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

September 22, 2016

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-Sep-22 (PDF)

L006 - Thu 22 Sep 2016 / Jeu 22 sep 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 22 September 2016 Jeudi 22 septembre 2016

Orders of the Day

Ontario Rebate for Electricity Consumers Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la remise de l’Ontario pour les consommateurs d’électricité

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Hydro rates

Government contracts

Government policies

Child care

Curriculum

Steel industry

Hydro rates

Hydro rates

Protection for workers

Victims of crime

Government services

Subventions pour les arts et la culture / Arts and cultural funding

Driver licences

Public transit

Member’s birthday

Members’ Statements

Steelway Building Systems

Hydro rates

Canadian Arctic

John Cairns

Mercury poisoning

Ahmadiyya community

Ernie Spiller and Sean Adams

International Plowing Match

Public transit

Introduction of Bills

Ministry of Correctional Services Amendment Act (Parole), 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant la

Loi sur le ministère des Services correctionnels (libérations conditionnelles)

Ticket Speculation Amendment Act (Purchase and Sale Requirements), 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant la

Loi sur le trafic des billets de spectacle (exigences relatives à l’achat et à la vente des billets)

Petitions

Hydro rates

Lyme disease

Agriculture industry

Employment standards

Highway ramps

Hydro rates

Driver licences

Health care funding

Hydro rates

Prix de l’essence

Agriculture industry

Private Members’ Public Business

Hazel McCallion Day Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le Jour de Hazel McCallion

Driver licences

Supporting Agricultural Experts in their Field Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 d’appui aux experts en agriculture dans leur domaine

Hazel McCallion Day Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le Jour de Hazel McCallion

Driver licences

Supporting Agricultural Experts in their Field Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 d’appui aux experts en agriculture dans leur domaine

Orders of the Day

Election Finances Statute Law Amendment Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne le financement électoral

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Ontario Rebate for Electricity Consumers Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la remise de l’Ontario pour les consommateurs d’électricité

Resuming the debate adjourned on September 21, 2016, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 13,

An Act in respect of the cost of electricity / Projet de loi 13, Loi concernant le coût de l’électricité.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further debate. The member from Toronto–Danforth.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to address this bill. There are a lot of different ways to approach it. I would say that what is most critical is: first, understanding the context within which this bill has been brought forward, the context of the electricity system that we’re dealing with and the costs that have been imposed on the people of Ontario; and then, finally, what there is in this bill that is of consequence and what there is in this bill that’s simply a recycling of previous legislation.

I think, Speaker, in debating this bill we have to first look at: Why are we debating this bill? Why is it before us today? I had an opportunity when the minister first introduced the bill to make a few comments. I think that the information I provided then was useful then and will be useful to note again now. We’re debating a potential rebate on people’s hydro bills today because there was a Liberal loss in Scarborough, in an election last month. Mr. Raymond Cho is here this morning, elected in Scarborough–Rouge River to the surprise, chagrin and horror of the Liberals. They felt that they owned this riding.

They felt that it was their birthright. They felt that it really didn’t matter what they did, who they put forward, that it would be theirs. But as you are well aware, that isn’t the way that election turned out.

In that election, I had an opportunity, as I’m sure you did, Speaker, to go door to door in that community and talk to what I thought were a pretty decent bunch of people. And the cost of electricity was very much top of mind; it was very much something that had seized their attention. And even though in Ontario we have increasingly faced, as the years have gone by, people dealing with difficulty with high and growing hydro bills, that wasn’t a pain that this Liberal government felt. It wasn’t a vulnerability that they felt as consumers feel when they’re dealing with their bills.

They only felt that vulnerability, they only thought that there was a crisis and a problem, when they lost a seat that they thought was theirs, that they thought they owned. Finally, it has come home that, “Hey, we could lose an election on this issue.” And so we are dealing with this bill today.

I’ll just note, Speaker, that it was interesting to me, I think it was the day after the bill was introduced, that Liberal staffers at subway stops throughout the downtown, possibly at bus stops in Scarborough and Etobicoke and North York, perhaps at transportation hubs elsewhere in Ontario, were out giving out flyers talking about this 8% reduction.

I should note as well, Speaker, that the Premier has put out an online petition allowing people to register their interest and their concern for a reduction in their hydro bills. It’s quite extraordinary to me to see a governing party have a petition in place to petition themselves to do something that they’re about to do with a bill they’ve brought forward. I can only think that it was an email-harvesting opportunity and they didn’t want to miss it.

But that is why we are debating this bill. I cast back to 2010, when the gas plant in Oakville was cancelled; again, roughly a year and a half, two years before a writ was to be dropped and an election commence. There was concern about the loss of a number of seats. Frankly, something had to be done. Something was done: The plant was cancelled to protect those seats.

In the case of Scarborough–Rouge River, the government has had a wake-up call about the unpopularity of their approach to electricity, their callous disregard of the population of Ontario and, ultimately, the callous indifference with which the people of Ontario will feel about the governing Liberal Party.

So the function of this bill is a political function. This bill is about salvaging, protecting the Liberal Party. It has little to do with their concern for the people of this province, something that manifestly is not there, and it does not deal with the fundamental problems in the electricity system that I will touch on as I go through my leadoff speech this morning.

Speaker, as you’re well aware, the NDP opposed putting the HST on electricity when the HST was first introduced. We see it as a necessity. We see the imposition of a tax on that necessity as unfair and we have called, in fact, for the repeal of the provincial portion of the HST on people’s hydro bills. So we don’t think it’s a bad thing to give people a rebate, but we do think that people need to understand why this bill is before us today and what the fundamental issues are that are not being addressed by this bill.

If you want to characterize the Liberal approach to the hydro issue, there are a few elements here. There’s denial—and I’ll enlarge on that—there’s cynicism—and I have a lot of material on that—and there’s privatization, making friends, colleagues, associates, banks very wealthy. Those things are fundamental to Liberal hydro policy in this province.

Let’s look at denial, first off. The new Minister of Energy has denied that there was a problem, wouldn’t use the word “crisis” when he was asked about rural energy prices or electricity prices. He had an opportunity in an interview recently to talk about a report from the Financial Accountability Office. He had an opportunity when he was speaking in the House yesterday to talk about electricity prices.

It’s intriguing to me that the minister would take the words of the Financial Accountability Officer—and I guess this shouldn’t be intriguing, this should be considered normal—and reshape them to promote the Liberal narrative on electricity. What did the minister have to say? Let me just take a look.

Mr. Wayne Gates: He doesn’t know; he’s playing video games.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Well, I’m not that worried about what the minister’s doing now. He has much time on his hands.

The minister was talking about the Financial Accountability Officer and saying that families in Ontario spend less money on electricity, on average, than every province except British Columbia. Now, that may well be true, but I would say that there’s a commonality between southern Ontario and the lower mainland of British Columbia, and that’s that across Canada they may have the mildest climate.

It’s not a surprise that people who rely on electricity through cold, dark winter months are going to use less in southern Ontario and the lower mainland than they will in Manitoba or Alberta or Saskatchewan or Quebec, all jurisdictions that are substantially colder, jurisdictions that in many ways use a lot of electricity for heating.

The minister went on to say that the total home energy cost is in the middle of the pack when compared to other Canadian provinces, which is also interesting because it doesn’t bear on electricity. It bears on the fact that we are close to American sources of fracked gas—fracked in a way that I think is environmentally irresponsible, not sustainable economically or environmentally, ultimately not sustainable socially. But it has meant very low prices. To claim any credit for a lack of forethought on the part of American producers is completely irrelevant to the debate that we’re having here.

Cheap fracked gas is not the issue that people are dealing with. What they’re dealing with is very high electricity prices. That is a substantial matter.

I note, Speaker, that Ontario now has the highest average electricity rates in Canada, with the possible exception of PEI. I think we’re a contender with them from time to time. Manitoba Hydro has a table that one can access on the Web—prices current as of May 2016—and it shows Ottawa, Ontario, as the highest residential bill charge compared to a variety of cities—Calgary, Edmonton, Halifax, Moncton, Montreal, Regina, Saskatoon, Saint John, St. John’s, Vancouver, Winnipeg—$127.61 a month as opposed to the lowest, which is around $55.02 in Quebec. So the reality is that we have extraordinarily high electricity rates.

The United States energy information agency has a chart of electricity rates by state that provides up-to-date state averages that can be compared with Ontario’s average rates. When you take account of the currency differences, the energy information agency chart shows that Ontario’s average rates are higher than any other region in the continental US except for the region of New England. But that’s just the average rates. Ontario’s rural rates are much higher.

Hydro One’s low-density rates on a 750-kilowatt-hour bill are bigger than Connecticut’s, which has the highest average rates among the 48 states in the continental US, and are tied with Alaska’s and second in Canada/US only to Hawaii. So we have very high rates compared to other jurisdictions in North America, and that’s what’s at issue here today.

Speaker, I had an opportunity to ask the Minister of Energy a question the other day about energy rates. I noted that there’s a particular burden on rural and northern Ontario. Francesca Dobbyn, executive director of the United Way of Bruce Grey, recently declared rural energy poverty to be a crisis. “People are angry, they’re frustrated and they don’t know what to do,” Dobbyn told the CBC. “They’re being told it’s their fault ... you left a light on.” Dobbyn has met people who have had to walk away from their houses because the hydro bill is bigger than the mortgage. She says the largest hydro bill the United Way has worked on was $22,000. It’s a big bill; it’s a very big bill.

Losing power in rural areas can mean losing drinking water. In July, the Toronto Star reported on a 74-year-old pensioner who got her hydro cut off by Hydro One at the very moment she received new energy-efficient appliances paid for through Hydro One’s home assistance program. Not only did the pensioner lose her lights, she lost power to her well pump, which meant she also had no drinking water and, frankly, no water for a toilet or a shower. That is how energy poverty can turn into a public health crisis.

Despite this, in July Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault refused to use the word “crisis” to describe rural energy poverty. He also said he had no idea how many people are behind on their hydro bills and didn’t know if the province even collects such data. Speaker, for your information, for the information of the House, for the information of anyone who may be watching on television at the moment, Ontario does collect such data. About 567,000 households were behind on their bills as of December 31, 2015. That’s up by 94,000 households from 2013.

A lot of people are having difficulty with their hydro bills, and they’re having difficulty for a variety of reasons, but centrally because Ontario has pursued a course of action that has made electricity very, very expensive.

The Premier and the former Minister of Energy have said in this House that we make a profit on hydro sales here in Ontario. In fact, I raised this issue in the House with the former Minister of Energy, and I was thrown out for my remarks, which were termed unparliamentary. I have to say to you, Speaker, that it is very difficult for me to talk about this file without using unparliamentary language. I restrain myself. I’ll let your imagination run riot as to what unparliamentary words I might use in talking about the Liberals in this matter.

The reality is that we sell close to $2 billion worth of power to Quebec, Michigan, New York and others, and we get $500 million on it. Speaker, when you sell something worth $2 billion and you get $500 million, you’re not making a profit. You may be cutting your losses. You may regain 25 cents on the dollar. But you’re losing; you are not profiting. For this government, for this Premier, to have maintained that we’re making a profit when we’re losing money is extraordinary. I can’t use the words that I think would accurately describe it. I know, Speaker, that you would call me to account.

You might even tell me I was using unparliamentary language if I spoke what I truthfully believe are the actual words about the minister and the Premier.

Speaker, we do have a crisis. I know I noted the words of the head of the United Way of Bruce Grey. But I have to say that twice in the last month, when I’ve been going door to door in my riding, I came across people having tremendous difficulties with their hydro bills. I came across a senior who had gotten her bill for a thousand dollars—a thousand dollars. She was just totally perplexed. What does she do with a thousand-dollar bill for electricity? What can she do? Where is that money going to come from? She’s completely, totally at a loss.

Speaker, my guess is that in your riding there are people who are dealing with similar bills, who have similar anxieties, and may well have contacted your office about it.

I came across another senior who is on oxygen. She said to me, “I need to use this oxygen all day long. I can’t get overheated, so I have to have air conditioning on. Because the oxygen dries you out, I have to have a humidifier going.” Her last bill was $700. She said, “I’m disabled. I’m on a pension. I don’t know how to deal with this bill. Is there any way that I can get a substantial cut in this bill?” I told her about the Ontario Electricity Support Program, but frankly, at $700 for a bill, she needed a lot more than $30 a month or $75 a month.

That is an ongoing and common problem: people having difficulty dealing with these bills, and this government denying it on an ongoing and regular basis—denial first, denial second, denial third, denial at every point as to what’s going on, until Mr. Raymond Cho from Scarborough–Rouge River wins a by-election; then, suddenly, denial is a problem. Suddenly denial is a problem.

I want to look at the cynicism in the approach that the Liberals take to the electricity file. I’ve had an opportunity to make brief comment on this previously, but I’ve watched this over the last 10 years that I’ve been here. When the Liberals are challenged on high and soaring hydro rates, they say, “We needed to get rid of coal. We need to have clean energy. We need to have green energy.” Speaker, we did need to get rid of coal, and we do need to have green energy. But that isn’t the heart of the hydro price crisis that we have in Ontario; far from it—far from it.

As I’ve said this before in this chamber, David Herle, who does polling for the Liberal Party—bright guy, clearly astute, understands how the population works—did a presentation, I believe it was to the Canadian Nuclear Association, recently about his polling. He was pretty straightforward. He said, “If you tell people that you’re raising prices to do something they want to have done, and they want clean air and they want society to take on climate change, if you say prices are rising because we’re dealing with coal and we’re dealing with clean air and we’re setting things up for climate change, then you have a defensible position.”

So whenever there are attacks, when the Conservatives on this side of the aisle say, “You know what? The problem is green energy,” the Liberals on the other side say, “You’re right. You’re right, it is green energy.” So green energy gets caught in the jaws of those two proponents and chewed up, because on this side it’s a great attack line, on that side it’s a great defence line, but in the end it’s green energy that suffers, climate action that suffers, while both pursue their actions.

The Liberals don’t have to validate what the Conservatives are saying. They run the system. They could actually look at the numbers. They could speak to it, but no, they’re using the lines that were developed for them by a very astute and very capable pollster who told them, “This is your best defence.” Thus, the attacks on green energy by the Conservatives are validated by the Liberals, to the disadvantage of this province as a whole.

Cynicism showed up in the cancellation of gas plants in Mississauga and Oakville. I had an opportunity in 2008, when the Oakville plant was proposed, to point out to the Liberals that electricity demand was dropping, the plant was unneeded and they shouldn’t be proceeding with it. Nope; didn’t matter—didn’t matter. Exactly what all the machinations were in the back rooms, I don’t know. Who it was that they were trying to mollify and make happy, I don’t know.

But instead of blocking it in the first place, which they should have done, saying, “We have dropping demand; this plant will increase the cost of electricity; the bad location. We don’t need it. We won’t proceed,” no, they proceeded, they took on a political risk, and when that political risk blew up in the then Premier’s face they decided, “Boy, this is not worth it. We could lose a few seats here.

We’re going to cancel this.” But not only did they not cancel it, not only did they say they were going to cancel it and then, recognizing yet another risk, build it somewhere else—so we had a plant that wasn’t needed in the first place, we spent a billion to relocate it and it’s now producing power we don’t need. Similar events happened in Mississauga.

Those cynical moves were astounding on their own, but I want to look at what I call the slushifying of the cap-and-trade funds. For those who are given the responsibility of taking down our words, you’ve heard Shopify; you’ve heard Spotify. If you’re slushifying something, you’re taking money that should be used for a purpose that’s critical and using it for a political purpose that serves your ends. We’re raising cap-and-trade funds to deal with climate change.

You should know, Speaker, that the current climate action on the part of the government is inadequate to deal with the climate crisis, will not bring about the reductions that are needed. That’s all the existing policies. The ones that are coming forward in the climate action plan are still inadequate. You need a very sharp reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to actually meet the commitment that Canada made in Paris in December, commitments that are going to be ratified, apparently, within the next few months.

The Liberal approach with their climate action plan in Ontario won’t even meet the commitment that Ontario signed onto with subnational governments—the Under 2 memorandum of understanding, the Under 2 MOU—won’t meet that, very consciously.

This government knows that it won’t meet those commitments, and yet it is going to be using the funds to reduce the costs of electricity to industrial and commercial electricity consumers. I don’t see anything wrong with addressing their needs; let’s talk about how that’s to be done. But taking funds that are desperately needed for a program that the government says is critical to our future and using them for a very short-run political objective of dealing with rising hydro prices is directly contrary to everything that the Premier and the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change had to say when we were debating climate change and their climate bill.

Frankly, Speaker, I had an opportunity to get briefed the other day by ministry staff, and it was intriguing to me, in talking about how the money was going to be used, that not only was it going to be used to deal with rates, but they talked about using that money to help with the nuclear fleet here in Ontario. What does that have to do with cap-and-trade? The money is supposed to be raised to put new measures in place to actually drive down our emissions so that we can protect ourselves, but in reality that money, in turn, is going to be used as a slush fund to deal with the political problem the Liberals have today. Speaker, I do find it quite extraordinary—quite extraordinary.

I note that the Minister of Energy, in his remarks yesterday, talked about the commitment of this government to produce power that was safe, clean and reliable. I had an opportunity to note this before, but I will just note it again: You’re talking about reliable power? I had an opportunity in December 2013 to climb eight storeys in an apartment building in my riding where the power had gone out. There were people who were stranded in apartment buildings in a variety of places in Toronto, seniors on top floors who couldn’t negotiate eight, 10, 20 or 30 storeys. They were out of luck.

This government has known since it was elected, and society has known since the late 1990s, that ice storms were a threat to the reliability of power, and yet that wasn’t addressed. That wasn’t an example of reliability.

A number of months before that, in the summer, we’d had a significant rainstorm event here in the GTA. The western part of the GTA had big power interruptions because a transformer station was flooded out—again, something that we have to expect, which this government should have expected but didn’t plan for. I talked to the people at CityPlace who saw their power go out four times, five times in two weeks. Speaker, this government talks about reliability but doesn’t deliver it. If you ever get the opportunity, if you’re on Twitter, put in the hashtag #darkTO for power outages in Toronto. It tells you about the reliability of the system. In a lot of places, it’s not reliable at all.

This government talks about clean power, but it currently has a proposal out there that you can sign up to, to get payment for electricity generated by burning garbage. Now, first of all, burning garbage is completely contrary to the goals of the climate action plan. The more stuff you burn, the more carbon dioxide in to the air and the more climate change.

But if you’re talking about clean power to subsidize garbage-burning incinerators in this province, and the Independent Electricity System Operator is developing a procurement initiative in support of “new-build municipal energy from waste”—that’s the general word for garbage-burning projects—to say that you’re in favour of clean power and that at the same time you’ll subsidize municipalities to burn garbage is completely wrong and completely contrary to any suggestion that you’re going to build a clean system.

Beyond that, a few decades ago Ontario signed contracts with what are called non-utility generators: small in-place generators burning gas to make electricity. Seventy-five per cent of those contracts will be expired by 2018—1,200 megawatts. It’s a lot of power. It’s a lot of gas.

We’re in a situation right now where we have a surplus of power. It’s my understanding—and I look forward to clarification and tabling of documents by the Minister of Energy—that those contracts are being re-signed. In fact, there’s an opportunity to make the system cleaner, and to my knowledge, the government is not taking advantage of that.

I think that saying you’re committed to a clean system, when you support burning garbage, and continue to burn natural gas, with contracts that have expired and could be cancelled, is not an honest approach to the problems we face with the electricity system.

Speaker, why are rates rising? I’ve talked about the cynicism of the Liberal government on this. I’ve talked about their denial. Let’s talk about, concretely, why rates are rising.

If you want to actually deal with rising rates, soaring rates, you need to understand what’s driving the dynamic in the first place. I’ll start with privatization, and that means we have to start with Mike Harris and Ernie Eves, who really set things in motion. There was a great series of headlines: Dalton McGuinty, running in 2003, talking about his commitment to public power, how he was going to stop this initiative, how he understood the threat of privatization. But the reality is that once the Liberals were elected, they made sure that all new power generation in Ontario was going to be privately owned—great election rhetoric; very grim power reality.

One of the things that the Liberals inherited from the Conservatives was the privatization of the Bruce nuclear complex. That was leased to British Energy around 2000—British Energy, which subsequently went bankrupt in the UK because nuclear power was uneconomic and had to be profoundly subsidized by the British government to keep 25% of their power going. The leasing of that Bruce complex allowed the owners of Bruce nuclear to generate about a half-billion dollars a year in profit. Take a look at the annual reports.

Prior to that leasing, that half-billion dollars, which is worth about 2.5% on hydro bills—one plant—is now part of the money that we have to pay for hydro, something we didn’t have to pay in the past.

I’ve had an opportunity to talk to people who are part of that ownership group of Bruce nuclear, and they refer to it as the “money fountain,” and I think that’s an accurate description. We think of it as a place that generates power, but they see it, perhaps more accurately, as a money fountain.

As the Liberal plan of privatizing the system piece by piece—rather than wholesale—rolled out, we added more and more profit to our hydro bills. So I think it’s very difficult to find out exactly how much profit there is in the system now. My best estimate is somewhere between $750 million and $1 billion a year. It’s a lot of money for a system that costs $20 billion overall. It’s substantial. But those decisions are part of what’s driving up hydro rates, that privatization directly.

But the other part of it is that with the privatization of generation, your ability to correct a mistake is dramatically reduced. We found that out with the gas plants. When the government tried to shut them down, they realized, “My goodness, we’re on the hook for 20 years of profits. We could lose big time in court.” So our ability to deal with too much generation means that we can’t act, or we find great difficulty in acting, when those are private plants.

It was interesting to me that there was a decision a number of years ago not to proceed with the building of new nuclear power plants at Darlington. OPG, Ontario Power Generation, was simply told, “You’re not proceeding with that.” They didn’t get any compensation for that. It was just simply a decision. Gas plants: “You’re not proceeding with that.” Suddenly, we’re deep into huge legal risk and potential huge expense.

That tradition of privatization started by Mike Harris, carried on by Dalton McGuinty, set the stage for the current Liberal Premier, who may be the greatest privatizer of all. I noticed today that John Tory is taking a page from her book, talking about selling off Toronto Hydro. I’ll say to John Tory and members of city council, having gone door to door in my riding on this issue, this is very unpopular. This will not sell well. People understand that this is bad news for them; they understand that. The sell-off sets the stage for higher rates.

I want to talk to you about one little item that came up, that this government engaged in, just before the sell-off. I had the opportunity to be in the estimates committee, questioning the Minister of Energy about the sell-off. There is a $2.6-billion expense in the Ministry of Energy’s estimates. For those who don’t know this, every year government ministries put out publications showing how they’re going to spend their money in the year to come, and we get an opportunity in committee to actually sit down with ministers and attempt to get answers.

I’m not saying we get answers; occasionally, by mistake, an answer is given, but we try to get answers in estimates. Some $2.6 billion was an expense for the Ministry of Energy because they were going to give $2.6 billion—they weren’t just going to; they gave—to Hydro One very few minutes before it was going to be sold, put on the market, so that Hydro One wouldn’t have to pay the departure tax.

When the Tories set up the privatization of the hydro system, they put in a requirement that if you sell a utility, you have to pay a tax to help reduce the debt that’s outstanding from the old Ontario Hydro. That’s something that local distribution companies have a problem with. They want to take advantage of those sales—sorry, if local municipalities want to sell those utilities, they’re going to have to pay a tax. But the Ontario government gave the $2.6 billion to Hydro One, which gave the money back, so in effect, they didn’t pay a penny on departure tax.

The investors got a $2.6-billion gift from the Ontario government, the government that’s selling Hydro One to raise money for transit. “No, no, no—$2.6 billion? Here’s a pass. Enjoy it, guys.”

That $2.6 billion could have been used to reduce Hydro debt. It could have been used to flow through back to rates. It could have been used to flow through back to rates, something that this government refused to do. Speaker, with these guys, the games never end and the rates keep rising.

The Liberal government says that the Ontario Energy Board will protect consumers, and I actually heard the mayor of Toronto using exactly those words this morning, that the OEB will guard against soaring rates. So let’s look at some recent history, if you will. When the smart meter initiative came forward, did the Ontario Energy Board do an analysis of the impact of that initiative on rates? Did they? In fact, Speaker, they didn’t. They didn’t actually take on the responsibility. They were simply told to make this happen and they did their part to make it happen. They didn’t stand up for consumers.

That added $2 billion to hydro rates in Ontario with minimal savings, minimal positive impact on the system—and I emphasize the word “minimal.”

When Hydro One was being sold and we asked the OEB to review the sale, because it’s their responsibility to review those significant decisions that will impact on rates, no, they declined. There’s a guardian for you. “Here’s a big issue. It’s going to change hydro rates in Ontario. You need to be looking at this.” Did the OEB act as a regulator? Did the OEB actually stand up for consumers and assess the impact of that deal? Not for an instant.

Recent changes in legislation gave cabinet, the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the power to say, “We need to build a transmission line here and you, OEB, don’t get to question anymore whether or not building that transmission line is a rational use of resources for the system. You get to assess whether or not the purchase of this bolt or that tower makes sense, but you don’t get to look at the fundamentals.” That is a regulator whose powers are constrained, whose ability to protect consumers is cut back.

Speaker, energy decision-making is politicized. There are lobbyists who will push for this or that investment. There are power brokers who are able to drive cabinet decisions. To say that the OEB is going to protect consumers from this new, privatized world is—I’m sorry, I would have to use unparliamentary language and I won’t, but—

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Questionable.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Questionable. I’ve had the suggestion of the word “questionable.” I would say “questionable” is something that you, Speaker, would accept, and it’s about as generous as you can get.

Speaker, that’s a concern about turning this all over to the OEB to protect us. There aren’t the protections there. I would say that at best, the Ontario Energy Board, the regulator, is a drowsy chaperone, and at worst they’re just a glove puppet.

Actually, that’s the one other instance that occurred to me. Recently there was a decision not to put the cost of cap-and-trade on people’s gas bills, to bury it in the delivery charges. What regulator would say that? There weren’t people there who were saying, “No, no, bury it.” No, it was the OEB staff who was doing that. Whose interest does that serve? Does it serve the interest of the government of the day? I would say it does. I would say that speaks very profoundly to the lack of the OEB’s ability to actually protect the people of this province.

The other major factor that we need to understand is that we have been overbuilding capacity in this sector, not reducing capacity when it was clearly surplus. That has given us a problem that actually has a term in the electricity sector: “surplus baseload generation.” We generate an awful lot; we don’t have the demand for it. In fact, in the last decade demand has been dropping for electricity here in Ontario, which will surprise most people. But as auto plants and auto parts supplier plants have shut down, as manufacturing is shut down in southwestern Ontario—Xstrata shut down in Timmins; Stelco shut down in Hamilton—there’s less and less demand for power. It’s a simple reality.

I want to just quote from a recent report from the Consumer Policy Institute. I don’t agree with everything they have to say but I thought they had some interesting commentary on the fundamental problems we face in Ontario with electricity. In their executive

summary, and I’ll quote here: “Ontario electricity customers are paying more each month to cover the costs of selling cheap power to out-of-province ratepayers.

“Since 2005, Ontario customers have unwittingly paid $6.3 billion to cover the cost of selling the province’s surplus electricity to customers in neighbouring states and provinces. Most of that bill—$5.8 billion, or nearly $1,200 for every household in the province—has been incurred since 2009, as demand for electricity in Ontario has declined, while generation capacity in the province has continued to grow.

“Ontario’s power surplus is largely a result of provincial directives, which have directed Ontario’s energy agencies to sign contracts with a growing number of electricity generators, promising them a guaranteed, above-market rate for their output. The power surplus has pushed the average wholesale price—the value of power on the province’s electricity market—to a record low in 2016.”

As an example, the gas plant that was cancelled in Oakville and is now being built in Napanee, far above market, surplus power to Ontario’s needs—frankly, Speaker, that’s one example. When the Bruce nuclear complex brought on two more reactors in 2012, in a market where the power wasn’t needed, we were stuck with the extra bills. Take a look at 2012-13. The market cost of power goes down; the global adjustment goes up; more power is sold outside Ontario. We’re putting in place generating capacity that we don’t need.

I’ll just note, Speaker, this isn’t just Ontario. In New York, they have a big power surplus because, again, they’ve lost manufacturing. We’re no smarter than them. We could be smarter. If we owned the system, if we hadn’t privatized most generation, we could be making these decisions, but we haven’t.

To go back to the report: “To offset the growing gap between what the province has promised to pay generators and what that power is worth in the wholesale market, provincial ratepayers pay a charge called the global adjustment, which has grown, on average, 20% annually over the last five years. The global adjustment now accounts for nearly 90% of the revenue earned by exporting power.

“The combination of an increasing number of generators receiving a fixed rate for their output, depressed market prices and the decline in electricity demand in Ontario has created a large and growing surplus of power in the province. Instead of curbing their production in response to low demand and prices, generators have maintained their production levels, requiring an increase in exported power.”

The math is fairly straightforward. I know that the Conservatives like to say this is all green power, but green power is actually a fairly small part of total power production in Ontario. We’re talking gas plants. We’re talking nuclear plants. We’re talking about a lot of surplus power, which all of us are paying for.

“Ontario ratepayers are left covering the difference between what the province has promised domestic generators for their output and what that power is worth when it is exported, since export customers don’t pay the global adjustment. Ontario ratepayers are now paying the lion’s share of the cost of exporting electricity.” Next time you look at your bill, realize there is someone in New York or Michigan who’s very grateful to you for having subsidized their electricity.

Speaker, if you look back at the history of power planning in this province over the last decade, you’ll see that a number of years ago it was understood that as nuclear power plants at Darlington and Bruce had to be refurbished, as the Pickering plant came to the end of its lifespan, generation would have to be in place to deal with that drop in production. So we built more gas plants than we needed because they were going to be used to take up that slack. We built green energy, which we need because we’re going to make a transition away from fossil fuels.

In the end, the refurbishment has been pushed back into the future. The Pickering plant is now looking at a government decision to be open until 2024. All of the elements are there for a continued surplus of power, which we’re paying for.

If you actually look at your hydro bill, and the Independent Electricity System Operator had this in their recent Ontario power outlook report, power costs have increased 32% in Ontario from 2006 to 2015—32% because of increases in the cost of the system: more generation, more power lines etc. That’s over a decade. Power costs have gone up 40% because of a drop in demand. Fewer and fewer companies, fewer and fewer households are buying as much power as they did in the past. So the bulk of the problem in Ontario has been this drop in demand not matched with an appropriate level of generation.

People need to understand that. As we lose industry, which is tragic, and as we are more efficient, which is positive, there hasn’t been an adjustment to the system, and that has led to much higher bills.

Now, in the bill itself, the government’s new rate-relief package includes an 8% rebate for residents and small non-residential consumers. The new rebate is enabled by legislation that’s nearly identical to the Ontario Clean Energy Benefit Act. I said earlier that there would be

an act that would be recycling. That is today’s recycling. We have a bill that has come back with some modifications. That was

an act that provided a 10% rebate between 2011 and 2015—2011. Yes, there was an election in 2011. That bill came in just in time for that election, and it stuck around long enough for a second election. So it was a two-election-cycle bill—very efficient from the government’s point of view. They only had to go through reading the bill once, but it gave them cover for two elections. However, with the outcome of the election in Scarborough–Rouge River, we’re back to having to make those kinds of payments.

When the rebate was announced on September 12, finance minister Charles Sousa was repeatedly asked whether the rebate would be permanent. He ducked the question, saying, “We haven’t established a date to end.” The next day, the Premier insisted that the rebate would be permanent, although she didn’t explain why her finance minister was unaware of this the day before. I can only speculate, Speaker. I can only guess that the balloon was up in the air. There were enough bullets shot at it, and they realized that putting in an end date would be politically dangerous, and they decided not to do that.

This is a rebate. It’s not an HST exemption. We expect it will be more costly to administer and more cumbersome to administer as opposed to simply reaching out to the federal government and getting an exemption.

I’ve heard the Liberal government say, “No, no; we’re putting in the rebate because it’s quick. If we go to the federal government, then it’s going to take a longer time.” You actually could, if you wanted to be quick, put this in place now, with it to lift when an HST exemption comes into place—or surely the Premier, who worked very hard for the current Prime Minister to get his job, would be able to call in some favours. Whatever, Speaker. To say that an HST rebate or exemption negotiated with a federal government is a block doesn’t hold water, in my opinion.

There is a huge advantage, though, in being able to put an item on people’s hydro bills. This government is going to have a line on hydro bills: “Rebate.” Whether there will be a smiley face of the Premier on the bill or not, I don’t know yet. That’s still to be decided; I know the OEB is going to wrestle with that. The big advantage in not having an exemption is that ability to put a line there. Just as they were able to delete a line on gas bills, they’ll be able to put a line here. Again, it speaks to my concern that the OEB really, in many ways, is just a toy of the government, doing what it wills.

The government has noted that it’s enhancing the existing rural rate relief program to reduce delivery charges for low-density customers, giving them an additional $30 or so a month. That’s something all the other ratepayers in Ontario will pay for. It’s about $1 a month on everyone else’s bills.

The government is also expanding the industrial conservation initiative, which allows large energy consumers to reduce their share of the global adjustment by reducing their electricity demand during moments of peak demand, which I think is a good idea. If there are companies out there that can reduce their demand when we’re at peak, it reduces the need for generating capacity. But as you’re well aware, Speaker, all those generating plants have been built, and whether they produce power or not, they get paid. It comes out of the global adjustment.

We may reduce demand for the product, which is a good thing, but I have real doubts that it will reduce the costs of the electricity system itself. Some people will do better, but the costs will still have to be picked up.

The bill is fairly simple, fairly straightforward in that. I think I’ve outlined the background to the bill, the political context of the bill, the context of measures in place—privatization, overbuilding of capacity—that have driven up the cost of electricity here in Ontario. I want to say that those who are counting on a fairly nice reduction in their rural Ontario hydro bill should be aware that Hydro One was granted a 19% increase in their rates by the Ontario Energy Board—6% a year over the next three years, so a little bit more than 6% if you’re getting to 19%. These reductions will not be pretty quick.

Now, people should be well aware that the Ontario Energy Board was criticized by the Auditor General in her last report for not being very thorough with Hydro One in its examination of their bills. Hydro One asked for rate increases to replace transformers several years in a row, and those transformers weren’t replaced. Come in one year and say, “I need this money to replace these transformers,” you get the money. Next year, you come back and say, “I need the money to replace these transformers.” Was Hydro One asked, “Hey, we thought we gave you that money last year”? No, they weren’t.

I had an opportunity to question the head of the Ontario Energy Board at the public accounts committee. She assured me that they did not audit the proposals by the bodies that were seeking higher rates. They didn’t audit what was there. They could be asked multiple times for rate increases to pay for the same thing; the Ontario Energy Board would never know.

I was told, “You know, we have these intervenors who are looking at these bills.” That’s extraordinary to me, that the regulator is not doing the thorough and due diligence that’s required to deal with double counting; in fact, is relying on intervenors, who operate on very limited budgets, to keep applicants for rate increases honest. To be kind and to be parliamentary: It’s a broken system—broken, at best. How can you expect a regulator who doesn’t even dig into applications to protect you? How? You can’t.

There are a variety of risks to the rates in the future that this government doesn’t address in this bill and doesn’t address in its hydro policies. There’s an expectation about what levels of power we will consume in the future. As I’ve said to you, the biggest piece of the increase in hydro rates in the last decade has been the drop in demand for power and the fact that we’re stuck paying for a system that has fixed costs, even though demand for it keeps dropping. The potential is there for that demand to keep dropping.

There are counterbalancing elements, but if you actually follow what’s going on in the electricity systems around the world, there is a huge drive to drop that demand. LED lighting dramatically cuts the amount of power needed for lighting. There are other energy efficiency technologies coming on stream that drive down demand. There’s the growth of low-cost solar and battery storage that has got the electricity sector throughout the United States spooked.

In fact, it was about three or four years ago—I think the Edison Electric Institute had a meeting of all the big utilities in the United States to look at the changing world of electricity production and demand. They looked at what happened to the telecom sector with deregulation and how a change in technology—a move from land lines to cellphones, from cellphones to smart phones—radically changed the economics of that sector. They understood that that radical rewriting of the electricity system was something that they were going to have to come to grips with.

Now, it’s interesting to me that the Ontario Energy Board, aware of this, has started moving people’s delivery rates on their bills to a fixed charge. So if you are paying for electricity, you know that on your bill there’s the cost of getting the electricity through the wires from the generator to your house. In the past, that’s been much more related to the amount of power you used, but the Ontario Energy Board is changing that so that it’s fixed. As they say, small users will be paying more, large users will be paying less. That’s going to have an impact in rural and northern Ontario. They aren’t the big users. They use power, but they’re not going to be at the top of the scale.

Why did the OEB do that? If you read their report, it’s pretty clear that they understand that the coming drop in demand for grid power is going to have a big impact on the economics of the system here in Ontario—a very big impact. This government—and we’ll see what happens with their next energy plan, later this year—has not been paying attention to that. It continues to re-sign contracts for non-utility generators for gas-fired power that we may well not need.

In doing their assessment of the refurbishment of nuclear reactors at Bruce and Darlington, did they actually look at the alternatives? Did they look at what is going to happen in the future? Did they do a solid business case?

I have to say, Speaker, there was no solid business case done. There was a comparison only to gas-fired generation. They didn’t look at conservation. They didn’t look at distributed energy. This is a government that has been derelict in its duties when it comes to the electricity system.

Speaker, this bill will not address the underlying issues that we face that are driving up hydro rates at an unsustainable rate. It is dealing with an immediate political problem. It’s hoping, at a year and a half or two years out from the next election, that they will have done enough to ensure their survival.

But I think that between the increases we’re seeing from Hydro One and the other increases we can expect, coming up this fall and next spring—people remember that rates are set twice a year—this reduction will soon be eaten up. If the government doesn’t deal with the fundamentals, it can’t deal with the issue with a band-aid.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you to the member for his comments today. Obviously, there’s going to be a variety of opinions as to how we’re doing on this and whether we should move ahead with it. I’ll tell you that the people in Oakville certainly would like to see this passed. There’s no doubt about that.

If you go back to 2003 and before that, I think all three parties have had an opportunity to try to do the best they could with the energy system in the province of Ontario. It’s a changing landscape, obviously. We’re finding things out environmentally, things about climate change, that we simply didn’t know in the past, and we have to make sure that the energy system takes that into account.

What we did know in 2003, when we took over, was there were health care costs associated with the current system we have. There were childhood asthma rates at the time that I think were through the roof, certainly in Oakville, which is in a bit of a valley. Childhood asthma rates were just not what they should be. They were far too high. A lot of that could be attributed very clearly to the burning of coal. If you look at childhood asthma rates now, they’ve gone down as a result of some of the changes that have been made.

Smog days in the province of Ontario: I remember driving in from Oakville, there would be a yellow cloud hanging over the city of Toronto.

Mr. Grant Crack: You could see it.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: You could see it, and you would get there, and—

Interjection.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Sarnia wasn’t much different, Bob.

You’d drive in there and you’d think, “My God, I have to spend a day in that.” You don’t see that anymore. You don’t see the smog days anymore. Childhood asthma rates have gone down as a result of the changes that we’ve had to make.

I remember when the NDP were in power. They were buying rainforests in Costa Rica. I remember when the Conservatives were in power. We had diesel generators. Speaker, I think everybody is trying to do the best they can.

There are going to be other opinions on this, obviously, but getting off coal is the best thing that we could have possibly done. Taking the HST off the energy bills is something that the people in the province of Ontario really want to see. It’s something that I know will be welcome in the rural areas and in places like where I live in Ontario.

Speaker, this bill deserves to be supported.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Mr. Robert Bailey: It’s a pleasure to rise today and comment on the remarks from the member for Toronto–Danforth.

I’ll tell you, this is one of the biggest issues in my riding office in my constituency, and I’m sure it is in those of my colleagues, and across the aisle, or we wouldn’t see this movement on this so-called rebate. It’s not going to last for long. It will be eaten up by the increases.

This is one of the biggest issues. I was out for dinner the other night in a restaurant, and I couldn’t believe it. I’ve never had this happen before. I had two seniors sitting there, and the lady asked me, where everyone else could hear her, “Mr. Bailey, can you go back and tell the Premier, Kathleen Wynne, we need to do something on energy prices?” She said, “My husband and I are living on a fixed income and we can’t afford it.” I’ve never had that happen—

Mr. Wayne Gates: You privatized it. You guys started it. You want to sell it.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’ll deal with you later.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Order.

Mr. Robert Bailey: The issue is, these price increases are going to continue to go on, and we’re not going to get anywhere with just these minor details. We need to do something more serious if we’re going to cut these rates. I’ll tell you, there are a lot of different opinions out there, but we’ve started down this road, and it’s not going to be good. I’ll tell you, I’ve had an online petition and almost 3,000 people have signed it.

This is too little, too late. We’re talking 36 cents a day for these decreases in power.

The only reason this government has even moved on this is because they’ve seen that this is going to be a problem and it’s not going to go away. We’re going to see another increase on the 1st of November and ongoing.

They’ve signed and continue to sign these ungodly contracts with these private generators for power. I think there’s a plant down in Sarnia–Lambton that was moved from Mississauga, and I don’t know whether it will ever run, because there are concerns with the safety of the plant, the way it was constructed. It was placed down there to get out of another scandal.

Madam Speaker, these are the reasons that electricity in this province is out of hand, and it’s not going to be solved with this.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: It is a pleasure for me to rise today, on behalf of the constituents I represent in London West, to offer some comments on the remarks by my colleague the member from Toronto–Danforth, who is certainly, as he demonstrated in his speech this morning, one of the most knowledgeable and articulate members that we have in this House. He knows the history of the electricity system. He knows how we arrived at this mess, this crisis that the government refuses to acknowledge, how we have arrived to this point today, and he has also pointed out the complete and utter inadequacy of the remedy that is before us in this bill.

He talked about the fact that the clean energy rebate was in place in 2011 and up until 2015. It helped the Liberals through two provincial elections. After the loss of the by-election in Scarborough–Rouge River, they went back to something that had worked in the past: a 10% rebate that went off people’s hydro bill in 2015. The Liberals thought, “Oh, the solution is to bring in an 8% rebate that will go onto hydro bills in 2016.”

The cynicism of responding to an election loss by recycling a policy that had worked in the past is just unbelievable.

The member from Toronto–Danforth shared some of the stories of the pain that his constituents are experiencing—the potential health complications; being forced to make choices between buying food or paying their hydro bills. These are the same stories that we are hearing in London West, that I hear on a daily basis, and that all of us in this chamber, I am certain, hear regularly from constituents.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Hon. Michael Coteau: It’s my privilege to stand up on behalf of the people of Don Valley East. I’d like to respond to the member from Toronto–Danforth in regard to his comments around this bill.

The member from London West said that the speaker from Toronto–Danforth is very knowledgeable on the issue. Yes, he is very knowledgeable on the issue, but he’s only giving you half the story.

We’ve heard—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): This direction, please.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Madam Speaker, we came from a place, back in the early 2000s, where there was yellow smog all over the city of Toronto and the GTA. I haven’t seen those smog days for years, and it’s because we cut down on our coal plants. There were 26 plants that were cut down. I believe it’s the equivalent of removing about a million cars off the roads of Ontario—

Ms. Daiene Vernile: Seven million.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Seven million. I stand corrected, Madam Speaker. It’s seven million.

It’s interesting. The NDP have been running around the province for months, saying, “Remove the HST off of those bills. Remove the HST.” And the day we go forward and remove the HST portion off of those bills, they’re still not happy.

The problem with the NDP is that they don’t actually have any plans. They have no plan for the energy grid here in the province of Ontario, and when they actually put forward an idea and we embrace it, it’s not good enough for them.

Madam Speaker, what I think the NDP should do is they should all get together as a team and actually put some policy together and some plans together around energy here in the province of Ontario, because just criticizing what we do and not actually putting forward good plans—and when they put one plan together, one idea together and we actually embrace that idea, they say, “Well, you know what? It’s not a good idea.”

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I return to the member for Toronto–Danforth to wrap up.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I appreciate the opportunity. My thanks to the members from Oakville, Sarnia–Lambton and London West and to the Minister of Children and Youth Services for their comments.

I have to say, it’s interesting to me that both the member from Oakville and the minister used the standard Liberal talking point that prices are high because we had to get rid of coal. Frankly, we supported getting rid of coal. He wasn’t here at the time, but Howard Hampton spoke very persuasively, very eloquently about the need to invest in conservation and efficiency, to drive down demand, as a way of phasing out coal. Coal cost about 2.5 cents a kilowatt hour; energy efficiency cost about 3 cents. It’s pretty close.

You could actually dramatically cut the need for any coal power and cut out the coal plants at a cost differential that was minimal. But, no, they put in gas plants at 11 to 12 cents a kilowatt hour, a very expensive alternative.

The only defence the Liberals have for the mismanagement of the file is one that their pollsters pointed out to them: to take it back to coal and say this is all because we phased out coal. That’s not true, Speaker—not true. The Liberals continue on a policy course of privatization of the system, one that has cut the flexibility of the people of Ontario to actually adjust electricity generation to their needs, an approach that has built a profit into hydro bills which didn’t exist before, and they are now selling off the transmission system, the nervous system for the province’s electricity grid.

Frankly, those consequences will be very, very ugly. We’re seeing them now with the increase most recently given to Hydro One. We’re seeing them with the big gift given to the Hydro One investors.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Seeing as it’s almost 10:15, I will be recessing the House until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1012 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’d like to welcome Neal Roberts to Queen’s Park. Neal is the chief of emergency medical services for Middlesex-London and, importantly, also the president of the Ontario Association of Paramedic Chiefs.

Mr. Steve Clark: Speaker, I want to introduce to you and, through you, to members of the Legislative Assembly, Ping Wu, who is chair of PEGO. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Bob Delaney: I note that my page from Mississauga–Streetsville, Adam Holan, is the page captain today. In honour of that, his parents, Anna and Rafid Holan, are with us in the members’ gallery this morning. Members, please welcome them.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I’d like to acknowledge Heather Morrison, the chair of the children’s aid society in Kingston and the Islands.

Mr. Robert Bailey: On behalf of the MPP for Carleton–Mississippi Mills, I’d like to introduce page captain Victoria Bailey, and also her father, Greg Bailey, who is in the public gallery with us this morning. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Eleanor McMahon: It’s National Coaches Week, and I’m pleased to introduce a group of coaches who have made positive impacts on athletes across our province and athletes as people.

I’d like to welcome 2016 Ontario Coaching Excellence Award winners Laura McPhie, Ken MacDonald and Casey Curtis, as well as 2012 Ontario Coaching Excellence Award winner Miranda Kamal.

I’d also like to welcome Susan Kitchen, Mercedes Watson, Eric McLoughlin, Eric Belahov, Clarissa Oleksiuk and Ann Doggett from the Coaches Association of Ontario.

Our government applauds your efforts. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Patrick Brown: It’s my pleasure to introduce Carol Ellis, who is the mother of our page from Simcoe North.

M me France Gélinas: I wanted to welcome members from the francophone community who are here today to help us celebrate le Jour des Franco-Ontariens et des Franco-Ontariennes. J’aimerais souhaiter la bienvenue aux membres de la communauté francophone qui sont ici aujourd’hui pour célébrer la journée franco-ontarienne.

Le Président (L’hon. Dave Levac): Bienvenue.

Oral Questions

Hydro rates

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Premier.

Families in Ontario can’t afford their hydro bills, and nearly 567,000 households are in arrears. When is enough enough? How many people have to not be able to afford their hydro bills before the Premier and this government will take real action? Is it 600,000; 700,000; 900,000? Will it take a million Ontarians in arrears before this government will finally act? I want to know from the Deputy Premier: What is the number before you realize your hydro policy is a complete mess?

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): If the choice is to continue what you were doing yesterday, I will continue to do what I did. We’ll move to warnings if I need to. That’s my last warning about warnings.

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As we’ve discussed before, we have a very clear plan to make sure we have reliable energy being delivered in this province. We inherited an electricity system that had been badly neglected by the previous government. We’ve made historic investments so we can ensure that, even on the very hottest day or the coldest winter day, people have access to reliable energy.

We’ve also eliminated smog days. We haven’t had a smog day, Speaker, for the very reason that we’ve eliminated coal-fired plants in this province. Yes, that is more expensive energy, but we’ve saved $4 billion in health costs because people are not going to the emergency department with asthma.

There’s a cost and there is a benefit, Speaker, and we have made a choice that—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ll be moving to warnings.

Supplementary question?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Deputy Premier: Since I can’t get an answer about the 567,000 Ontario families in arrears on their hydro bills, I’m going to try a different angle. Yesterday, the Premier said that we “have just come through one of the hottest summers ever and we’ve had no blackouts.” But on September 3, a Toronto Star headline read, “Power Slowly Restored at CityPlace after Blackout.” In fact, Mr. Speaker, there have been not one, not two, not three, but four power outages in a span of two weeks.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Odd as it is, I’d like to hear the question. Your own side is not letting me do that.

Please finish.

Mr. Patrick Brown: In fact, we’ve had four power outages in a span of two weeks.

My question, Mr. Speaker, to the Deputy Premier was: Was the Premier left in the dark about these blackouts this summer?

Interjections.

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

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: If you want to talk about being left in the dark, then I think there is somebody else in this Legislature who has been left in the dark—or, at least, claims to have been left in the dark on his position on the sex ed issue. We have seen a historic flip-flop—four different positions—on a pretty important issue.

I think that is begging the question: What other secret promises have been made in the backrooms? Who knows what deals have been made? It’s clear that the Leader of the Opposition is being kept in the dark—or at least, so he claims.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Deputy Premier: There are 567,000 Ontario families in arrears and can’t pay their hydro bills, and this minister wants to take cheap partisan shots.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Start the clock. The members will come to order.

Complete the question.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, clearly the Liberals don’t want to talk about hydro. I want them to think about Alex from Bobcaygeon. He’s on ODSP. He’s had his hydro threatened to be cut off. He uses the help the government has to offer, but it’s not enough. Alex has had an organ transplant and knows he has to eat properly. But Global News says that for Alex, it’s simply come down to eating or having his lights on.

My question is for the Deputy Premier. How can you turn your back on little guys like Alex? Why won’t you help them?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, Speaker—

Interjections.

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

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We’re very proud of the investments that we’ve made to support people with low income on their electricity bills, including the Ontario Electricity Support Program. I would urge members of the opposition to make sure their constituents know about this important program.

We’ve also recently announced that we’re removing the provincial portion of the HST on electricity bills.

Speaker, we have a very clear plan. What’s not so clear is what’s happening across the way, and this is a real concern. What we really want to know is what other promises have been made by the chief of staff maybe, by the Leader of the Opposition. Who knows whether they’ve promised developers that they’ll repeal, or maybe scrap, the Greenbelt Act? Who knows what promises have been made to developers on that front?

Who knows whether you’ve promised secretly, behind closed doors, the business community that you’ll strip away labour bargaining rights—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Two things: I’m going to use this as a moment to—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Just by that last indicator, even when I’m standing, I’m being ignored, so let’s make sure that you are reminded. I’m going to move to warnings as quickly as possible, because this is getting unruly.

Number two: government policy, please, when you’re responding to questions.

New question.

Government contracts

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Deputy Premier. This week the Liberals appointed David Herle as their chief electoral strategist. Then this morning, we learned that the Liberal government has given nearly $3 million in government contracts to Herle and his company, the Gandalf Group. In fact, he was billing the government at $420 an hour. Families are being forced to pay $420 a month for their hydro, and David Herle makes it in an hour. Why? Because he’s a Liberal crony.

Mr. Speaker, is this the way that the Liberal government and the Deputy Premier—who happens to be the Liberal campaign co-chair—is this their way of saying thank you and padding his salary for the next election?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m afraid that the Leader of the Opposition simply doesn’t know what the process is for contracts such as this. All public opinion research conducted by the government of Ontario is procured through a fair and transparent competitive process—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington is warned. The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound is warned.

I’ll get you on the next round.

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Every company must be a qualified vendor of record and compete for a project against no less than five competitors. The final decision about which vendor is best suited for a project is made by a committee of at least three non-partisan public servants.

I think the Leader of the Opposition should familiarize himself with the process by which contracts such as this are confirmed.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Deputy Premier: The last time the Liberals got caught giving David Herle taxpayer money, they claimed it was a fair, transparent and competitive process. But according to Brian Lilley, senior Liberals who know how cabinet office works said they “disputed the idea”—

Interjection.

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

Carry on.

Mr. Patrick Brown: “Senior Liberals ... disputed the idea that the process was completely non-partisan and not subject to political direction from the Premier.” So I imagine this time was no different.

Mr. Speaker, when applying for government contracts, is one of the questions “Are you David Herle, the Liberal campaign chair?” Or do the Premier and the Deputy Premier intervene after the application process?

Maybe you can elaborate on how you find ways through Liberal spin to give your campaign electoral strategist $420 an hour of taxpayer money. It’s shameful.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Polling is an important way for a government to gauge the effectiveness of their programs and what people are thinking on various issues. I must say that I think everyone recognizes that every government does that because it’s a very valuable tool.

Let me give you an example where we learned from public polling. The #WhoWillYouHelp campaign has made a tremendous difference in attitudes in this province. Before the campaign, 37% of Ontarians felt that they had an obligation to intervene when witnessing—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke is warned.

Carry on, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Before the campaign, 37% of Ontarians felt they had an obligation to intervene when they were a witness to sexual harassment. After the #WhoWillYouHelp campaign, that number became 58%. We knew that because we did an Ipsos Reid poll, and that is important information to test the impact of our efforts.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Dufferin–Caledon is warned.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Deputy Premier: Putting the Liberal spin aside, $3 million of taxpayer resources, $420 an hour to their chief Liberal electoral strategist, is just not right. If the process was fair and transparent, as the Liberals say, they need to give us proof. After all, the taxpayers did pay for this polling and research, not the Liberal Party. They have a right to know what it said.

My question is, will the Liberals release the results for all the polling and research done by David Herle and the Gandalf Group? It was paid for by the people and the people should see this data. If you have nothing to hide, release it.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The Minister of Economic Development and Growth is warned.

Deputy Premier?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, when it comes to releasing information, we’re actually hearing from someone who has released way more information than imaginable because he’s released information supporting one position on sex ed, then he released information supporting another—

Interjection.

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

A reminder to the Deputy Premier: policy.

Carry on.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think the Leader of the Opposition might want to check public accounts, because if you looked at public accounts, what you would see is a number of research firms that have contracts with the provincial government. Forum Research, Ipsos Reid, Strategic Counsel, EKOS, Environics, Harris/Decima—a number of firms compete. Different firms are successful with different bids. That’s the way the process works. It’s fair, it’s transparent, it’s non-partisan.

Government policies

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The question is to the Acting Premier.

Less than two weeks ago, the Premier of this province was basically telling the people of Ontario that things were going to get a reset. Instead, the last two weeks have been one Liberal PR exercise after another. Instead of a reset, people fear things are actually getting worse here in Ontario.

The people of Ontario want an actual reset—one that ends the sale of Hydro One, one that end the cuts to hospitals, one that ends the kinds of cuts that this government has been undertaking and actually starts to restore hope for the people of this province. When will this government start putting the wishes, the best interests of the people of this province ahead of the Liberal Party’s?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The throne speech was an important announcement of initiatives that really are responding to the needs of the people of this province. Some 100,000 new child care spaces: That is a huge investment that directly responds to the needs of the people of this province, but also responds to the requests of the third party.

Here’s the problem: They are very good at opposing. Even when we do something they’ve been advocating for, they oppose it.

So 100,000 new child care spaces is an important initiative. Taking the HST off energy bills—the provincial portion of the HST—is something that the NDP have been advocating for and now they oppose it.

We have a clear plan. We’re moving forward and it’s working.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Over half a million people in Ontario are behind on their hydro bills. Last year 60,000 people had their hydro cut off because they couldn’t keep up with the bills. The Minister of Energy doesn’t even know how many people have had their hydro cut off this year so far. But it’s only going to get worse, as Hydro One continues to be sold off by this Liberal government.

This is a moment of truth for the government. This is the moment of truth for the Liberals. Will this government do the right thing, stop the privatization of Hydro One and start taking action to get those bills down?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’d like to thank the leader of the third party for the question. It is important to recognize that the broadening of Hydro One will continue to build infrastructure right across the province. It’s been great for us in northern Ontario. My colleague the Minister of Transportation announced $173 million to help finish Highway 69. We’re doing great things with the broadening of the sale of Hydro One.

When it comes to 60,000 people in this province having their electricity disconnected, you don’t want to see one person have to go through that. That’s why we’ve put forward so many programs. The LEAP program, for example, helps individuals with emergency funds to help pay their bills.

Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? We’re doing everything we can to ensure we keep that number down. Right now in the province, that’s less than 1%—that number is less than 1%—and that’s why we recognize it’s difficult and acted with a three-point plan.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: People take pride in our health care and education systems in this province and they expect our government to make them a priority. While this government is focused on the sale of Hydro One and the future of the Liberal Party, hospitals are run down and overcrowded, and kids are waiting hours and hours to get on a school bus that takes them to a crumbling school. These are the basics, the fundamentals that any government should be able to deliver to the people of their province.

The Liberals promised change. Why are schools and hospitals still being robbed of the resources they need?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: When it comes to the broadening of the sale of Hydro One, every dollar realized from our current assets will be reinvested in Ontario’s infrastructure. This sale will support the single largest infrastructure investment in Ontario’s history: more than $160 billion over 12 years. It will also support 110,000 jobs a year. Our goals in broadening the ownership of Hydro One have focused on an improved, more customer-focused company and more infrastructure.

I was just up in northeastern Ontario a couple of weeks ago. I announced $5.4 million in North Bay, I announced over $2 million in Kapuskasing, and we’ll continue to see more of those investments in infrastructure as we continue to improve and build Ontario up.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I remember saying this previously in a question period. I left some leeway for diversity in question period last week, because of the throne speech, but right now I’m going to remind all members that your supplementary questions should be related to your initial question in each of the areas in which you speak. I’m going to ask to make sure we stay back on that. The throne speech itself, during debate, allows for that diversity, but not question period, so I’m going to remind the members to stay on track from your original question.

New question: the leader of the third party.

Child care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Acting Premier. When young parents can’t afford child care, it makes it harder to build a good life. When child care is unaffordable, it means parents can’t pay down their credit card, they can’t save for a house and if the car breaks down or someone needs to go to the dentist, it becomes a big problem. The Premier claims that she’s creating 100,000 spaces for child care, but young families who could barely afford child care before the session started are still in the exact same predicament.

Why isn’t this government making affordable, not-for-profit child care a priority?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I was here for the throne speech and I know that the leader of the third party was here for the throne speech too. The Lieutenant Governor of this province announced, in our throne speech, 100,000 new child care spaces. This kind of reinforces the point that I made earlier, which is, even when we do something that the NDP has advocated for in the past, they oppose it.

We are moving forward, starting in 2017, building 100,000 new licensed child care spaces for the reasons that the leader of the third party has given.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Liberal government might look at their throne speech as a chance to get headlines. I think it was actually an opportunity to make the big changes that people need to see, and that’s the problem. Affordability of child care is the huge issue here in Ontario and this government completely ignored it.

For the government, it happens to be all about them when it should be about the people of this province, who are worried about their future and worried about the future of the next generation. Without some big changes it’s only going to get tougher for folks here in Ontario.

I need to know, and I think the people need to know, whether or not this government is ready to make those big changes that put the people at the front of the priority list.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Education.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: What could be bigger than a commitment to 100,000 new child care spaces in this province? When we look at the need for child care, from infants to four-year-olds, that is going to double the meeting of the demand to 40% from 20% today.

Our focus is ensuring that we provide access to good, quality child care spaces across this province.

Interjection: Affordable.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Our government has led the way when it comes to investments in child care. Since 2003, we have doubled our funding—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Privatizing child care and not addressing the unaffordability of it is something that Conservatives would do. They’re the types who campaign on that kind of stuff. They’re the types who actually started the privatization of Hydro One in this province, but that’s not what this government told people that they were all about. Cutting services like health care and education—that’s what Conservatives do, whether it’s in Ottawa or here in Ontario. It’s not what the people wanted, but it’s what they’re getting.

Things are getting tougher for families, and the government is not stepping up. Before the House came back, they said that they finally understood what people were facing. They said that they would change. So why has everything stayed the same?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: Since 2003, we have doubled the funding and the investments in child care to almost $1 billion. We have increased access to licensed child care spaces by 87%. As of September 1, we have ended fees for wait-lists in this province, which is leading Canada in this area.

We are committed to providing supports to our children in this province, and that’s evidenced by our investments and our commitment to 100,000 more child care spaces over the next five years. We’re committed. We’re making those changes because we want to ensure that our earliest learners have what they need, and those investments are being made today.

Curriculum

Mr. Todd Smith: My question this morning is for the Minister of Education. Yesterday, I was looking at the EQAO results, and I’ve got to say they were rather disappointing. I’m disappointed that a former education minister under the so-called education Premier could fail our students in Ontario so dramatically.

Since the Liberal math curriculum came into effect, the numbers have steadily gone down. The test results have steadily gone down. Half of Ontario’s grade 6 students failed to meet our provincial standard. That’s despite the fact that education funding has almost doubled while we’re educating 70,000 fewer students than we were 20 years ago.

We don’t need another re-announcement. We need to start getting results. This government is failing our students. When will the government stop failing our students when it comes to math?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I want to thank the member opposite for this question, because when it comes to Ontario’s education, we are well above the OECD average in our scores overall. We’re very proud of that fact.

The EQAO results are shining a spotlight on an area that we need to improve, and we are very well aware of that. That is why our former Minister of Education announced in the spring a commitment to a renewed math strategy—$60 million so that we can provide the support in our schools where we need it.

As of September, we are ensuring that we have dedicated math leads in schools. We’re ensuring that there are 60 minutes of protected time in all elementary schools. That’s 300 minutes a week that’s focused on math—because we know that our young people need this support so that they can succeed in the future.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Todd Smith: Back to the minister: Our kids are failing at math in dramatic fashion. We have students graduating who can barely make change without the use of a calculator. That’s completely unacceptable in Ontario.

A report from the McKinsey institute shows that the countries with the lowest youth unemployment rates also put the most emphasis on their math curriculum. We’re not doing that here. It’s not the students’ fault that 50% of them aren’t at grade level; it’s not the teachers’ fault; it’s the curriculum that needs to be changed. Students aren’t even required to memorize their multiplication tables anymore. Simply throwing more money at the problem isn’t going to make it go away.

I know that 50% is a much better result than the Premier’s current approval ratings in Ontario, but why is the government leaving half of our students behind when it comes to math?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I want to quote from the Ottawa Citizen, Mr. Speaker, because we have to listen to our educators. Here’s what they say:

“‘We’re looking forward very much to the renewed math strategy. We know the ministry is providing mathematics support to all schools, which is fantastic. And looking at particular schools that may need intensive support.’ ... Getting central help with teaching skills will be useful; there are techniques that work very well with ‘vulnerable’ learners—experiential learning, visual aids—that will be useful for other students, too.”

When it comes to our record on education since 2003, when our graduation rates were 68%—as of this year, they’re at 85.5%.

We are investing in our education system because we know that we want our young people to be prepared for the world that they will enter, and they will have the supports to do so.

Steel industry

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the finance minister. Yesterday, the minister announced that the government had signed a memorandum of understanding with Bedrock Industries in relation to the restructuring of US Steel Canada. Over 20,000 people are waiting to see how this affects their jobs, their pensions, their families and their futures. We must ensure that equal treatment of workers and pensioners is done in both plants. From day one, they have sought the protection of jobs, the restoration of post-employment benefits, and the full funding of their pension plans.

Can the minister promise the employees and retirees that this memorandum protects their retirement promises and will fully fund the pension plans, and can the minister promise that current operations will be preserved at both plants in Hamilton and Nanticoke?

Hon. Charles Sousa: It’s an important question that the member asks. It’s something that we’ve been deliberating for a number of years now since US Steel went into CCAA. We’ve taken steps to try to protect the pensioners, salaried workers and those jobs.

The intent of the MOU is all about protecting jobs. It’s all about protecting pensions and also protecting the environment, while developing those lands that are so precious in Hamilton. That is exactly what’s being put forward, and that’s why we’ve moved forward with signing the MOU with Bedrock.

It was the only approved bidder, assigned by the court, and we had to take every step necessary to foster ways for improvement with all stakeholders who are involved with this—because it will be conditional upon everyone’s agreement, including the union, including the employees, including the pensioners, including the other stakeholders. That’s exactly what we’re doing to foster and facilitate this going forward.

I appreciate the question from the member and his advocacy as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: I’ll remind the minister that this is a US company. US Steel’s ownership was nothing but a disaster for the people of this province. Promise after promise was broken and not enforced by the federal government. Employment declined, facilities were idled, and eventually retirement benefits and municipal property taxes were suspended.

It is critical that workers and pensioners have seats at this table and are involved in every aspect of negotiations. They cannot be left in the dark, only getting partial information. People need some hope in Hamilton and Nanticoke. In light of yesterday’s news, the local steelworkers and my local union have asked for a meeting with the Minister of Finance to inform him of some of the negative parts of this.

Will the minister commit to this meeting with the steelworkers of Hamilton as soon as possible to ensure that the workers and pensioners are fully informed about the recent developments?

Hon. Charles Sousa: We have actually been meeting and dealing with the members from the union. We recognize how important it is to protect the OPEBs, to protect the ongoing support, because it has been eliminated. If it wasn’t for the government of Ontario providing those supports, ongoing, to continue with the urgent health care requirements, the claims that are coming forward for dental and other aspects—we need to be there and we have.

It is a very complex situation, and this is only a first step in trying to facilitate our way through it. So we will continue to advise and work with all stakeholders to ensure that we get the best deal possible for the benefit of our pensioners and our employees and the people of Hamilton and Lake Erie, because we know how important it is to our economy and to Ontario. The whole sector is at risk. We recognize that. We’re doing everything we can to work together to try to ensure we protect the interests of Ontario and the people of Ontario and the workers at Hamilton and Lake Erie.

Hydro rates

Mrs. Cristina Martins: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Over the past few months, I’ve heard concerns from my constituents in Davenport about their electricity bills, concerns I’ve raised here in the House. So I was very pleased when, last Thursday, the minister introduced a new bill, the Ontario Rebate for Electricity Consumers Act. The bill is part of a comprehensive package to reduce electricity rates for Ontario consumers.

This government has spent the last 10 years making much-needed investments in our electricity system to ensure that it’s clean, safe and reliable. These efforts included completely eliminating dirty coal as a generating source from our system. This remains the single largest climate change initiative in North America, and today our electricity supply is 90% emissions-free. The minister has introduced legislation as part of a package to build on these efforts by increasing affordability of electricity for all Ontarians.

Speaker, through you to the minister: Can you please tell this House what the impact of these renewed efforts will be for people across the province and my constituents in Davenport?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’d like to thank the member for that question and for her tireless work for the people in her riding of Davenport.

There are three elements to our plan to increase affordability for Ontarians, and the first is to permanently rebate the provincial portion of the HST off the bills of five million families, farms and small businesses right across the province. The average savings from this rebate will be about $130 per year.

The second is to increase support to the most rural customers in order to help with higher distribution costs in these areas. Together with the first rebate, this will represent about $540 per year in savings for these families.

The third is to expand access for industrial customers to the industrial conservation incentive. Over 1,000 Ontario businesses will be newly eligible for this program, which can reduce their bills by as much as one third.

We’re making sure that our system is clean, reliable and affordable.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: Thank you to the minister for those answers. I know that these programs will be a significant step for the families and businesses in Davenport and across Ontario.

I understand that the measures the ministry is proposing will be in addition to existing efforts and programs to reduce costs for electricity bills. This government has taken considerable action to reduce costs at the system level, including renegotiating the Green Energy Investment Agreement, saving $3.7 billion, and deferring the construction of new nuclear reactors at Darlington, saving $15 billion. Just as important as these system-wide efforts are the targeted programs our government will offer families like those who live in Davenport.

Speaker, through you to the minister: Would you inform the House on what pre-existing programs the ministry offers to all Ontario families for their electricity bills?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: It’s important to mention that on top of what we’re doing from the throne speech, we’re actually moving forward on a number of our initiatives that we’ve designed and had in place to help Ontario families with their bills.

The Ontario Electricity Support Program, introduced this year, provides targeted support to low-income households. More than 135,000 Ontarians are already receiving this benefit.

The Low-Income Energy Assistance Program, introduced in 2011, is another program designed to help those who need it most. It provides one-time grants of emergency assistance to customers temporarily unable to make ends meet.

Yet another program, which I know is important to me and many northern MPPs, is the Northern Ontario Energy Credit. It provides assistance to low-to-moderate-income individuals and families living in northern Ontario. Qualifying families receive up to $224 per year.

The goal of this government, the goal as the energy minister—I’m very proud to ensure we have affordable access for all—

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

Hydro rates

Mrs. Gila Martow: To the Minister of Health: Sabrina Gryn is a Thornhill mother of four. Unfortunately, one of her sons requires medical equipment to stay alive, including an oxygen machine, feeding pump, oxygen monitor and suction device. Due to the need for all this equipment, along with Ontario’s increased hydro rates, her electricity bills have skyrocketed.

Mr. Speaker, the Gryn family does not qualify for any assistance programs. Will the Minister of Health please explain his concerns—if any—on the effect of rising electricity costs for those who require medical equipment?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’m very pleased to be able to rise to answer the question from the honourable member, specifically relating to the Ontario Electricity Support Program.

This program is specifically geared to individuals to provide more funding to individuals who have to plug in medical equipment. They can get up to $75 a month to ensure that when they have medical equipment—we recognize that there are increased costs—they can utilize this.

I would encourage the member to tell that individual to contact their local utility to make sure that they can find out all of the programs that are out there. There’s even the saveONenergy program. There are many, many programs—six of them, to be exact—that these families can apply for.

On top of that, starting January 1, we will make sure that we can get this legislation passed so they can get that 8% rebate. It’s unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, because it’s for families like this that we asked for unanimous consent, but unfortunately the opposition voted against it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Gila Martow: As I said in my initial question, the family did not qualify for any assistance from the Ministry of Health, from PowerStream or from any government program.

We’re seeing energy poverty in this province like never before. Families that are considered middle-class and therefore ineligible for these subsidies, such as Sabrina’s, are often struggling to provide the basic necessities.

Mr. Speaker, due to these skyrocketing electricity rates as a result of this government’s policies, Sabrina has been unable to buy new shoes for her two growing daughters. What advice does the health minister—and perhaps the Minister of Energy—have for the Gryn family?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Once again, I think it’s important to recognize that we as a government have heard that there are some families that are having difficulty out there with their electricity bills and so that’s why we acted. We acted with a three-point plan, Mr. Speaker. We put forward this rebate to ensure that they can see this on their bills directly every month. But unfortunately, as I keep saying over and over, they actually voted against unanimous consent to work on this quickly. We have 70 local utilities that we have to work with, and we want to ensure that these families get access as quickly as possible.

I once again encourage all MPPs to tell constituents who are having a hard time to utilize and work with their LDCs to make sure that they can get qualified for these programs and get that money right back in their pocket. We built a clean, reliable system that we all rely on and we’re bringing it to the next level to make it as affordable as possible.

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre par intérim.

Applaudissements.

M me France Gélinas: Oui, pour sûr, pour sûr. Merci.

L’hon. Deborah Matthews: À la ministre déléguée aux Affaires francophones.

L’hon. Marie-France Lalonde: Premièrement, j’aimerais souhaiter une bonne journée des Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes, qui va être dimanche, et je sais qu’on va célébrer demain à Queen’s Park la levée du drapeau.

Monsieur le Président, j’apprécie la question de la députée de Nickel Belt. Je suis fière des accomplissements que le gouvernement a faits de par ses réalisations. Il y a 30 ans, la loi a été mise en vigueur. Par la suite, en 2007, nous avons créé un commissaire. En 2013, on lui a donné une indépendance. On a beaucoup à offrir.

J’ai lu les recommandations du commissaire, et on est en train de les étudier.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Il est temps de passer à l’action. C’est pour quand l’université franco?

L’hon. Marie-France Lalonde: Encore une fois, je veux remercier la députée de Nickel Belt pour son travail sur ce dossier. Mais je veux vraiment réaffirmer et réitérer l’engagement du gouvernement, notre engagement—de la ministre Matthews et moi—sur ce dossier. Nous sommes en train de mettre en place un conseil de planification, et il va y avoir des nouvelles très bientôt.

Donc, merci beaucoup, et encore une fois, une belle fête aux Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes de l’Ontario.

Protection for workers

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: My question is for the Minister of Labour. There are many ways for my constituents to find out about their rights under the Employment Standards Act and the Ontario health and safety acts. I often direct community members to the online resources if they need specific assistance with an issue.

I know that another tool that the Ministry of Labour uses to inform Ontarians of their rights under these acts is through proactive blitzes. Last session in the House, the minister mentioned that over the summer, his ministry would be taking

part in several blitzes across the province.

I’m very interested in knowing how the young worker blitz and the temporary foreign worker blitz ended. These workers are among the most vulnerable in our province, and I think it is important that we continue to ensure that they are protected and well informed of their rights.

Speaker, through you to the minister: Is there an update on the summer blitz results that could be shared with the House?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’d like to thank the member for that wonderful question, because it really speaks to what we believe in the province of Ontario, which is that workers have the right to be treated fairly by their employers. They deserve to be paid for the work they do, they deserve pregnancy and personal emergency leaves, and they need to be paid the minimum wage. One of the best ways of doing that is that you focus on the areas where you think you have the most concern. You go into the workplaces; you conduct blitzes.

Over the summer, we did two blitzes. One focused on young workers and the other focused on temporary foreign workers. The goal of these blitzes was to educate employers and bring them into compliance.

We did 343 inspections over the summer. A significant number of employers we met benefited from the visits. Before our inspectors left—and this is something we should all be proud of—98% to 100% of those employers were in compliance already.

Mr. Speaker, the blitzes are working. We recovered $300,000 for young workers in this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: I want to thank the minister for that answer.

The minister mentions an important point. Sometimes employers and employees are unaware that they are either not following the law or that they aren’t getting what they are entitled to.

The Ministry of Labour website is a great resource, but blitzes are proactive. Having officers out across the province, visiting businesses and educating them, makes a big difference, as the minister mentioned. The voluntary compliance rates show that employers want to be doing the right thing, but I know that there is still work to be done. We need to make sure that all workers, including the most vulnerable, are protected and educated on their rights and entitlements.

Speaker, through you to the minister: What can Ontarians expect in terms of proactive inspections and blitzes over the coming months?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you once again for the question. Speaker, never in the history of Ontario has a government proactively inspected workplaces. We’re the very first government to do that, and I’ll tell you it’s working.

But we don’t just do that. We also make 3,500 ordinary employment standards inspections. We want to make sure that people are following the law, that they understand the law. But we’re also focusing on those people who sometimes think that they operate outside of the law, Speaker, that the law doesn’t apply to them—the repeat violators. We’re sending a zero-tolerance message that employees in this province deserve to be treated properly.

In addition to that, we’re going to focus on some other areas. We’re going to be doing blitzes in child care centres. We’re doing a manufacturing blitz. We’re doing tow truck blitzes, a small-manufacturing blitz, and fitness centre blitzes.

We’re doing everything we possibly can to make sure employers know what their obligations are, and to educate employees so that they know what their rights are.

Victims of crime

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. A year ago today, everyone in this chamber was shocked and saddened by the news of the deaths of three women in and around my riding of Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. Anastasia Kuzyk, Nathalie Warmerdam and Carol Culleton were brutally murdered, allegedly by a man who had been released on parole.

I spoke to the then Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, who agreed with me that we had to do much more to protect women from an abuser, once that person had been released. He also assured me that action would be taken.

I and the people of my riding have waited a year for that action. We have run out of patience.

Can the minister inform the House, victims of violence, and all the people of Ontario when your government will take this matter seriously and do what is necessary to protect women from being re-victimized by their abuser?

Hon. David Orazietti: I thank the member for the question. First of all, let me begin by saying my thoughts are with the victims’ families and friends, and the Wilno and surrounding communities on the one-year anniversary of this truly devastating event.

My most important priority is the safety and security of every Ontarian. As the member knows, we’re now investing $208 million each year for services that support and protect women from violence. We’ve enhanced the tracking of offenders by improving the way domestic violence probation orders are uploaded to police information centres. Under the Proceeds of Crime Front Line Policing Grant, we’ve invested $1.2 million in related domestic violence initiatives.

In fact, this past Tuesday, we announced $58,000 in the member’s riding, through the OPP Renfrew detachment, to support the Renfrew County Situational Hub project. The project aims to bring together partnered agencies from the justice, mental health and social services sectors to support and help protect individuals from violence in their communities.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Back to the minister: While those supports are appreciated, my requests have been very specific. Because I couldn’t wait for your government to act, within weeks of those murders I introduced my private member’s bill which would have required all parolees to sign and accept the terms of their release. Those who were convicted of domestic or sexual violence and who were deemed a risk to their victims would also be subject to electronic monitoring.

My bill received all-party support on second reading. As a result of prorogation, it has died on the order paper. I will be reintroducing my bill to help victims of violence this afternoon.

My preference would be for the government to introduce its own legislation. In the absence of this, will you support my bill so that the victims of violence will have more protection than they currently have, and send a clear message that this Legislature places the highest priority on protecting victims of domestic or sexual violence?

Hon. David Orazietti: Again to the member, I’m certainly aware of the member’s private member’s bill. It was Bill 130 that did die on the order paper. But I want to say to the member that I’m certainly willing to work with him, and I want to commend his advocacy on this particular issue and his efforts to champion this particular issue.

What I will say as well, Speaker, is that probation orders are enforceable whether or not they’re signed by the offender. In addition, we have policies in place for the supervision of high-risk offenders, including electronic supervision, when imposed by the courts or the parole board.

We’ve implemented additional training for officers, with a specific focus on domestic violence and sex offender supervision. We’ve also focused offender programs and resources on medium- and high-risk offenders and continue to do that.

I want to say to the member today that I am committed to working with the member in relation to the specific elements of his private member’s bill so that we can continue to improve these circumstances and protect women from domestic violence.

Government services

Mr. Michael Mantha: My question is to the Acting Premier.

Back in June, the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services announced that nine ServiceOntario offices across the province were under consideration for possible closure, including the Blind River office, which is in my riding of Algoma–Manitoulin. The decision was put on hold, pending further review. However, to date, we have yet to receive any updates from your ministry as to the result of these reassessments.

These offices are vital and provide an excellent service to which all Ontarians deserve equal access. Can you please provide us with what progress is being made as far as the re-evaluations?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Government and Consumer Services.

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: I thank the member for his question.

While at AMO, I did meet with several municipalities on that particular subject.

I have to say that our government is extremely proud of the consumer services that our ServiceOntario locations provide to Ontarians, including access to a wide range of services, such as driver and vehicle registration, land registration, issuance of health cards and birth certificates.

Yes indeed, recently there was an announcement, but there was also an announcement that we would be reviewing our decision. This was also part of my decision to meet with people at AMO.

At this point, I want to reassure that we are reviewing the decision. I hope to have some answers shortly.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Mantha: We have seen the government overturn its decisions in the past in a veiled attempt to provide short-term satisfaction—hence your June press release advising my office and the public, indicating, “Blind River may not end up being one of the offices closed,” the emphasis on “may not.”

A ServiceOntario office is important to smaller communities. Public services are being cut and squeezed across Ontario. People are really disappointed. They didn’t vote for these office closures or the threat of having these offices closed, either. Now they don’t know what to expect from this government.

What assurances can your ministry offer that these closures won’t be reintroduced today or at a later date?

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: Again I say thank you to the member for raising it, and I understand how important those offices are as part of our access to government services. We are reviewing. That’s why we are looking and that’s why we shared that decision with the member, to let him know about the decision that we would be reviewing some.

As part of the transformation, we are also looking at transformation of services. People in Ontario are using other means, such as online, technology which has been improving. But at the same time, I want to reiterate our commitment to provide the best access to government services as part of my commitment as the minister.

I thank the member for his question, and we’re definitely following up.

Subventions pour les arts et la culture / Arts and cultural funding

M. John Fraser: Ma question est pour la ministre du Tourisme, de la Culture et du Sport. Vendredi dernier, la ministre et la première ministre étaient dans la capitale de notre nation pour lancer Ontario150. Ontario150 comprendra une série de célébrations qui auront lieu tout au long de 2017 et qui célébreront le 150 e anniversaire de l’Ontario, honorant notre passé tout en favorisant l’essor de nos communautés pour l’avenir.

Mr. Speaker, 2017 is a significant milestone that will provide us with a unique opportunity to build pride and optimism in our province, inspire our youth, and create strong economic, social and cultural legacies for all Ontarians.

Can the minister please tell the members of this House more about the exciting plans that were unveiled last week in Ottawa, and how our government plans to support Ontario communities in celebrating Ontario150?

Hon. Eleanor McMahon: I want to thank the member from Ottawa South, in particular for his advocacy on the Ottawa 2017 celebrations.

It was my pleasure to join him, as well as the rest of the dedicated Ottawa caucus, our Premier, Mayor Jim Watson and community leaders to launch Ontario150. I’m so excited about the energy we saw at the announcement, Speaker, and look forward to building on this optimism as we reach out to communities across Ontario.

As part of this commitment, we’ve launched a series of grant programs. They include our community capital program, $25 million to renovate, repair and retrofit existing community and cultural infrastructure; our partnership program, $5 million to support new partnerships and collaborations with youth and about youth, and to empower them; and finally, $7 million in community celebration funding. I have every expectation that these programs will engage our youth and celebrate our shared identity and our legacy.

I look forward to providing more information in the supplementary, Speaker.

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

M. John Fraser: Merci à la ministre. Je voudrais faire l’écho des commentaires de la ministre au sujet du succès de l’évènement de lancement de la semaine dernière. Nous avons hâte de célébrer Ontario150 dans ma communauté d’Ottawa. Ontario150 stimulera la fierté communautaire et de construire une connexion plus profonde à notre province.

Ontario150 will also lay the groundwork for the next 150 years, so we want all Ontarians to start thinking about what this milestone means to them. I appreciate the impact of the granting programs the minister has referred to. I know they will have a province-wide impact in bringing Ontarians together and supporting our communities.

The minister also announced that there will be additional initiatives across Ontario in the year ahead. Can the minister please inform this House about what we can expect in the coming year?

L’hon. Eleanor McMahon: Encore une fois, un gros merci au député d’Ottawa South.

I’m grateful for this opportunity to share the highlights of Ontario150 with all Ontarians and with this House. They include a new logo, an updated version of our unofficial anthem, A Place to Stand, celebrations in our nation’s capital and in communities across Ontario, and customized programming at many of our agencies and attractions.

In addition, as part of Ontario150, Toronto will host the 2017 Invictus Games, an international sporting event for wounded soldiers. We’re very proud of that, Speaker. These games will really demonstrate the transformative power of sport.

We look forward to sharing more in the coming months on what Ontarians can expect in 2017: key investments and initiatives which will showcase Ontario to the world, enhance tourism and welcome citizens from the across our globe.

I look forward to working with our federal and community partners, Speaker. Thank you for this—

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

Driver licences

Mr. Jim McDonell: To the Deputy Premier: The Ministry of Transportation has been consistently among the top criticized agencies in the Ontario government, and for good reason. Ontarians of all ages are inconvenienced at almost every interaction with the ministry with lost files and needless delays.

Medical reviews are a glaring example. When a doctor reports a driver as potentially unsafe, they will suspend the licence immediately. When a doctor says the driver is okay, however, the ministry reserves the right to sit on the file for 30 business days.

Hard-working Ontarians’ jobs and livelihoods are at risk. How can the government justify such an insensitive and bureaucratic policy?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Infrastructure.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I thank the member for the question and for his initiative with his private member’s bill. That’s an issue that we’ve all dealt with in our constituency offices. It’s a common issue that we face.

The provincial government, as you know, the Ministry of Transportation, puts a very, very high priority on public safety, and they put a very, very high priority on responding particularly to the senior citizens who have had to deal with these medical issues. We are currently meeting or exceeding our 30-day customer service standards, processing 90% of cases within 10 days. So far in 2016, we are meeting our customer service standards 99.5% of the time. That’s a very, very strong response to that particular concern that seniors may have.

Our government’s mandatory reporting for physicians and optometrists is an important way we are working to continue to make driving safe for individuals using Ontario roads.

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

Mr. Jim McDonell: Back to the Deputy Premier: Constituents come to my office begging for help because they are about to lose their jobs due to this unjustifiable six-week delay. They have families to feed and bills to pay. People in my region rely on driving to access health care, work and basic living necessities.

Providing service means being accountable, transparent and effective. It takes an hour to enforce a physician’s advice to suspend a licence. Why should it take 30 days to take his advice to reinstate it?

Will the government support my motion this afternoon calling for a five-business-days service guarantee for the reinstatement of a driver’s licence following a positive medical review?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Again, I want to thank the member for his interest in this particular issue. It’s of interest to all of us. We deal with it in our constituency offices every week, every month.

On June 2, 2015, our government passed Bill 31, which is making Ontario’s roads even safer by expanding medical reporting requirements, clarifying mandatory and discretionary reporting requirements in future regulations and setting out what specific driver information must be provided by mandatory reporting forms.

Through mandatory medical reporting, the Ministry of Transportation applies consistent medical standards that are designed to balance road safety and mobility for Ontarians. These standards are based on basic medical standards under the Highway Traffic Act and detailed national medical standards established by the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, the CCMTA.

Public transit

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Acting Premier. Transit riders hoped the throne speech would have a plan to improve transit service and lower fares. They were let down. Not only is Presto expensive, there is a cost just to buy an empty card. This makes it extremely difficult for social service agencies to give out transit passes, especially as tokens and tickets are phased out.

The city of Ottawa, in fact, is threatening to take the province to court because Presto is using its government-enforced monopoly to demand higher commissions from Ottawa transit riders. Ottawa riders currently pay 2% of their fare to Presto. Presto wants 10%. This outrageous cash grab will drive up fares, reduce transit ridership and harm low-income people.

Why is the government making low-income people pay for the government’s decision to force