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

September 19, 2012

40th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2012-Sep-19 (PDF)

L080 - Wed 19 Sep 2012 / Mer 19 sep 2012

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 19 September 2012 Mercredi 19 septembre 2012

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO ELECTRICITY SYSTEM

OPERATOR ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ

D’EXPLOITATION DU RÉSEAU

D’ÉLECTRICITÉ DE L’ONTARIO

INTRODUCTION OF

MEMBERS FOR VAUGHAN AND

KITCHENER–WATERLOO

ANNUAL REPORT,

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER

OF ONTARIO

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

JOB CREATION

HEALTH CARE

POWER PLANT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

ARBITRATION

POWER PLANTS

HUNTING AND FISHING

EASTERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ROSH HASHANAH

CASINOS

TELEMEDICINE

PETER LOUGHEED

WEDDING ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION

WAR OF 1812 RE-ENACTMENT

AVON MAITLAND DISTRICT

SCHOOL BOARD

OTTAWA LITTLE THEATRE

IPF AWARENESS MONTH

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FIRST RESPONDERS DAY ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LE JOUR

DES PREMIERS INTERVENANTS

PETITIONS

AIR QUALITY

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

ELECTORAL REFORM

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

RADIATION SAFETY

AGGREGATE EXTRACTION

AIR-RAIL LINK

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

HOSPITAL PARKING FEES

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

ELECTORAL REFORM

DOG OWNERSHIP

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HEALTHY HOMES RENOVATION

TAX CREDIT ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LE CRÉDIT D’IMPÔT

POUR L’AMÉNAGEMENT DU LOGEMENT

AXÉ SUR LE BIEN-ÊTRE

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO ELECTRICITY SYSTEM

OPERATOR ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ

D’EXPLOITATION DU RÉSEAU

D’ÉLECTRICITÉ DE L’ONTARIO

Resuming the debate adjourned on September 12, 2012, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 75,

An Act to amend the Electricity Act, 1998 to amalgamate the Independent Electricity System Operator and the Ontario Power Authority, to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 and to make complementary amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 75, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1998 sur l’électricité pour fusionner la Société indépendante d’exploitation du réseau d’électricité et l’Office de l’électricité de l’Ontario, modifiant la Loi de 1998 sur la Commission de l’énergie de l’Ontario et apportant des modifications complémentaires à d’autres lois.

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

Mr. Monte McNaughton: It’s great to rise today to speak to Bill 75, but first I’d like to just say to all members of the House that everyone really cleans up quite nicely after a wet outing at the International Plowing Match yesterday, including yourself, Speaker. You clean up nicely after a muddy day yesterday. It was great to see the bipartisan support at the International Plowing Match, with some ministers helping one of our colleagues out of a bit of a swamp. So, again, it was great to see the bipartisan support at the International Plowing Match yesterday.

Again, Speaker, it’s a pleasure to rise to discuss Bill 75, the Ontario Electricity System Operator Act, 2012. This act aims to change the Electricity Act to allow for the merger of the Independent Electricity System Operator and the Ontario Power Authority.

I think that it’s important to note that this piece of legislation is typical of this Liberal government’s approach, because it does not get at the root of the problems in Ontario’s electricity sector. Once again, we have a piece of legislation that has quite a fancy title, but really very little substance, and it really fails to address the concerns Ontario families and Ontario businesses are facing out there.

In Ontario today, we have some very significant problems, which the government is well aware of, or we hope that they’re well aware of. Ontario is drowning in debt, a huge debt. We’re faced with a debt heading toward $411 billion, and not much is being done to address this massive tsunami that’s headed for Ontario taxpayers. We keep seeing our problems being ignored by this government. Small business owners, families and seniors alike are all looking for relief, and instead they are given legislation that does the complete opposite.

Since being elected back in October 2011, I’ve joined with my fellow PC caucus members in an effort to get this government to ensure that hydro rates become affordable. We have fought to stop further wind developments until third party health and environmental studies have been completed, and we have strived to ensure that local voices are included in the discussions regarding the further development of green energy installations. We’ve been advocating for this for almost a year, and a lot further back than that, Speaker.

I remember talking about this when I was a candidate in the riding of Lambton–Kent–Middlesex, well before the election of 2011. But sadly, not much has changed except that more people and more communities are coming out against these green energy schemes. The people feel robbed and they feel ignored. They want to be involved in decisions that impact their local communities. Instead, they’re being completely shut out.

In my riding of Lambton–Kent–Middlesex, the people have concerns. Our municipalities have concerns, and in fact Middlesex county a few weeks ago unanimously supported a moratorium on industrial wind farms immediately. The worst

part is that this government doesn’t want to address these concerns that these municipalities have, these families have, that small businesses and all businesses across the province have. This government completely ignores them. It is fundamentally wrong that the public hasn’t been consulted. It seems that this government prefers not to consult the people that they represent. In fact, I can tell you that a number of months ago I held a town hall meeting in Strathroy, close to the Minister of Energy’s riding. Actually, our ridings join; they abut each other.

We sent the Minister of Energy an invitation at least a month before this town hall meeting. He wouldn’t even drive 20 minutes to meet the 300 people who wanted to discuss the intrusion of these industrial wind farms in their own backyards.

The Minister of Energy expressed that he anticipated savings would result from Bill 75. You know, I just don’t trust and I think many Ontario families just don’t trust this government’s numbers anymore. This legislation puts more power in the hands of the minister and puts the minister and his agency under much less scrutiny—both pretty obviously things that I think this minister would enjoy. They’re things that the minister actually—in fact, Speaker, as you’re well aware of, this minister might be the first minister in Ontario history to be found in contempt of this House. So I can see him obviously advocating for this change to have more power.

We all know that this Liberal government can’t be trusted anymore. Just look at how everything has played out with regard to the Samsung deal, the Ornge scandal—and we know about the Ontario Power Authority when it comes to being less than transparent and co-operative. Of course, don’t forget the king of all scandals under this government, the eHealth scandal, for which I believe the tally now is about $2.5 billion. For example, we’re still waiting to see what the costs are related to the cancellation of both the Oakville and Mississauga power plants, which some have estimated to be in the $1-billion range.

Now, I guess if we could ever see those documents, if the minister would release those documents to the public, to the members of this Legislature, we would have a clearer understanding of the seriousness and the crisis of this scandal under this Liberal McGuinty government.

We have learned from nine years of experience and the loss of billions of taxpayer dollars that the Minister of Energy is the last person who would be working within a system that requires transparency. Our party believes that the Ontario Power Authority should not be merged, but abolished. It was formed seven years ago as a 15-person transitional body, created by this government to manage Ontario’s energy supplies. Today it’s a whopping 235-person mega-agency, a permanent entity where 87 people earn over $100,000 a year and the chief executive officer earns in the neighbourhood of $600,000 a year.

In just seven years it has burned through over $375 million in expenditures, and its expenses have risen from $14 million in 2005 to almost $80 million today. This is just another example of more scandal and more waste inside the McGuinty Liberal government.

Just last week, we saw another agency with another scandal on its hands. This time it was MPAC. Of course, we’re very well aware of that situation. For a two-and-a-half-hour swanky conference in Toronto, when movie stars were flooding the city, this government agency cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. We need leadership by example, and clearly this government doesn’t meet that test.

If this Liberal government understood the challenges facing Ontario’s families, it would address these unaffordable expenses and it would also address unaffordable public sector salaries. Shifting bureaucrats and creating an arm’s-length monster agency further highlights that the government still doesn’t recognize the severity of Ontario’s debt and spending crisis. The government has claimed it will save money, but it has yet to show us how it plans to do so or how these savings will come about.

Speaker, this government is clearly out of touch. We’re seeing that they’re gasping for air from one day to the next, from one scandal to the next. We’ve seen this over the last number of years, but it’s on a daily basis now. There was MPAC last week; there’s this minister refusing to release documents that taxpayers clearly have a right to and deserve to see.

I said in the House only a week or two ago that the choice is clear, Speaker: It’s bankruptcy or prosperity. The McGuinty Liberals are choosing the path of bankruptcy, a debt of $411 billion, scandal and waste. On this side of the House, the Ontario PC caucus, we choose prosperity. We’re going to create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and we’re going to get the books back in balance in the province of Ontario.

The Liberals are more concerned with increasing the size and overall cost of government than creating jobs and growing Ontario’s economy. This is not a government that cares for Ontario; this is a government that cares about preserving their rule and appointing their friends and political cronies to important and high-paying positions. Bill 75 is just another example of this. Just months ago, the Auditor General said that we lost $1.8 billion exporting surplus power to Quebec and the United States, and by 2015, hydro bills in Ontario are going to be higher than anywhere in North America.

With that, I will end my comments, but clearly we aren’t going to support another mega-agency.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Michael Mantha: I enjoyed listening to the comments from my colleague here to the immediate right, as usual. It doesn’t mean the comments are right, but anyway, I agree with a lot of what he was saying.

One of the biggest steps this bill does is it actually merges some of the processes that are there, which will be beneficial to a lot of consumers across Ontario. What I was hearing throughout the many days I go through my riding or at events or even at the doorstep was that people are definitely asking for savings, and if this is going to be part of the process where we’ll be able to provide them with some savings. I think that’s a good step forward.

What concerns me about this particular bill is the step that is being removed out of it. That’s what’s concerning, and it’s not always easy to understand the process that is bringing accountability and insight so that individuals can participate and partake in where those savings or where those mergers are going to take place and how that’s going to go forward. We need to make sure that those processes are still there, so that individuals in my community of Algoma–Manitoulin have that opportunity to offer what their ideas might be or where they want to scrutinize the process.

You know, there’s nothing wrong with listening to people’s thoughts. There’s nothing wrong with that, Mr. Speaker. Actually, we should welcome that process. We should embrace that process. We shouldn’t limit our communities and our individuals and our stakeholders from offering their ideas, their insight, their expertise into this particular bill. So it’s a small step going forward when we’re looking at merging it, but it’s a big step back when we’re taking out the oversight and the accountability within this process.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Reza Moridi: Mr. Speaker, in response to the remarks given by the honourable members from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex and Algoma–Manitoulin, it’s my pleasure to rise in this House and to contribute to the debate on Bill 75.

As the member from Algoma–Manitoulin rightly indicated in his remarks, this bill is about—part of it, in fact, is about saving the money for taxpayers. We are amalgamating two agencies, and by this amalgamation, we are going to save $25 million for the taxpayers. Actually, Mr. Speaker, last year, we asked the government agencies to look for efficiencies and savings in their operations, and they all responded by a $1-billion saving in their operations. This is a huge saving for the taxpayers.

This new agency, which is going to be created as a result of the amalgamation of the two existing agencies, is going to streamline the operation within our electricity system: the Ontario Power Authority and Independent Electricity System Operator. Actually, this amalgamation is in the line of what the NDP has been advocating for some time, to amalgamate all electricity system agencies and corporations. We are not going to do that, of course, but this is a right step in that direction where we are amalgamating two agencies.

The new agency, Mr. Speaker, once it is created, and if the bill is passed, is going to be responsible for market operations in the province in the electricity sector, as a distinct function from the procurement and contract-management function. It’s also going to provide opportunities to increase contract efficiencies. It will also streamline the system to reduce administrative burden. That’s where we are going to make savings for the taxpayers, and it’s also going to create an electricity system which is more efficient.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. John O’Toole: Pardon my voice this morning.

The member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex, I believe, summarized exactly our position on this fruitless activity of this government. It sort of reminds me of the issue of moving the gas-fired plants from Mississauga and Oakville. A waste of money—taxpayers’ money—is what I’m talking about. He made it very clear that this organization that’s being amalgamated, these two organizations that are being amalgamated—one would have to wonder what the exit costs will actually be, because all of those employees in the OPA and the IESO will be severed. They’ll receive severance pay and be hired back the next day if this new organization—which has another acronym; I think it’s the OESO.

The real issue here is that our position, and Tim Hudak’s in the last election—we recognized that the OPA was a transition agency and, as such, really should have been wound up. Now what they’re doing is creating another organization, another bureaucracy and a needless amount of costs. I think the point he made summarized very well. He said Ontario now has the highest electricity costs in Ontario, but also in Canada and in North America. And who is that going to affect most? The hard-working people of Ontario, people on fixed incomes. They’re being completely euchred.

As far as I’m concerned, this is another kind of a shell game by this minister and by this government, and it’s already an organization that—the member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex mentioned that they’ve burned through almost a half a billion dollars, including all the salaries and benefits. It’s shameful. That’s why Ontario’s in such a mess.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

The member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex has two minutes to respond.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’d like to thank the honourable member from Algoma–Manitoulin, the member from Richmond Hill and also my colleague the right honourable member from Durham.

As I said, this government is more concerned and their priorities are to create mega-agencies, more government, more people working for the Dalton McGuinty Liberals. In fact, we just have to look back to the August job numbers. I think that in itself signals where this government is taking Ontario, and that’s down the path toward bankruptcy, toward that $411-billion debt.

In August, 57,000 jobs were lost in the private and self-employed sectors, yet they hired 33,200 more people to work for the government here in Ontario. Clearly, that’s a path that’s unsustainable in the economic times that we live in. We need smaller government, not larger government.

Another proof point on that is that when this Premier came to power in 2003, 20,000 people working for his government earned $100,000 or more. This year, that number is hitting 80,000 people earning $100,000 or more. That’s why we have a $16-billion deficit and a debt headed toward $411 billion.

Speaker, we’re not going to support Bill 75. This government clearly is hell-bent on taking Ontario down the wrong path, wasting billions of dollars on cancelled power plants, Ornge, eHealth, MPAC, and all their other agencies. The PC Party will stand up for taxpayers.

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

Miss Monique Taylor: I’m pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak to this bill, the Ontario Electricity System Operator Act. As a very rough overview, this bill will amalgamate the Ontario Power Authority and the Independent Electricity System Operator. That is certainly something I favour. In fact, last year we in the NDP campaigned on merging all but one of the various bodies involved with the production and delivery of our electricity here in Ontario. We will all remember that it was Mike Harris who dismantled Ontario Hydro 12 years ago.

Breaking it up and privatizing some of it, he created huge, bloated bureaucracies. This approach has been continued by the Liberal government, and the results for stakeholders have been disastrous.

At the end of the day, what counts to the people in my riding of Hamilton Mountain, along with every other Ontarian, is the amount that they have to pay on their hydro bills; it’s as simple as that. Those are the stakeholders who every month or two see the bottom line that they have to pay. That’s what matters to them, and that’s what tells them that this has been disastrous. As I said, we would prefer to see some more mergers, but these two are a small step in the right direction. The government estimates to save around $25 million. I guess time will tell to see how true that estimate will be.

So, Mr. Speaker, if that’s all that the bill was about, we might have few issues with it, other than the fact that it could be merging more of our electricity partners. Unfortunately, that isn’t all that this bill is about. Those on the other side of this Legislature aren’t saying too much about the other aspects—aspects that are a great cause of concern over here, and should be a great concern to the public.

This act aims to make one huge dent in the ability of the public, of stakeholders, to scrutinize the government’s plan with respect to energy. It removes the Ontario Power Authority’s power and duty to develop an integrated power system plan for approval by the Ontario Energy Board, and the OEB’s power and duty to review that plan for economic prudence, cost-effectiveness and regulatory compliance. Instead, we have ministerial energy plans, and our ability to scrutinize, question and ask for justifications of those plans will be seriously curtailed.

Although the minister must consult with the Ontario Energy Board, the proposed process is far removed from the current requirement of an independent review of the IPSP by the Ontario Energy Board.

Under the current process, stakeholders can test in a proceeding before the energy board the government’s plan and, importantly for the public, the effect those plans have on our hydro rates. It provides an opportunity to question the assumptions of cost-effectiveness of a long-term energy plan and major procurement in a formal way in front of the energy board. That scrutiny will be lost with this bill, and that can only be bad for the people of Ontario.

As I mentioned, under the bill, the minister must consult with the Ontario Energy Board. It doesn’t say that the consultation should be public. It doesn’t say anything about public hearings. It deprives everyone who worries about the economic impact or about the environmental impact of our electricity system of the ability to question the minister in public hearings and to test the evidence of the minister and the government.

This is an important part of this bill, and it is the part that the government doesn’t want to talk about. They don’t want to talk about how they are changing the way the energy planning is done, about how they are severely limiting the way the people of Ontario can review, scrutinize and question the planning. The act leaves almost everything up to the discretion of the minister, and our very recent history has shown us that this just isn’t good enough.

It’s interesting that this comes from the same minister who refused to provide information and numbers around the decision of cancelling the Mississauga power plant—you know, “that” plant, a plant that had been in the works for years, ditched at the last minute to save a few Liberal seats. Members will remember that the opposition put forward a motion at the estimates committee to get the minister to provide documents in relation to the cancellation of the Mississauga plant. When they didn’t get them, the committee passed a motion asking the Speaker to find the Minister of Energy in contempt.

Just last week, the Speaker agreed and gave the House leaders until Monday to resolve this issue. If they can’t do it, he will step in, and we’ll see how that unfolds.

But, Mr. Speaker, I can’t help but wonder: When even a committee of this Legislature has such difficulty getting information on important matters from the Minister of Energy, I strongly question the advisability of leaving things to that minister’s discretion. If we were to give the minister even more protection against scrutiny, as this act does, how much worse will it get? This is one example that this isn’t just about that particular minister; it’s about how good government policy is developed.

Give stakeholders an opportunity to question and test what’s being put forward. Yes, it will mean some difficult questions; yes, it will require some homework on the part of the government, but the end result is better policy.

A few speakers have mentioned the so-called smart meters. There’s another example of policy that could have used a bit of scrutiny, a bit of number crunching, a few tests of assumptions before moving forward. We’ve spent somewhere in the range of $1.5 billion to $2 billion across Ontario on smart meters. We’ve heard many stories that say that maybe they were not so smart. There has been plenty to complain about. According to documents from the consultants involved, it was predicted that the smart meters would likely reduce the amount of power consumed by houses by just 1%.

Given that houses account for about 30% of electricity use, that means we would save one third of 1% in the usage at a cost of $1.5 billion to $2 billion. With a bit more scrutiny and a few more questions being asked, it’s hard to imagine that we couldn’t have found a better way to spend $2 billion.

Mr. Speaker, we don’t need less scrutiny; we need more scrutiny. The cost of electricity in this province is higher than anywhere else in Canada, and that cost is evident to everyone every time they open their hydro bill. This Liberal government is pushing ahead with plans to invest in nuclear energy at a huge expense to the province. We’ve been in this nuclear energy game for, what, 50 years? Every time an investment is made, the budget projections have been wildly short of the mark. That pattern is so predictable. We know before we even start that the costs will be overrun.

Even before the overruns, we are talking about huge amounts of money, tens of billions of dollars. Do we really want to be going into this sort of long-term planning with less scrutiny? Given the history of these projects, do we really think that’s a wise move? I think not.

When the minister was asked about the cost of refurbishing Darlington, the response was that the ultimate cost was unknown. This government is making major decisions to invest in our long-term energy strategy, and they don’t know the costs. With this sort of approach—when the best option is the one you like the best, with no clear indication of why you like it—is it any wonder that our bills are going up and up? Is it any wonder that the public are up in arms about what they have to pay?

When questions have been put before the minister relating to investment in nuclear power, or to the Mississauga power plant, he has either been unwilling or unable to answer them. I don’t know which is better. Either way, it’s not good enough.

Now he wants legislation to allow him to avoid the tough questions in a public forum, legislation that allows him to duck scrutiny. Well, Mr. Speaker, that isn’t good enough either. Should the bill make it to committee, it needs to be amended to correct this wrong-headed approach. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Reza Moridi: It’s again a pleasure to rise in this House and contribute to the debate on Bill 75.

In response to the honourable member from Hamilton Mountain, I would like just to add that she rightly touched a little bit on the fact that our electricity system under the PC government was in a very, very untidy situation. When we came to office in 2003, we overhauled the electricity system. For example, we built and maintained about 5,000 kilometres of power lines, which is the distance from Toronto to Vancouver. It’s a huge, long distance of power lines which we have repaired, maintained and rebuilt.

We also added 10,000 megawatts of new generating capacity to our system. This is a significant increase in our generation capacity. In the past, again before 2003, we imported lots of electricity from the US. Actually, the government of the day established diesel generators and they manufactured and produced electricity for the price of $2.54, and they lost over $1 billion of the taxpayers’ money just on that very point.

Today in our province of Ontario we have 5.2 million customers for our electricity service, and one fifth of these are 60 major industrial users, which are our customers. Our electricity comes from nuclear sources. Fifty per cent of our electricity comes from three nuclear sites—Darlington, Bruce and Pickering—and these used to be the best nuclear reactors in the world. They were among the top 10 in the world, and they still are the best performers amongst more than 440 nuclear power stations around the world.

Our hydro power, Mr. Speaker—

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

Mr. Reza Moridi: —we have 200 megawatts—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you. Questions and comments?

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Most of us were in Roseville yesterday for the International Plowing Match, and what a great plowing match it will be. Unfortunately, there are some things that we can’t control and one is the weather. We all had fun getting stuck in places and pushing people out and giving people rides and whatever else.

But the weather’s something we can’t control. It’s something like this government’s energy policy: They can’t control it. You’d almost think it’s been raining on this energy policy for years. They are stuck. They have come up with ideas that don’t work.

It was mentioned before that the bureaucracies are the biggest growth industry that this government has had in the province of Ontario for the last nine years. It worries me that a bill like this is just going to—it’s kind of smoke and mirrors, and it’s not going to accomplish anything.

We’re very fortunate to live in this province. As we saw in the plowing match yesterday, all the exhibitors were in a good mood, even though the weather wasn’t, because the economics in agriculture are having a bit of an upturn right now. There are some issues with droughts and everything else. But this energy policy that this government has conducted for the last nine years has been a bit of a drought too. It has just cost us way too much money.

I think this bill here is another bill to slow down some processes with public input and with public access to what’s really going on in this government.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

M. Michael Mantha: Merci, monsieur le Président. Ça me ferait plaisir de tout le temps me lever en suivi des commentaires de ma collègue de Hamilton Mountain. Il y a beaucoup de points qu’elle nous a apportés à la Chambre aujourd’hui qu’on a entendus à travers de son discours, qui sont des points positifs et précis. J’aimerais toucher sur un peu de ces points.

Un des points qu’elle a faits c’est que la fusion essentielle de certains des départements et des niveaux va apporter un avantage aux résidants de l’Ontario. C’est certain; c’est un fait. On regarde à comment on peut toujours apporter des frais de récupération à nos gens, et puis c’est la nécessité de pourquoi on est ici.

Elle a aussi touché à où est-ce que ce problème-ci a commencé. Encore, je suis d’accord avec le commentaire qu’elle a fait. Où est-ce que ça a commencé? Ça a commencé avec le gouvernement conservateur pendant les journées de M. Harris. Et puis ça a été continué et, je dirais, jusqu’à un point, encouragé par le gouvernement présent libéral.

Le problème qu’on a avec cette pièce de législation, c’est là où ça ôte le processus où les gens des communautés et puis les gens qui ont un intérêt dans ce sujet peuvent porter question au processus. Comment est-ce qu’on peut poser la question pour faire certain qu’on s’en va dans la bonne direction? C’est vraiment le public et les gens qu’on a dans nos communautés qui peuvent poser ces questions-là. Peu importe si ce sont des questions difficiles à répondre. Il faut qu’on continue à les poser, ces questions-là, pour faire certain qu’on procède d’une bonne façon équitable qui sûrement va sauver de l’argent aux gens de l’Ontario. Merci.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Merci. The member from Mississauga–Streetsville.

Mr. Bob Delaney: Speaker, this is a very simple bill. It’s all about consolidation of bureaucracies. I am frankly amazed that the Progressive Conservatives want to continue to build government bureaucracy; this doesn’t make any sense.

Let’s look at a few examples where exactly this type of measure has taken place already: the merger of GO Transit and Metrolinx, two bureaucracies into one; another merger, Infrastructure Ontario and the Ontario Realty Corp., two bureaucracies into one.

What this bill proposes is very simple: It is the merger of the Ontario Power Authority and the Independent Electricity System Operator, two bureaucracies into one, thus providing for efficiency and savings in procurement and market operations, allowing both organizations to align contracts, to streamline the system, to reduce the burden on local utilities and, mostly, to save ratepayers money.

What a lot of people conveniently forget is that, over the nine years in which our government has served, the number of people working in the Ontario public service has trended down continuously. There are fewer people working in the Ontario public service now than there were nine years ago, and this particular bill will continue that. For example, Ontario is now completely out of the business of tax collection. We no longer collect taxes in this province.

What we’re going to do with this bill, should it pass, is take two organizations that both deal in the planning of Ontario’s electricity system and merge them. They should be merged. They do much of the same work, or they do complementary work. The two organizations serve the same consumer, and it would make a lot more sense if two organizations that serve the same consumer became the same organization and operated under the same roof.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Hamilton Mountain has two minutes to reply.

Miss Monique Taylor: Thank you to the members from Richmond Hill, Perth–Wellington, Algoma–Manitoulin and Mississauga–Streetsville.

As I said in my previous speech, this is a good thing. The merger is something that we campaigned on, that we agree with, to cut back on the administration costs, because we definitely know that we have way too many administration costs throughout our public services.

The problem that we have over here and that needs to be amended, if and when it gets to committee, is public consultation. We need to make sure that there’s accountability. We need to make sure that the minister has to take on that public consultation, that the residents of Ontario are included and informed about the process. That’s the biggest thing. I mean, we know that merging them is going to be better at the end of the day for the ratepayers, because I know the ratepayers in my city, in my riding and I’m pretty sure across this whole province can’t afford the hydro bills any longer.

Every time they open that bill, it’s a head drop. “Oh, gosh. How am I going to pull this one off?”—maybe not for everybody, but everybody struggles because, no matter what, that extra cost is coming out of something else. Whether it be their play money or whether it be their food money, that money has to come from somewhere.

That’s the biggest issue. We need to make sure that people can afford their hydro bills. We’re the only province in the entire country with rates at the price that we have. Why is that? Why is it that that happens quite often when we’re standing here, in this House, speaking about different issues that go back onto the people of Ontario? We pay the highest rates, whether it be hydro, whether it be insurance. No matter what happens, we seem to always be the ones paying the highest. I think there’s something wrong with that.

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

Mr. Norm Miller: It’s my pleasure to have an opportunity to speak to Bill 75 this morning. Let me first of all begin by saying I understand that people in the province want to see the government and opposition working together. I understand that was the case yesterday at the plowing match when the member from Whitby–Oshawa, a member of the opposition, happened be stuck in the parking lot trying to leave the plowing match. I happened to see a picture on Facebook of the government doing some good work, finally. They were behind, in the mud, helping to push the member from Whitby–Oshawa out.

I did confirm this with the Minister of Health—although she did say that the opposition are just spinning their wheels. But I’m pleased to see the members doing some good work around here finally.

Now back to Bill 75, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to speak to Bill 75. It’s

An Act to amend the Electricity Act, 1998 to amalgamate the Independent Electricity System Operator and the Ontario Power Authority, to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998. Essentially, this bill is going to take two agencies, the IESO and the Ontario Power Authority, and create a new agency, the OESO. I think the government feels that this is going to save some money. They claim it’s going to save some $25 million—although I would wonder if, when they do this, there’s going to be severance packages involved and what the cost of those might be. Perhaps they can tell us what their plan is for that.

We know that when the HST was being brought in, I believe the opposition brought up the stories about how the tax collectors who were working for the Ontario government and then switching to work for the federal government, without losing any work at all, received a severance package—I believe it was $50,000 on average per worker—when in fact they didn’t miss a day’s work and continued to work and just switched offices. Hopefully, that’s not going to be the case here.

Certainly, $25 million is a lot of money, but in light of the money that’s being spent on the energy sector—wasted, I would say, in the energy sector—it isn’t really that much. I mean, you look at some of the money that’s been spent by the government, most recently on the seat-saver plan, the moving or closing of the Mississauga power plant. We know that about $190 million so far, approximately, has been disclosed for the cost of that move. Then the Oakville plant, of course, is a matter that’s kind of before the House right now as the Minister of Energy, despite hours and hours at the estimates committee, has refused to disclose just how much that decision will have cost taxpayers.

In the opposition, our approach to the Ontario Power Authority has not been one to amalgamate it with and create some other new agency. We’ve said, let’s do away with it; let’s save all of the money involved with the Ontario Power Authority. That was our position in the last election, in the 2011 election. We say, let’s not make it into some other alphabet soup; let’s do away with it altogether.

When it started out, it was supposed to be a transitional agency. It was originally 15 people and now it’s 235 people, with 87 who are making more than $100,000 a year. The CEO makes some $570,000 a year. Over $300 million has been spent on it in total since it was created by the McGuinty government in 2005, so they’ve spent an awful lot of money on this agency. We say, let’s do away with the whole thing.

It is one small factor in driving up electricity prices in the province of Ontario. There are many others, but the creation of this new bureaucracy is one factor in driving up electricity prices. That is probably the thing, in my riding of Parry Sound–Muskoka, that I hear about on almost a daily basis: someone emailing somebody, calling somebody, dropping in at one of my constituency offices with some other version of concern for higher electricity prices.

I have a phone call to make to a business in the Dwight area that is concerned about having security deposits and what it means for the cash flow of their business, and why is this necessary? But more often than not, it’s just average people who are either mad about how much their electricity bill has gone up or concerned about their ability to pay their electricity bill.

For example, this is the most recent email I received, and I won’t reveal the name, even though it starts out with “My name is.... I am a single mother of two school-age boys and I live in Bracebridge, Ontario. I am very concerned about my hydro bill. During the winter months, I have a higher hydro bill because I have to heat my house electrically.” It goes on and on with details, but it concludes: “I am making every effort to reduce my hydro bills, but with [the] security deposits they require and rising bills, it just seems to be getting more expensive.” I would say to that writer that it doesn’t seem to be getting more expensive; it is getting much more expensive.

Some of the contributing factors to that expense are, as mentioned, the decisions to cancel plants that were halfway through being built, like Mississauga, at $190 million, and Oakville—who knows, but probably a lot more than that.

The government’s Green Energy Act has added significant costs to the electricity system. This $7-billion Samsung deal—of which, once again, we don’t know a lot of the details—is definitely driving up costs. The Green Energy Act, with its feed-in tariff programs, where you’re paying very much higher prices, higher-than-market prices, for solar power, for wind power, is very much driving up electricity prices. The Auditor General, in his report, suggests that 60% of the cost of a 46% increase in hydro bills over the next five years is going to be because of the Green Energy Act.

The other really negative effect of this environment of higher electricity prices—not just the effect on the average person trying to pay their electricity bill—is on business and jobs in this province. I’m the northern critic. In northern Ontario, there are huge hydro users in the resource sector, in mining, in forestry and pulp mills.

The most recent example of the negative effects of higher energy prices on jobs in northern Ontario is the Xstrata copper smelter in Timmins, Ontario. I was on the finance and economic affairs committee, touring Timmins and around northern Ontario. The mayor of Timmins, Tom Laughren, came to the committee, and his main point was to emphasize what it means for a community and the tax base to lose 700 jobs, and the effect on the city of Timmins to lose those 700 jobs. You might ask, where did those 700 jobs go? Well, the 700 jobs went across the border to Quebec, where they have cheaper energy prices.

I can see I’m running out of time and I would just go back to Bill 75. I note that our critic, Mr. Fedeli, the member for Nipissing, in his comments said that this bill would enhance the “culture of secrecy” that this government is famous for. I think that’s been borne out by the failure to disclose the Oakville plant information.

In the last minute I have, I would say simply that what the opposition would like to see is not just the amalgamation and the creation of one new bureaucracy, but a review of all the agencies, boards and commissions of government. There’s some 630, and we need to review those; we need to have government that we can afford. We do need to reduce the size and cost of government. The government currently is, again this year, on line for a $15-billion deficit. Their own adviser said that if they don’t change their ways they are heading for a $30-billion deficit by 2017.

They’ve already doubled the debt in the province; they’re spending $1.9 million an hour more than they are bringing in in revenue. Action needs to be taken. This is one very, very small part of it that may not accomplish anything. We need a much more comprehensive review.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Ms. Sarah Campbell: This legislation is again another half measure. In reviewing this legislation, it really made me wonder, what does the government have against doing something properly? I really believe that what we have right now is a rare opportunity with a minority government to put all the ideas together on all sides of the House and come up with something that will really benefit people living in Ontario. We can take these best ideas and we can come up with something that’s solid—some solid, concrete legislation that will achieve its aims.

This legislation is really akin to a deck of cards: One puff and it just doesn’t stand up. So it makes me wonder, why would the government do this if it’s not going to do it properly and when the majority of the people in this House don’t actually seem to support it? I’ve been listening to what people have been saying, and it just doesn’t sound like the legislation goes far enough in a number of regards.

I respectfully suggest to the government that if they really need to, they could use the minority government as an excuse. They can still puff up their chest and maintain their partisan superiority, because if you listen to them, the Liberals are superior to the other two parties. But the people in Ontario don’t care about the political grandstanding. When they open up their bills each and every month, they don’t care. What they do care about is they care about their hydro bills.

What we could do—I think there are two considerations. There’s the financial ramifications of doing this, and I respectfully suggest we’re talking about merging two different bureaucracies, so let’s take that one step further: Let’s merge all seven bureaucracies. We can save a lot of money. As I mentioned last week, from merging those seven bureaucracies, we can save $14 million in executive salaries alone. That’s not talking about the people who are working on the ground; that’s just the executives. The other thing: Let’s tighten up the accountability.

There are plenty of recent examples where we need to make sure that people have a voice, that we know what’s going on. It’s a sad day when even the people in this Legislature can’t get the answers we seek.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Reza Moridi: Again, it’s my pleasure to rise in this House and to speak to Bill 75 in response to my honourable colleagues from the other side of the aisle, the members from Parry Sound and Kenora–Rainy River.

I was talking about the work we did in the past nine years, since we came to office, to overhaul our electricity system. I’m just going to touch on one side of the work that we did that’s in relation to conservation and green energy, as the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka referred to the Green Energy Act. In fact, the other members from the other side of the aisle voted against that bill, the Green Energy Act bill. But in terms of conservation, this is one of the areas that our government was very keen on.

Since 2005, we have saved 1,700 megawatts of power in terms of conservation. This is equivalent to removing half a million homes from the grid. It’s a huge achievement, Mr. Speaker, and we have a plan until the year 2030, which is about 18 years from now, to save over 7,000 megawatts of electricity. This will be the equivalent of taking 2.4 million homes off the grid and saving an enormous amount of funds and money for the taxpayers.

Since we brought in the Green Energy Act, we asked the OPA and also the local distribution companies to come up with plans for saving up to—over, actually—1,300 megawatts of peak demand. They have come up with 20 initiatives in order to save electricity in our system, and they have been very successful. These savings, in terms of conservation of power, Mr. Speaker, are saving $2.4 billion for the ratepayers.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m pleased to stand today and comment on the very astute messaging that our esteemed colleague from Parry Sound–Muskoka shared with us this morning around this absolutely ridiculous bill that is actually, at the end of the day, going to do nothing to address the very real issue that we have across Ontario.

We continue to have companies that are choosing to relocate outside of Ontario, as my colleague mentioned in his comments, and it absolutely is a drain on our economy. I just don’t know when our current government is going to wake up and smell the proverbial roses. Saving 50 megawatts here or saving electricity over there is not doing what we’re hearing from small business and manufacturing throughout this province.

I get contacted every week about the escalating costs of electricity and that Ontario, as we know it today, has become unaffordable, so we need to take bold steps. We need to have a government and leadership that shows some—can I say “guts”?—nerve to do the right things. I wish that our government of today would listen to the ideas that the PC Party is putting forward.

The member from Parry Sound–Muskoka is spot-on when he says we have to get rid of redundancy. People are asking me to give an example, and I will share with you, Speaker, that one of the first things a PC government would do under the leadership of Premier Tim Hudak is actually get rid of the OPA. It’s nothing but an extra layer of bureaucracy that, as has been mentioned earlier this morning, ladens this province with extraordinarily high salaries that we can’t afford, nor are they realistic in today’s climate. We cannot support Bill 75.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Speaker, it’s always interesting to come here and listen to the early morning debates. Let me just say a couple of things. Number one, there isn’t one member in this House, on any side, who doesn’t want to retain jobs in the province of Ontario. That’s number one. Number two, I would like to get a list from either the Conservatives or the New Democrats as to how many companies have left this province because of electricity rates. That’s what we’re talking about here: because of electricity rates. Let’s just get a list of that. I don’t think there are any. Companies may leave for a whole variety of different—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I think the member from Huron–Bruce should not talk when I’m standing.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I know. I was—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): You’re still talking. And I’d suggest to turn it down.

Stop the clock for a second.

I think we should tone it down a bit. I can’t hear the Attorney General. Okay? You might not like what he says and he might not like what he hears, but I’d like to hear both of them, and I can’t, so keep it down. Thank you.

Attorney General.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Thank you very much, Speaker, for your great indulgence that you always show in this House on such a consistent basis.

Let’s deal with another fallacy: that the cost of renewable energy has spiked our electricity bills. The reality is that renewable energy only contributes between about 4% to 5% of the total electricity supply in this province etc. Let’s also not forget that what we’re asking those proponents that come up with renewable energy projects is to come up with the capital money that’s required for the solar installations, that’s required for the wind turbine installations, that otherwise would have had to be paid by the OPA, which is basically the taxpayers and the ratepayers of this province.

Renewable energy is a good thing. It’s good for the environment and it’s good for the customer and consumer.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Parry Sound–Muskoka has two minutes.

Mr. Norm Miller: Thank you to the member from Kenora–Rainy River, who talked about this Bill 75 being a half measure; the member from Richmond Hill, who came up with amazing facts to do with the Green Energy Act—I think we need one of those fact-checking systems to go over some of his comments; the member from Huron–Bruce, who talked about bold steps the opposition is taking; and the Attorney General, who wanted examples of how high energy costs have lost businesses in Ontario. Certainly, high energy costs were a factor with the 700 jobs at Xstrata Copper in Timmins that I did give as an example.

He was talking about the supply of the Green Energy Act, and talking about 2% to 4%. Well, that’s true. It’s a 2% to 4% supply, but the Auditor General forecasts that that will mean 60% of the cost of a 46% increase in the next five years will be because of the Green Energy Act.

Mr. Speaker, I say we should all work together, as was demonstrated at the plowing match yesterday. The government could work together with us again—as they did in supporting the member for Whitby–Oshawa to get out of the mud yesterday—when the member from Whitby–Oshawa will have a private member’s bill being debated this Thursday to create a select committee to develop a comprehensive development services strategy for Ontarians. I ask the government members to have a careful look at that select committee so that this Thursday, we can all work together to pass that private member’s bill.

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

Mr. Jonah Schein: It’s my pleasure to stand on behalf of the people of Davenport this morning and join the discussion on Bill 75, the Ontario Electricity System Operator Act. As we’ve now reached day 8 of discussion on this act, I’m sure all members are now very familiar with the positive aspects and some of the noteworthy shortcomings within this act.

Let me start off by saying that I support the idea of merging the two corporations, the Ontario Power Authority and the Independent Electricity System Operator, to form the Ontario Electricity System Operator. Our party has advocated for the consolidation of Ontario’s fragmented hydro agency system to reduce waste and duplication, the costs of which we all know are passed on to Ontarians and contribute to people in our province paying some of the highest rates in Canada.

So yes, we believe that the provincial government’s intention to reduce waste and eliminate duplication by merging the two agencies is a small but positive start towards consolidating and streamlining our hydro agency system.

While the members of the government are very willing to log this very modest decrease in duplication and the $25 million in savings, they have not been willing to discuss the significant changes to energy planning and procurement this bill will enact and the implications these changes have for government accountability and oversight.

In the province today, government consultation and oversight are in scarce supply. We see this with the power plant deals in Oakville and Mississauga and the hundreds of millions of dollars they will cost taxpayers. We see it in the way that a lack of community consultation and buy-in has created significant hurdles in the Green Energy Act and the way that it’s divided our rural communities. Given the lessons being learned today, I’m surprised that the government is presenting this bill with glaring omissions in oversight and the elimination of independent energy planning and review.

As it currently stands, the Ontario Power Authority is mandated to create an integrated power system plan that provides a long-term plan for our energy needs and usage, how we will produce this energy and what supply mix we will use. Ministry directives and regulations currently determine what this plan should look like and how it should be conceived.

Current regulations state that in crafting the integrated power system plan, the Ontario Power Authority is to consult “with consumers, distributors, generators, transmitters and other persons who have an interest in the electricity industry, in order to ensure that their priorities and views are considered in the development of the plan.”

The Ontario Power Authority is also “to ensure that safety, environmental protection and environmental sustainability are considered in developing this plan.” The Ontario Energy Board then has the power and duty to review the Ontario Power Authority’s integrated power system plan for economic prudence, cost effectiveness and regulatory compliance, including the regulations I just mentioned, consulting with stakeholders and developing plans that take into account environmental and safety factors.

These regulations provide important guidelines to the planning and review process. They broaden the scope of planning considerations, and they ensure that the public and other stakeholders can be involved in the planning process from the beginning. They also ensure that the public can participate in an independent review of our energy plans.

This is not to say that the integrated power system plan regulations have always been followed or that these regulations are ideal. Currently, environmental sustainability only has to be “considered” by the Ontario Power Authority in developing an integrated power system plan, which is a very far cry from a requirement for environmental protections or sustainability being reflected or integrated within the plan. And this is an even further cry from the full environmental assessment for integrated power system plans originally committed to and then reneged upon by this government.

Understanding these regulations is important for us to envision the type of changes Bill 75 will create, and for me and my colleagues, the changes Bill 75 will create raise a number of alarms. Under the proposed bill, the integrated power system plan would be replaced with energy plans created by the minister, not the newly formed Ontario Electricity System Operator. The only legislated requirement for consultation on these plans would be between the minister and the Ontario Energy Board, wherein the board is consulted on “the impact of the implementation of the energy plan on a consumer’s electricity bill and on methods of managing the impact.”

In Bill 75, there’s no mention of consultation with stakeholders in creating this energy plan, and we’ve lost any mention of creating a plan with safety or environmental sustainability in mind. Once the plan is completed, the minister refers the plan to the Ontario Energy Board for review of the estimated capital costs in the plan. The minister can also direct the board to review any other parts of the energy plan in the referral and “impose conditions as the minister considers appropriate.”

This is not an independent review. Essentially, the minister determines what the scope of this review will be, what questions will be asked and what will be answered. It seems highly unlikely that the board will be reviewing the stakeholder consultation or environmental considerations in the creation of energy plans, because the planning process no longer mandates this inclusion. The new arrangement will deprive stakeholders of the ability to test, in a proceeding before the Ontario Energy Board, the government’s energy and procurement plans and the consequent effect of those plans on rates.

This should go without saying, but it seems that my colleagues and I are forced to make this case again and again this year: Ontarians deserve more accountability and more transparency from their government, not less. Why is the government setting the conditions for our long-term provincial energy plans to be created and reviewed in a bubble, away from the public, away from stakeholders and away from oversight? This is a dangerous situation, one we cannot support and one that we absolutely should and can avoid.

I understand and appreciate that the government is trying to cut costs and waste in a sector that desperately needs restructuring and consolidation. We absolutely must bring coherence back into hydro planning, and the merger of these two corporations is a small but positive start.

The Harris-era experiment to privatize and deregulate Ontario’s electricity sector was a failure, with consequences we are still dealing with now. But in efforts to consolidate, let us not confuse bureaucratic waste with oversight mechanisms that are necessary to ensure accountability: public involvement, and simply smarter planning.

While members of the government have patted themselves on the back for small savings, I hope that they will look at the bill in its entirety and finally speak to the larger issues within the bill. Why have consultation with stakeholders and environmental considerations been removed from the planning and review process? What is the justification for not keeping the integrated power system plan within the new Ontario Electricity System Operator and turning it instead into a ministerial energy plan?

Are members of the government truly convinced that by limiting the scope of energy planning and independent review, by excluding public consultation and environmental considerations—do they honestly believe that this will result in smarter, more efficient energy policies? I can answer the last question for you, Speaker: It will not. Good policy will save us millions and it will help us avoid disasters that have plagued our energy sector.

I hope a member of the government will take time in the questions-and-comments period following to answer these questions and speak to these aspects of the bill.

Speaker, I’m going to end there in a second, but I’m going to take this moment to have the great pleasure to welcome the family and friends of Catherine Fife into the Legislature. We’re looking forward to Catherine joining us soon. Nice to see you.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Could the member from Renfrew take his seat? The member from Renfrew, take your seat, please.

This House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1011 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF

MEMBERS FOR VAUGHAN AND

KITCHENER–WATERLOO

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I beg to inform the House that the Clerk has received from the Chief Electoral Officer and laid upon the table certificates of the by-elections in the electoral districts of Vaughan and Kitchener–Waterloo.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): I have received a letter addressed as follows:

“Mrs. Deborah Deller

“Clerk of the Legislative Assembly

“Dear Mrs. Deller:

“A writ of election dated the 8th day of August, 2012, was issued by the Honourable Lieutenant Governor of the province of Ontario, and was addressed to Alfonso Ruggero, returning officer for the electoral district of Vaughan, for the election of a member to represent the said electoral district of Vaughan in the Legislative Assembly of this province in the room of Greg Sorbara who, since his election as representative of the said electoral district of Vaughan, has resigned his seat.

This is to certify that, a poll having been granted and held in Vaughan on the 6th day of September, 2012, Steven Del Duca has been returned as duly elected as appears by the return of the said writ of election dated the 14th day of September, 2012, which is now lodged of record in my office.

“Yours sincerely

“Greg Essensa

“Chief Electoral Officer

“Toronto, September 17, 2012.”

I have a second letter addressed to

“Mrs. Deborah Deller

“Clerk of the Legislative Assembly

“Dear Mrs. Deller:

“A writ of election dated the 8th day of August, 2012, was issued by the Honourable Lieutenant Governor of the province of Ontario, and was addressed to Richard Findlay, returning officer for the electoral district of Kitchener–Waterloo, for the election of a member to represent the said electoral district of Kitchener–Waterloo in the Legislative Assembly of this province in the room of Elizabeth Witmer who, since her election as representative of the said electoral district of Kitchener–Waterloo, has resigned her seat.

This is to certify that, a poll having been granted and held in Kitchener–Waterloo on the 6th day of September, 2012, Catherine Fife has been returned as duly elected as appears by the return of the said writ of election dated the 14th day of September, 2012, which is now lodged of record in my office.

“Yours sincerely

“Greg Essensa

“Chief Electoral Officer

“Toronto, September 17, 2012.”

Mr. Del Duca was escorted into the House by Mr. McGuinty and Mr. Milloy.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, I have the honour to present to you and to the House Steven Del Duca, member-elect for the electoral district of Vaughan, who has taken the oath and signed the roll and now claims the right to take his seat.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Let the honourable member take his seat.

Ms. Fife was escorted into the House by Ms. Horwath and Mr. Bisson.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, I have the honour to present to you and to the House Catherine Fife, the member-elect for the electoral district of Kitchener–Waterloo, who has taken the oath and signed the roll and now claims her right to take her seat.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Let the honourable member take her seat.

ANNUAL REPORT,

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER

OF ONTARIO

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I beg to inform the House that I have laid today upon the table the 2011-12 annual report from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Steven Del Duca: I’m delighted to introduce a few family and friends that I have with me here today on this special day: my wife, Utilia Amaral; my daughters, Talia and Grace; my parents, Ben and Margaret Del Duca; my siblings, Mark and Michael; and my sisters-in-law, Nicole and Amanda; and lots of other family and friends. Thank you everyone for being here today.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Mr. Speaker, it’s my pleasure to welcome and introduce members of my family: my husband, Dale; kids, Aidan and Claire; my nephew Leo Shrimpton; and family and friends from across the province.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’d like to introduce a couple of my constituents in the members’ east gallery today: George and Emma Barron from Pembroke, here today for the first Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Awareness Day at Queen’s Park. George suffers from IPF and will be participating in the reception this evening to raise awareness of the disease to MPPs. Welcome, George and Emma.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m very pleased to welcome George Habib, the CEO of the Ontario Lung Association, and Peter Glazier, the director of development of the Ontario Lung Association. They are here with a delegation to raise awareness about idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

Mr. Randy Hillier: It’s my pleasure to welcome and introduce today to Queen’s Park a resident of my riding, Jackie Bowick from Smith’s Falls. Jackie suffers from IPF and is here today to bring awareness of IPF to members of the Legislature.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It’s a pleasure to rise today to welcome a constituent of mine to the Legislature. Robert Alexander-Carew is here today on behalf of the Canadian Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation to help raise awareness amongst all members. Please welcome him to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Michael Harris: I’d like to welcome a few of the folks from back home who attended the swearing-in ceremony this morning for the newest member: Ian McLean of the KW chamber of commerce, and Georgia Bolger, as well as Margaret Johnson and Lindi Fabi from the Waterloo region school board, Dianne Freeman from the city of Waterloo, and of course our journalist, Liz Monteiro from the KW Record. You look great up there, and I hope you continue to participate at Queen’s Park.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I want to acknowledge in the House today Grahame Rivers, who is my press secretary. It’s his last day here at Queen’s Park. He has brought his son Jericho to see what he has done here at Queen’s Park.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I just want to introduce a constituent of mine from Thorndale. Rachel Ross is here visiting us today.

Hon. Michael Chan: I would like to welcome Robert and Heather Davidson from my riding, the riding of Markham–Unionville. Robert is the founder and president of the Canadian Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Robert Bailey: It’s a pleasure for me to welcome Ruth Wright and her husband, Don, members of the Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis—or IPF—Awareness Day. They join us from Sarnia–Lambton today.

Mr. Joe Dickson: I’d like to take the opportunity to welcome the family of Ajax–Pickering’s newest page, Katherine Parker, here today. Her Aunt Joyce and Uncle Chris are here. They are joining us in the Legislature to celebrate their niece, Katherine, becoming page captain today. Also in the west gallery, second row up, the gentleman in the grey shirt is her father, her dad John. We welcome them all here today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We have with us today in the Speaker’s gallery the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee of the Victorian Legislative Assembly in Australia, led by committee Chairman Mr. Philip Davis. Please join me in giving them a warm welcome, and thank you very much for joining us.

It is now time for question period.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Premier. After basically nine years of runaway spending, we’ve seen the cost of the public service balloon from $40 billion to now about $60 billion, a 50% increase in wages and benefits to the public service, done largely by giving out unaffordable pay and benefit increases that don’t reflect private sector realities, and secondly they increased the size of government.

Interjections.

Mr. Tim Hudak: I’m not going to argue with them. They added to public sector payrolls when the private sector reduced payrolls. It’s out of balance.

Part of the equation, Premier, is an across-the-board wage freeze. We stand beside that. We stand behind it 100%. But the second aspect is, you also have to fix the underlying problems that got us here in the first place, to address your runaway spending and secondly to fix a broken Arbitration Act. Premier, will you support the bill standing under Mr. Wilson’s name, the Ability to Pay Act, to fix the broken arbitration system?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, I appreciate the question from my honourable colleague. I do want to draw his attention to some important facts. As has been said, we’re all entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts, and there are some important facts we ought to give some consideration to.

We have the fewest civil servants per capita in the country. We have the lowest expenses per capita in the country, just so we’re clear on that front. We do not apologize for hiring more doctors, more nurses, more teachers, more meat inspectors and more water inspectors. We did that because that serves the interests of Ontario families. We will not apologize for doing what is right for Ontario families.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: You know, it’s sad that the Premier does not even show any kind of flicker of recognition of the damage he’s done to the finances of the province of Ontario, where he’s on track to tripling the provincial debt, heading towards a $30-billion deficit.

He added on, sure, more health bureaucrats, more spin doctors, unneeded regional health bureaucracies in the LHINs. You know what, Premier? We simply can’t afford it, and Mr. Wilson and the PC caucus are fully behind the Ability to Pay Act that fixes a broken arbitration system that has seen agreements out to public sector unions way beyond the ability of taxpayers to pay those bills. It is courageous legislation; it is ground-breaking legislation. It is what municipal leaders have asked for and what university and college leaders have asked for.

Premier, if you truly want to get at your runaway spending problem, will you stand up today and endorse our act, the Ability to Pay Act, to fix the broken arbitration system?

Interjections.

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

We are at a point again where I’m hearing talking going on from the same side as the questioner, and on this side, the same side as the answerer. I would ask all of us to refrain from comments on all sides, questioning and answering.

Premier.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Ontarians, I think, could be forgiven for being a bit confused about the official opposition’s position on this matter. Reforming the arbitration system was part of their platform. We put it in our budget. They then voted it out of our budget, Speaker, and now they say, once again, that they are interested in reforming the arbitration system in Ontario. So again, Ontarians could be forgiven for being a bit confused about the PC position when it comes to arbitration.

Speaker, we are prepared to work with the opposition. We have the intention of introducing new initiatives in the not-too-distant future and we would once again try to address arbitration on behalf of Ontarians. We look forward to their support.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: We do see a continuation of the Premier speaking out of both sides of his mouth on the issue. I think that the time for bold leadership has arrived to undo the damage of the last nine years that have driven us into the deepest debt by far in the history of our province, that saw the size and costs of the civil service increase by 50%.

Premier, if you truly do believe that the amendments you brought forward in your budget bill were the right solution on ability to pay, can you tell me specifically what part of your budget bill—tell me the

schedule and the section—dealt with ability to pay?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, there were specific schedules that were removed from the budget by the opposition. In fact, I’d refer them specifically to schedules 1, 22, 30, 52, 56 and 68. Those—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. That’s not helpful.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Nor that. Thank you.

Premier.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, the schedules removed by the opposition would have made arbitration more transparent, accountable and efficient. It would have required written submissions by both parties of arbitration, written rationales by the arbitrator that arbitration be delivered within a specific time frame, and in cases where a decision is not delivered within the time frame, the OLRB would issue the final award to the party. That represented real progress. They decided they would not support that, and that, frankly, is a pity. We’re going to try again.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: I think I actually did get an answer there. I asked the Premier specifically what

section actually dealt with ability to pay and the Premier basically said none. He talked about written submissions upon request. Well, that’s a no-brainer, Speaker. Of course, there would be written submissions—not upon request; let’s make it mandatory.

Second, they had a time frame that was 12 months that was far too long. Then they brought forward amendments, to appease the third party, to move it to 16 months—far too long. We say it should be three months, and that’s in our act.

Lastly, Premier, I’m going to ask you one more time, because I think the answer is no: Can you tell me specifically where in your legislation you addressed ability to pay? Or—just be honest—you did not do it in one—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Question?

Mr. Tim Hudak: —whatsoever.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think it would be helpful to lift this up just a little bit and understand what it is that the official opposition position is.

They would seek to drive down wages in the province of Ontario. They would seek to break unions in the province of Ontario. That’s their position; that’s their approach. I understand that, I respect that, but I can’t support it.

We have a different approach. We think we should be reaching ever higher in Ontario. We intend to invest more in our people, develop their skills and develop their education levels. We want the best jobs that pay the most money, so our families can enjoy the highest standard of living and have a great quality of life.

That’s the difference between our government and the official opposition. They want to bring us down. We want to lift us up.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Here’s the clear difference: The Ontario PC caucus is on the side of taxpayers—hard-working middle-class families who are working harder every day, paying more and more taxes and getting less in return.

For nine years, sir, you drove spending through the roof. You say you’re reaching higher. You’re darn right you are. You increased the cost of government by 50% when the economy barely grew at all. You’re reaching higher, all right: record levels of unemployment. You’re reaching higher, all right: 300,000 people have lost their jobs in the manufacturing sector.

All we’re saying is public sector agreements need to reflect the ability of hard-working families who are struggling to pay those bills. It’s clear. It’s simple. It’s black and white. It’s important across the province.

You refused to act on the ability to pay in your budget bill, so you’re darn right we voted against it. We brought forward legislation that hits on 13 out of 13 Drummond recommendations. Will you stand up today, Premier, and say that enough is enough, that you’ll support this bill and make sure taxpayers can afford the payments that you’re giving up?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It won’t come as a surprise to hear me say we will not be supporting the initiative put forward by my honourable colleague.

We believe in a thoughtful, balanced, responsible approach. We think it’s important that we address the deficit over time, in a way that enables us to continue to make important investments in our schools and in our health care system, and to find ways to support the growth of business and the development of the economy at the same time.

But we do not seek to drive down wages. The approach that we have brought with respect to our public sector workers is to freeze wages over the course of two years. We think that’s thoughtful, responsible and balanced. We choose not to let people go. We choose not to lay off Ontario public servants, in contrast to what they’re doing in Ottawa, for example, where they’re firing 18,000 civil servants. We think we should freeze wages, protect jobs and protect services.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, there’s nothing thoughtful, reasonable or balanced about your approach to throw money at every problem under the sun. You’ve taken us to record deficits. You’re on course to tripling our debt. You don’t seem to understand—or else maybe you do understand but you refuse to act on—a broken arbitration system.

Clearly, you did nothing in your budget bill—you’ve admitted that—on ability to pay. The Drummond commission, the economists they hired, gave 13 separate recommendations on arbitration. In their budget bill, Speaker, they hit on one, barely, still making written submissions optional.

Mr. Wilson’s bill, the PC bill, hits on all 13: a bold, innovative approach to make sure that agreements in the public sector reflect private sector realities, that pay and benefits reflect the ability of taxpayers to pay those bills, and with fundamental reform to make sure we balance the books so we can create jobs in the province of Ontario again.

Premier, I’ll ask you again: Will you support this bold bill that will help rein in spending and get our economy back on the right track again?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’m being snowed under by paper here, Speaker.

I want to say to my honourable colleague that I would recommend to him that he take a look at the Drummond report. He will see that the commission found that the system should not be thrown out, the arbitration system, but it did need refinement. In particular, that’s what we are addressing to make the system more transparent, accountable and efficient.

I believe my honourable colleague would take it a step too far. I think it takes us in a direction that would have us drive down wages. We have a different approach. We think we should freeze wages for a couple of years. We think that’s in keeping with family values and aspirations: Rather than driving down wages in Ontario, rather than firing civil servants, we find a way to get through this together. Let’s freeze those wages, let’s protect public sector jobs, and let’s protect public services.

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, my question is for the Premier. The Premier stated that he will disclose the details of a cancelled private power plant in Oakville when the government has reached a settlement. My question is simple: When exactly will that be?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Well, Speaker, I hope it’s at the earliest opportunity. I understand we have really six full days during which the House leaders can meet on as many occasions as they deem to be appropriate to see if we can come to a resolution of this matter. I’ve said this several times now, and I know my honourable colleague will have heard it: The issue is not whether we release these documents; the only issue is when. Failing a resolution, then obviously we’ll make those documents public in keeping with your ruling, Speaker. But again, I think it’s incumbent now upon the House leaders to find a way forward together.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the government started backroom negotiations around this private power deal nearly two years ago. For two years the people of Ontario have been told, “We’ll tell you the facts when we feel like it,” and not a moment sooner.

If the Premier hasn’t made it a priority to tell the people the facts yet, why should anybody believe that he has a plan to do so in the future?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. John Milloy: I just want to repeat what I said last week, and of course the Premier has reiterated that we respect your ruling. I think the most notable part of your ruling was the fact that it identified the complexity of the situation and the need for all parties to work together to make sure that the desire of the committee to see these documents is met at the same time that we respect the fact that there are very sensitive negotiations going on and that we don’t need to jeopardize these negotiations through the premature release of commercially sensitive information. I am confident that the other House leaders and myself will be able to work together to find a solution to this.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the Premier says he wants to share the information, but for two years, the government has been scrambling to hide the facts from the public. When we asked the Auditor General to investigate, the Premier would not back our request. When MPPs tried to give the auditor that power at committee, Liberal MPPs filibustered for three days straight, and they spent another six days at committee fighting against the very disclosure that we are discussing right now. If the government isn’t afraid of transparency around these private power deals, why have they worked so hard to hide the facts?

Hon. John Milloy: In response to the question, I can only quote the words of Jim McCarter, the Auditor General of Ontario and an officer of this Legislature. On September 5 in public accounts, he said the following: “My sense on the Oakville one”—meaning the Oakville project—“where it’s currently in arbitration … is that it could very well be that some of this information could be subject to client-solicitor privilege, or even if we were to get it”—

Interjections.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, they’re heckling the Auditor General of Ontario, an officer of this House. He said, “ … some of this information could be subject to client-solicitor privilege, or even if we were to get it, in my opinion”—the opinion of the Auditor General—“it could be damaging to the province’s negotiating position.” The challenge that the House leaders have is to balance the right of the committee to see these documents as well as protecting the province’s negotiating position. That is the approach that we’re taking.

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. Here’s what people see: The government signed private power deals, and the Liberal campaign team cancelled them. Not only are families who are already struggling with electricity bills going to pay the cost of that, but they’re not even entitled to the details. Does the Premier understand why this is a problem for people?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: In the matter of the Mississauga gas plant, when that matter had been resolved through negotiations between parties, we made that documentation public. What we’re doing now, of course, is waiting for the House leaders to come together on the matter of the Oakville gas plant, to see if we might come to a resolution there with respect to the appropriate timing for release of these documents. We continue to look forward to the outcome of that process, Speaker.

I would encourage the House leaders from the three parties to come to this with a sense of perspective, a sense of goodwill and a sense of responsibility in terms of our accountability to the greater public interest. If we can do that, and if we come to that undertaking with those sentiments in mind, I know that we can find a solution working together.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, if the Premier was sincere about sharing the facts with the public, he could have done so by now. He could have done so long ago. Instead, we’ve seen the same old cynical politics that this Premier once railed against. He promised that private power deals would make electricity more affordable in the province of Ontario. They haven’t. He promised that the deals would be transparent. They’re not. He promised to stop cynical political games, and he is the one now playing them. The public has been waiting for two years for some basic information about how the Premier spent their money. When does he think that they should be able to get their answers, Speaker?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. John Milloy: Again, Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the leader of the third party, and indeed all members, to review your ruling and to review the facts that were made at the estimates committee, where I think it was made very clear that there are ongoing, commercially sensitive negotiations related to the Oakville power plant. Although we certainly acknowledge the right of the committee to see these documents, we also want to protect the interests of Ontario taxpayers. The challenge that you have given to the three House leaders is to find a way to balance it.

We still have several days left until the deadline, and I’m confident that in working together, we can find a way to balance those interests.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, how anybody in this chamber could keep a straight face while that government says they’re trying to protect the interests of the taxpayers is beyond me. Again, here’s what people see: The Premier, who came to power 10 years ago promising not to put politics over principle, made a cynical move to save a couple of seats and stuck the public with the bill. The Premier says that we should trust him now. Why doesn’t he actually start earning that trust by coming clean with the public?

Hon. John Milloy: The Auditor General, an officer of this Legislature, has acknowledged the fact that there could be aspects of this document that could be damaging to the province’s negotiating position. The government took a position in terms of the Mississauga and the Oakville plants, one which was supported by both opposition parties. We are now in the process of finalizing the negotiations and we are trying to find a balance between protecting the interests of the taxpayers and the rights, which we acknowledge, of the committee to see these documents. Again, Mr.

Speaker, I am confident, based on the ruling and the direction that you’ve given us, that the three House leaders will find a way to move forward in this matter.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Rob Leone: My question is for the Premier. Speaker, the Premier has recently shown disdain for this House and for your authority. In the media he has repeatedly expressed his intention to defy your ruling on the Minister of Energy’s breach of privilege and to thumb his nose at the people of Ontario. Despite the Liberals’ spin, they are solely to blame for the hundreds of millions of dollars that they’ve squandered on the Mississauga gas plant just to save a couple of Liberal seats.

The Premier is used to putting his own political interests ahead of the interests of Ontario taxpayers. Will he get used to the idea of accountability as well, and table those documents we seek today?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: The Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I think if there’s anyone who is undermining your ruling, it is the member opposite from Cambridge. The fact of the matter is, your ruling acknowledged the fact that this was a complex situation, acknowledged the fact that there were competing interests, and charged the House leaders to come to the table in good faith and find a way to move forward.

That is the approach that the government is taking, that is the approach I’m taking as House leader, and I challenge the member and his party and his House leader to come to the table with that same element of good faith, to realize that there are competing interests in what the Auditor General himself acknowledges is a very complex situation which could put taxpayers’ dollars at risk.

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

Mr. Rob Leone: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Premier to answer. Quit side-stepping, Premier. Take responsibility; take ownership. This isn’t Don Guy’s fault. This isn’t Greg Sorbara’s fault. This isn’t the Minister of Energy’s fault. This isn’t the government House leader’s fault. This is your fault; it’s you.

I know the Premier is getting tired in his job, and we get that sense over here—that he doesn’t want to answer sensitive questions. But it’s still the Premier who has to take ownership. If the Premier won’t acknowledge that his selfish political interests are what guided his decision-making and not the interests of Ontarians, will he at least put the province first? Release those documents today without delay.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, let me quote from Hansard—members will want to hear this. The member from Halton, during petitions, stood up and said, “The people of Oakville have told you they don’t want the proposed gas-fired power plant … and I agree with them.” The member from Halton in a press release, September 14, 2010: “Minister, will you move”—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Some people are defying me now.

Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, the member from Halton in a press release, September 14, 2010: “Minister, will you move the Oakville power plant?... I am asking the minister to consider moving this plant.”

But you know, it doesn’t stop with the Progressive Conservatives. The member from Hamilton Centre, as she was at that point, October 18, 2010: “New Democrats actually have thought for a long time that that plant should never have been built and we’ve said so.”

JOB CREATION

Ms. Catherine Fife: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. People in Kitchener–Waterloo are concerned with whether the job they have today will be there tomorrow. They’re worried about whether their kids will have jobs when they finish school.

Andrea Horwath has a plan to create well-paid jobs in Ontario through the job creation tax credits. It’s a simple plan: You create a job, you get a tax credit. Will the government commit right here to working with Andrea Horwath and New Democrats and implement a job creation tax credit now?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to take the opportunity, Speaker, to personally congratulate the newly elected member, to welcome her to this Legislature and wish her the very best. I know she’s here today with her family. They’re very proud of her, and well they should be.

I know that she has as a personal priority, near and dear to her own heart, education. We think that the foundation for a strong and dynamic economy that creates great jobs is to invest in our people by giving them the necessary skills and educational levels. I know my honourable colleague will want to acknowledge the great work that we’ve done in terms of building that foundation of an extraordinarily competitive workforce all the way from full-day kindergarten through post-graduate work, through apprenticeship programs, through our Second Career program as well. We will continue to find ways to invest in our people because the best people get the best jobs.

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: Mr. Speaker, workers at Schneiders in Kitchener know their plant is moving, and lots of the folks who worked at Kitchener Frame, Ornamental Mouldings or other manufacturers are still looking for work.

But Kitchener–Waterloo is full of innovators and hard workers. A job creation tax credit is targeted to the job creators and the companies investing in Kitchener–Waterloo and across Ontario. This government’s blank cheques to already profitable businesses have created what Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of Canada, calls “dead money.”

Will the government commit today to Andrea Horwath’s plan to create a job creation tax credit?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, again, I welcome the question and the priority my honourable colleague is placing on the need for jobs in her community and indeed throughout the province.

I think it is important to acknowledge that overall we are moving in the right direction. We have created 325,000 jobs since the recession. Overwhelmingly, those are good, full-time, well-paying jobs. By way of perspective, the US has recovered 45% of their jobs, the UK has recovered about 71% of their jobs and we’ve recovered about 125% of our jobs. So, clearly we’re going in the right direction. Obviously there’s more to do. We look forward to working with the honourable colleague opposite and her party, as well as the official opposition, in this regard.

HEALTH CARE

Mr. Steven Del Duca: Mr. Speaker, I’m delighted that my first-ever question here in this chamber is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care regarding the Vaughan hospital. My recent campaign platform had a focus on ensuring that Vaughan residents continue to have access to a strong and top-quality health care system locally. Vaughan has been one of the fastest-growing areas in Canada over the last decade, and we are home to a significant number of both young families and seniors. As a result, folks in Vaughan need to be able to access quality health care close to home.

They need to be assured that in their time of need, there will always be high-quality health care nearby. More to the point, we need our own hospital. Vaughan is one of the most populous areas here in Ontario that still doesn’t have a hospital.

Through you, Speaker, to the minister: When will Vaughan’s hospital become a reality for our residents?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I know that all members in this House join me in congratulating the new member on his election victory, and we welcome him to this wonderful, wonderful place, Speaker. I know that his strong work ethic and his collaborative approach will serve his constituents well.

I am very pleased to confirm that Vaughan’s new hospital has been approved and it is moving forward. Here’s what we’re going to do in Vaughan: Planning is under way now for state-of-the-art emergency services; new, modern surgical services and operating rooms; medical in-patient and intensive care beds; advanced diagnostic imaging; and specialized outpatient services that may include oncology, cardiac, eye and diabetes care. Eighty per cent of the rooms will be single rooms, because we’re committed to reducing infection rates. This project is scheduled to begin in 2014-15, and I know the new member will make sure we keep on track.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Steven Del Duca: Until the new time that the hospital is built, I need to make sure that my constituents continue to have access to health care services in a timely fashion. This includes getting access to more family doctors and other health care services that they need. Because Vaughan has such a large population of seniors, as well as young families, having health care close to home is incredibly important.

Through you, Speaker, to the minister: How will you ensure that these services will be accessible to Vaughan residents so that they have the health care that they need until the hospital is built?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The member is absolutely right—astute, as we would expect. He represents a growing, thriving part of this province, and we are committed to making sure that all residents, young and old and in between, have access to the health care that they need. Ninety-two per cent of residents now have a family doctor, and there are doctors there taking new patients today. There’s been a 42% increase in the number of doctors—382 more than when we took office in 2003.

Health Care Connect connects patients looking for doctors with doctors; 96% of those with complex conditions have been attached to a primary health physician. We’re continuing to support Mackenzie Health. It is leading the development of the Vaughan hospital. As they have responded to the needs of their community, we have responded, increasing their funding by 72%.

POWER PLANT

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Premier, you announced the cancellation of the Oakville power plant two years ago. We have been waiting all this time for you to tell us what you’re spending to save a Liberal seat. The members of the estimates committee have demanded these documents. The Speaker has spoken, yet you’re defiant.

We say to you, no more games, no more hiding, no more stalling; deliver those documents now, and we insist they be unedited and unredacted. Ontarians deserve to know.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: The Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, what the member said is not true. You have made a ruling which acknowledges the complexity of the situation, that we are, in effect—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m listening carefully to all of the comments that are being made, and some of them are going down a road that I feel a little bit uneasy about. In this case, I would ask that you don’t say indirectly what you can’t say directly. I caution the member on how he responds, in that manner.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the honourable member, and indeed all members of the House, of your ruling. Your ruling acknowledged the complexity of the situation, and indeed the debate and discussion at the estimates committee acknowledged the fact that we are talking about a case where there are sensitive commercial interests at work, and at the same time we need to balance that with the committee’s absolute right to produce the documents.

What your ruling said, Mr. Speaker, is that the three House leaders should meet and find a way to balance these interests. The government is firmly of the view that we can find a way forward through co-operation with all the parties.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Again to the Premier: Premier, you and your ministers aren’t hiding commercially sensitive materials; you’re hiding Liberal-sensitive materials. Let’s be fair about that. And after two years of hiding these, there must be something awful in those documents.

On July 11, the member from Richmond Hill excused the energy minister’s contemptuous act, saying, “I think this whole motion is frivolous”—hundreds of millions of dollars, frivolous. Premier, you obviously agree with him.

The Speaker has spoken. You’ve been called out on the seat-saver program. Will you uphold the rights, the powers and the privileges of the members of this House and deliver those documents today?

Interjections.

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

Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I think there are two facts to put on the table. The first is that we are complying with your ruling. We are attempting to work with the House leaders to find a way forward. The second, Mr. Speaker, is that the honourable member should consider his question in light of what the Auditor General said on September 5—and I’ll remind members again: “My sense on the Oakville one, where it’s currently in arbitration ... some of this information could be subject to client-solicitor privilege,” and more importantly, “or even if we were to get it, in my opinion”—the opinion of the Auditor General of Ontario—“it could be damaging to the province’s negotiating position.”

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General acknowledges the complexity of this situation, you acknowledge the complexity of this situation, and we’re going to work to find a way forward to make sure that we balance both of these issues.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Ontarians are horrified by the senseless death of Jayesh Prajapati, a Toronto gas station attendant who was tragically killed after the theft of $112 worth of gas. Since his senseless death, his family has been raising concerns, asking whether he was concerned about the cost of stolen gas from his paycheque and whether that led him to take the tragic actions that led to his death.

What is this government doing to enforce its own Employment Standards Act?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I want to thank the member for the question. I, too, was saddened and shocked to learn of this incident , and my thoughts are with the family of this gentleman, who lost his life in such a tragic and unfortunate way. As the Premier said earlier this week, we owe it to the family to take a long, hard look at what lessons we might draw from this incident.

I’d like to acknowledge the member from Eglinton–Lawrence, who has expressed his interest to assist with finding a solution to the “gas-and-dash” issue. We have a shared interest in ensuring that this doesn’t happen again, and I look forward to working with him and other members of the House on this issue.

In the meantime, the Ministry of Labour has begun a health and safety investigation into this workplace fatality. At the same time, my ministry is also looking into whether or not there were any employment standards violations taking place at the station.

Any employee who feels that their employer has made deductions that contravene the ESA may file a claim with the ministry. The ministry does take enforcement of the ESA very seriously and investigates all claims.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: The ministry’s own website states that a deduction from wages is not allowed if there is lost or stolen property; for example, if customers leave without paying the bill. That seems pretty clear to me and to us on this side of the House.

Will this government start enforcing its own employment standards laws or are we going to see more tragic deaths, such as Jayesh Prajapati’s?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: Let me be clear: The Employment Standards Act states it is illegal for an employer to dock an employee’s wages for the company’s lost or stolen property. That means that if a patron at a gas station gases and dashes, the employee cannot be docked wages for the loss to the company.

There are very many vulnerable workers across Ontario, we need to protect those individuals, and gas station attendants are included in that group. One of the risks we need to address is this issue. We need to be clear in that regard and we need to do more to protect the health and safety of employees.

A similar incident occurred in 2011, and my ministry looked into what could be done to prevent this kind of workplace fatality from happening in the future. At that time, the ministry consulted with stakeholders in other jurisdictions. What we learned from that was there are significant concerns from stakeholders about the feasibility of the pay-at-the-pump laws and, further, other jurisdictions have not seen the expected results or uptake after passing the legislation.

We’re going to work with our stakeholders to prevent tragic events like this from happening again, and I look forward to working with the member from Eglinton–Lawrence in finding a solution.

ARBITRATION

Mr. Jeff Leal: My question this morning is for the Minister of Labour. Minister, like you, I have read the news over the past few months and I’ve noticed a number of stories coming out all over the province on interest arbitration. It seems municipalities are concerned about the transparency and the timeliness of arbitration decisions. I imagine this was an issue that was brought up to you at AMO in August in your delegations with many municipalities.

Lately, I’ve been hearing some rumblings from the official opposition on interest arbitration through a private member’s bill. Minister, I also like to follow what goes on inside the Legislature and in committee. I do believe our government put forward a series of very responsible reforms to six statutes governing interest arbitration in the budget last spring.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: Can you give us a status update on what our government has done in terms of interest arbitration?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: Thank you for the question. Our government actually listened to municipalities from across Ontario that brought forward recommendations with regard to interest arbitration, and in our spring budget, we proposed some interest arbitration reforms that would have increased accountability, transparency and timeliness within the interest arbitration system.

But, last spring, when it came time to vote on these proposed changes, the official opposition elected to join forces with the third party and vote them down. That tells me they’re confused on this issue. The leader of the official opposition seems to constantly say one thing and do another. Judging by the reaction that I heard recently at AMO, their inconsistency on this file is clearly noticed by municipal leaders from across the province.

This is the second private member’s bill that they’ve brought forward on interest arbitration, and I’m really puzzled why their labour critic isn’t the one speaking to this issue anymore. The fact remains: They can introduce all the private members’ bills—

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

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: —they want, but when they had the chance to take real action—

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

Mr. Paul Miller: Time.

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: —and vote on changes to help municipalities, they failed.

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

Two observations: I’m beginning to hear some comments through the interjections that are very close to being very personal in nature, and I’d like to remind you that it’s not something that I endorse.

Also, I don’t need to be reminded of the clock; I’m on top of that. For those who are worried about it, everyone will do their best to stop when I say, “Thank you.”

Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Leal: Minister, thank you very much for that insightful and thoughtful response. But, Minister, I’m confused, and municipalities across Ontario are confused. It seems to me like the reforms that the official opposition are asking for are very similar to the ones that we proposed in the spring. So, Minister, based on what you’ve said, the official opposition is teaming up with the third party to scrap our reforms that they were showing no support for.

To me, it seemed then, and I’m reminded now, that despite campaigning on interest arbitration reform and making the same promise to municipalities at multiple AMO conferences, the leader of the official opposition and his party are inconsistent and extremely confused on this issue.

Speaker, through you to the minister, could you please provide some clarification of what the official opposition and Changebook is all about?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Leader of the Opposition’s speech this summer at the AMO conference. I heard him say that he wanted tight timelines for arbitrators to issue their decisions. I heard him say he wanted written decisions—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You need to hear the answer. The member from Leeds–Grenville will come to order. I’m trying to hear the answer to ensure that she’s doing what I asked her to do, and the member from Leeds–Grenville will work himself towards a warning if he says another word.

Minister.

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: Mr. Speaker, I also heard the Leader of the Opposition say he wanted rewards that reflect local budget conditions. These seem like entirely reasonable proposals that sound very familiar. I think I heard those ideas before because they were included in those changes in our budget last spring. The curious thing is that despite the Leader of the Opposition’s insistence that he wants these changes, when he had the opportunity to support those amendments, he voted against them. Mr.

Speaker, we want increased accountability, we want to increase transparency, and we want proposed timelines within the interest arbitration system. It’s puzzling that, when the official opposition votes against interest arbitration, that’s what they campaigned on before.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is for the Premier, and I respectfully request that he answer it. The Minister of Energy has been found in breach of the rights and privileges bestowed upon all of us as members of this Legislature. This is made worse by the government’s refusal to accept responsibility for saddling Ontarians with hundreds of millions of dollars in new debt. In cancelling the two power plants, the Liberal government put its own selfish political interests ahead of Ontarians’. It is now proceeding to obstruct the work of this House to hide the true cost of its actions.

I ask the Premier, when can we expect him to accept responsibility to this House and own up to the full cost of the Liberal seat-saver program?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, I’m a little disappointed by that question. I have a great deal of respect for the honourable member. The honourable member knows that you made a ruling in this House several days ago in which you acknowledged the complexity of the situation and asked the three House leaders to sit down and find a way forward. That is what’s happening right now, Mr. Speaker. We are not defying any ruling by the Speaker. In fact, we’re following the rules coming forward.

As to the latter part of the question about the reasons why we were hesitant at the estimates committee in making these documents move forward, I refer him again to what the Auditor General, an officer of this House, said when he talked about the Oakville project: Releasing these documents, “in my opinion ... could be damaging to the province’s negotiating position,” which reinforces the fact that this is a complex situation which requires all three House leaders to sit down in a spirit of co-operation.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Arnott: Back to the Premier because, on this one, the buck stops with him. I’m compelled to remind the Premier that on October 11, 1995, in this House, he offered the following advice: “Your accountability, like that for all of us here, is to all Ontarians, including those who happen to be taxpayers.” After nine years in government, it appears as though the Premier has disavowed the principle he espoused 17 years ago. He now leads a government that flouts the standing orders, breaks the Legislative Assembly Act, ignores the authority of the Speaker and has shown contempt for this House.

So I ask the Premier, how does he rationalize what he said in 1995 with what he’s doing today? When will he own up to what he did and table the documents?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, if anyone is defying a ruling by you in terms of the release of these documents, it’s the opposition member in the question that he has asked today. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, you have made a ruling that was clear. Your ruling has given the House leaders until next Monday at 6 o’clock to come up with a way to release these documents, and at the same time also respect the fact that there are some sensitive commercial interests that have been recognized by the Auditor General of Ontario. That was your ruling. We want to comply with that ruling, and we look forward to working with the opposition parties to find a way forward.

I know that the honourable member would never want to leave the impression that—your ruling was nothing short of a call on all parties to sit down and find a way to move forward, based on the complexity of the situation.

HUNTING AND FISHING

Ms. Sarah Campbell: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Ontarians are losing jobs, and just yesterday your government encouraged us to spend more on local products. Yet the MNR is not practising what its own government is preaching, by outsourcing jobs to the United States while reducing programs and cutting staff levels.

A company in Tennessee now handles Outdoors Cards and fishing licences for Ontario. The moose tag draw happens in Tennessee. Deer and other big-game licence applications also have to go through Tennessee.

Minister, how many other jobs are Ontarians missing out on because they are being contracted to other countries?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: There are so many inaccuracies in that, I don’t know where to begin, other than to say that we have rolled out a new, modern system that makes it easier for anglers and hunters to get their licences. It offers more options for renewing licences online. You do it from your home; you can do it by phone.

Active Outdoors, from Tennessee, was awarded the contract in a fair procurement manner. Certainly, all I can tell you is that since December, more than two million licences have been issued to people in the province of Ontario. Currently, all 69 ServiceOntario locations and hundreds of other private sector locations are also issuing those licences by working through the company. The fact is, this has been helpful in terms of the fishing and hunting community.

Yes, I’ll acknowledge that there were some glitches in the process of moving through it, but it is now moving slowly and certainly in terms of jobs. The Outdoors Cards centre in Peterborough continues to be the focus point for us in terms of the Ministry of Natural Resources.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sarah Campbell: Minister, hunting season is here. We’ve heard from a number of hunters who have told us they’ve noticed a change to the automated response when they call the licensing and draw application 1-800 number. The Ministry of Natural Resources now seems to be going out of its way to show frustrated hunters that their concerns about the storage of their private information will be fielded in Peterborough by the Ontario Outdoors Card team. Yet the system is still in Tennessee, still outsourced to the United States and still subject to the laws of the jurisdiction where it is sourced, regardless of any contractual obligations imposed by the government upon the private company.

Minister, won’t you admit that outsourcing is not the right thing to do? It costs taxpayers more money, it causes privacy concerns and it’s taking good jobs away from Ontarians.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I’m actually rather surprised that the member would bring up that issue, particularly as she knows full well that Ontario’s privacy commissioner has made it very, very clear that indeed the private information of Ontarians is absolutely safe.

We’ve got an ironclad contract with the company. The privacy commissioner expressed real confidence in the work we’re doing on ensuring that privacy remains secure. We’ve implemented all the recommendations put forth by the privacy commissioner in her report.

I think I need to actually quote what the privacy commissioner said to us when this issue first surfaced in the spring. She said, “There’s a very tight contract. There are very tight service provisions.... And there’s an audit provision so that their use of data will be carefully audited.... I have no concerns about that whatsoever.”

This continues to be an important issue to us. We’ll always be sure that we protect the privacy of Ontarians, and indeed that is the case.

EASTERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: My question is for Minister of Economic Development and Innovation. As you know, Speaker, this House recently passed Bill 11, Attracting Investment and Creating Jobs Act, 2012, which makes permanent the eastern Ontario development fund, or the EODF. Since 2008, when the program began, the EODF has seen tremendous success in leveraging private sector investment and creating jobs in eastern Ontario economies.

With this track record, the government has received a range of support from municipal leaders across the province for Bill 11 and the economic benefit they see for their communities. In fact, the city of Ottawa recently passed a motion calling for all provincial parties to support this bill, and it’s a shame that the official opposition did not.

The city council is also requesting that the boundaries for the EODF include both the urban and rural parts of Ottawa, which was not the case under the previous program.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: When will the boundaries be determined, and will he expand them to include all of Ottawa?

Hon. Brad Duguid: We are aware of the motion from Ottawa city council, and of course we take their request seriously. We’re giving it proper consideration as we determine what the perimeters for the eastern Ontario development fund and southwestern Ontario development fund will be.

Speaker, the eastern Ontario development fund has been a great success. To date, we’ve invested $57.7 million to leverage $595 million of private sector investment. That’s over a 10-to-1 private sector leverage ratio. This fund has created and retained over 13,200 jobs in eastern Ontario, and we plan to apply that success, the success we’ve seen in eastern Ontario, to southwestern Ontario’s development fund. We’re working hard to get these programs up and running, get the funds flowing to communities and worthy businesses, and create much-needed jobs in eastern and southwestern Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: I’m glad to know that the investment we have made in this program has proven to be such a success, and I sincerely hope that the minister will strongly consider the request of the city of Ottawa to include all of Ottawa within the parameters of the fund. As the MPP for Ottawa Centre, I hope that my constituents and businesses will have the same opportunity to grow our regional economy and create jobs that have been available outside of Ottawa since 2008. It’s especially imperative given the thousands of jobs that are being lost in Ottawa because of the job cuts that are taking place by the federal government.

I find it passing strange that two of my colleagues from Ottawa on the opposite side of the House have remained silent on this issue and in fact voted against this measure, given that their communities benefit from the EODF.

Speaker, through you back