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

May 13, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-May-13 (PDF)

L084 - Wed 13 May 2015 / Mer 13 mai 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 13 May 2015 Mercredi 13 mai 2015

Orders of the Day

Making Healthier Choices Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 pour des choix plus sains

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Hydro rates

Hydro rates

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Wearing of buttons

Teachers’ labour disputes

Privatization of public assets

Agricultural trade

Hydro rates

Teachers’ labour disputes

Rural economic development

Hydro transmission

Air-rail link

Manufacturing sector

Hydro rates

Annual report, Chief Electoral Officer

Deferred Votes

Time allocation

Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’infrastructure au service de l’emploi et de la prospérité

Visitors / Visiteurs

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Naturopathic medicine

Veterans’ Place

Naturopathic medicine

Lyme disease

Residential schools

Apology

Mallorytown Glass Works

Anti-bullying initiatives

Correction of record

Introduction of Bills

Ontario Flag Day Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le Jour du drapeau de l’Ontario

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

National Nursing Week / Semaine nationale des soins infirmiers

Petitions

Hydro rates

LGBTQ conversion therapy

Water fluoridation

Hydro rates

Ontario Disability Support Program

Realtors

Teachers’ labour dispute

Hospital funding

French-language education

Off-road vehicles

Hospital funding

Opposition Day

Privatization of public assets / Privatisation des biens publics

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Making Healthier Choices Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 pour des choix plus sains

Ms. Damerla moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 45,

An Act to enhance public health by enacting the Healthy Menu Choices Act, 2015 and the Electronic Cigarettes Act, 2015 and by amending the Smoke-Free Ontario Act / Projet de loi 45, Loi visant à améliorer la santé publique par l’édiction de la Loi de 2015 pour des choix santé dans les menus et de la Loi de 2015 sur les cigarettes électroniques et la modification de la Loi favorisant un Ontario sans fumée.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Ms. Damerla moves third reading of Bill 45.

Ms. Damerla?

Hon. Dipika Damerla: I am pleased to rise today for the third reading of Bill 45, the Making Healthier Choices Act, 2015,

An Act to enhance public health by enacting the Healthy Menu Choices Act, 2015 and the Electronic Cigarettes Act, 2015 and by amending the Smoke-Free Ontario Act.

As we begin, I would like to thank everyone who appeared before the Standing Committee on General Government, especially the youth, who did a great job. I also want to acknowledge my colleague the member for Kingston and the Islands, with whom I will be splitting my time this morning and whom I would like to thank for diligently shepherding this bill through the committee process. Thank you so much. I would also like to warmly thank all the members of the committee who worked so very hard in closely considering Bill 45.

It would be remiss of me, Mr. Speaker, not to, at this point, acknowledge the leadership shown by the former Minister of Health, Minister Deb Matthews, as well as the leadership shown by yourself, the Speaker, and the MPP France Gélinas, for their work on laying the groundwork for many parts and many elements of this bill.

This comprehensive legislative package, if passed, would protect youth from the dangers of tobacco and the potential harms of electronic cigarettes, also known as e-cigarettes. Also included in the proposed legislation are measures to help families make healthier choices by giving them caloric information when eating out or purchasing take-away meals. The Making Healthier Choices Act, if passed, will play an important role in empowering Ontarians to make the decisions that help them lead healthier lives and move us even closer to a truly smoke-free Ontario.

The fact is that we’ve done very well here in Ontario. Between 2000 and 2013, Ontario’s smoking rate dropped from 24.5% to 18.1%, which equals approximately 332,000 fewer smokers in Ontario. Since 2005, Ontario has become an international leader in tobacco control because of our Smoke-Free Ontario Act. Our government has taken a strong stand in protecting people from second-hand smoke in enclosed public places and enclosed workplaces.

But the fact is that there is more to do; the fact is that even today too many people die tobacco-related deaths.

Since 2005, Ontario has become an international leader in tobacco control because of our Smoke-Free Ontario Act. Further amendments to the act included protecting children from exposure to second-hand smoke in motor vehicles, as of 2009, and prohibiting the sale of flavoured cigarillos, as of 2010.

On January 1 of this year, new regulations came into effect that:

—make it more difficult for young people to purchase tobacco by prohibiting tobacco sales on post-secondary education campuses;

—prohibit smoking on all bar and restaurant outdoor patios, with an exemption for uncovered patios that were established by a branch of the Royal Canadian Legion prior to November 18, 2013; and

—prohibit smoking on playgrounds, publicly owned sporting areas, spectator areas adjacent to sporting areas and the 20 metres surrounding these areas.

Our government continues to take active steps to protect young people from the health risks and impacts of smoking.

This act has three schedules, the first of which, if passed, would ban all flavoured tobacco. The reason we are doing this is very clear. If we are to truly push down smoking rates in Ontario, we have to do two things: First, we have to help those who want to quit, quit; secondly, we have to do everything we can to ensure that that next generation of smokers does not start smoking.

The evidence is clear that the tobacco industry adds flavours to tobacco to attract new smokers, particularly youth. It is in this context that we have moved forward to ban all flavoured tobacco, including menthol. We believe that this legislation, if passed, will truly move us that much closer to a smoke-free Ontario.

But there is a new player in town, and I vividly remember the first time I came across it. I was on the GO train with my daughter when I thought I saw somebody smoking on the GO train. I was shocked, because it’s not something we usually see. We don’t see somebody smoking in enclosed spaces anymore.

I recall telling my daughter, “Look at that. Somebody is flouting whatever rule it is. How is it that this person is so blatantly smoking inside the car of a GO train?” My daughter, of course, is a teenager who knows a lot more about these things, turned to me and said, “Mom, that’s not a cigarette; it’s an electronic cigarette.”

I recall that moment particularly for what it was, because it was so jarring for me to see what looked like somebody smoking inside the GO train. I think it speaks to the fact that an entire generation of Ontarians has never seen anybody smoke inside a subway, inside a movie theatre, inside the workplace or inside a GO train. It speaks to the success of our anti-smoking legislation and the hard-fought gains—really hard-fought gains—that we must continue to protect.

The fact is that electronic cigarettes are both an opportunity and a risk. This is new technology that, quite frankly, might have the potential for harm reduction. But at the same time, we also recognize that in the absence of longitudinal studies, in the absence of longitudinal evidence, we still don’t know what all the risks of this new technology might be. So we’ve tried to negotiate a careful path between recognizing the potential for harm reduction that electronic cigarettes bring and, at the same time, recognizing that there could be risks and harms associated with this new technology that we are not fully aware of. That is why we are moving to regulate electronic cigarettes.

If the Electronic Cigarettes Act is passed, it would call for:

—a ban the sale and supply of e-cigarettes to anyone under the age of 19;

—a prohibition on the use of e-cigarettes in certain places, such as enclosed work spaces and enclosed public places;

—a ban on the sale of e-cigarettes in certain places such as vending machines or grocery stores that contain pharmacies;

—a prohibition on the display and promotion of e-cigarettes in places where e-cigarettes or tobacco products are sold or offered for sale.

We have listened to the concerns expressed by stakeholders, including specialty e-cigarette retailers, and any exemptions will be considered during the regulation-making process.

These changes would ban the sale of e-cigarettes to minors, making it harder for youth to obtain e-cigarettes. It would also make tobacco products less tempting by banning the sale of flavored tobacco, which I already spoke to.

In addition to banning menthol and regulating electronic cigarettes, this act would also, if passed, make it mandatory for any restaurant or food service premise in Ontario with over 20 locations to post calories on their menus and menu boards. More specifically, if passed, the act would require calories for standard food and beverage items, including alcohol, to be posted on menus and menu boards in restaurants, convenience stores, grocery stores and other food service premises with 20 or more locations in Ontario.

It would require food service premises to post contextual information that would help to educate patrons about their daily caloric requirements and authorize inspectors to enforce menu-labelling requirements.

Currently, over 60% of large chain restaurants already provide nutritional information voluntarily upon demand, on websites or in-store. The proposed menu-labelling legislation is also a key component of our Healthy Kids Strategy, which responds to the Healthy Kids Panel’s recommendations for reducing childhood obesity.

We have heard from many partners and individuals regarding the importance of what we’re proposing, and should this legislation pass we will continue these discussions in the form of consultations with key stakeholders to ensure successful implementation.

It is interesting that the proposed menu-labelling legislation has widespread support in Ontario, and I’m one of those who supports this legislation. I’m going to share a story: Back in 2011 when I first ran for office, I remember somebody saying to me, just in passing, “You’re going to campaign, and you’re going to lose some weight.” I said, “That’s good. Win or lose, at least I’ll lose some weight.” I recall very clearly that at the end of the campaign I had actually gained weight. I was a little surprised, but I didn’t think much of it; there was just too much to do as a brand new MPP. As it happened, the penny dropped for me—

Interjections.

Hon. Dipika Damerla: That’s why we’re going to go ahead with this legislation and you’re going to support us.

As I was saying, the penny dropped one day when, quite accidentally and inadvertently, I was browsing the website of Tim Hortons and found out that a medium Iced Capp can pack as much as 600 or 700 calories. That’s when the penny dropped for me. All of you who may remember the 2014 election will recall that it was a summer election, a very hot election. I remember that at the end of every canvass I would treat my volunteers to a cold drink. Usually we’d go to Tim’s, and people would have a coffee and I would usually get myself an Iced Capp. The trouble was that I would canvass about three times a day.

So while my volunteers might be drinking one Iced Capp, there were days I was drinking three Iced Capps a day, packing in 1,800 calories. Meanwhile, it appears that the maximum calories for an adult woman is somewhere in the 1,500 to 1,800 range, and here I was, taking in 1,500 calories just through my Iced Capps. Then, of course, add the doughnuts and samosas and all the stuff that goes with a campaign, and no wonder I gained some weight.

The point I’m making is: When I walked into the Tim Hortons, had I been able to see, next to the Iced Capp, 600 calories—might I only have bought myself one a day instead of three a day? I think that is the power of this legislation. It really is about empowering Ontarians; helping them make the decisions they need to make. I, personally, am truly looking forward to this legislation as well.

In all, the goal, the leitmotif, of all these three pieces of legislation is quite simple: It is about making Ontario the best place in North America—the healthiest place in North America—to grow up and grow old.

We have consulted extensively, in making this legislation, but I also want to say to the House that the consultation process doesn’t stop with the passing of the bill. Should this bill pass and we go to regulation-making, I have committed to once again consult broadly with our stakeholders because, as we all know, it is at the regulation stage of a bill that the rubber actually hits the road. So I have committed—and we have committed—to talking to all of our stakeholders to make sure that we get this bill right, with just one goal; that is, to make Ontario the lowest-smoking jurisdiction and to make Ontario the healthiest place in North America to grow up and grow old.

I hope that all of you will find the bill worthy of support.

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

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I am really proud today to be here and to support this critical piece of legislation. As Minister Damerla has so clearly laid out, passage of the legislation under debate today would ban the sale of e-cigarettes to minors, making it harder for youth to obtain e-cigarettes.

It would also make tobacco products less tempting by banning the sale of flavoured tobacco, including menthol, and permit the government to further limit exposure to second-hand smoke in public areas.

It would also require large, chain food-service premises like fast-food restaurants to post calories on menus, providing key support to helping Ontarians make well-informed choices about what they eat and what they feed their children when dining out. I’d say it’s hard to argue with that.

If passed,

schedule 1 of the Making Healthier Choices Act will take effect on January 1, 2017. Following the passage, key stakeholders will be consulted on the development of regulations to support the legislation, including:

—calorie posting, in order to determine the size, format and prominence of calorie information to be posted on menus, and how calorie information will be determined;

—standard food items, in order to provide further clarity and/or set out requirements for standard food items captured by the legislation;

—contextual statement, in order to determine the size, format and content of the contextual statement, such as that the average adult requires 2,000 calories a day;

—exemptions, in order to determine if any of the exemptions from the calorie posting requirements are needed, such as seasonal items on the menu for a limited number of days.

Let me now speak to the ban on the sale of flavored tobacco. In the 2014 budget, our government committed to prohibiting the sale of tobacco products that contain flavours and additives that appeal to youth. These products are often packaged in brightly coloured wrappers and smell strongly of candy and fruit flavours—precisely what appeals to youth.

Additional evidence emerged indicating that young people in significant numbers are using menthol-flavoured tobacco products. During committee hearings, we heard from a representative of the Canadian Cancer Society, Ontario division, which has been advocating for a ban on youth-friendly flavoured tobacco for a long time. According to the society, flavoured tobacco products are no longer so-called niche products. Instead, they are widely used by the majority of youth who use tobacco products. In Ontario, more than 57,000 youth in grades 6 to 12 have reported using a flavoured tobacco product in the last 30 days.

Almost 19,000 Ontario youth, or one in four who reported smoking, say that they are smoking menthol cigarettes. I started with a menthol cigarette.

The society believes that the inclusion of menthol in Bill 45 is both progressive and necessary. Dr. David McKeown, Toronto’s Medical Officer of Health, cited a recent University of Waterloo research study which found that more than half of youth tobacco users in grades 9 to 12 used flavoured tobacco products; a quarter of youth smokers smoked menthol cigarettes. This demonstrates youth’s preference for flavours and the strong appeal of menthol cigarettes in particular.

We have a responsibility to act on flavoured tobacco, and we are going to do that by banning all flavours, be it bubble gum or mint. I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of this House that key stakeholders will be consulted on the following proposed amendments to Ontario regulation 48/06 through the Ontario regulatory registry.

With respect to flavoured tobacco, we will consult on how to define the term “flavouring agent” for the purposes of describing what types of flavoured tobacco are prohibited for sale and what exemptions might apply, such as flavoured tobacco products primarily used by adults, that is, those that contain additives but still predominantly taste like tobacco and no other flavour.

In December 2013, consultations were conducted through the Ontario registry on the following proposed amendments:

Hospital grounds: Prohibit smoking on outdoor grounds of hospitals; and

Provincial government properties: Prohibit smoking on the grounds of specified provincial government properties and prohibit the sale of tobacco on specified provincial government properties.

The government is planning to move forward with these proposed initiatives. They will help to ensure that the gains made under the Smoke-Free Ontario Strategy are maintained.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Twenty people in the room and 19 conversations.

Go ahead.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With this strong action, we are working to prevent the next generation of Ontarians from becoming addicted to tobacco. Banning the sale of flavoured tobacco products will help us to achieve our goal of having the lowest smoking rate in Canada.

The dangers of smoking and tobacco use are well known and documented. However, the risks that come with the use of e-cigarettes may be less familiar to some of you. During the committee hearings on the bill, presentations were made that pointed to the possible risks associated with e-cigarettes.

Further, a study from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, published in Nicotine and Tobacco Research in August 2014, found that in a nationally representative sample of middle- and high-school students who had never smoked cigarettes, youth who had used e-cigarettes were nearly two times more likely to have intentions to smoke conventional cigarettes than youth who had never used e-cigarettes.

I want to make it clear that it is not our government’s intention to remove e-cigarettes from the Ontario marketplace at this time. The proposed approach focuses on taking action to protect Ontario’s children and youth from accessing and using a product that may pose potential harm to their health.

I believe all members will agree that this proposed legislation is a measured and precautionary response to a new and emerging product that may have harmful effects.

If the legislation is passed, our government intends to consult with key stakeholders on the development of regulations to support the legislation. The consultations will focus on two parts. During the first part, the ministry will consult to facilitate the implementation of age-based sales restrictions, which are proposed to come into effect on January 1, 2016. The subject of these consultations will include a number of areas.

Through the regulatory registry, the ministry will consult around signage in order to clarify that all signs required by the act and the regulations must be posted in a clearly visible area.

The ministry will also consult on the types of identification that would be acceptable as proof of age to ensure that persons who have access to e-cigarettes are at least 19 years of age.

We will be asking for opinions about details regarding the signage to be posted at all retail outlets selling electronic cigarettes. The signage would indicate that electronic cigarette sales are restricted to those 19 years of age and older.

Finally, through the regulatory registry, we will discuss the details regarding the signage that is to be posted at all retail outlets selling electronic cigarettes. The signage would indicate that ID is requested for anyone who appears to be under the age of 25.

The second phase will focus on the implementation of the other provisions of the bill, which are proposed to come into effect January 1, 2017. These provisions include display and promotion, and use and sales restrictions in certain places.

In order to facilitate implementation, the ministry will consult on: details regarding required signage showing e-cigarettes are prohibited for use in specified places; details regarding additional areas where the use of e-cigarettes is prohibited; and details on the display and promotion ban.

The ministry will also consult on procedures for employees who complain of being retaliated against by an employer. We will also look at procedures for home health care workers who leave a client’s home, which will mirror the procedure in the regulation made under the Smoke-Free Ontario Act; and finally, procedures for seizing funds in vending machines in the form of credit card and debit transactions.

The measures we are proposing under this legislation are part of our commitment under Patients First, Ontario’s Action Plan for Health Care, to provide Ontarians with the information they need to play an active role in their own health. The importance of this legislation cannot be underestimated. Responsible government does not, and will not, leave its citizens’ best possible health to chance.

One of the reasons why this legislation is so important to me personally is because my brother is a former smoker. He has dreadful asthma, and he has been taking prednisone for many, many years, which has deteriorated his bone health. He’s only two years older than me and has had hip-replacement surgery.

I cannot underestimate the importance of this legislation, and I truly hope that we have the support of this House on this very important bill.

I’m proud to say that our government is taking action to help our young people stay healthy and get the best possible start in life. There is nothing quite like observing a loved one who has difficulty breathing—every breath is an effort.

I urge all members to support our proposed legislation.

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

Mr. Rick Nicholls: I’m pleased to stand here in the Legislature and address Bill 45 at third reading. I was privileged in second reading to address this particular bill. We, in the Progressive Conservatives, will, in fact, be supporting this bill.

There are three key elements of this bill that I do want to talk very briefly about, since my time is limited. One is, first of all, of course, the banning of marketing of tobacco products to children. We all know the impact—that once they catch children at a young age and they start smoking, the addiction aspect of that. And, of course, it leads to other things, not just smoking cigarettes or pipes or cigars, but it also leads to perhaps illegal drugs as well. There are statistics to prove that.

The other thing is that we want to crack down on illegal smoke shacks, where people can, in fact, purchase these cigarettes at a very cheap price.

The other thing that is of interest to me is not only just the childhood obesity—because we look at it, and we’re saying, “Well, what are we doing in our school systems these days to encourage more physical activity?” In the younger grades, the elementary grades, they’re fairly busy. Then they get into high school, and my concern there is that they only have to take one credit for phys. ed. in their four years of high school. Of course, to me, that just adds, again, to the need for them to get on a weight-control program, because they’re not as physically active.

The other thing, in the few moments that I have left, is to talk about the calorie count. I find that calorie count—I count calories, and I keep a close eye on it. Since January 1, I have dropped over 40 pounds by keeping a close eye on things. Again, I think that that’s really, really important, that people start to take count of their calories to enhance their lifestyles.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: The NDP supports Bill 45 to help protect the health of families and young people. We know that calorie labelling in chain restaurants will help families make informed decisions. We know that tougher restrictions on smoking, including a ban on flavored tobacco products, will help discourage young people from smoking.

That being said, the Liberals voted against key amendments that would have served to make this bill much stronger. The NDP moved 17 amendments in committee and the Liberals voted against 16 of those changes, such as immediately banning menthol tobacco products. We’ve already heard that the use of menthol increases smoking amongst young people. It would have made sense for the Liberals to support us on that amendment.

Mandating sodium labelling on menus: Again, this only makes sense considering the bill mandates calorie labelling. Many of the presenters at committee spoke about the need for sodium labelling, which the Liberals have clearly ignored.

We moved an amendment allowing municipalities to require additional nutrition information so long as they include the labelling required by provincial law. Many municipalities have been ground-breakers when it comes to protecting public health, when it comes to dealing with issues like smoking and healthy food. It would make sense to continue to allow them to have the power to go beyond provincial statute.

We put forward an amendment the Liberals didn’t support mandating the minister to establish a committee to review whether sodium information should be displayed.

We support this bill, but it could have been much stronger if the Liberals had supported the NDP amendments.

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

Mr. Chris Ballard: I’m delighted to be able to stand and speak in favour of Bill 45, the Making Healthier Choices Act, for its third reading. I just wanted to focus on the menu labelling for a second. It goes without saying that we all want to make sure that our children eat healthy. We understand what that means later down the road for them. If we teach them to eat healthy now, when they’re adults they will eat healthy. And for ourselves as well, we need to eat healthy.

I know from many years of consumer advocacy that it really boils down to: Do consumers have the information they need to make informed choices? All too often, when we go into restaurants, we don’t have the information we need to make informed choices. We’ve all heard the stories about buying a healthy bran muffin over the chocolate doughnut, only to find out years later with some horror that that doughnut had less fat in it, had less sugar in it, than the healthy bran muffin—alleged healthy bran muffin.

I know from my work on processed food labelling that’s going through the federal process right now—I was shocked to learn from food scientists and merchandisers that we have what the food scientists would call the taste triumvirate: fat, sugar and salt. What shocked me, working with consumer advocates, is that all too often, when a product that we see on the shelf with the label “low salt”—it in fact has lower salt than the regular brand, but what they do when they drop one of those—salt, fat or sugar—is to boost up the other.

So “low fat” might mean an increase in sugar or salt; “low salt” usually means an increase in fat. It’s very confusing for consumers when they think they’re buying healthy and in fact they’re not.

I think Bill 45 goes a long way to making sure that we can take care of our children and we as consumers can make an informed choice.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: I, too, am pleased to join the debate on Bill 45. I think it is important that people make informed choices, but if you really want to, you can inform yourself. Some of the stuff in Bill 45, I think, will be nice to see, but no one is ever going to go into McDonald’s and actually say, “Before I eat that Big Mac that I love so much, I’m going to check all of the nutritional stuff on it.” They’ve already done their research; they know. If they really care about what’s going into their bodies, they’ve already done that research.

I’ll tell you, one of the biggest threats we have in our society is obesity and what we’re seeing with our children, and that is because healthy choices are not being made. The parents have to spend more time thinking about how much time their children are spending in front of a TV screen or a computer and how much time they’re spending doing physical activities that burn calories. As this becomes more prevalent, the strain on our health care system is going to become more and more evident.

It’s a big strain on our health care system already—illnesses associated with obesity—and we need to do a whole lot better than we’re doing today or we’re going to have a real tsunami of disastrous and catastrophic health care issues as we head into the future.

This is a start, but just putting numbers on a menu is not the issue. There has to be some real education for people that they understand. It’s a question most times of input and output. We live in a sedentary society today. Very few people do hard, physical work anymore, so we have to find ways of burning off those calories.

We live in a high-stress world, as well, which is a challenge. We have to find ways of burning off those calories in a healthy way and consuming less of them. Look at the portions that are served today versus 20 years ago. They are much larger. We have to change the way we live.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care has two minutes.

Hon. Dipika Damerla: I want to thank the member for Chatham–Kent–Essex, the member for Toronto–Danforth and the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke for taking the time to respond to this bill.

Before that, I’d also like to take some time to thank and welcome many stakeholders who have been with us every step of the way for Bill 45. They are in the members’ gallery here: Kalaisan Kalaichelvan and Nicole McInerney; Chris Yaccato, Lindsey Quarrie, Monica Sarkar, Kaitlyn Wallace, Kristy Ste Marie and Gemma Styling from the Ontario Lung Association; and from the Heart and Stroke Foundation we have Cristin Napier, Krista Orendorff, Nadia Formigoni and Brian Kellow.

In the time that I have left, I just want to thank all three members who, for the most part, spoke out in support of this bill. What’s there to not support? That’s how I would look at it.

To address the member from Toronto–Danforth, I believe this is a robust bill. This is a bill that we have widely consulted on, and I believe we have landed in the right place.

I take the points by the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke as well around the fact that, yes, we agree that this is just one tool in our tool box of fighting obesity. The posting of calories is not the only solution; he’s right. We need to look at other things, including living more actively, and those are initiatives that this government is actually moving forward on.

But largely today I just want to say that this has been a long journey. I want to thank everybody who has been there to support us, and I truly look forward to the passage of this bill.

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

Mr. Jim McDonell: I believe we have unanimous consent to stand down our lead.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member for Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry seeks unanimous consent to stand down the lead. Agreed? Agreed.

The member for Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I am happy to rise and speak to third reading of Bill 45. It’s a bill that I spoke to at second reading and that I also sat in on for a number of hours on amendments. Typical, I guess, of all the bills I’ve sat in on for amendments, essentially all the amendments were voted down by this government. It’s a practice I’ve seen since I got here, where it doesn’t matter what the amendments are. They talk about sending bills off for reasonable and needed changes, but when we get there, there’s certainly no consideration given to really improving the bills.

We do support this bill. We did want to see some changes. There’s a lot of good in it and there are a lot of things that we need in our system. The calories on menus is one part. I think a lot of us, especially a lot of people here, struggle with their weight. It was funny to hear the story about electioneering, when you’re on the road and you’re always typically jumping in to grab something, fast food, and sometimes some of this food will surprise you.

I remember working as a fundraiser at Tim Hortons and being involved with the makeup of some of their foods and seeing just how much cream is actually used in some of their drinks. I remember the Iced Capp is essentially a glass full of 19% cream, so it’s got a lot of calories in it. I was somewhat surprised. Certainly you can ask for it to be made with milk, which you can imagine takes down the calorie level an extreme amount.

I don’t know what the calorie rating would be, although I know they provide it, but it’s just an indication of how you’re taking something—and really, I don’t find a big difference in taste between the standard one that you’d get if you normally ask for an Iced Capp or one made with milk. But you can see the numbers are significant and something that this calorie information would certainly be a big help with.

In the same light, I remember before coming up here my wife, Margie, and I went on a bike trip from Niagara Falls to the Quebec border. It’s something they do every year, and it’s something I got to know because they used to end up in our township at the Quebec border. We used to have a little bit of a party for them to celebrate the accomplishment. As we started out, I one year tried to make it from Cornwall to the border and had quite a bit of trouble but finally made it. They were looking for somebody to do the whole track. They wanted a municipal politician, so I ended up doing it the next year.

There was a lady who was on that trip, and you know how you hear people talking. She was talking about getting on the trip to lose weight. At the end, she said she was upset because she hadn’t lost any weight. She said, “You know, those energy bars.” Everywhere you stopped, there were energy bars. Of course you’re exercising and you think, well, you need the energy. But when you look at the calories on those energy bars, they add up. In fact, I think she said she put on 10 pounds. So it’s just something that can happen.

Intentions are well worth it sometimes, but in the end what comes out of it is quite different.

So when I went on the trip a year later, I’d go up and every place you stop—probably 10 times a day—for a water break, there would be a pile of those energy bars on the table. I’d go to grab one, and I’d think, “Well, really, I don’t think I really need those,” and I’d grab one of the bananas or oranges they had out.

So calories on menus are really an important part of this legislation. We tried, through the amendments, to put some things in order. We thought we were right. One of the amendments—I think it came from the NDP—was all about where you have foods that are similar. I’m thinking of a Dairy Queen, where you go in and they have a sundae and there are 35 flavours: strawberry, raspberry, the normal flavours you see. Then they have a milkshake, and it’s the same, and then they have a Blizzard. The amendment would allow, where foods are similar or flavours and calories are similar, that they would be able to put up an average when it was within 15%. Of course this government turned that down.

There was no consideration for the logistics. You can imagine now going through a menu lineup where you might have 400 or 500 items because you have to break down every group that has 35 or so flavours. Really, what’s the point? What are we trying to do? We’re trying to give people an indication of what reasonably is available in calories when you’re buying a food. Whether something is 100 or 105 calories—what you really want to know is, is it 100 or is it 1,000, or is it 200 or 300?

This amendment was turned down—as almost all the amendments were, because they came from the other side. Fast foods are generally set up as drive-throughs, or you run through. How are people realistically going to interpret the information? So, in some ways, you’ve made this bill probably useless when it comes to certain franchisees, because it’s just not practical to do. It’s unfortunate and, again, an example of amendments not in place.

I go back to one in the previous session, where you talk about the logic of our amendments and the refusal, I think, to accept them. We had a communication bill where we were talking about the day a contract ran out, the contract was cancelled. The phone number was taken away. We put in an amendment. I use a cellphone, like many people. Everybody here essentially does, except for the member opposite with his white book. But you can imagine. I have friends who have had phones for many years, and the contract’s up, but they keep on going. If you’re going to lose your number and the phone is being deactivated—it really didn’t make any sense.

When we went through amendments, the government talked against that. It didn’t make sense. They moved ahead with it. Of course, we went through the days of the McGuinty prorogation in the House, so the bill died on the floor. The bill was resurrected in a new form and, lo and behold, that change was incorporated. To me, that just indicated that the government would not accept—they talk about sending things for amendment, they talk about trying to improve things, but really there’s no intention.

So you wonder why we spend the hours and hours if they really are not interested, even when, I think, in a case like that, they believed it was a good amendment—but they refused to allow it to be used.

So the calories and the food side—it’s a good initiative. Certainly, we’re battling with an issue, especially with our youth. But we have to put through meaningful legislation. I look back at one of the previous legislations put in place around healthy foods in cafeterias. Sometimes you have to look beyond the legislation. It’s all well-meaning; it’s all good news. But when you look through what’s happening in our high schools now, children are just leaving the high schools to eat lunch across the road at the local fast-food place, because the food that’s now on the menus is no longer something that they’ll eat.

It’s fine to have healthy food around, but you have to have it in a format that people enjoy.

I know in our local high school, if there’s some type of trip, they actually close down the cafeteria because they don’t have enough people going to the cafeteria to make it worthwhile. A school has 300 or 400 children in it, but you can imagine that there are so many people who travel off the property down to a local spot to eat that that means there’s no place to eat. There’s the legislation put in place, but it means that actually there’s nothing.

I think that there’s an important message like that. You have to look at what you’re doing with the legislation and what the impact will be. I’m sure that in a lot of cases, it’s an unintended consequence, but it would be worthwhile to review and follow up, and say, “Well, there’s something that’s not working; let’s fix that.” I think that there’s what you call a missed opportunity.

One of the amendments we tried—we received information from some of the franchise establishments, where the legislation really blamed not only the franchisee but the franchiser. I think the legislation was really about trying to ensure that the person who was operating, the owner of the premises, was responsible under the legislation. We tried a number of times to clarify that and to make sure that the legislation—you’ve got an A&W or you’ve got a Dairy Queen. We have many of those franchises.

If the local operator is doing something that’s not standard, how do you go back and charge the person that owns the name? That’s what we’re talking about. We think that it really should fall down to the operator, and we thought it just made sense.

When I talk now, moving over to the tobacco side—I come from a family of smokers. My mother and father both smoked, and, I’d say, more than half of my brothers and sisters. We had a fairly large family. So I saw the effects of cigarettes.

I also saw how hard it was—I don’t think there was anybody who didn’t try to quit smoking. I look back now—after many years, I’ve had a number of brothers and sisters who have quit—and I remember my dad often trying to quit smoking. At the time, it was probably more of a money issue back in the 1960s, when we were growing up. There wasn’t a lot of money in the farm, and cigarettes were something that I think he looked at and knew that it just wasn’t worth the money. He would constantly try to quit, but it was just something he couldn’t do.

I think you have to somewhat appreciate a generation of people who grew up when there was nothing really wrong with cigarettes. They were promoted; they were a great tax revenue for the government. Really, it only came up in the 1970s and the 1980s, when people started to realize there were other issues. So I feel sometimes that we’re beating these people up.

I go by the local hospital, and I see we’re outlawing these cigarettes on provincial properties. I think, again, you have to look at what you’re doing. You see patients now, sitting on the sidewalk, smoking. These are people, I’m sure, who would love to quit smoking. There’s generally a grass area that’s a few hundred feet. What are we accomplishing? What are we trying to do here? Can we not force them outside the building, and allow them to smoke with some privacy, away from people? I guess they’re a group that can be beat up, and I think that’s just why we’re doing it.

On the alternative side, we go by schools and we allow our children, who are under 19, to actually smoke in public. We give them the place; we give them a nice little area where nobody can bother them. Teachers and principals can’t watch who is there. I’ve talked to principals who say they know very well that that’s the centre where students are buying contraband and where they’re buying other drugs, and there’s an unintended consequence that could easily be changed. If we’re really trying so hard to stop smoking, let’s just make it illegal for children under 19 to smoke.

We do it with alcohol, and we’re quite successful. All we’ve done now is we’ve given the cool place to be, and in a lot of cases, we’ve actually increased smoking at that level, because we’ve given them a place to go.

Further with this idea of the nanny state, you can’t smoke in parks now. So you get parents—I don’t smoke, myself, but I know people who smoke, and they would love to quit. So here is an opportunity for them to take their children out to a park, but now they can’t smoke in the park. I guess you can close your eyes, but all that really means is there will be less opportunities for the children to get out. It was something that served people; you got fresh air for the children. The idea is novel, but you’ve got to look at—we’ve got a nanny state here that’s really watching over everybody’s shoulder. Just what are you trying to do?

On the other hand, you’ve got the contraband problem that really is a more serious issue. In our area, they’ve done some testing: The vast majority of cigarettes that our young people are smoking are contraband, yet there’s nothing being done here. If you really wanted to take some action, go after these illegal cigarettes. Get rid of the location where you’re allowing the contraband dealers to come in and sell their wares. Take some action.

We’re looking at more than a billion dollars of lost revenue a year, due to contraband. We’ve got legislation here that, in many ways, will only increase the amount of contraband that’s being sold in this province.

Menthol is a good example. A majority of people in this province smoke menthol cigarettes. Studies have shown that if we just eliminate that—and they’re not doing it on day one; they’re going to allow that to be done through regulation, so we really don’t know what that means, because we don’t see regulation. It just happens under the government. They’ve said that they’ll seek the menthol from contraband sources. Stats show that there are more varieties of menthol in contraband than there are in the regular types of cigarettes that you can buy legally. So there’s an example where the market bears out what people know: The ban on menthol will only lead to problems.

Some $1.1 billion is lost to contraband. You wonder what that would do. It would hire 18,000 nurses in a year. It would pay for almost 24,000 long-term-care beds or provide home care to almost 72,000 patients.

This is a time when we could use this money. We have people in my riding of Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry who can’t find long-term-care beds. We’re sending them outside the region, yet this government tries to tell people—for those who will believe them—that we have more beds than we need. And yet, every day we’re trying to help people out, sending them more than an hour away from their home to find a place where they could actually be given long-term-bed service.

We’d like to allow the menthol a little bit of time, and just really wonder about the benefits of that when so many people smoke. Again, these people are smoking legally. We know that all we’re going to do is drive them to an area where we don’t want them to go.

I think it’s time that we start working and looking at the unintended consequences. We’ve seen time and time again a government that puts through regulation, walks away and doesn’t look in the rear-view mirror to see just what they’ve done. Smoking numbers have gone to lower levels, but now they’ve started to bounce back up, and they’re bouncing back up with our youth, so what we’re doing is not working. We can make it tougher to buy them legally, but they’re not buying them legally in the first place. Why we think that’s going to make a difference, I’m not sure, because these are an illegal product to be sold to children under 19.

When you look at the stats—they can easily pick up the butts; they know whether they’re legal cigarettes or contraband—in my area it’s something over 70% of the cigarettes are actually contraband. You can do all you want, but if you’re not attacking the source, you’re not really going to have any issues.

E-cigarettes are also something that concern us. This is a product that, for people who are trying to reduce their smoking, has been proven successful. Studies or science so far show that there are no negative effects from e-cigarettes. I think all we’re doing is taking away a tool from the people who are really trying to stop; it’s a nasty habit. I think it’s time we really work with them and give them the options.

I have a letter from a consumer: “As a consumer of menthol cigarettes, I’m urging you to reverse the government’s decision to ban menthol in Ontario. We’ve been purchasing these products for many years and don’t understand the reason to ban them now. I don’t expect the ban to change my smoking habits, and I’m sure people will simply find these products elsewhere. I agree that young people should not be smoking, but banning menthol will not help achieve this goal.” This is a menthol issue.

“Hello, sir. I’ve recently established a retail outlet selling PV products in Cornwall. I would like to address the proposed Bill 45 regarding e-cigarettes and the effects on the industry, human health and our facility. Our studies and many others worldwide show that electronic cigarettes are the most effective stop-smoking aid available. Treating e-cigarettes as tobacco is dangerous to the industry and people’s health and freedoms, and just plain scientifically inaccurate. I would like to request a short discussion.”

These are people who have come forth and talked about e-cigarettes. I have another one here questioning the logic of this government; I know sometimes it’s hard to figure out the logic. But I think we have a great tool here with e-cigarettes.

I think the words of the minister were that we know there’s no science to suggest they are dangerous, but we’re going to ban them and then we’ll review in the future. That’s the first time I’ve heard that logic used, but I think it’s very telling of this government that doesn’t like to use the science. It has hurt us in many areas, including the energy sector. I think it’s time to review the science and look at what’s really good for the province.

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: It’s my pleasure to contribute to the debate today on Bill 45, the Making Healthier Choices Act.

I just want to mention a few facts. The average Canadian visited restaurants 184 times in 2007. On average, Canadians prepare and eat at home only two of every three meals. Many restaurant foods contain high levels of calories and sodium. There’s also a wide variation among similar dishes at different restaurants.

The other piece here is another interesting fact: 35% of the sugar that Canadians consume comes from added sugars, such as soft drinks and candy, as opposed to naturally occurring sugars in fruits, vegetables and milk. For kids, almost half of their daily sugar intake, which is 44%, is now coming from beverages, and soft drinks are the primary source of sugar in beverages for children aged nine to 18.

The other important thing to know is that income inequality is growing in Ontario, making it harder for families to afford healthy food. Eating healthy food is expensive for Ontario families and not always available. It is often more convenient and more affordable for families to eat fast food or high-calorie processed food, which is readily available in any corner store and in vending machines.

Speaker, the facts speak for themselves. People are accessing takeout foods, eating prepackaged foods, going to restaurants much more frequently. There is a need for this bill, and I think it’s important that we recognize that. I’m glad to see that it is coming to the Legislature for third reading. It’s a shame that our critic France Gélinas’s 17 amendments—16 of those were voted down. I know France is very passionate about this bill, and she made some really good suggestions.

Despite that, I’m glad to see it’s here and going to be passed.

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

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: As a former educator, I think this bill is very important for young people. Evidence shows that children are more obese than they ever were and that their lifespan is not going to be as long as this generation’s, and that is because of their eating habits mainly and their sedentary activity.

We know that healthy kids grow up to be healthy adults, and a healthy start is better for our kids. It’s better for our health care system as well. That’s why Bill 45 would make it easier for families to make healthy and informed choices by making Ontario the first province to require chain restaurants to post calories. More and more, people with their busy lifestyles tend to turn to going to restaurants or takeout food for their evening meals, and quite often lunch as well.

We are proposing that only calories be posted on the menus as this more closely aligns with a commitment under the Healthy Kids Strategy to reduce obesity in children, since calorie consumption is a major determinant of weight.

No other jurisdiction has ever required that sodium be displayed on menus. While other jurisdictions provide strong evidence that calorie postings alter consumers’ behaviour, there is no such evidence for posting sodium. Providing too much information on the menu can be counterproductive, as research has shown, and it can be confusing to the consumer.

I believe that Bill 45 is the right way for us to go and will keep our future generations healthier.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I, too, am pleased to add my voice to Bill 45.

Look, I think it’s a bill that heads in the right direction, but I really look forward to the opportunity to be able to discuss some of those things that our member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry spoke about, including menthol cigarettes and contraband tobacco—especially the contraband tobacco side of what will and, sadly, will likely continue to happen.

To me, this is all about choices. It’s all about choices in your life. I grew up in an Italian community. We’d get home from school, go to my grandmother’s house at 4:30 every day until my folks came home, and we had something called “friselle.” I’m sorry, Hansard; I won’t know how to spell “friselle.” It’s week-old bread that’s hard as a rock, that you run under water and cover with oil, oregano, tons of salt and pepper. That’s what we were given as snacks every night until we had dinner. That’s how we grew up. Of course, it’s how I got to 220 pounds as a young kid.

Before I ran for mayor of the city of North Bay, I was indeed 220 pounds. I began to visit my naturopath, and I want you to know that today, at 167 pounds, I feel healthy. Most here have never seen me at anything but 167 pounds.

It’s all about the choices that we make. Nobody regulated me into doing it. I knew intuitively, I knew instinctively that going to a hamburger place and having a big hamburger was not a good thing for me. I knew that doing it twice a day was a really bad thing, or doing it even twice a week was a bad thing. I didn’t need to be regulated, Speaker. I just needed to have that rude awakening that your own health is so important, and to live in moderation.

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

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It’s my pleasure to stand up once again to speak to Bill 45, the Making Healthier Choices Act. I’ve been in the House a couple of times during debate through the different readings.

To the member from Nipissing’s point about having a choice and not being regulated: The important thing is that when you’re making choices, you’re making informed choices. One of the amendments that the New Democrats would like to see to the bill was to add sodium labelling, so that when somebody walks into a restaurant they can actually make an informed choice about what they’re eating.

I found it interesting that during debate it was the member from Scarborough Southwest—so, from the government side—and then again I believe it was the member from Mississauga–Streetsville, from the government side, who both stood up during debate and acknowledged the importance of sodium labelling. I believe it was the member from Mississauga–Streetsville who said, “Well, just not now. It’s important, but just not now.”

Mr. Bob Delaney: Right now. Right now.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It is important right now. Yet, when it came up from the New Democrats—and many people who came to present to the committee said, “It’s important, it should be now”—the government side said, “No, it’s not important. We’re not going to accept the amendment.” Once again, they say they’re open to listening, yet many people came forward and said it’s important to include sodium labelling, and that was shot down. It’s not included.

The member from Barrie spoke about being a former educator and how important it is to educate people. I think that a good step forward is regulating the e-cigarettes so that we’re not seeing kids getting into using them and then moving on to tobacco products, but also making sure things are properly labelled so people are educated and they can make informed choices. Often people go into a restaurant and they think they’re making a healthy choice, only to find out that something was actually full of sugar or full of sodium. I think the sodium labelling is incredibly important.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry has two minutes.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I thank the members from London–Fanshawe, Barrie, Nipissing and Windsor West.

The member from London–Fanshawe was talking about sugar versus natural sugar. I remember when I was helping out at Tim Hortons for a fundraiser, people came in and asked for triple-triple coffee. There’s about three-quarters cream and sugar in a triple-triple. I was somewhat surprised. Many of the truck drivers—anyway, it’s just surprising when you look at the amount of cream; I think it’s 19% cream, so it’s strong stuff.

The member from Barrie talked about using the science. I would encourage the government to use the science, because it’s too often that we find they haven’t, and the consequences are severe, like the Green Energy Act.

We talk about too much information. I just think of some of these fast-food places, what they’ve required as far as calories for the different flavours. You can imagine. I gave the Dairy Queen example. All these companies have many different flavours, and they have to list every one with the number of calories, according to this legislation. They refuse to amend that. I think there’s an example of—just what’s realistic? I don’t think that is realistic. It will make the billboard so complicated that either they’ll have to cut back on what they offer or people won’t understand it. I think it’s as simple as that.

The member from Nipissing was talking about the new, slim Vic. It’s like “Flick Your Bic” used to be the ad. He talked about giving the tools that people need to lose weight. I think this bill—that’s why we’re supporting it—in general does some of that.

The member from Windsor West, I think she’s like me: She’s somewhat surprised how little they are open to amendments. I think there was an opportunity to improve the bill, but it passed by.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1010 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Before we do introduction of guests, I would like to acknowledge that there are quite a few guests today and that we use discretion on how much we use the introduction in making announcements. So please keep it short, and we’ll get everybody in.

Mr. Bill Walker: I’d like to introduce Julia Stark, Ken Loucks and Deborah Barker from the local Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound Alzheimer Society, and Rosemary Corbett from the Ontario Alzheimer Society.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I’d like to welcome Marija Padjen, Julie Foley and Rebekah Churchyard from the Alzheimer Society of Toronto, and also, from my riding, Joanne Oxley; Pam and Stephen Oxley; Eli Park; and John Park, who just became a Canadian citizen.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: I’d like to introduce, from the Alzheimer Society, Ed Harper, Chantal Ogrodnick, Maureen O’Connell and Debbie Islam, all from the riding of Barrie. Mr. Harper is a former MP. I’d like to welcome them here today.

Mr. Steve Clark: I had a great meeting with Advocis this morning. I’d like to introduce Sean Lawrence, Jacques Duplain, David McGruer, Brandon Durant, Jack McAuley, Angela Houle, Rob Stewart and Roger Rhodes. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I would like to welcome today the aunt of our page captain, Mira Gillis. Her name is Ada Mio, and she’s in the public gallery this morning.

Hon. Jeff Leal: In the members’ west gallery today, we have seven members of Advocis from the great riding of Peterborough: Linda Gratton, Mimi Rogers, Judy Ruttle, Shawn Flannigan, David Jolley, Alex Fischer and Doug Boden. Of course, they’re having their meetings and reception later this afternoon here at Queen’s Park.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise and welcome Shelley Green and the Alzheimer Society of Oxford to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: From the Alzheimer Society of Ontario, board member—and also a resident of Burlington—Ted Wheatley. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I’d like to welcome representatives from the Alzheimer Society. From my riding here today are Jennifer Gillies, Caitlin Agla, Robin Smart, and Gerard and Monique Laderoute. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I would like to introduce four representatives from the Alzheimer Society of Durham Region who are also constituents of mine: Michelle Pepin, Denyse Newton, Bill Lewis and Mike Browne. They’re here today for Alzheimer’s day. Welcome.

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I’d like to introduce the Ontario Alzheimer Society. We have a number of members in the House, as we’ve heard. I’d also like to invite all members to join me at their reception after question period in room 230.

Mr. Michael Harris: I’d like to welcome a good friend of mine from Kitchener, Dennis Yanke, who’s here with Advocis today. From the Alzheimer Society in KW, Jennifer Gillies, Caitlin Agla, Robin Smart, and Gerard and Monique Laderoute.

Mr. Paul Miller: I also have guests to introduce from the Alzheimer Society in Hamilton: Connie Bier, Donna McGillivray, Phyllis Fehr and Mary Burnett.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I’d like to welcome, from the Alzheimer Society in the wonderful riding of Kingston and the Islands, Vicki Poffley and Janice White.

I’d also like to welcome Will Britton, the president of the Kingston

chapter of Advocis, The Financial Advisors Association of Canada; and Ed Bettencourt, Kingston chapter’s advocacy chair.

Mrs. Julia Munro: I would like all members to help me welcome some very special guests today. Len and Suzy Rodness, co-chairs of Magna Carta Canada, have joined us today with students from Waterdown District High School and also from Toronto Prep School.

With them are their teachers Nick Bridges, Carl Draksler, Nathan Tidridge, Paul Sischy, Matt Mooney and Steve Tsimikalis.

These students have come today at the request of the Speaker, being able to appreciate the value of the Magna Carta.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I hope everyone will join me in welcoming Darren Sweeney and Kevin Bewick. Like many others, Darren and Kevin are here today for the Advocis day at the Legislature. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to welcome our friends from Advocis: David McGruer, David Juvet, Roger Thorpe, Dennis Yanke, Roger McMillan, Greg Pollock, Linda Gratton, Al Jones, Aaron Keogh, David Coad and Mimi Rogers. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Todd Smith: I’d like to welcome, from Bay of Quinte Advocis, Shannon Neely.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: The folks from the Alzheimer Society from the Windsor area today will be Sally Bennett Olczak, Marjorie Brown and Tom Noble; and from Advocis, Aaron Keogh and Michellyne Mancini.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I too want to welcome all of the members of Advocis. But I also want to welcome—I’m not sure they’re here yet, but I’d like to introduce Varda Feiner and her grandson Isaac Feiner, who I met at the Israeli Independence Day reception. I invited them to join us. I know you will welcome them when they come in.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I want to welcome Mr. Loren Freid. He is president of the York region Alzheimer Society, one of the 18 societies from all around Ontario that are here today. Welcome.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I’d like to welcome Lorraine LeBlanc and Janet Gasparini from the Alzheimer Society in Sudbury. They’re here today for advocacy.

Mr. John Fraser: I’d like to welcome Kathy Wright, the executive director of the Alzheimer Society of Ottawa, with us today.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’d like to introduce two amazing ladies from the Huron Alzheimer Society: Cathy Ritsema and Linda Finkbeiner. I’d also like to welcome Al Jones from Advocis.

Hon. Dipika Damerla: I’d like to welcome two good friends from Advocis: Nithy Ananth, and Percy up there. I also want to welcome all of the members of the Ontario Lung Association who are here today to support Bill 45.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I’d like to welcome the hundreds of people who are arriving here at Queen’s Park today as part of the Enough is Enough hydro protest over escalating hydro rates.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Next week is the day against transphobia. I’m very happy to introduce my friends from the trans lobby: Susan Gapka, Davina Hader, Andrew Fraser, Shadmith Manzo and Crystal Manzo. I hope the House will give them a warm welcome.

Mr. Jack MacLaren: It is my great pleasure to acknowledge and introduce page captain Samantha Lin, from my riding. She is accompanied today by her father, Bo Lin, who is sitting in the public bleachers. Welcome.

Hon. James J. Bradley: From the Alzheimer Society in Niagara: Nancy Rushford, Bea Kraayenhof, Maisie Jackson and David Jackson.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to introduce, from the Alzheimer Society of Perth County, executive director Debbie Deichert and Alzheimer champion Deb Scholl.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I have two introductions. I’d like to welcome, from the great riding of York South–Weston, Zakiya Tafari, who is the executive director of Young and Potential Fathers; and his lovely daughter, Nyashia Tafari. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Also, welcome to Drinks Ontario. We have Heather MacGregor, the executive director; Chris Churchill, president; Andrew von Teichman, vice-president; John Swan, director; and Alex Patinios, chair of the government relations committee. I’d like to welcome them all to Queen’s Park. Thank you very much.

Mr. Norm Miller: I’m pleased to welcome, from the Alzheimer Society of Muskoka and Parry Sound, Karen Quemby and Shelley Raymond, and also Vic Prendergast, who I think is from Brantford.

Also, I’d like to welcome, from Advocis, Bruce Boivin, who is from Huntsville, and Jeff Schreiter and Al Jones, who I met with this morning.

Hon. David Orazietti: I’d like to introduce Eric Barton, who is from my riding of Sault Ste. Marie, from Estate Guard Life, who is here on behalf of Advocis.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Please join me in welcoming Elaine Griffin and Diane Cowen from the Alzheimer Society of Dufferin County.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I’m pleased to introduce to the House two of my constituents: Katherine and Michael Duncan. They are here with us today as we host Alzheimer’s day at Queen’s Park. Bienvenue.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I’m excited to welcome Broadlands Public School here to the Legislature today.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, please welcome Zeeshan Adhi who is visiting Queen’s Park for the very first time.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: On behalf of the member from Nickel Belt, I’d like to welcome Lorraine LeBlanc and Janet Gasparini from the Alzheimer Society in Sudbury.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I’d like to welcome a grade 10 class from Campbellford high school, accompanied by teachers Ms. DeGagne, Ms. Campbell and Mr. Milligan, a former MPP from the 40th Parliament.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’d like to introduce a constituent of mine from St. Paul’s: Rosemary Corbett, who is the president of the Alzheimer Society of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further introductions? The member from Prince Edward–Hastings is going to step on my announcement—

Mr. Todd Smith: No, I won’t do that. But I just wanted to warn the members of cabinet that if they hear, “Do the honourable thing, Minister,” coming from behind them—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): This is great. I better get order before question period.

To maintain my tradition: The member from Northumberland–Quinte West in the 40th Parliament, Mr. Rob Milligan, is in the gallery.

We also have with us today, representatives of the Brant Alzheimer association: Mary Burnett, Phyllis Fehr, George Montani, Karyn Montani, Jeanette Tootell and, a friend, Vic Prendergast. Welcome.

If you look up, you will see bodies there—with us today in the Speaker’s gallery are four interns from Quebec, as part of the Jean-Charles-Bonenfant foundation internship program, to learn about the way we do things here. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Oral Questions

Hydro rates

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Minister, escalating hydro rates are having a devastating effect on people here in Ontario. People from my riding of Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke and all across Ontario are struggling because of the mess you’ve made of the energy system. Skyrocketing rates are having a devastating effect on real people. They’re having to make hard choices. They’re having to choose whether to heat or eat. This is because under your disastrous Green Energy Act, you continue to sign contracts for expensive, intermittent, unreliable power. This is forcing hundreds of thousands of families into untenable circumstances.

Minister, how many more hundreds of thousands will be energy poor if you continue down your disastrous path?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I welcome the question. Certainly, hydro rates are a very topical issue. We understand that the investments we made to take a dirty and unreliable system and make it clean and reliable are putting pressures on Ontario families, particularly electric heat in rural areas.

But to help families with their energy bills, we announced further price mitigation measures in our budget—which neither of the opposition parties supported, incidentally—removing the debt retirement charge by the end of this year, two years earlier than planned, saving the average family $70 per year on their hydro bills, and the Ontario Energy Board is implementing the Ontario Electricity Support Program for low- and modest-income families that will save them an average of $360 per year off their bills or $430 when combined with the removal of the DRC.

Mr. Speaker, we have a number of other programs, which I’ll talk to in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Back to the minister: People have had enough with your government’s unaffordable hydro rates. They have come here today from all across Ontario to express their frustration and to let you know that they are fed up. They are here today to tell you that they cannot afford energy at 16.1 cents a kilowatt hour, or what you have dismissively called a cup of coffee.

You are forcing them to choose between heating their homes or putting food on the table. These victims of your reckless energy policies desperately need you to finally show some understanding and compassion.

Minister, will you go out after question period today and face the people you have caused so much harm to, or will you just continue to ignore them?

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

I’m now going to implement what I have done last week and this week. The person who starts to talk while I’m standing is going to be named.

Carry on.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I have indicated to my staff that, if they can make arrangements with representatives of the group that will be here today, I would be happy to meet with them in one of the rooms here at Queen’s Park or in my office across the way.

We have had tremendous pressure because we’ve put big investments into the system.

I have a quote here from the member for Simcoe–Grey, former energy minister Jim Wilson. This is the quote that says, “This summer when we didn’t have enough electricity in this province,” when that government was in power, “and all the air conditioners were running, we had to buy power.... I had to pay $7 million one day to keep the air conditioners on in our hospitals.” That’s what the acting leader said when he was Minister of Energy.

Since that time, we’ve invested $34 billion in the system. Not only that, what we did is provide significant mitigation measures to counter those significant investments—

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

Final supplementary. The member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Your government continues to claim that Ontario’s electricity rates are amongst the most competitive in North America. The fact is that’s not accurate. I’ve sent a provincial comparison of hydro rates to every member of this Legislature that reveals the true cost of the mess that you’ve made. Ontario’s not even remotely competitive. Our all-in hydro cost is more expensive than any other province in Canada. We pay double what Manitoba pays; we pay triple what Quebec pays.

Minister, enough is enough. Will you stop making up your own facts and finally be honest with the people of Ontario and admit that your failed hydro policy has led to the most expensive hydro in the land?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I’m going to mention a number of programs which we never hear the members opposite mention. The Ontario Clean Energy Benefit is still in place, which represents a 10% discount off the average consumer’s bill. We have the Ontario Energy and Property Tax Credit, which can give a senior up to $1,131 per year off their electricity rate. We have the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program in place today, the saveONenergy Home Assistance Program and, for the northerners, the Northern Ontario Energy Credit.

They will send out messages to their constituents with all the rhetoric about high prices. You will never once see them in any of their householders list all the benefits—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Lanark.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: —and all the mitigation measures that they can obtain in the system. They don’t talk about the good side; they only talk about the bad side.

Hydro rates

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Premier. Time and time again we have asked you to take action to fix skyrocketing hydro rates in this province and you’ve done nothing. Now, with your removal of the clean energy benefit and the latest 15% increase in time-of-use pricing, Ontarians will have to pay an extra $205 for hydro next year.

People are fed up with your rate increases and they’ve come here to tell you face to face. Premier, will you join with me and my colleagues after question period on the front lawn and explain to the hundreds of people gathered there—concerned ratepayers—why their hydro rates continue to skyrocket?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Minister of Energy will want to speak to the supplementary, but as the Minister of Energy has said, he is going to be meeting with some of the folks from the group who are outside because it’s very important that the people who are concerned about this issue get the whole story; that they get the whole story about the mitigations that have been put in place by our government.

The reality is that we had to make the investments in the energy system that we have made in order for it to be reliable.

When I ran for office in 2002-03—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Oh, I wish I could find the one who said that.

Carry on, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: When I ran for office in 2002-03, door after door, people were worried about the reliability of the system; they were worried about whether the lights were going to go on because of the brownouts and blackouts that were happening across the province. We’ve dealt with that. We have a reliable system, and we need that in order for our residents and our businesses to be able to thrive.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from Nepean–Carleton.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Back to the Premier: Nepean–Carleton residents are also paying sky-high hydro bills like elsewhere in the province. They’ve been subjected to not just infrastructure improvements but to a disastrous wind energy scam, the smart meter debacle, cancelled gas plants and a growing, inefficient Hydro bureaucracy.

They’re paying more for their hydro bill today because this government is making a mess out of the hydro system. All of this while some of my residents in Nepean–Carleton are serviced by Hydro One, while others are serviced by the less expensive and better-managed Hydro Ottawa. Both the chair of Hydro Ottawa and the mayor of Ottawa have reached out to the province for a more equitable arrangement for hydro users in rural and suburban Ottawa.

Will the Premier commit today to a better electricity arrangement for the rural residents and suburban residents of Ottawa so that they can be serviced by Hydro Ottawa?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I’m not going to wade into the details of that discussion. As the member opposite knows, there will be a new board in place at Hydro One, and it will be up to that company, which will be an improved and more efficient company, to deal with those issues.

I want to go to a comment that the member made at the beginning of her question. She talked about her constituents being subjected to infrastructure improvements. That is a very, very telling phrase. What it says is that that party and the people across the floor don’t believe in improving infrastructure; don’t believe in making updates to the electricity system—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It’s coming from both sides, but the member from Nepean–Carleton asked the question. Come to order.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I’d like an answer.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It sounds to me like the member is challenging the chair. Would you like to do that?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: No. I was just challenging the Premier.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You are now challenging me.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member opposite fundamentally believes that making the kinds of upgrades that were needed in the electricity system, investing in the infrastructure that is needed in this province, is not the way to go and, in fact, it subjects Ontarians to some kind of hardship. We categorically reject that argument.

Interjections.

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

The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, final supplementary.

Mr. Bill Walker: To the Minister of Energy: As you’re aware, long-term-care operators across Ontario are facing major increases in their hydro bills. Nursing homes do not have sufficient ongoing funding to keep up with your skyrocketing electricity rates. As a result, service levels will decline and the 100,000 vulnerable seniors housed there will suffer.

Minister, will you stand in your place today and give assurance that you will fix your hydro mess and stop forcing seniors’ homes to use care funding to offset the effect of your skyrocketing electricity rates?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I indicated earlier today a quote from the member from Simcoe–Grey about the mess the system was in. We’ve invested $34 billion into the system. It was a dirty system; it’s now a clean system. It’s a healthy system from those investments.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Stormont.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The system was not reliable. There were blackouts and brownouts across the province of Ontario under that administration. We have a system that is clean; we have a system that is reliable as a result of those investments. Yes, it has put pressure on prices.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Second time for the member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry.

Carry on.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I’ve listed the mitigation measures we’ve put in place and we’re continuing to put in place with the new low-income support program and taking the debt retirement charge off.

That government made the mess. They have no positive recommendations whatsoever other than to stand there and yell and scream. That’s disgraceful.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Everyone knows that this government has never met a panel or a study that it didn’t like. In 2013, the Liberal government had over 30 panels and studies. Since January of this year, the government has had 18 more that have been initiated, including one about where to sell Bud Light in the province of Ontario.

Now, it appears that last week the Liberals finally changed their ways and they decided to ram the Hydro One sell-off through the Legislature without any real public scrutiny or debate at all. Yesterday they rang bells so that the House couldn’t debate the fact that the Premier was shutting down democracy in this chamber.

Can the Premier explain why it is that she’s spending months upon months on public consultations on new systems for how to pay traffic tickets, but shutting down debate on Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I appreciate the question. I think the member opposite knows quite well the amount of debate that has taken place on our budget bill, Building Ontario Up, and not to mention the amount—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: You rang bells on your own debate. What are you talking about?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Timmins–James Bay will come to order.

Carry on.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you, Speaker. That’s not to mention the amount of public hearings that had taken place before the tabling of the budget.

As has been mentioned before, the Minister of Finance had about six pre-budget consultations held across Ontario. It was in cities and towns like Windsor, London, Toronto, Mississauga, Cambridge and Ottawa. And the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs visited towns like Fort Frances, Sudbury, Ottawa, Cornwall, Fort Erie, Toronto and London to speak to Ontarians and make sure that budget—

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: In not one of those public consultations did this government or did any of those MPPs admit to the people that they were going to be selling off Hydro One. That is the fact. Every single person and every single business in this province will pay for the privatizing of Hydro One. Bills have already quadrupled since privatization began in this province, and there’s only going to be a faster increase in rates if Liberals go ahead with the privatization of Hydro One.

But Ontarians won’t get their say at hearings, nor will their elected representatives be able to get any opportunity, because in less than an hour—in less than an hour from right now—the Liberals are going to pass a closure motion and shut down democratic process in this Legislature.

My question is, why is this Premier so disrespectful of this Legislature, and why has she no intention to listen to the people of Ontario?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: This government—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Carry on.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: This government and this Premier are always listening to the people, and in consultation after consultation after consultation from the people of Ontario, they are telling us that they want their government to invest in infrastructure. They are telling us that they want their government to invest in public transit and transportation infrastructure across the province. They’re telling us that we need to invest in critically important infrastructure like roads and bridges.

What the opposition is doing is they are denying that reality by not wanting to invest in infrastructure and, in fact, delaying those very critical investments that are such a key part of our budget, Building Ontario Up.

That is what the Premier is doing: She’s making an unprecedented investment, $130 billion over 10 years, in infrastructure so that we continue to build Ontario up and prepare our province for success in the 21st century.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier has spent months and months consulting and studying how people pay parking tickets in the province of Ontario. She’s spending months trying to figure out where to sell a 12-pack of Bud Light, but when there is an issue that affects every single Ontarian—skyrocketing hydro bills—the Premier shuts down democratic debate and refuses to hear from people.

It’s clear that this Premier will do anything and everything to avoid transparency and to avoid accountability. She is shutting down debate in the Legislature. She’s ringing bells. She’s ramming through her Hydro sell-off right through this House. Why is the Premier refusing to hear from Ontarians who can’t afford her Hydro sell-off?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, with all due respect, we disagree with the leader of the third party, because we are having very robust debate on this budget bill right in this House. Not to mention, we have proposed to have six days of hearings in the committee, way more hearings than any other opposition parties, when they were government, ever conducted in the committee.

Let me remind the member opposite: When her party was in office, how much time did they give their budget documents to be debated and considered in the committee? In 1991, the NDP—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Right on the edge.

Finish, please.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: In 1991, the NDP allowed for only one day of committee consideration on the budget bill; in 1992, only one day of budget consideration in the committee; in 1993 and 1994, zero days.

Mr. Paul Miller: Not on Hydro.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, come to order.

New question.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. The Premier is cutting half a billion dollars out of education. On top of that, schools are going to have to pay the price for the selling off of Hydro. The Liberal Minister of Education was right when she—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Please finish.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Liberal Minister of Education was right when she said, “The privatization of Hydro One will further exacerbate already underfunded school board budgets.”

My question is this: What is the Premier going to do? What is she going to cut out of our kids’ education next so that school boards can afford to keep the lights on and the schools warm during the winter?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m not sure whether to start with a lesson on fractions where 248—anyway.

Could we talk about this whole issue, though, of—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Liz Sandals: If you look back at the time, you would find that everybody, including the government of the day’s own consultant, agreed that school boards were underfunded by $1 billion. Since I made that statement, we have added $8 billion.

Now, another thing you might like to know, Speaker, was that in the original funding formula, the transfer to school boards to pay the utilities had actually been frozen.

We have changed that. We now increase the funding every year so that boards can pay for the utilities and that’s no—

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Hospital budgets in Ontario have had eight years of funding that hasn’t even kept up with inflation, and for four years those budgets have been frozen—four years in a row.

Hospitals are also going to have to grapple with paying the price for the privatization of Hydro One. When hydro bills skyrocket, hospitals are going to have to find that money somewhere. What’s the Premier going to cut out of hospitals next so that they can keep their lights on and maintain the medical equipment that people rely on to keep their lives safe and well?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Speaker, under this government, the school board funding has gone up 56%. The funding per pupil has gone up 59%. Just as a matter of information, teachers’ wages have gone up 24.5%. The cost of living has gone up 21%. I think she better check her math.

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

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: All Ontarians need to do is look at the chaos in the school system: Nothing to crow about, Minister.

Hydro bills will skyrocket if the Premier privatizes Hydro One. It means families and businesses are going to be paying more, but it also means that school boards are going to be paying more. It means that hospitals are going to be paying more. It is going to hurt service agencies. It is going to hurt not-for-profits. If they pay a hydro bill, they’re going to pay more. Groups that help the most vulnerable and that have to be careful with every dime will be paying the price for this Liberal Premier’s sell-off of Hydro One.

Will she stop that sell-off today and do right by the people of Ontario?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Let’s look at the context in which I was concerned about the privatization, the sell-off of Hydro One. In that context, the Tories were going to sell off 100% in a fire sale, all at the same time. That’s not what we’re doing.

What we’re doing is retaining 40% ownership. We’re not selling it all at once in a fire sale; we’re doing it in a measured way, no more than 15% at a time, so that we can maximize—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): One wrap-up sentence, please.

Hon. Liz Sandals: In fact, the context is totally different, and I stand by our school board funding compared to either of the other parties opposite.

Wearing of buttons

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

The opportunity was missed earlier. I beg your indulgence for a request for unanimous consent for the wearing of buttons. I will ask for that request now to ensure that we all fall within the guidelines of the House.

The member from Halton.

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Thank you, Speaker. I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent for members to wear buttons in recognition of the Ontario Alzheimer Society.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Halton is seeking unanimous consent to wear the buttons for Alzheimer’s. Do we agree? Agreed.

Buttons are made available to all caucuses on each side of the House.

We will now resume question period.

New question.

Teachers’ labour disputes

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: My question is to the Premier. We all know that the three striking school boards have filed a motion with the labour relations board, and we really believe that’s a waste of time.

The bottom line is that the Liberal government is responsible for the issues that will get the students back in the classroom. The two-tiered Bill 122 is the real problem. The buck stops with Minister Sandals, and it is the Wynne Liberals who are failing Ontario students.

Premier, will you finally take responsibility and get—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Sorry for the interruption. The discussions that are going on between other members are not acceptable. It stops. The member has to put his question properly.

Carry on.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Premier, will you finally take responsibility, quit dithering and get the students back in the classroom?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member opposite knows that there is a collective bargaining process that is under way. It’s a challenging round of negotiations; there is no doubt about that. We have said that there is no new money for compensation. There are issues that the members need to work out, both at the local level and at the central table. The fact is that we need to let that process unfold because where the deal is going to be found is at the table.

I know the member opposite doesn’t support the collective bargaining process. That was evident when they were in office. We believe that it is an important part of labour relations, so we support that collective bargaining process. The answers need to be found at the table.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Back to the Premier: Premier, there were no negotiations yesterday. There are no bargaining talks. Some 22,000 students right now have been out of the classroom for their 16th day.

You were supposed to light a fire under the negotiations. We haven’t even seen a spark yet. Do you need to borrow some kindling? Maybe we could use that stupid budget you presented.

All we see are helpless school boards taking the heat for your mismanagement. The Liberal government must step up, take responsibility, quit dithering and get the students back in the classroom.

Premier, when will you get the 72,000 students in Ontario back in the classroom? Make it happen today.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I will just say to the member opposite that it is not helpful for the collective bargaining process to be held in public. It has to be a process that happens at the table. It has to be a confidential process.

What I will say to the member opposite is that the OSSTF support staff are actually negotiating today. They are at the table. The conversations that are happening are happening in a confidential manner. The agreements have to be found at the table.

Look, I want the kids back in school. I want the teachers and the support staff in school. That’s where they all want to be, and that is where we want them to be. We are doing everything in our power to make sure that we find those agreements at the table. It is a difficult process, and I acknowledge that. But we take responsibility for our role in making that happen, getting those agreements at the table.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier. The Premier insists that selling Hydro One is essential, even though it pays for less than 3% of her infrastructure promises. But the truth is, it might pay for a lot less than 3%.

Dr. Douglas Peters, chief economist with TD Bank for 26 years and a former federal secretary of state, and his colleague Dr. David Peters say the council “believes that Hydro One could have a value in the marketplace of $13.5 billion to $15 billion. We think the council is too optimistic, and that $10.6 billion is a more likely valuation.”

Premier, isn’t it true that the net $4 billion you say will come from your fire sale could, in fact, be a lot lower?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Minister of Energy is going to want to speak to the supplementary, but let me just say this: The whole reason we are embarking on this process, the whole reason we ran on reviewing our assets and using them to leverage the building of new assets for this century and for our kids and our grandkids, is that that infrastructure needs to be built.

What we hear from the third party is basically, “Do nothing. Don’t do it. Don’t make those investments. Don’t build those roads and bridges and transit. Just sit back and pretend that somehow our economy is going to grow and that our communities are going to thrive if we don’t make those investments.” That is not the case, Mr. Speaker. They will not thrive unless we make those investments. That’s what government exists to do: put the conditions in place for economic growth and prosperity. That’s why we’re making those investments—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: The Premier says she’ll get $4 billion for selling Hydro One, and the cost is higher hydro bills for families and businesses and Ontarians losing control of an asset that’s too important to give away.

And according to senior economists, the truth is that the $4-billion figure is probably inflated, which means that that money isn’t going to make the difference to infrastructure that needs to be made.

Does the Premier have anything other than a wing and a prayer to back up her claim that selling Hydro will give us $4 billion?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: The member opposite is making a lot of speculation which actually harms the opportunities to create greater value—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, second time.

Carry on.

Hon. Charles Sousa: That actually precludes us from creating greater value from that corporation.

The bottom line is, we are assessing. We are going to foster the conditions necessary to provide the maximum value for a very precious crown corporation that we all value. In order for us to ensure that we make it secure, we work in the best interests of the public, and that is what we’re doing here because we’re reinvesting, dollar for dollar, all of that money into another project to generate even more revenue and more returns.

Mr. Speaker, that’s in the best interests of the public, and that is what we’re doing.

Agricultural trade

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade. The Cambridge Farmers’ Market has operated since 1830, supporting our local farmers. My constituents in Cambridge and North Dumfries township already buy local products, so they were very pleased when the Premier announced her agri-food growth challenge. The challenge aims to double the agri-food sector’s rate of growth and create 120,000 new jobs by 2020.

Ontarians working in the agriculture sector, like the many farmers in my riding, are excited about the potential benefits to their businesses. Many agricultural and food companies in my community employ over 50 workers, such as Frito Lay Canada, Loblaw Companies, Dover Flour Mills and Grand River Foods.

Speaker, could the minister tell the House what steps the government is taking to contribute to the agri-food growth challenge?

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you, Speaker, for the opportunity, and I want to thank the honourable member from Cambridge for asking the question.

Outreaching to the world is a key driver of our economy. Just last month, I had the pleasure of joining Minister Leal for the first-ever minister-led agricultural trade mission to China. Expanding trade is a key part of developing and strengthening Ontario industries. China is a priority market for Ontario and is one of the province’s key Asian markets.

In 2014, Ontario’s total agri-food sales to China, including exports to Hong Kong, reached over $800 billion, representing Ontario’s second-largest export market for agri-food products.

Trade missions like these allow us opportunities to showcase Ontario’s exports.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: Thank you to the minister for sharing an update on the agri-food growth challenge. I’m glad that the minister spoke about his recent mission to China. I think we can all agree that by expanding our trade opportunities, it can only mean good things for our economy. In my riding of Cambridge, over 76% of companies in the food and agricultural sector have reported exporting product to other countries.

Ontario’s agri-food sector is, in my opinion, the best in the world. We have some phenomenal products, and they deserve to be showcased worldwide. In particular, trading partners like China need to be able to see what we have to offer.

Speaker, could the minister speak more about the recent mission to China and the benefits that all Ontarians will see as a result?

Hon. Michael Chan: Of course, I’m happy to do that. Speaker, 20 Ontario businesses and organizations accompanied us to help promote trade opportunities to over 300 Chinese agri-food and government officials. This mission produced some great results for Ontario’s agricultural sector.

For example, Futurevic Global Sourcing signed a letter of intent to purchase $2 million worth of Ontario maple products in the next two years. Pillitteri Estates signed a $6-million agreement that would bring more Ontario ice wine to China. Vineland Estates Winery announced a retailing and distribution agreement that will see more than $1 million of its products sold in China.

As well, we have landed three reverse trade missions coming to Ontario later this year.

Hydro rates

Mr. Todd Smith: My question this morning is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, too many Ontarians are getting to the point now where they’re having to choose between heating and eating.

For one family in North Hastings who contacted my office, energy poverty is a reality. They’ve set up payment plans twice with Hydro One, only to end up defaulting both times. Last year, when their child had to have surgery and unexpected expenses arose, they found themselves unable to set up further payment plan arrangements. Their complaints fell on deaf ears with the utility. My office had to work to get them a one-month extension. My office has become an unofficial complaints department for Hydro One.

On May 1, just two weeks ago, electricity rates went up by another 15%. Minister, why is your Liberal electricity policy such a failure? Will you fix it and will you stop forcing families to choose between heating and eating?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, for the record, the Ontario Energy Board announced an increase of 4.6%. We’ve heard many, many other numbers over there. There are a significant number of people across the province who are finding pressures—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke is warned, whether he’s in his seat or not.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, what I have never seen is any member of the Progressive Conservative Party, such as the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, actually sending out to their constituents the list of all the mitigation measures that are available in the province of Ontario, starting with the Ontario Clean Energy Benefit, the Ontario Energy and Property Tax Credit, the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program, the saveONenergy Home Assistance Program and, in the north, a very significant tax credit for customers.

For those people who are stretched financially and it is a serious problem, the LDCs work with them on a one-on-one basis across the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from Carleton–Mississippi Mills.

Mr. Jack MacLaren: To the Minister of Energy: Hydro One’s smart meter system does not work in rural Ontario, and the system of estimating usage results in chaotic, wrongful hydro bills that are very high, as much as twice as high as neighbours in urban areas that are served by Hydro Ottawa.

When the city was created in 2001, one of the conditions was that all residents of the new city would become customers of Hydro Ottawa. Minister, you can finish the job you should have done 14 years ago, when you were mayor of Ottawa. There are 43,000 Hydro One customers in rural Ottawa. Minister, will you honour the agreement of 2001 and transfer these 43,000 customers to Hydro Ottawa, where they should be?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, there is a systemic problem we have, which was created by former Premier Harris. In 1999, when he legislated amalgamation across the province in the cities of Ottawa, Sudbury, Hamilton and a number of others, he also amalgamated LDCs, but he left stranded in the system Hydro One customers who were within other city boundaries.

Yes, as mayor, I tried to negotiate a solution, as all the other mayors across the province had.

We are now talking to Hydro Ottawa, but we also have to talk to Sudbury, Hamilton and all the other cities where Mike Harris created this problem.

Teachers’ labour disputes

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: My question is to the Premier. Students in Durham, northern Ontario’s Rainbow district and Peel region have been without classes for weeks. Over 800,000 elementary students and their families face an uncertain future as educators undertake job action. I’m reminding the Premier of this because it doesn’t seem like her government is doing anything to move this process along.

Will the Premier finally acknowledge that the utter failure of contract talks falls at the feet of her government, and actually work to bring school boards and education workers together, rather than driving them apart?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: It’s precisely because we want to bring all the parties together that we actually created the new legislation. We wanted to have the boards at the table, we wanted to have the union at the table, we wanted to have the government at the table, so that all three parties can come together and create a solution.

It’s precisely because we believe in negotiated solutions that we are still working very, very hard at the table. We have nine different tables going, and we’re working very, very hard at each of those tables to get collective agreements. We know it’s going to be difficult. We know it has been slow.

We believe that the way to get the issues resolved is at the table, and there’s no way to do this other than negotiating solutions, and we will keep working at that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Again to the Premier: It’s this government that implemented the current bargaining legislation. It’s this government that cut $250 million in education—Minister, it’s on page 230 of your own budget; maybe you should check your facts—and forced the closure of 88 schools and cut vital special education programs.

It’s this government’s underfunding that put 21 early childhood educator jobs in Windsor and Essex county and 50 educational assistant positions and ECEs in Bruce-Grey on the chopping block. Now this Liberal government is continuing to fail families by dragging their feet in negotiations and blaming everyone else but themselves for the chaos in our schools.

When will this government finally accept responsibility for throwing our schools into chaos and work with education workers—the key word is “with”—to get students back to class?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I think we need to go back and look at what happened during the development of our collective bargaining legislation. We actually worked with every one of the unions, with all four school board associations, and we worked together to draft that legislation. We went around and around and around. We looked at first drafts and made some changes. We looked at second drafts. We looked at some changes that the NDP suggested and incorporated some suggestions that the NDP made in terms of the collective bargaining legislation.

Everybody involved worked together to make that collective bargaining legislation a reality, and we’ve worked together to decide which are central issues and which are local issues. That was negotiated. We have minutes of settlement where we’ve agreed—

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

New question.

Rural economic development

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Ontario’s economic landscape is changing. Economic development and job growth in Ontario’s small and rural communities continue to face unique challenges.

In my riding of Halton, the Country Heritage Agricultural Society and the Milton Education Village Innovation Centre are two local projects that have benefited from the government’s support of rural economic growth. They’ve used the government’s support to develop and promote new business opportunities across the region.

Throughout the province there are programs like these, designed to assist rural communities, including the Eastern Ontario Development Fund and the Southwestern Ontario Development Fund.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, could the minister please update the House on what our government is doing to strengthen rural economies?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank the member from Halton for her question this morning. I know the great work that she does with the agriculture associations within her riding of Halton.

The RED Program is a program that has transcended various administrations in the province of Ontario. In fact, I believe it was the member from Oxford who actually brought the RED Program into being. It is the Rural Economic Development Program. It provides $14.5 million on an annual basis, helping rural communities and regions grow their economies, attract investment and invest in their skills.

Through RED since 2003, we’ve invested over $180 million in 565 projects, generating over $1.2 billion in economic activity and indeed creating and supporting over 36,000 jobs in rural Ontario. We’ll continue to work and strengthen rural communities in every part of this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Thank you to the minister for his answer. It’s great to hear that the Ontario government takes the economic needs of small and rural communities seriously. I know that business owners in my riding will be happy to know that our government is committed to supporting their goals of providing goods, services and job opportunities for Halton residents.

The RED Program, as you mentioned, has a strong record of job creation, economic growth and helping rural communities prosper across Ontario. But, Minister, I have heard that the RED Program is temporarily pausing application intakes to conduct a review. I’m sure many rural communities will be interested in the types of RED projects that it will now focus on.

Speaker, could the minister please elaborate on the kinds of projects the RED Program will support?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I thank the member from Halton for her supplementary. In fact, the Ontario Agricultural Hall of Fame, which is a great facility, is actually located in her riding of Halton.

To ensure the RED Program continues to meet expectations for industry, community organizations and municipalities, my ministry is temporarily pausing application intakes to conduct a thorough program review. We know that to be competitive we must become more innovative and flexible. That’s why the RED Program will continue to focus on those high-value, low-cost projects that create jobs and build a foundation for economic growth and investment.

For example—here’s a great one. The Oxford Cattle Co. Ltd. is receiving a half million dollars to implement a pilot fueling hub that creates new natural gas blends to sell to consumers in rural Ontario.

RED projects show off the innovation and community partnerships that are emblematic of rural Ontario. I know by working together, we’ll strengthen rural communities right across this great province.

Hydro transmission

Mr. Rick Nicholls: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Minister, your government’s delays on a crucial hydro transmission project are costing Leamington jobs and investment. Nature Fresh Farms recently announced that they would be expanding in Ohio. Leamington lost out on 300 jobs and $200 million in investments because of your government’s inaction.

In 2011, I asked former finance minister Dwight Duncan about this issue, and he said, “We’re now ready to move to construction.” Minister, it’s 2015, and no plans have ever been confirmed. Given all the broken promises, local officials are outraged because more businesses are saying they’re looking elsewhere.

Minister, Leamington needs to know if you are willing to move this vital power project forward. Are you?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: We’ve adopted a program of responding specifically to the growers in that particular area. We’ve created combined heat and power. We’re going through a—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I’m going to remind both the member from Prince Edward–Hastings and the deputy government House leader that when the mikes are on, you’re taking advantage, and I’m not going to let you anymore.

Carry on.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: In fact, we’re in the process of doing procurements right now to satisfy that industry in your community.

But we have been rebuilding this system now for the last 10 years because of the mess they made. I want to repeat the quote. This is from the member for Simcoe–Grey in 2001, when he was Minister of Energy: “This summer when we didn’t have enough electricity in this province ... and all the air conditioners were running, we had to buy power.... I had to pay $7 million one day to keep the air conditioners on in our hospitals.”

Mr. Speaker, we’ve invested in a reliable system—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Leader of the Opposition will come to order—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. And the member from Chatham–Kent–Essex will come to order.

Carry on. Wrap up.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: We’ve created a clean and reliable system—so clean that we’ve taken the equivalent of seven million cars off the road.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member for York–Simcoe.

Mrs. Julia Munro: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Minister, it is essential for Ontarians to have access to affordable electricity. Expensive electricity has and will continue to destabilize our province if you don’t change direction.

The lights go on; the day begins. Hospital rooms operate. Businesses make money and provide jobs. No one in Ontario can live without electricity. People depend on it.

Minister, your energy policy takes advantage of our dependence on electricity. We are captive consumers. Your policy has destabilized day-to-day life.

Billions wasted on smart meters, the Green Energy Act and clandestine gas plant cover-ups: You just keep handing the ever-increasing bill to ratepayers. Why are you bent on destroying any prospect of affordable electricity, which is so essential to the social and economic value of our province?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Over the course of the last 10 years, we have spent $34 billion in the system, creating generation, transmission and building a clean system. We’ve built the new tunnel in Niagara, a $1.2-billion investment. We’ve expanded hydro in northern Ontario through the Lower Mattagami, a $2.6-billion investment in the system.

We have an extremely reliable system, but in the process of rebuilding the system, we have built it clean. We got rid of 25% of our generation, which was dirty coal. We are saving $4 billion a year on environmental and health costs by creating a clean system. We are one of the best, if not the best, in North America. It’s the largest emissions reduction program in North America. It’s a record we’re proud of, and we’re continuing in that direction.

Air-rail link

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. The Union Pearson Express will run every 15 minutes from 5:30 in the morning to 1 a.m. each night. Heavy, noisy, dirty, diesel trains will run past homes, playgrounds and schools. Yet the government doesn’t seem to care about this disruption, even now, with construction ongoing 24/7. It means children can’t sleep at night and people can’t live in their homes.

What will the government do to address the concerns of residents in all ridings up and down the tracks?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Members will come to order.

The question has been put.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I want to thank the member from Parkdale–High Park, not only for the question today, but also for the correspondence that she has sent to me earlier this month. I also want to acknowledge the work of my colleagues the member from York South–Weston and the member from Davenport, who have communicated with me, my ministry and the team at Metrolinx on a regular basis regarding the Union Pearson Express.

I believe the member is aware of the fact that, back in 2012, there was considerable work undertaken by way of a study to determine what kind of noise mitigation was required along this corridor. As a result of the work that was undertaken in that assessment, Speaker, there are a number of noise walls that are under construction. I understand those identified as being required in that initial study are going to be completed by the time the Union Pearson Express comes into service, which of course is June 6.

Work is being undertaken. I know the team at Metrolinx has folks on the ground trying their best to work closely with the members, but also with the community itself.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: The government in this instance is so desperate to get this project done in time for the games that construction crews right now are keeping residents awake all night, 24 hours a day, with jackhammers and heavy equipment. The intense construction is even damaging the foundations of neighbouring homes.

Mr. Speaker, residents want a clear answer and they need one now. What will the government do now to compensate them for construction damage and disruption?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Again, I thank the member for the question. I didn’t point out in my initial answer that in fact Metrolinx has done extensive consultation, working closely with the communities affected by the construction of the Union Pearson Express. For example, Metrolinx publicly recruited members for eight committees and over 150 community members signed up to participate. Metrolinx also conducted 24 committee meetings with the community over the course of that time.

I mentioned the noise mitigation measures that are currently under construction that will continue to be constructed.

Metrolinx also has a property damage claims process to deal with any damage that might arise from this work.

But Speaker, I should point out the Union Pearson Express is a clear example of the wonderful outcome that we can achieve when we work together to build infrastructure. It comes into service on June 6 on time, on budget. For the first time ever, it’s a dedicated air-rail link between Union Station and Pearson airport.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Manufacturing sector

Mr. Arthur Potts: What a great segue into my question. My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure, who is doing a great job in helping build Ontario up.

To quote the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, since the global recession, “we’ve seen a rebirth in manufacturing” in Ontario. Last month alone, Ontario’s manufacturing sector gained 1,200 new positions, and almost 800 positions the month before. Our government understands that more work is needed to keep this sector on a positive path forward. Our budget outlines some of that work.

Last night, I held a town hall meeting in my riding of Beaches–East York and was asked about the great programs and initiatives in this year’s budget to help our province’s manufacturing sector continue to grow.

Would the minister please inform this House about how this year’s budget is helping Ontario’s manufacturing se