for transit out and use that, I would say in a nice way, to lower the deficit. If I really wanted to say what I meant, it would be to make up for their incompetence, their ineptness, and their mismanagement of money over the last several years.

That brings us to the final piece required, swapping out the money, and here’s where this bill comes in. One day, absolutely without notice, this government puts forward Bill 144. It’s a 167-page finance bill. It has all kinds of issues that I mentioned earlier: horse racing, where they eliminate the Ontario Racing Commission after its long and storied history; they’re into tobacco, the Toronto act—all of these other things. But, really, it was all about this one sentence that was buried on page 162. It’s

schedule 22,

section 7, item number 1. It’s all about authorizing expenditures of the proceeds of the asset sales. It says: “to reimburse the crown”—to reimburse the crown—for expenditures “relating to the construction or acquisition of infrastructure.”

That’s where you go, “Aha.” We’ve known all along—we’ve known and we’ve said it for more than a year now—that that entire sale was nothing more than a facade to facilitate the lowering of the deficit, as I said earlier, basically to mask the incompetence, the ineptness and the mismanagement of taxpayer funds over the last decade. That single sentence, “To reimburse the crown,” is why this entire bill was created. There is no other reason. It’s buried on page 162; one sentence—one word: “reimburse.” That’s what it’s all about. There is almost nothing more to add. They’ve been outed. They’ve been exposed.

We now know the combination of the fall economic statement, their budget bill and the 2015 budget; they paint the picture. We now know what it’s all about.

But everybody knows also that this doesn’t balance the budget. It just falsely inflates the revenue; that’s all it’s doing. That’s why we say it’s burning the furniture to heat the home. It doesn’t tackle their core problem. It doesn’t tackle the systemic operating deficit that they have created. What happens when you run out of things to sell? We know that what’s next will be the LCBO warehouse, the OPG tower across the street, the lake lands property and other properties. Eventually, we’re going to run out of things to sell, but we still have the spending that they haven’t tackled.

That’s where we’re going to have this $8-billion hole in the budget, which the Financial Accountability Officer revealed to all people interested in Ontario.

Before the fall economic statement, the Financial Accountability Officer came out with his fiscal outlook for Ontario. He concludes that there’s a substantial risk that Ontario will not balance the province’s books by 2017-18. In fact, he stated that if the current revenue and spending patterns continue, we can expect that year’s deficit to reach $3.5 billion—not to balance—and if spending grows to 3%, he expects the deficit to hit $7.4 billion. Either way, it’s not a balance.

Here is a quote from the Waterloo Record—their editorial of November 28: “So overly optimistic were finance minister Charles Sousa’s predictions this week in his fall economic statement, they belonged at Canada’s Wonderland, not Queen’s Park. They’re products of some fantasy world, a kingdom of plastic mountains and mechanical unicorns where every wish, however ridiculous, comes true for a while. The trouble is, when you leave, you’re back in the real world.”

Well, welcome back to the real world. That’s where we are today—never mind the unicorns and the fantasy. The number one concern of the Financial Accountability Officer was that the government had overestimated their revenue projections, thereby making it nearly impossible to balance the budget by 2017-18.

The FAO actually estimated the gross domestic product to only grow by 3%, instead of the 2015 budget projection of 4.3%. The government’s own fall economic statement confirmed the FAO’s suspicions: On page 95, the government reveals that GDP will only grow by 2.9%—right in line with the FAO—but here is where the problem is: The FAO said that it shouldn’t be 4.3%; it should be 3%, and that’s going to reduce your revenue. Well, they did lower it—in fact, better than 3%—to 2.9%, but then they actually increased the revenue.

So instead of falling from $124 billion to $123 billion, they actually fluffed it up to $125.6 billion. Somehow, with less revenue, you get more revenue. I’m not sure how that works.

The Financial Accountability Officer certainly doesn’t understand how that works. But the FAO has always said that the budget was overstating revenue projections for each year. He encouraged the government to adjust their revenue projections to reflect the lack of future revenue. Instead of following the advice of the Financial Accountability Officer, the fall economic statement has revenue drastically increasing instead of decreasing.

The officer also stated that everything would have to go perfectly for the Liberals to achieve that balanced budget, but when you read the adjusted forecast for this year, it’s the first indication that all is not perfect. We’re still in this fantasy land. We see the $8-billion hole in the budget that the FAO’s office has given us. We have a difference of $2.2 billion this year, $2.1 billion next year and, the year that they’re to balance, we have a $3.7-billion hole, which is an $8-billion hole in the budget. This is from our Financial Accountability Officer, somebody whom we respect on this side of the House and whose numbers we actually do believe and actually do listen to.

The government has to have several scenarios: They can use $8 billion of Hydro One proceeds to plug that revenue hole and artificially balance the budget; they can use the proceeds from Hydro One to spend on infrastructure, as they claim, although we know that’s not where it’s going, and leave an $8-billion revenue gap; they can use the Hydro One proceeds to spend on some infrastructure and raise taxes to build the balance; or they can do a combination of all of those above.

But, in essence, the government is going to have to break one or more of their promises—either the infrastructure spending or balance the budget—in order to fill the other, or, as we all suspect and we’ve seen historically, they will simply raise taxes. That’s where we know that this government is most comfortable.

While the finance minister continues to insist in this Legislature that the government is controlling spending, the fall economic statement reveals that 19 ministries are projected to spend more than in the previous fiscal year.

When we look at all of that and then we jump to page 107 of the fall economic statement, we see what they’re talking about in cap-and-trade. That’s the next one. It’s going to leave us cap in hand, and here’s why: The Hydro One shell game isn’t enough. It’s not the only accounting trick the government is going to rely on to artificially present a balanced budget. On page 107, they revealed that they intend to use the proceeds from this cap-and-trade scheme to balance the budget.

This is a story from the National Post, November 27: “The document also reveals for the first time how much money the government hopes to raise from a new cap-and-trade scheme that will be phased in.... It expects to raise $300 million next year and $1.3 billion from the next.”

From their own—the Liberal government’s—fall economic statement, page 107, they will take $1.3 billion from the cap-and-trade and use that to pay for the mistakes that they’ve made in the past, their mismanagement, their ineptness and the hurt that they’ve caused the people of Ontario. They will mask it with this $1.3-billion tax.

The minister, when he was here earlier—

Hon. Charles Sousa: He’s here right now.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Yes—in his earlier speech, said, “The plan is working.”

Let me tell you: The economic statement has quietly reduced their expectations of job creation and growth, despite the continuing bravado from the minister and rhetoric to the contrary. Let’s look at their own fall economic statement. He tells us that their plan is working. But in the 2015 budget, they had 78,000 new jobs; in the fall economic statement, their new document, they’ve lowered it to 46,000. Their own projections show us being down 32,000 jobs from just a few months ago when the budget came out. They also have a projection for employment to be down by 15,000 the year after, and more the following year as well.

The minister said that we’ve recovered from the global recession, but again they showed a $9.5-billion deficit in the last fall economic statement, before their shell game, up from the $8.5 billion that they projected. This tells us the real direction of the deficit. If it wasn’t for using the one-time sale of the Hydro revenue to artificially support it, what do you do next year? Well, you’ve got some more sales. What do you do the year after? Some more sales. You have not fixed the systemic problem that we have.

While the minister continues to talk about all of these good things, let’s just look at some other things that keep the rest of the people of Ontario up at night. Our debt to GDP is now over 40%. When the Liberal government took office, we were at a respectable 27%; today, 40%. The debt per person in Ontario: $21,000. Interest on debt will rise to nearly $13 billion by 2017-18. That will be almost 10% of the total government spending. And contrary to the government’s claims, the fall economic statement shows federal transfer payments were actually up.

Everything that we present here are the facts from either the Financial Accountability Office or their own fall economic statement, yet we hear them day after day, week after week, month after month, standing here telling us a completely different story. I urge the government to read their own documents for a change, to listen to the Financial Accountability Office and to stop the mismanagement of the funds of the people of Ontario.

I thank you very much for allowing me this opportunity to expose the real truth behind the one sentence on page 162 that this whole book was intended to shield.

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

Mrs. Laura Albanese: Thank you for recognizing me, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to have the opportunity to stand today in the Ontario Legislative Assembly and speak about the Budget Measures Act, 2015.

First, I would like to thank the various stakeholders who spoke before the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs. Their input was much appreciated. This government remains committed to consulting with all Ontarians on issues that matter to them.

If passed, this act would implement measures contained in the 2015 Ontario budget, enact five new statutes and amend other statutes. I would like to briefly touch on a few.

The Budget Measures Act, 2015 proposes to remove the debt retirement charge cost on April 1, 2018, for all non-residential consumers, to reduce their energy bills. This would be nine months earlier than previously estimated. A large industrial company using 3,000 megawatt hours per month would save $21,000 per month, or about 7% on its electricity bills. A large northern industrial electricity consumer in the Northern Industrial Electricity Rate Program would save more than 8% off its electricity bill.

A small business using 20,000 kilowatt hours per month would save $140 per month, or about 4% of its electricity bill. It would also provide certainty to commercial, industrial and other users to help them plan their investments more effectively.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the government is already removing the debt retirement charge cost from residential users’ electricity bills as of January 1, 2016, saving a typical residential user about $70 per year.

The Budget Measures Act, 2015, also proposes to make amendments to the Liquor Control Act. As you may be aware, Mr. Speaker, the government is introducing beer sales in Ontario grocery stores. This is the biggest change to beverage alcohol retailing in 90 years, since the end of Prohibition.

Hon. Jeff Leal: Al Capone.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: Al Capone, yes.

With the regulatory framework now in place, the LCBO has initiated a competitive bidding process for the first grocery store authorizations, with the first 60 grocery stores expected to be authorized to sell beer this December 2015; up to 150 grocery stores will be authorized by May 2017. In response to consumer demand, up to 450 grocery stores in Ontario could eventually be approved to sell beer.

We have made significant progress in modernizing beer retailing since the 2015 budget, including a pilot program to sell twelve-packs at 10 LCBO stores, free listings for Ontario brewers at the Beer Store, new on-site sales outlets for small brewers, and new craft beer zones planned for 25 LCBO locations across the province.

The amendments to the Liquor Control Act contained in the Budget Measures Act would further our progress on modernizing beer retailing in this province.

Specifically, if passed, the amendments would support the implementation of beer sales in grocery stores; empower the LCBO to propose, revoke, suspend, renew and transfer store authorizations—this authority would be transferred to the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario by regulation; require that sales information related to individual authorized stores be kept confidential; and permit the LCBO to make payments to brewers and to collect corresponding amounts from grocery stores that sell beer. These are just a few of the amendments contained in the proposed act.

To sum up, the Budget Measures Act, 2015, continues our progress in implementing our government’s plan to build Ontario up. That is why I ask the members of this assembly to support this bill.

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s a pleasure to stand in my place and bring forward the concerns of the people of Kitchener–Waterloo.

I think it’s really important that the context of where we are right now with this particular piece of legislation needs to be fully explained to those who are watching—and get it on the record.

Bill 144 is an omnibus piece of legislation. It contains 23 schedules. We have been time-allocated on Bill 144, both in this House and in committee. Yesterday—no, sorry, it was Monday. I don’t know; we’re almost done, Mr. Speaker. On Monday, we were given two hours in committee to do clause-by-clause—for those who are watching, this is the opposition’s opportunity to address some of the weaknesses in this piece of legislation. The government gave us two hours to do that.

The reason why that’s so concerning is—you’ll remember, Mr. Speaker—that the Premier of this province said during the last election that the government was going to be more inclusive. “We’re going to consult. We’re going to listen. We’re going to rule and lead from the activist centre.”

I think that it’s fair to say that at the time, nobody even knew what that meant. Clearly, we do know what that means now. The activist centre has a banker at the centre of it. He is using the Premier’s office as a pulpit for privatization. In my mind, I have this picture of this emerald curtain just off of the Premier’s office, and just like in the Wizard of Oz, there are levers and pulls, and he’s saying, “No, you must sell Hydro One in order to fund infrastructure,” which has to be one of the biggest—I don’t know; it’s like a puff of smoke, really, Mr. Speaker. You know what I mean? There are words that I could use that are fairly unparliamentary in that regard.

The false choice of selling off Hydro One in order to get infrastructure—I mean, they can’t even sell it. The good news for us, I think, is that the people of this province aren’t buying it. Whatever the Liberals are selling, the people of this province aren’t buying. Over 80% of the people in this province understand that the sell-off of Hydro One and the carving off of that important public asset that generates revenue for the province’s health care and for education—they understand, actually, the shell game that is happening here at Queen’s Park.

The other part of that is that at least the municipalities—almost 185 municipalities—have passed motions that have asked this government not to sell off that important asset.

I’m going to touch on a little piece about how Bill 144 actually negatively impacts municipalities and school boards. I would just love for this government to adopt this philosophy of, “Do no harm.” I used to work in the social work department at Wilfrid Laurier, and that was one of the principles. Social workers enter into a relationship when they’re trying to help people, and the principle is, “Don’t double-down the harm; try not to do more harm.”

If this government adopted that basic principle, perhaps they wouldn’t move forward with Bill 144. One of the reasons—there are many reasons, and I’m going to talk a little bit about that—that we cannot support this piece of legislation is because it doubles down on this piece of legislation, which is the 2015 budget. In this budget, it became very clear that the government was moving aggressively and accelerating their plan, which is not a fiscally responsible plan, to continue privatization.

The context in this regard is that the Financial Accountability Officer came out with his report—and the finance critic from the PC Party mentioned this—and he very clearly indicated that there is a tipping point here in the province of Ontario with the sell-off of Hydro One.

Yes, it’s a quick cash grab right now; there’s no doubt about it: $1.1 billion. Bay Street was very excited to get a hold of 15% of Hydro One—do you want to know why? It’s because it generates revenue, and shareholders want to make money. It goes against the entire principle of what a government should be doing and should be investing in to benefit the people of this province—a quick cash grab to make the books look good for this particular budget year and the next year.

In 2017-18, when the revenue loss that this province is going to experience because of the sell-off of Hydro One—that’s when you will definitely see—you’re going to have to cut program spending; the Financial Accountability Officer mentioned that. Revenue is going to have to come from someplace. Certainly, based on the latest Auditor General’s report, we can tell you with great accuracy, because it’s right in her report, that this government continues to grant money to businesses. Eighty per cent, the Auditor General said, of the money that went to businesses to generate economic development—there was a complete lack of transparency in that regard, and the total was $1.45 billion.

If this government continues down that road, by giving money to corporations with some tenuous connections to the Liberal Party, it does lend itself to wonder: If we are going to sell off Hydro One and if we’re going to continue with this economic strategy—which has proven to be a complete and utter failure—we are going to be in a position as a province where we’re going to have a serious revenue issue. We actually have it right now. We also have a serious waste issue, with the lack of fiscal responsibility and due diligence on the part of this government as they award contracts and procure services on behalf of the people of this province. No business could possibly run like this.

The reason that I care so much about that, and the reason that we as New Democrats care so much about that, is that when you are so incompetent from a financial perspective, on the economic file, the people pay the price from a social service perspective. That’s the connection, and for some reason this government has not acknowledged. It refuses to address some systemic issues around due diligence and around, quite honestly, very progressive accounting principles: that you follow up on contracts.

When you award money to companies and you say, “Here’s $1.1 million for your company,” then you go back to that company and you say, “Did it make a difference? Were jobs created? Did it have a positive impact on the local economy? Is it sustainable? Was it worth investing in?” This government doesn’t seem that interested in that at all.

So the Hydro One sell-off is going to have long-term consequences for this province; there’s no doubt about it. The Financial Accountability Officer—and this is the line that I actually want to make sure that people do understand. The FAO has said that we will have a revenue issue in this province as soon as the quick cash grab from the sell-off of Hydro One reaches its peak, which, as I said, is around 2017. Once that happens, then this government is going to either have to cut program spending or find revenue elsewhere.

The government in their fall economic statement said, “You know what? If revenue doesn’t come into this province, then we’re going to actually have to look at some other asset sales. We’re going to have to continue to privatize services.” So the sell-off of future assets is definitely on this government’s agenda. If we can learn from past practices—they always talk about the 407 as it relates to the PC party, and that was a complete debacle. At least this party has acknowledged, though, that going forward, there is a consequence for the actions. At least they have acknowledged it.

This government, though, has just repackaged it. How many other ways can you say “privatization”? You can say, “We’re broadening the ownership. We’re expanding the stakeholders.”

Interjection: Optimizing.

Ms. Catherine Fife: “We’re optimizing. We’re modernizing.” I think they’ve invested in some thesaurus stocks. They pull out every single definition for “broadening the ownership.” The truth of the matter is that up until four weeks ago, when this government moved down that road, the ownership could not be more broad than the entire province of Ontario. Every citizen had an investment in Hydro One, and that investment actually was paying off.

As the Premier flies away again to Paris to talk about greenhouse gases—which is somewhat ironic, I have to say—conservation should be one of the major agenda items that this government should be focusing on. Hydro One, when it’s a publicly owned company, has a definite—they’re motivated to focus on conservation, because, of course, that is a smart investment, and it’s the call from the people of the province: that conservation needs to be a focus.

When the shareholders take over, as they will—because the legislation does not protect against collusion, because there is no law that actually would prevent collusion in this instance. Shareholders, once they reach that 60%, which is a majority—I would like for this government to at least finally acknowledge that. Once they reach that 60%, there is nothing stopping them from going for full ownership. The only thing the legislation protects against is that the government must hold 10%.

This does lend itself to a serious trust and confidence issue in this government. After Building Ontario Up came out, the 2015 budget—we did not support this budget because, of course, it formalized the sell-off of Hydro One, which is such a short-sighted, duplicitous move on the part of the government. But, after this, an editorial came out—and this was from Bob Kinnear, the president of the Amalgamated Transit Union here in Toronto.

He says, “I fear that public trust in government will be so eroded by the time our grandchildren are grown up that nobody will remember a time when the train actually ran on time—a time, already past, when government had the courage to invest directly in building a better future for all Ontarians.”

What I have said, actually, when the fall economic statement came out as it relates to Bill 144, is that this government has completely opened the door to privatization. They have created the crisis. They are going to capitalize on the crisis. There are certain parties in this province that are going to benefit, but it is not the people that we are elected to serve. That is the erosion of trust that we see in this province.

The Financial Accountability Officer has—thank goodness we have him, because, really, the true fall economic statement was delivered by the FAO ahead of the Minister of Finance.

As it relates to Bill 144, I just want to touch—because it was time-allocated; because this government, which is so open and so transparent and so inclusive, decided to limit debate on democracy, I only had an opportunity in committee to really address

schedule 9, first of all.

Schedule 9, you’ll remember, Mr. Speaker, has to do with the Horse Racing Licence Act. I hope all of us remember this, although it seems very clear that some of the newer MPPs are not familiar with the state of crisis that this government put the entire horse racing industry in. When we did consult—because there was no consultation whatsoever on

schedule 9, Mr. Speaker—at the very least, I was able to raise the issue of how much more damage this government is doing to the horse racing industry. I know they don’t like to hear about it, but I really don’t care, because my job is to bring forward the voices of the stakeholders to this place, to the floor of this Legislature. In particular, horse racing used to be under the Ontario Racing Commission, and now it’s going to be under alcohol and gaming.

We did fight—both the PCs and ourselves—to make sure that those voices were heard. Every amendment that we put forward—and these are basic principles of democracy. We asked the government to follow through on their promise and establish a successor to the Horse Racing Partnership Funding Program, which they refused to do. We also fought to at least grandfather the relationships and the contracts that are currently existing. The government refused to do that as well.

They’re not on the side of consistency. They’re not on the side of honouring their agreements with the horse people across this province.

We also fought to get the agreements entered by the Ontario Racing Commission to be considered as successors to the old Horse Racing Partnership Funding Program, for at least some continuity. It seemed to be fair.

Interjection.

Ms. Catherine Fife: What’s going to happen is that you’re going to have to renegotiate those contracts, and because the horse people do not trust this government, they know that they’re going to lose—unless you want to bring that collective agreement right here to the floor of the Legislature, like you’re doing with EllisDon.

Interjection.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Well, this government is—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It appears that we’ve got an ongoing conversation without including me. I really feel left out. The minister will cut it back a bit. Thank you.

Continue.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Thank you. I didn’t want to leave you out of the conversation, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I’ve been addressing you the entire time, because that’s just the kind of person I am.

I didn’t get to

schedule 14 of Bill 144. This has to do with selling beer in grocery stores. Like, “Look over here: We’ve got beer. Don’t look over there: We’re selling the province from under your feet.”

We New Democrats obviously believe that the government and the LCBO have already laid the groundwork. We do believe that the best means of selling alcohol is through LCBO kiosks in existing grocery and retail stores. This model has been working. I see the Liberals tinkering around the edges on a regular basis, around alcohol, and I genuinely do feel, and I think that most people understand, that this is primarily a diversion.

With respect to

schedule 14, it states that nobody outside of government can independently verify whether grocers are paying what they owe to the people of Ontario, should they exceed their share of the global sales cap of $450 million. So the government has made it so that the sales information for each cannot even being FOIed. Once again, this promise, this illusion, of transparency and accountability: They have ingrained it in Bill 144 to actually work against transparency and accountability.

That was

schedule 14. I didn’t get a chance to get to this piece, because, of course, the government had time-allocated.

Schedule 12 of Bill 144: This is the rebirth of the EllisDon bill, if you will. We opposed Bill 74 when it first came to the floor of this Legislature, and we still oppose

schedule 12. Even the Premier at the time voted against Bill 74, yet here it is, buried in Bill 144. Isn’t that interesting, Mr. Speaker? As the Premier of this province, she voted against it, and then her government, when they have a majority, they bury it in an omnibus bill. Of course it’s going to pass, because they have a majority. They couldn’t get the job done in a minority and they didn’t want to look like they wanted to support collective bargaining on the floor of the Legislature, but they’re perfectly happy to do that in a majority setting. I think it’s really important to note that this piece of legislation runs contrary to labour relations of Ontario.

The other piece that I was able to address in committee, which I know the government really appreciated, was voting against

schedule 3. I’ll end on the Electricity Act because what is happening on the energy file today in the province of Ontario has to be—when this government ran, they said they were going to be open and transparent and they said they were going to be more consulting and more inclusive. With what’s happening on the energy file right now in the province of Ontario, we are going to be paying the price for these decisions—our grandchildren, and our children for sure.

The Electricity Act right now, it has to be said, is heavily flawed and will not, of course, be supported by New Democrats because it is such a colossal mess-up. The government has repeatedly prolonged the life of the residual stranded debt—and I asked this question of the finance minister in the House just last week. Prolonging the life of the residual stranded debt—and ratepayers have already paid the price for this, and that’s the frustrating part. Now, because of the Hydro One sell-off, the government has increased the residual stranded debt yet again.

Businesses will be stuck paying the $600 million a year in debt retirement charges for even longer.

The spin on this file—they deserve an Academy Award for it, Mr. Speaker. The government has defied the recommendations of the Auditor General and has now eliminated all transparency and accountability provisions with respect to the OEFC and the residual stranded debt and no longer has to show that the debt retirement charge is actually paying down the debt. There’s that civil rights statement: “What we have here is a failure to communicate.” It is not a failure to communicate. The conversation on electricity is going to be ongoing.

But the bigger picture here is that this government has created a crisis in the electricity file to make the case for further privatization. You can connect the dots easily. In fact, the Auditor General has done that in the last two reports she has delivered to the province.

Finally, because I want to tie it back to municipalities, which, as I mentioned, have passed over 180 motions asking the government not to sell Hydro One, the government is going to be making municipalities pay a price for the loss of Hydro One revenues by changing the law and permanently claiming money that would have started flowing to municipalities and schools after the residual stranded debt was retired. This is exactly what municipalities were worried about.

Based on the last AMO meeting—the AMO AGM, if you will—where this government showed up and says, “We respect you as municipalities,” continuing and moving forward with the sell-off of Hydro One is essentially a slap in the face to municipalities. Those locally elected governments are going to be paying the price for the loss of revenue through the sale of Hydro One for years to come.

Bill 144 is unsupportable. We will not be voting for it. It’s a double-down on the 2015 budget, which opened the door for continued further fiscal mismanagement of this government, Mr. Speaker. As New Democrats, we cannot support the sell-off of public assets which actually generate revenue. It runs counter to everything we believe in, and we know that the people who are going to pay the price going forward are Ontarians.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Chris Ballard: I’m delighted to introduce John Gallo to the House. Mr. Gallo is from my riding and a former town councillor with Aurora.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to introduce, in the members’ west gallery, Mr. Dave Meade and Mr. Doug Sellars from the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario. They’re here on a lobby day today and they’re having a reception in the dining room tonight.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I want to welcome my constituency staff, who are joining me here at Queen’s Park today. We have Holli-Lynne Elash, Carly Greco, and a master of social work student and co-op student who’s been helping me greatly, Mollie Witenoff from Waterloo.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I do have some guests in the members’ east gallery who are visiting here today: Alexandra Borowik, Anisya Borowik, Peter Burges and Hannah Burges. And there are some other folks that I will talk about later on.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I’d like to introduce probably the best constituency staff in not only Ontario but Canada. I have Trish Fifield, Marlene Bainbridge and Whitney McWilliam here from St. Thomas.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s my pleasure to introduce Crystal E. Cummings in the Speaker’s gallery watching question period today.

Mr. Han Dong: Today in Queen’s Park, I welcome 34 students from the Clinton Street public school. They will be performing at the grand staircase after question period, and I welcome all members to drop by, say hello and enjoy.

I would also like to introduce a constituent, Caleb Woolcott. He is with us in the gallery today.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’m very honoured today to have two guests from my riding of Lambton–Kent–Middlesex: Brian Verheyen and Lynn Verheyen. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I would like to introduce, in the gallery, a fellow northerner: Paolo Dottori from Tembec.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park today my executive assistant, Michelle Roe, from Sarnia–Lambton.

Mr. Todd Smith: There’s a rather historic couple who are visiting with me here this morning at Queen’s Park: husband and wife, both councillors in the town of Bancroft, so you can imagine what those meetings are like. I’d like to welcome Tracy and Barry McGibbon to the Legislature today.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I’d like to introduce my co-op student, Mitra, from Thornhill, and Ben, who’s helping us over from U of T. Welcome to question period.

Ms. Catherine Fife: On behalf of our deputy leader, who’s stuck in traffic, today we are privileged to have a number of community advocates from the new federal riding of University–Rosedale: Caleb Woolcott; Jed Sears; Kieran, Alastair and Amanda Kreidié-Akazaki; Octavie Bellavance; Kim McCrory; Molly Sung; and Nadine Tkatchevskaia. Welcome.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: It’s my pleasure to welcome members from the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario, or AMPCO, who have joined us at Queen’s Park today. I would particularly like to welcome Adam White, president of AMPCO, and Mark Passi, chair of AMPCO.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Today our page Benjamin Shoalts has a lot of family here. His mother is here, Kerry Shoalts; his aunt, Nancy Gazo; another aunt, Ann Dilts; and another aunt, Lisa Welfred; his cousin, Gill Dilts; and his cousin, Kate Welfred. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Annual report, Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the 2014-15 annual report of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth.

Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Would the members please join me in welcoming the family of the late Howard Nicholas Sheppard, MPP for Northumberland during the 32nd and 33rd Parliaments, who are seated in the Speaker’s gallery: his widow, Bernice Sheppard; daughters and son, Elaine, Eileen and Bruce Sheppard; and grandson and wife, Brandon and Kimberly Sheppard. Brandon served as a legislative page in 1989. Welcome. Thank you for providing me with this opportunity.

I would also like to welcome, in the Speaker’s gallery, from the 30th, 31st, 33rd, 35th Parliaments, and Speaker of the 35th Parliament, from Scarborough–Ellesmere, David Warner. Welcome, David.

From Scarborough East, from the 36th and 37th Parliaments, Steve Gilchrist: Steve is the present president of the Ontario Association of Former Parliamentarians. Thank you for taking the reins, Steve.

And also, with as many ridings as I would not want to take, but it does says “Carleton” in every one of the ridings: from the 31st to the 39th Parliaments, Norm Sterling.

Howard Sheppard

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’d like to recognize the government House leader for a point of order.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I believe that you will find that we have unanimous consent to pay tribute to Howard Nicholas Sheppard, former member for Northumberland, with a representative from each caucus speaking for up to five minutes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The government House leader is seeking unanimous consent. Do we agree? Agreed.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I will recognize the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane.

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s an honour to rise in the House today and pay tribute to Mr. Howard Nicholas Sheppard, a former member who represented the riding of Northumberland from 1981 to 1987. I would like to welcome his wife, Bernice, and their family and friends to the chamber this morning.

Unfortunately, no one in our caucus served with or personally knew Mr. Sheppard, but after some research, I asked if I could make the remarks on behalf of the NDP.

The Sheppard family had a dairy farm for almost 30 years. Among his many volunteer roles, Howard was a past chairman of the Northumberland County Milk Committee, as I was for the Timiskaming Milk Committee. One of the strengths of this Legislature is that members come from a wide variety of backgrounds, and I’m sure that Howard’s vocation as a dairy farmer and his involvement in the Ontario Milk Marketing Board helped shape his contribution to this Legislature.

Farmers tend to be proud people but very humble, and I am confident that Howard was cut from that cloth. We have Mother Nature as a partner, and she can be bountiful, but she can also turn cruel very quickly. There are times as a farmer when there is nothing more that can be done to control your destiny. Howard would have experienced that, and it would have helped him in the times when the same thing happens in public life.

Farmers learn to deal with the unexpected, whether it be a calving gone wrong or an equipment breakdown. This ability to deal with crises would have served Howard and his constituents well in his various roles.

Howard not only served in this Legislature; he served as a councillor of Alnwick township from 1978 to 1980, as reeve from 1994 to 2000, and as warden of the county in 1996-97. He served on four different school boards between the 1950s and the 1970s. He served as a director of Hamilton Township Mutual Insurance from 1989 to 2007. His community involvement of more than 40 years included memberships in the Rotary, the Royal Canadian Legion, the Shriners, and as a past master of Percy Lodge.

Dairy farms are operated by families, and I’m sure that Howard’s family had to pitch in more than their fair share for him to be able to put in so much time working for the community. For that, we owe his wife, Bernice, and their children a deep debt of gratitude. Even with their help, I’m sure that Howard put in many late nights and/or early mornings fixing things that just didn’t get done while he was away.

Farm folk tend to speak plainly, with a lack of pretence or filter. Their leaders reflect that, and Howard Sheppard said what he thought needed to be said on behalf of his constituents. According to some accounts, it got him into hot water on occasion. But what might be perceived as a flaw in this environment would have been much appreciated as strength of character and conviction to those he represented.

In his free time—and where he found it, I don’t know—he enjoyed hunting and the occasional cigar at hunt camp.

In closing, it’s been an honour to be able to help pay tribute to Howard Sheppard, a man who loved his family, his farm and public service. Although I never got the chance to meet him, I will think of him often as I read his name, which is carved on each side of the door to the Amethyst Room.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Speaker, indeed it is a privilege for me to stand in this Legislature today to pay tribute to the late Howard Sheppard, a man who was said by many to exemplify service to the people in Northumberland county.

I would like to thank his family—wife Bernice; daughters Elaine and Eileen; son Bruce; and grandson Brandon and his partner Kimberly—for being here today and for their service to the people in Northumberland by supporting and encouraging Howard in his public service. Although not often recognized, it’s the families of politicians who give up their time and sacrifice so much to allow their loved ones the opportunity to serve, and we thank you for that.

Speaker, I want to share a little bit of the history of Mr. Howard Sheppard, and from now on I’m going to refer to him as Howard, because that’s how the people of Roseneath and Northumberland used to know him. He was born on October 6, 1933, in the metropolis of Codrington, which is part of the municipality of Brighton—the subways are still arriving there.

Hon. Mario Sergio: Always on time.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Always on time.

Howard was a student at Campbellford District High School. He spent his early days working on the farm.

Howard belonged to numerous farm organizations in Northumberland, including the federation of agriculture, junior farmers, hog producers, and the soil and crop improvement association. He operated a dairy farm near Roseneath for almost 30 years and was a member of the Ontario Milk Marketing Board for 15 years, during which time he chaired the Pine Ridge planning authority.

Howard served as vice-president and president of the Roseneath Agricultural Society. In 2011, he received recognition for his contributions to the local agricultural industry when he was inducted to the Quinte Agricultural Wall of Fame. Howard was nominated by Hamilton Township Mutual Insurance, where he served as a director from 1989 to 2007.

His public service began in the mid-1950s when he served 16 years on four different school boards, beginning with the North Brighton Township School Board in 1957 and including chairmanship of the Northumberland and Newcastle school board from 1974 to 1976.

Howard first entered provincial politics in the 1981 general election, defeating popular Port Hope mayor William Wyatt to represent the riding of Northumberland at Queen’s Park. He served as a distinguished member of this Legislature in the 32nd and 33rd Parliaments, sitting on and chairing many legislative committees and serving as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation in the Bill Davis and Frank Miller governments.

This is when I first got to meet Howard, after he became an MPP. As the family will know, we have a family business that needed some help at that time with some issues. The first time I called Howard, within—I’m not going to say within minutes, but within maybe hours, it was resolved. I’ve always remembered that.

Following his years at Queen’s Park, Mr.—Howard. My notes say “Mr. Sheppard”; I’m trying to get away from that. Howard served as reeve of the township of Alnwick from 1994 to 2000. It was here that I had the brief opportunity and privilege to work with Howard as we both sat on Northumberland county council. He filled the role as warden from 1996 to 1997.

I remember Howard working tirelessly for his municipality, always wanting what was best for the public, bringing their issues to the forefront and advocating for the folks in the rural community. His community involvement of more than 40 years included active roles in Rotary, the Royal Canadian Legion and the Shriners, and he was a past master of Percy Lodge.

In 2001, then-Premier Mike Harris appointed Howard to the board of health for the Haliburton, Kawartha, Pine Ridge District Health Unit. If I remember correctly, I think we served together there for a little while as well.

I’m reminded of a quote from, of all people, Arnold Schwarzenegger that says, “Help others and give something back. I guarantee you will discover that while public service improves the lives and the world around you, its greatest reward is the enrichment and new meaning it will bring your own life.” That was Howard.

Mr. Speaker, I think this echoes Howard’s legacy and the contribution he made to the Legislature, Northumberland county and the province of Ontario. He has redefined the term “public servant.”

Thank you very much, and thank you to the family for being here today in his honour.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further tribute.

Mr. Todd Smith: I am also pleased to be able to stand today to honour Mr. Howard Sheppard. Unfortunately, I didn’t have the opportunity to get to know Howard Sheppard, but, as the member from the NDP indicated, it’s a remarkable thing to see his name etched on the walls downstairs outside the Amethyst Room. I think that means a lot to the family, who, as has been mentioned, made a lot of sacrifices themselves so that Shep, as he was known here at Queen’s Park, could serve at the Legislature.

As the current member for Prince Edward–Hastings, which is a neighbouring riding to Northumberland, I’m often reminded that the work I do in this House is only possible because of the work of those who have come before us and the service they have offered to the province of Ontario, our predecessors, and how they have paved the way for us to be here.

I’d like to recognize Howard Sheppard and recognize his family that’s in attendance here today. As has been noted, his wife, Bernice, is here. His son Bruce has come all the way from Winchester, Virginia, for this event. His two daughters, Elaine and Eileen, didn’t come quite as far; they’re from Port Hope and north of Cobourg, but we’re pleased they are here as well. And Brandon and his wife, Kimberly—that would be his grandson, Brandon. Brandon is here.

Unfortunately, Howard’s other son, Allen, who is the deputy fire chief in Alnwick/Haldimand, was supposed to be here today as well, but there was a big fire there and so Allen was out all night providing a public service to his community, as his dad, Howard, did for many, many years.

Born in the metropolis of Codrington, as was mentioned by my colleague from Northumberland–Quite–West—and it’s kind of funny to note, as I was looking back in Hansard to see some of the things that Mr. Sheppard had talked about here in the Legislature, that there was an Ontario map that came out in 1986. He made a point in the Legislature of noting that Codrington wasn’t in the right place on the map. As he indicated, not many people live in Codrington, but for the family members of those who live in Codrington, it’s pretty important that they go to the right place.

He was pretty concerned about the fact that Codrington was quite a ways away from where it was supposed to be on that map. I think he managed to get it corrected.

Howard, or Shep, as he was known to his friends, was a committed community member and a public servant long before he arrived here at Queen’s Park. Serving on Northumberland county council and working as a school trustee for 16 years on four different school boards, as was noted, Howard brought his fierce sense of Northumberland pride, and he understood the term “service” before ever stepping onto the floor of this Legislature.

When he was elected to Queen’s Park in 1981, Howard worked tirelessly over six years to serve his constituents and be their voice in this Legislature. Through his questions in question period—he worked on private members’ bills as well, of course—and in his work in committee, he was always a voice for Northumberland and its biggest advocate, and Northumberland’s proudest representative.

He was always advocating for rural Ontario here in Toronto. Looking over some of the member’s statements that he had done during his six years here at Queen’s Park, he was talking about insurance rates, roads, bridges and infrastructure, nursing home beds—sound familiar?—improvements in agriculture, drivers’ tests—really local things. It’s amazing, sometimes, how time really doesn’t move on all that much, in spite of the fact that it does.

In 1987, Howard returned home to Northumberland. He didn’t stop being an active community member. As Karl Bernhardt, a riding association member who knew Shep well, stated, “The evidence of” his commitment “to service is, after his years in Toronto ended, Howard was back and served again in municipal politics as well as in service organizations....”

My friend here from Haldimand–Norfolk, Toby Barrett, knew him well through his work with Mutual insurance.

He was also speaking with Rob Milligan.

The former member for Northumberland, as has been mentioned, was very active in the Percy Masons lodge and was also a past district representative for the Peterborough district for the Masons as well. So he was very active in that community, and very active with the milk board, as has been mentioned, and numerous other organizations in the community.

None of Howard’s work here or in Northumberland would have been possible, had it not been for the love and support of his family. As a husband and the father of two young girls myself, I know that all our work is an extension of our families at home. I’d like to thank Howard’s family for lending him to Queen’s Park for the six years that he served here.

His two grandsons—two of them, anyway; Bruce’s kids—Brandon, who is here, and Tyler-Blair, worked as pages while Grandpa was here as an MPP. They got to see his hard work up close. I know that all of his children and grandchildren inherited his deep love for community and his notion of public service as well.

I also know that family was one of the most important things for Howard, and he made sure to share his love of sports and hunting with his children and grandchildren. One thing that Howard couldn’t accept, however, was how tall his grandkids were getting, especially one who was a football player at college down in the United States. He was apparently 6 foot 4; Layne is his name. When they took a picture, out hunting, they would always make Layne stand in a hole so that he didn’t appear so much taller than his grandpa.

Before I finish my remarks today, I’d like to share one more story about Howard that’s the perfect example of his amiable and easy nature.

Many years ago, Howard was attending his fundraiser golf tournament with his fellow caucus mate Norm Sterling, who happens to be here today. Norm’s wife, Joan, was also playing in the golf tournament. I don’t know if Joan is a better golfer than Norm or not, but Joan did happen to win closest-to-the-pin at this golf tournament, and her prize for winning was a case of tractor motor oil.

As has been mentioned, Howard was a farmer, and when Joan won the case of tractor oil, she gave it to Howard. Apparently, it was as if Howard had won the lottery. When he received the prize, his face lit up and it’s been described to me as the face a skunk would have while he was eating onions. That’s how it was described to me. He was that happy about getting this.

Those are the stories and just a glimpse into the life of Howard. He was a kind, appreciative, down-to-earth and happy individual, described as a great guy, a real character, a good old boy who represented rural Ontario. He enjoyed meeting people and working for his constituents, including the member from Northumberland–Quinte West with his issue with his racetrack. That was his number one priority: representing the people of his riding.

That’s why, today, in remembrance of Howard, I hope his decades of public service stand as a shining example for all members in this Legislature. I know that Howard will be forever remembered by everyone who had an opportunity to know him and all the members of this Legislature.

Thank you to the family. Thank you, Shep, for your public service.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Norm would have kept the oil.

I thank all members for their sincere, thoughtful and heartfelt comments.

To the family: As we always do, you will receive a visual copy and a Hansard copy of today’s testimonials.

One more time, thank you for the gift of Shep. We appreciate it.

Oral Questions

Social Assistance Management System

Mr. Patrick Brown: To the Acting Premier: I’ve noticed a startling trend from this government when responding to the Auditor General’s report. The Minister of Energy said that the Auditor General didn’t understand the energy file, despite her working at Manitoba Hydro for over 10 years. Next, the Minister of Economic Development claimed that he created thousands of jobs, despite the AG saying he couldn’t prove a single one.

Next, the AG revealed the problems with SAMS, the Liberals’ new computer system responsible for processing disability and welfare cheques. The auditor said that the Liberals knew about the glitches in their social assistance computer system before it launched, but the minister shrugged and said that nobody told her about the problems.

Can the Acting Premier tell us: Is the Auditor General correct or is your minister, once again, misleading what the Auditor General said?

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Withdraw.

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: You know what’s interesting is that the Auditor General herself has commented on the government’s response to her recommendations. I was very, very pleased to read what she had to say, because I can tell you, on this side of the House, we take the Auditor General’s reports very, very seriously. The Auditor General herself acknowledged that we are taking action. In fact, she said that she was pleased—I want to say that that’s her word, not our word—to report that 76% of the actions have either been fully implemented or were in the process of being implemented. She also used the words “exemplary performance.”

The Leader of the Opposition might not want to acknowledge the Auditor General’s comments, but the Auditor General called “exemplary” the performance of—

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

Supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, again to the Acting Premier: Let me just say, I will trust the Auditor General, again and again, over Liberal talking points.

The problems with the computer system’s overpayments and underpayments are well documented by the Auditor General. But I want to bring to attention one particular story that the Auditor General shared. She referred to a story where SAMS, the computer system, overpaid a client with mental disabilities. The individual didn’t realize that the benefit was too high, so the person spent the money, with no means to repay it. The Liberal government’s response was to use debt collectors and freeze the poor individual’s bank accounts; you left the individual without even being able to pay for day-to-day living expenses.

That is sickening, and it’s your fault. It’s this minister’s fault; it’s this government’s fault.

So I want to know: Will the government apologize to those on social assistance for their incompetence?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Leader of the Opposition says that he respects the opinions of the Auditor General, so let me quote the words of the Auditor General. These are not our talking points; this is a direct quote from the Auditor General: “I want especially to note the exemplary performance of the Ministry of Education, Ontario Power Generation, ServiceOntario and the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care in implementing recommendations from our audits two years ago.” The Auditor General does not use those words lightly.

I think it is incumbent upon the Leader of the Opposition to acknowledge that we have made significant progress. As I said earlier, we respect and act on the advice of the Auditor General.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Acting Premier: Once again, I wonder if the Acting Premier has even read the Auditor General’s report, because she has a different

interpretation than everyone else in Ontario, and every media report that said it was an indictment of your government—a 773-page indictment.

But let’s go back to SAMS: Not only did SAMS cost millions of dollars in over- and underpayments, but the system was broken from the beginning. SAMS, the computer system, was supposed to cost $200 million; we now know it cost $290 million. That doesn’t include the $140 million in incorrect payments. The AG said the government knew about the problems; the minister said she didn’t know a thing.

So who knew? Did the Premier know about the problems with their computer system in advance; did the minister, the deputy minister? Did anyone in the government know, or are they saying the Auditor General is wrong? Yes or no?

Interjections.

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

Deputy Premier?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: As the Deputy Premier has said, of course, as soon as we became aware of the challenges with SAMS, we acted decisively. We brought in PricewaterhouseCoopers with 19 recommendations. These are all part of our transition plan.

The Auditor General made five recommendations; these are all being taken very seriously.

I’d like to remind the Leader of the Opposition that the system that they brought in—SDMT—cost, in 2015 dollars, $451 million more than SAMS.

Child protection

Mr. Patrick Brown: To the Acting Premier: Since I can’t get an answer on the overpayments from the computer system, today I want to ask about the fact that the government closed 65% of the investigations at nursing homes without proper explanations. We referenced that yesterday as part of another pattern.

There is a disturbing pattern emerging from the government when it comes to investigations. According to the Auditor General, not one child protection investigation she reviewed was done within the required 30 days; not a single one met the requirement.

The AG said it took an average of more than seven months to complete an investigation—seven months for children who were suffering. For seven months, these children were at risk.

Why isn’t the government providing resources to keep our children safe?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I’m not entirely clear about this question. I thought it was about nursing homes, but it sounds like investigations in the child welfare sector, so I’ll focus on that. Perhaps the member can ask another question about long-term-care homes later.

As I mentioned in the House earlier this week, we have a plan called the quality improvement plan. I will be requiring all children’s aid societies and boards to report on the length of time for investigations, the number of cases that are being reopened, plans of care and checks against the child abuse registry.

This is part of our broader plan to implement the recommendations of the Auditor General, but I’m going to go much further than that. We’re going to have an action plan for child welfare that focuses on accountability, compliance, governance and transparency for residential services care.

I’m happy to provide more information in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Acting Premier: The minister’s response to the AG’s report was that she was disappointed. She should be outraged at the province’s failure. All she could muster in response was to issue a second directive, but it takes more than a memo to protect children; it takes action.

It’s been 13 years since the death of Jeffrey Baldwin. It has been seven years since the death of Katelynn Sampson. It is time to step up; it is time to actually do something. Mr. Speaker, why won’t this government protect the children in our child welfare system? No more spin: What will you do to clean up your mess?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Speaker, we are moving on the Auditor General’s recommendations. We have accomplished much good work in this sector with front-line staff, our partners and the child advocate. We’ll continue to do that.

But as I just said, we have an action plan that’s based on accountability, compliance, governance and transparency for residential care. One of the tools that we will be using to support this is what we call our cyclical reviews, our end-to-end reviews. Let me tell the Leader of the Opposition how this works. We will evaluate which children’s aid societies are not performing well enough.

Then a team from our regional offices will go into the CASs for a period of time to do a comprehensive review that looks at things like data management, case files, investigation into how they do their investigatory processes and looking at the board’s oversight of the society, and an overall evaluation of the performance. So we’ll continue to monitor that.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Acting Premier: The government’s response is hollow and sad. I would give the minister the benefit of the doubt if this was the first time they were warned by the AG, but the fact is, they keep on ignoring the Auditor General’s report. So I’m going to specifically refer to what the Auditor General warned the government on before.

In 2006—yes, 2006—the Auditor General wrote that in one in five cases reviewed, safety assessments were late by an average of 15 days or never even completed. That’s one third of the cases that you weren’t doing your job on.

In 2006, the auditor said that in about half of the files reviewed, the full investigation was not completed within the required 30 days.

This year, the auditor said that not a single investigation was completed on time—not a single one. Not one more child deserves to have their life at risk because the government won’t fix this broken problem.

In 2006, you were warned that there was a problem. Now you have a bigger problem. Instead of thanking the Auditor General, will you actually listen? Will you actually act and help the children in our province?

Interjections.

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

I wanted to deal with a couple of things that I heard. I’m going to ask the member from Lanark to let the leader put the question quietly.

Member from Renfrew, when I stand, you sit. You don’t wait for me to get quiet so you can heckle. Thank you.

Minister.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: As I was saying, it’s important to note that the Auditor General, I think, was overall very pleased with the progress we made.

Let me talk about that progress in our child welfare sector. We’ve made a number of investments, and the most important thing is that many kids are doing better. Fewer kids are coming into care; more kids are being placed in permanent homes; we’ve increased transparency and accountability for our CASs; we have new accountability agreements.

I would just say that prior to the last election the PCs introduced a white paper, much more comprehensive than anything in their election platform, and they outlined a plan to eliminate the ministry’s responsibility for children in care altogether. They voted against the Ontario Child Benefit, which provides direct financial benefit to about one million children under the age of 18 and over 500,000 low-income and moderate-income families. So I’m not quite sure where they’re coming from on this issue, but I can tell you—

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

New question.

Energy policies

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Acting Premier. Last week, the Auditor General reported that Ontario doesn’t actually have a plan for energy. She said that the Liberals were not “protecting electricity consumers’ interests.” Protecting families and businesses that pay a hydro bill is a basic fundamental that people expect the government to get right. How is the government getting it so wrong?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: For just a moment, I had hoped that we would get a question from the opposition that reflected the conversation that’s taking place around the world: the conference in Paris on climate change. It’s just unfortunate that we’re not talking about what’s happening in Paris.

The sad reality is, though, we should have expected that because not one word in your nine-page platform in the last election—you didn’t even mention climate change. So we would hope that the NDP will get back to their roots and ask about those important global issues.

But I tell you: When it comes to energy, we are in fact making significant progress. We’re taking cars off the road. We are closing our coal-fired electricity plants. It’s the equivalent of taking seven million cars off the road. We have an energy plan. We’re acting on that energy plan, and it’s working in concert with the really important work that’s happening in Paris as we speak.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: It’s pretty clear to Ontarians that this government doesn’t care about their concerns with that response. Ontarians expect the government to be able to get the fundamentals right. Instead, Liberal choices have meant that Ontarians paid nearly half a billion dollars to not generate electricity.

The Auditor General says that ratepayers are paying more to generate less. This is the trend; it’s completely backwards. Paying more for more hydro is one thing, but paying more money for less hydro is something completely different.

Can the Premier explain why in this system, through the Liberals’ leadership, they’re getting it so backwards?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The member does have it right: The Auditor General indicated we were investing too much in conservation. Two weeks earlier, one of the best conservationists we have in this House, the official critic for the opposition, stood twice in his place and asked us to invest more in conservation.

But the reality is that conservation has many faces. For example, our industrial conservation initiative program is a program that basically takes 20% off the price of electricity for large industrial consumers. In our last budget, we expanded that to cover more than 1,000 more companies.

So now we have, getting the benefit of that reduction, six auto parts manufacturers in Guelph, two food processing plants in Brampton, 10 assorted manufacturing plants in York region, a textile plant in Woodstock, a printing plant in Owen Sound, a building products manufacturer in Burlington—all getting lower prices because—

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Every time the opposition, the NDP, raise their concerns about Hydro One being privatized, gouging people, the response is that the OEB will protect people.

While the Liberals insist that the OEB will stop a privatized Hydro One from gouging families and businesses, page 218 of the Auditor General’s report says the minister “has effectively cut the Ontario Energy Board ... out of the picture.” She says it’s the OEB’s mandate to protect consumers, but “it has been difficult for the OEB to meet this mandate in any meaningful way.”

How does the Acting Premier expect the OEB to protect ratepayers from being gouged by Hydro One’s for-profit shareholders when the government undermines the OEB at every turn?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The member should know that there’s a bill before the House about to be passed called Bill 112. That gives additional authority to the Ontario Energy Board, so much so that they are mandated to ensure that all of the LDCs—and Hydro One is an LDC—have to have reliable service, effective service, efficient service. We’ve increased the fine for non-compliance to $1 million a day. So if Hydro One or any other LDC are not performing, are not reliable, are not treating their customers properly—if they’re not in compliance with what the OEB is asking them to do, the OEB has the authority to fine them $1 million per day. Bill 112 actually has passed.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: The question is to the Acting Premier. Last week, Ontario’s Ombudsman closed their last investigation into Hydro One. It’s not because they were actually done with their work; it’s because they were forced out by this Liberal government.

Why have the Liberals chosen to force the Ontario Ombudsman out of Hydro One and no longer provide public oversight of Hydro One?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The member knows that we passed legislation requiring Hydro One to have an internal ombudsman. Not only did we do that; we engaged Denis Desautels, former Auditor General of Canada, to oversee the implementation. Hydro One has already appointed—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Hydro One has already appointed a very well-known ombudsman, the former ombudsman for the city of Toronto. She is on the job. She is setting up the office. Denis Desautels is still overseeing that process. It’s a very, very responsible way to move forward.

We have an ombudsman. That ombudsman will make a decision. If that decision is not satisfactory to the complainant, they have a right to appeal to the Ontario Energy Board. There’s very, very strong protection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question: Can the Acting Premier explain why she thinks that the public Ontario Ombudsman should no longer have oversight of Hydro One?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The simple answer is, we have gone from being a crown corporation to being a trading company on the TSX, so there needs to be a new governance regimen in place. The official parliamentary officers do not govern or manage private sector or stock-trading companies.

We do have an ombudsman who is in place, with the right to appeal, and there are other protections there. Under the Ontario Securities Commission, if they’re non-compliant with any of the rules—it’s very, very transparent. They have to disclose the senior management salaries. We disclosed it in the preliminary prospectus. That’s very transparent.

They’re accusing us of creating a non-transparent process, and as a matter of fact, in order to become a private Hydro One—

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Well, there are other jurisdictions in this world that do it completely differently. In fact, in Australia, a public ombudsman oversees all water, hydro and gas. In Spain, a public ombudsman oversees private companies that render public services.

Can the Acting Premier explain to Ontarians why, as of last week, Ontario families will no longer have the Ombudsman on their side when they have any issues or problems with Hydro One?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, there is a new CEO, a new chair of the board and a new board at Hydro One at the present time. Their priority is to be customer-focused. Mr. Speaker—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I tried to do it calmly. If you want me to get upset, I will. Let’s just get through this.

Carry on, please.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, they have a priority of focusing on customer service.

The chair of the board, David Denison, issued a report several weeks ago referring to the Ombudsman’s report. His response was, “The number of customers currently experiencing delayed billing has been reduced to 340 as of June from the peak of over 50,000 during the height of the billing issues in 2013-14.” He has also indicated, “The timely issuance of accurate bills is the highest it has been in the history of Hydro One at a success rate of 99.8%.”

Child protection

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. In the Auditor General’s report, she highlighted that the initial cost of the Child Protection Information Network was announced to be $150 million. The auditor actually believes that CPIN will, in fact, cost $200 million once implemented across all 47 children’s aid societies.

We need assurances that the cost of CPIN will not continue to balloon out of control, so that money that should be going into child protection services is not being used on computer programs and training. Will the minister tell us what the final cost of CPIN will be and assure us that child protection operating funds will not be used to set up CPIN?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I thank my critic from the opposition for the question. I’ve talked about CPIN—the Child Protection Information Network—before in this House. It is all about the safety and protection of our most vulnerable children in this province. I’m very pleased that it is built and it’s currently online in five children’s aid societies. That represents 20% of the caseload. That’s one file per child to enhance safety and protection, especially when CASs have to work across their geographic areas. By the spring, I hope that we’ll have 30% of the case files online.

I am very committed to getting CPIN fully on board as quickly as possible, but I will not compromise the safety and well-being of children in care. As I said in the media, I will expect that the—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: —project will be on time and will be on budget.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Five out of 47 children’s aid societies online and five years late is nothing to brag about, Minister.

To quote the Auditor General’s report: “Although the ministry had provided 14 early adopter societies with about $2.8 million in additional funding to help support CPIN implementation, the early adopters indicated they had incurred significantly higher costs, totalling about $18.7 million, which were funded through the societies’ own operating funds and may have impacted funds available for providing child protection services.”

When the CAS has to use operating dollars to fund CPIN implementation, it hurts our most vulnerable children. Will the minister commit that all costs relating to setting up CPIN in child protection agencies will not impact protecting children and youth from harm?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I have to respectfully disagree with my critic because I think getting 30% of the case files on by the spring is very good progress. That actually represents 17 million child welfare files already successfully transferred to the system.

CPIN is largely funded by my ministry and it is about protecting the well-being and safety of our children so that we don’t have unfortunate incidents, so that our front-line workers, who do a great job every day, can have the information at their fingertips.

This is a gradual process. This is a very specific tool that needs to be rolled out in time; it needs to be perfect. We cannot have any mistakes in the implementation of CPIN. As I’ve said, I am committed to making sure this remains on time and on budget. If we can get progress faster, I’ll go for that; however, I will not compromise the safety of children in care.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Today is yet another day in the court case concerning Mr. Lougheed in regard to the Sudbury bribery scandal.

I have a simple question: If the Premier was called to testify, would she go and testify at trial—if she was asked?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Clearly, the third party must be running out of questions to ask. They usually ask this type of question with about 15 minutes remaining in question period. But midway through, it’s quite telling on their part that they don’t have much pressing government business to talk about.

The member opposite clearly knows the answer. The matter is before the courts. It’s up to the courts to decide as to who they want to hear and at what time, and it’s not the place of this House or this Legislature to intervene in that matter. I think it will be highly inappropriate to intervene.

What we know is that right now the Premier is in Paris participating in the climate change conference, making sure that Ontario is doing its part to ensure that they build a strong, healthier and sustainable future for our province, for our country and for the entire planet. We very much appreciate the Premier’s leadership on the climate change issue, along with the Prime Minister.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, I assure you that there are extradition treaties between France and Canada; that I do know.

I just have to say two things to the answer to that question. The first

part is that the government tries to make light of what is a very serious issue. There is somebody who has been charged with a criminal offence having to do with the by-election in Sudbury, on behalf of the Liberal Party. The government can try to make light of this all they want, but this is such a serious matter that the OPP laid charges and it’s before the court. The very nature of this says it’s serious.

The question I asked you—and there’s no sub judice rule that applies—if the Premier is called to testify, will she—yes or no—appear and testify?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I very much agree with the member opposite that this is a very serious matter. The seriousness of the matter requires that you don’t speak about it in this House; you talk about it in the courts, where it belongs. The member from the opposite end is making a mockery of the whole process by continuing to ask questions that do not belong in this Legislature.

Let’s get back to the business of the people, Speaker. People want to talk about climate change. People want to talk about how we’re building our province up, not about a court case that may be going on in some other part of the province.

Services for the developmentally disabled

Ms. Daiene Vernile: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. This government has prioritized transforming the developmental service sector, with a historic investment for developmental services over the past two years. In Kitchener Centre, I have heard from agencies, community leaders and families about the positive impact that this investment has had. In fact, just this past weekend, I dropped in on KW Habilitation for their first annual Christmas bazaar, which was a huge success, and I even got some Christmas shopping done.

This transformation is not just about the investment, but we are creating a more inclusive Ontario through innovation.

Mr. Speaker, could the minister please inform this House of some of the innovations that are helping to create a province where people with developmental disabilities can live as independently as possible in their communities?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Thank you to the member from Kitchener Centre for the question.

My ministry works very diligently to ensure that people with developmental disabilities have every opportunity for dignity and inclusion. Through other ministries, including the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure, we’re working across government to ensure we are providing the right employment opportunities.

Included as part of this transformation is a shift from a sheltered-workshop model towards individualized community participation supports and training, and support for employment. As a first phase of this approach, developmental services agencies will not fill any vacancies that arise in sheltered workshops. However, no program will be phased out without appropriate alternatives in place.

This will be a well-considered, appropriately timed transition. We recognize that it is vital for the shift to be gradual and person-centred so there is a smooth transition for the individuals participating in these settings.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Daiene Vernile: Thank you to the minister for her answer.

This shift away from sheltered workshops toward a more individualized experience for people receiving day programming supports is something that agencies have been doing for some time. In my riding of Kitchener Centre, agencies have been making this transition for a number of years, and it’s the parents and the dedicated workers who are helping to drive this change.

The executive director of KW Habilitation, a wonderful woman by the name of Ann Bilodeau, says that she “appreciates the government’s intention to work with people individually, and the promise that no one will be left behind.”

Mr. Speaker, could the minister please explain how the ministry is pursuing this transformation, and how local agencies are moving toward the goal of inclusivity in the province of Ontario for everyone?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Agencies will work closely with individuals and families to offer inclusive supports and programming that best meet their needs and goals. As I’ve said, no sheltered workshop program will be phased out without appropriate alternatives in place.

The shift away from sheltered workshops is not only about employment; it is ultimately about inclusion. Jobs are only one of the options an individual can choose to pursue. They may prefer to focus on community participation, such as volunteering, or recreational opportunities.

The ministry will be engaging with clients, families, agencies, unions and front-line workers to carefully plan this transition over time. Last fall, we launched the employment and modernization fund, providing approximately $4 million for projects across the province to help developmental service agencies enhance their employment support programs.

A number of projects funded involved shifting away from sheltered workshops, and we are already seeing some very positive results emerging.

Social Assistance Management System

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. In last year’s estimates, the minister stated that SAMS would have “seamless rollout.” She said that no one would know that there was a change taking place. Obviously, it wasn’t so seamless.

We raised many concerns on behalf of social assistance recipients and caseworkers. How did the minister respond? She said: “Clearly the opposition is trying to make a mountain out of a very small molehill.” Her very small molehill is $90 million over budget and a year behind schedule.

My question is simple: Why did this government sign off on a project, knowing it wasn’t ready for prime time?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: As we’ve said many times in this House, we have acknowledged the challenges that emerged with the launch and implementation of SAMS. I immediately went to the front-line workers and saw for myself exactly what was going on. At that point, we brought in PricewaterhouseCoopers to do an independent overview of how we should move forward.

I think it’s worth remembering that we on this side of the House do take the Auditor General very seriously; in 2009, the former Auditor General detailed the problems with the system that the Conservatives brought in in 2002—that was the SDMT system. It was at risk of failure, and the Auditor General made it very clear that we needed, on this side of the House as a government, to move forward with new technology that was appropriate and could be sustained in the long term to help vulnerable people.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: The Auditor General was very clear: The government was well aware that SAMS was flawed from the get-go, but their testing was inadequate, and they didn’t fix the defects. Yet, they proceeded blindly with a big-bang implementation. Now the big bang has blown up in their faces, but, as far as we know, no one in this government has faced any consequences. Meanwhile, the most vulnerable have found their bank accounts frozen and their privacy breached.

Where was the minister? Where was the oversight? For not providing it, the minister failed miserably. Speaker, will she do the right thing and resign immediately?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: I do take ministerial responsibility very, very seriously. As soon as I became aware of the issues, I took action. We now are working the plan to transition to full functionality of SAMS. We’re listening to our front-line workers who have been so useful in terms of helping us with some of the technical issues that they face. We have adopted all of the Auditor General’s five recommendations from her most recent report; in fact, these are all part of our transition plan.

We understand that there have been issues for our clients and for our workers, but we will end up with a system that will serve the people of this province, including our most vulnerable residents, extremely well.

Trucking safety

Mr. Wayne Gates: My question today is for the Minister of Transportation. Minister, yesterday I asked why the government allows so many unsafe trucks on the road. We know that nearly 30% of trucks fail their inspections, but all we got from the minister was denial. We now know that when it comes to truck safety, our roads are now more dangerous, not less; accidents involving trucks are increasing, not decreasing; and injuries are up, not down.

When families are driving home for the holidays, they deserve to know that they won’t be hit by a lost truck tire or a metal spike through their windshield. When will the minister stop endangering the lives of Ontarians, and take truck safety seriously?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I thank the member for the question—both the question that came yesterday and the question that he’s asking today.

I do accept, of course, that there’s a great deal of sincerity on the part of that member with respect to this issue, and I know it’s an issue that members on all sides of the House understand is of crucial importance.

Road and highway safety is one of the most important priorities that falls within the mandate of the Minister of Transportation. I will repeat what I said yesterday: Over the last 13 years, the province of Ontario should be proud of the fact that for road and highway safety, we ranked first or second across all of North America.

What I said a number of months ago here in the Legislature, as it relates to truck drivers, for example, is that there is a need for mandatory entry-level training for truck drivers. What I said yesterday is that the ministry conducts approximately 110,000 truck inspections on an annual basis, and that’s why we’re actually seeing that the number of fatalities involving large trucks has been dropping—

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

Supplementary.

Mr. Wayne Gates: Minister, in 2012, the government closed the Peel inspection station at Dixie and the 401. Now there are no truck inspection stations within 40 kilometres of this House. Think about that when you’re driving home.

A trucker can drive 100 kilometres across the GTA without seeing a single inspection station. If that trucker does happen to pass one of the four inspection stations on the outskirts of the GTA, the privately run stations are closed most of the time.

When families—our kids and our grandkids—are driving home for the holidays, how will the minister assure them that the big rig ahead of them has been inspected and is safe?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I thank the member for the supplementary question. I heard pretty clearly that he was referring specifically to inspection stations or locations. What he neglected to include is that in Peel region and across the system, the number of actual inspections that are taking place hasn’t changed whatsoever.

Whether we’re talking about Peel region or we’re talking about the GTHA or we’re talking about the entire province, I think what people are most interested in is knowing that the Ministry of Transportation is conducting the appropriate number of inspections to make sure that that record I referenced in the initial response—13 years running, first or second across North America for road and highway safety—that we are doing the job to make sure that that track record continues.

We conduct approximately 110,000 truck inspections on an annual basis. It doesn’t mea