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

May 5, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-May-05 (PDF)

L079 - Tue 5 May 2015 / Mar 5 mai 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 5 May 2015 Mardi 5 mai 2015

ORDERS OF THE DAY

2015 Ontario budget

Introduction of Visitors

Privatization of public assets

Oral Questions

Privatization of public assets

Winter highway maintenance

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Correctional facilities

Privatization of public assets

Midwifery

Teachers’ labour disputes

Teachers’ labour disputes

Workplace safety

Long-term care

First responders

Sexual violence and harassment

Hydro rates

Visitor

Correction of record

Visitors

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Liberation of the Netherlands

Children’s mental health

Midwifery

Cremation services

Lyme disease

Events in Ottawa–Orléans / Événements divers à Ottawa–Orléans

First responders

Etobicoke city centre

Faith communities

Financial statements, Auditor General

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Standing Committee on Social Policy

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Sexual Assault Prevention Month

Probation Officers’ Week / Semaine des agents de probation

South Asian Heritage Month

Sexual Assault Prevention Month

Probation Officers’ Week

South Asian Heritage Month

Sexual Assault Prevention Month

Probation Officers’ Week

South Asian Heritage Month

Petitions

Special-needs children

French-language education

Pesticides

Hospital funding

Employment practices

Winter road maintenance

Poet laureate

Dog ownership

Gasoline prices

Water fluoridation

Alzheimer’s disease

Orders of the Day

Building Ontario Up Act (Budget Measures), 2015 / Loi de 2015 pour favoriser l’essor de l’Ontario (mesures budgétaires)

Royal assent / Sanction royale

Private members’ public business

2015 Ontario budget

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Orders of the day.

Interruption.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Good morning, Speaker. Somebody is trying to get into the House—really wants to get in.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

2015 Ontario budget

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 30, 2015, on the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): When we last debated this issue, the rotation had been completed, and it’s now further debate. The member from Wellington–Halton Hills.

Mr. Ted Arnott: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I have to apologize to you because I broke the door trying to get into the chamber so that I could take my place in the House. There’s a hinge that came out of the door; it’s going to have to be replaced. I know our staff were a little nervous that I wasn’t in the chamber at the time of the prayers, and I apologize for that, too.

At the same time, I’m very pleased to have this opportunity to debate the budget motion that was tabled in this House shortly after the presentation of the budget. We, of course, have a nice blue copy—sorry, it’s red—a red copy of the provincial budget. Building Ontario Up is what the government calls it. It was presented in the House a few days ago, as we know.

I want to begin my remarks by acknowledging an important day in the country of Holland. Today is the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Holland. As we know, Mr. Speaker, it was in part due to the sacrifice, the courage and the dedication of Canadian soldiers, who were primarily responsible for the liberation of Holland and bringing to an end the tyranny of the Nazi regime in that country during World War II. Many Canadian soldiers, believe it or not, are able to be in Holland today to mark that 70th anniversary.

It may be the last time that the greatest generation will be able to be present in Holland for this commemoration. We’re thinking of the Dutch people today and also the extraordinary contribution that our Dutch-Canadians have made, because there was a huge wave of immigration to Canada after the First World War of people from Holland. They have made an immeasurable contribution to the country and to the province of Ontario, so we remember them today.

I want to begin by clarifying something that seems to be a bit misunderstood around here, even in the Legislature, perhaps in the media and perhaps amongst some in the general public. We are debating the budget motion right now. This is the motion that is tabled after the provincial budget, and it’s very straightforward and simple. It’s one line, really. Proposed by the government, it’s suggesting that the House has confidence, in general, in the budgetary policy of the government.

We in opposition do not have confidence, in general, in the budgetary policy of the government. So it would be logical—and I know you would agree, Mr. Speaker—if we don’t have confidence in the budgetary policy of the government, that we would vote against the budget motion. This is something that was somewhat distorted by Liberal strategists during the minority Parliament back in 2011. You’ll recall, Mr. Speaker, that in fact the Liberal Party paid for robocalls in the ridings of Burlington and Cambridge, seats that we held with our members Jane McKenna and Rob Leone, who had been newly elected in 2011.

Robocalls were paid for by the Liberal Party into those ridings, telling the people of those ridings that if their Conservative members, Rob Leone and Jane McKenna, voted against the budget motion, they were therefore voting against their hospital projects. That is a false statement, and the Liberal strategists should have known that. I believe they did know that, and yet those robocalls were made.

In my riding, there were Liberals who wrote letters to the editor—yes, that’s exactly correct. In my riding, there were letters to the editor sent by Liberals suggesting that if I voted against the budget motion in 2011—after the provincial election, when we were in the minority period—I was voting against my hospital projects. Again, absolutely a false statement. What we are voting on is the budgetary policy of the government in general.

The fact is that of course the New Democrats, during the minority period, negotiated with the government, and certain things were included in the budget. For a two-year period they were prepared to, if not support the budget, at least abstain to allow the budget to pass, to prevent an election. But I would caution those members of the House—and I know there are many Liberals here who are interested in this; we all have a conscience—that it is completely false to suggest that any member is voting against a project in their riding if they vote against the budget motion and the budgetary policy of the government.

Indeed, when the Liberal Party was in opposition, when our party was in government between 1995 and 2003, in every single case the Liberal caucus voted against the budget motion. There was no question about it. And it’s logical that they did, Mr. Speaker, because in those days, they did not support the budgetary policy of the Progressive Conservative government.

I wanted to get that off my chest because it has bothered me for some time. I hope that the government members will contemplate it, and I hope that the Liberal strategists who authored that approach of doing robocalls into Conservative ridings don’t ever try that again.

I want to mention the key numbers that are in this budget and compare them to last year’s. The provincial deficit for 2015-16 is $8.5 billion. This, in fact, is actually down from last year; there was a $10.9-billion deficit last year. But you’ll recall in the budget last year that they actually projected a $12.5-billion deficit and, in turn, before the budget, acknowledged that they’d come in under that projection, at $10.9 billion.

There’s really little explanation for the difference, other than that the government patted itself on the back and said that they’d done a good job of managing the expenditures and that was what accounted for the difference.

In fact, we sometimes wonder if the government uses assumptions that create a higher deficit number than is really what they expect, and when they come in under that number they take credit for their good management as a way of distracting and diverting attention away from the fact that it is still a very sizable number.

Nevertheless, the government continues to claim and to submit to the people of Ontario that they plan to balance the budget by 2017-18. They are committed to doing this. We’ve been saying for the last two or three years now, as the deficit has actually gone up year over year, that it’s pretty hard to believe they’re going to be able to balance that budget. I will acknowledge that it is true that this year the deficit has in fact come down, and if the deficit continues to come down—say, $2 billion to $3 billion a year, or $4 billion a year—we get closer, of course, to that goal of a balanced budget.

But I still would question the government’s commitment: when the tough decisions have to be made in the next three years, whether or not they’ll be prepared to make them to actually achieve that goal of a balanced budget.

Of great concern, though, is the projected provincial net debt number, which continues to go up dramatically. This year, in the provincial budget: $298.9 billion—almost $299 billion; this is up from $284.2 billion last year—gone up $14.7 billion. The debt has gone up $14.7 billion year over year. That means it has increased—simple math—over a billion dollars a month. The debt has gone up over this past year.

Provincial government spending this year is projected to be $131.9 billion. That’s $132 billion, rounded off. That is up from $129.5 billion last year—a $2.4-billion increase year over year. Again, the government would have us believe they’re holding the line on spending and being successful in that regard. In fact, their spending is going up $2.4 billion more than last year, according to their own numbers in the provincial budget.

Another serious concern is the net debt per capita. That, of course, is the amount, in effect, that each of us owes because of years of provincial government overspending. Every man, woman and child in the province of Ontario, in effect, owes this sum of money because of years and years and years of provincial government overspending—spending beyond its means in a given year. The net debt per capita this year is now at $21,642; last year, it was $20,772. That means the net debt per capita has gone up $870 just in the last year.

Again, that’s something that should concern us all if we care about the next generation, our children and our grandchildren. I certainly do, and I know most of us do, but unfortunately, in this budget process, it seems that that concern has been repeatedly overlooked, going back to 2003.

Another important indicator of the crushing level of debt that the province of Ontario is carrying is the debt-to-GDP ratio. That takes the total debt and compares it to the value of the goods and services that we produce in the province of Ontario. That’s what the gross domestic product is: the total value of what we produce in terms of goods and services in the province of Ontario. That’s an important indicator because it allows us to look at how we can serve the debt.

It’s our capacity to service the debt and pay down the debt, pay the interest payments, and hopefully someday get to the point of paying down the principal. That debt-to-GDP ratio now stands at 39.8%, up again from last year. It was 39.4% last year, so almost half a percentage point increase. Just to compare—again, this is getting close to 40%: Before the recession in 2008-09, that number was 26.2%. So that number has gone up dramatically as well. Again, it underscores the punishing level of debt that has been incurred in recent years.

Of course, what does that mean to people? Well, we have to service the debt; we have to make interest payments on the debt. If the provincial government is going to remain solvent and meet its obligations, its debt service payments come first. If we stop paying our debt interest, of course, we would not be able to borrow money at all and we would be in a financial crisis in the province of Ontario.

That becomes, basically—the first call in the government’s finances is to pay the interest on the debt. That number, not surprisingly, continues to grow dramatically. In fact, it is now the third-largest item in the provincial budget after health and education. It’s also, in recent years, the fastest-growing item in the provincial budget—something that I pointed out in question period a couple of years ago. It’s now well understood that it is the fastest-growing item in the budget. It’s expected and projected to go up 5.7% per year, on average, for the foreseeable future.

That’s a number, again, that is taken from the budget papers. I know there are some skeptics. It’s on page 281 of the budget papers. It shows that the interest on the debt is expected to grow by 5.7% for the foreseeable future as far out as 2017-18. That’s as far as the graph shows.

At the same time, the government would lead us to believe that they’re constraining costs in so many other areas. In fact, they are constraining health care costs, and they’ve seen a substantial increase in transfers from the federal government to the provincial government for health care.

Again, I’ll refer to the budget papers document, where we see that the Canada Health Transfer—$12.4 billion last year—has gone up to over $13 billion this year. At the same time, the provincial government’s expenditures on health have gone up less than that. By my math, the provincial expenditures on health care are only going up $598 million this year, while at the same time the federal government is increasing the transfers for health by $652 million. The federal government is giving us more for health, and the provincial government isn’t even spending that increase on health.

In effect, given the fact that the interest costs are going up dramatically, it’s pretty logical to conclude that the money that is earmarked for health care—that the federal government is intending to give us for health care—is in fact being spent to service the debt. That’s how bad it has gotten under this government.

People need to understand. These are all big numbers and it’s difficult to understand them, but we have to educate ourselves in terms of financial literacy. If we don’t—if all the members in this House don’t understand the budgetary numbers—obviously, we’ve got a more serious problem, perhaps, than any of us realize.

Again, the interest payments on the debt this year are projected to be $11.4 billion. That’s up from $10.7 billion last year—again, the fastest-growing item in the budget.

Mr. Speaker, I don’t have very much time. I look at the clock and I realize the time has gone very quickly for me. But I also wanted to point out some of the economic policies that have been advocated by my colleague the member for Whitby–Oshawa, who of course is seeking the leadership of our Ontario provincial PC Party. I support her leadership bid, and I believe she is the most qualified person to be the next leader of our party and to be the Premier of Ontario.

For me, it’s not all about winning elections. It’s actually all about good government. I realize that we have to win elections in order to form government. I realize that winning is obviously the objective of an election campaign, and during an election campaign we work all-out towards that objective. But when the election is over, it’s over, and we all have a job to do.

I think it’s also true that, for the people who are involved in politics in my riding—in all parties—winning is important, but it’s winning as a means to an end. Winning isn’t the end in itself. Winning is the means to an end, with the end, of course, being good government. I would add that comment to this debate too, and ask members to consider that.

Christine Elliott, in her speech at this Legislature—actually, in the wintertime—gave a very compelling plan to strengthen Ontario’s economy and encourage the creation of the new jobs that we need.

She said that first of all, we must do a better job of building a competitive business climate to stimulate job-creating investment. She suggested that by making regulatory reform an immediate priority in the first 100 days of a government led by her, by taking steps to simplify the tax code, and by reducing business taxes, we would be sending a very powerful message to Ontario job creators that we are open for business once again. Of course, Mr. Speaker, that is very important for business confidence.

We have to acknowledge that provincial government initiatives are only one element of creating or deflating business confidence. There are other factors at play, some of which we can’t control. But the fact is we do have an opportunity to encourage business confidence with the policies that come out of this place. Obviously, from our perspective, we would suggest that the provincial government hasn’t been doing that for the last 13 years, and we need to do better.

Christine Elliott has advocated policies that would, in fact, create that strong sense of business confidence in terms of the support from the provincial Legislature and the government and, hopefully, that would stimulate the creation of many thousands of jobs in the province of Ontario.

Secondly, she talked about a renewed focus on skills training and the need to reform the apprenticeship system. She said that that would pay immediate dividends in the form of job creation. I think she’s absolutely right about that and should be commended for that suggestion.

She said that young people and employers need incentives to pursue the existing job opportunities in today’s economy. I agree with that, without qualification. Certainly, we have a very high youth unemployment rate in the province of Ontario. I think it’s about double the overall rate, and that should be of concern of all of us. We need to do better on that particular public policy challenge.

She also suggested that we need to open up student loans to apprentices, ensuring that more young people would pursue careers in good-paying, skilled trades.

She also advocated a new approach to supporting creative innovation and entrepreneurship in our economy. She suggested that by issuing a competitive challenge, rewarding excellence in achievement, speeding up the work of the Ontario Securities Commission and creating an advanced manufacturing fund to support research and development, this would help us to lead the world in innovation—again, all laudable goals that I support and that many in my community support as well.

She also outlined her vision for strengthening our economy in the long term, including new ideas to pay for the new infrastructure that we need. She committed to bringing stability to our hydro rates, which have skyrocketed in recent years, which in turn has contributed to the loss of some 300,000 manufacturing jobs in the province of Ontario.

I’m privileged to serve as our party’s critic to the Minister of Economic Development, Infrastructure and Employment. I certainly endorse the member for Whitby–Oshawa, Christine Elliott’s, economic plan and believe that it is obviously a plan that would take us in the right direction in the province of Ontario.

I would also add in the brief time that I have left that we have a significant number of infrastructure projects in our riding. I’ve advocated for my riding, as you know, Mr. Speaker, on a long list of infrastructure projects. The fact is that the provincial government plans and certainly budgets to spend a significant amount of money on infrastructure. Again, page 291 of the budget papers shows that they intend to spend $13.5 billion this year on infrastructure projects.

I know they’re going to spend that money; they plan to spend it, they committed, they talk about it all the time, and the Premier is tweeting constantly about the infrastructure plans they have. They are going to spend that money, so I am saying that in Wellington–Halton Hills, we have our infrastructure challenges, we have our needs and we need our fair share of that money.

I again submit to the government the need for the Highway 6 Morriston bypass through Puslinch township, south of the 401 on the way to Hamilton. The Premier has acknowledged that that project is needed in this Legislature, and we ask that the Minister of Transportation—something I’ve been advocating for many years now—place that project on the five-year plan for new construction, which we know as the southern highways program. I know that the minister, after the tabling of the budget, goes through a process of reviewing the various project ideas that exist.

His staff know about the need; I’m sure his staff will fill him in on any additional information he needs, but there’s a strong business coalition that has come together in support of this project, including all of the local councils, chambers of commerce and so forth. We need to see that project done.

We need a new courthouse in Halton. We need a new Holy Cross Catholic school in Georgetown. I’ve supported GO Transit improvements for my riding going back to 2008. We need high-speed Internet service in rural Ontario. We need support for the town of Erin waste water management system, something that needs to be addressed very soon.

I realize I’m now out of time. I’ve got a long list of other projects I’d like to talk about, and I will at another opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I do not support the general budgetary policy of this government and I’ll be voting against this motion.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I thank the member from Wellington–Halton Hills for his informal comments with regard to Bill 91. Further questions and comments?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I’d like to thank the member from Wellington–Halton Hills for participating in this debate today; it’s a very important bill and debate on the budget.

In his opening remarks, he referred to looking at the blue book, and then corrected himself and said, “Oh, it was the red book.” For us on this side: Blue book, red book; it’s one and the same.

Ms. Cindy Forster: It’s an orange book.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: It’s one and the same. The budget that the Liberal government is presenting looks like a Progressive Conservative budget. It’s not very progressive, as the Premier claims to be progressive.

One of the things that I want to point out is seniors, because I am the seniors’ critic. Just today, there was some information in the paper—and it was on the news as well—about how more and more seniors are filing for insolvency. It speaks to the fact that seniors have a very difficult time paying the bills. They have a very difficult time affording the rent, paying for their food and then for hydro.

In this budget, as the government proposed, they’re going to be selling hydro. What’s that going to do to the rates? What’s that going to do to the seniors’ budgets, their household budgets? They can barely afford to make ends meet now. It says that more seniors are filing for bankruptcy. How shameful is that, that seniors can’t live in dignity after they retire, with some comfort, some peace of mind? Selling off hydro is not going to help seniors. It’s only going to raise the rates, and seniors are going to be strapped even more and will find themselves in a more precarious situation, find themselves struggling every day just to put food on the table, because their hydro bills are higher.

I received my hydro bill, and it went up last Friday. The rates have gone up. It has gone up $25 a month. Speaker, how do people who are on fixed incomes afford these kinds of ridiculous increases?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: It’s a pleasure to rise today and add a few comments to the debate in the House. I’ve heard from the Wellington–Halton Hills member and the member from London–Fanshawe about this very important budget bill, Bill 91.

I’m very supportive of this budget. I just wanted to point out that during the budget processes, when we look at some of our construction programs—we have an ongoing expansion of Cambridge Memorial Hospital that was cemented in the budget a couple of budgets ago, and I’m very proud of the fact that it’s still committed to finishing and completing this project. It has been a very necessary part of our health care system for the residents of Cambridge and North Dumfries township. We did the ground-breaking in September, and it makes me very happy to go past and see the crane there, see the construction equipment.

All those things are still in our budget, to make sure that we continue on this very important project. It not only supports the construction workers and the highly skilled trades workers in Cambridge, so they have ongoing work for five years, but it also gives a sense of comfort to the residents of our community, who had been wanting and needing this expansion for so long.

That’s one of the things that I would point out to the member from Wellington–Halton Hills: that it’s very important to actually vote for the budgets that have these big construction programs in them.

I also just wanted to point out the investment in our youth, with the increases in the Ontario youth strategies and our investments in the pre-apprenticeship programs, which really benefit Cambridge students. We have Conestoga College, right in Cambridge, which has a lot of good apprenticeship programs for our youth in ongoing, highly skilled trades.

Speaker, I know I’m out of time. I’ll add my voice later to the debate, but I just really want to say that I’m in full support of Bill 91, the budget.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Todd Smith: It’s a pleasure to stand and bring remarks on the presentation by my colleague from Wellington–Halton Hills. I stand shoulder to shoulder with him.

There’s no reason for us, and there’s no reason for rural Ontario, especially small and rural municipalities, to support this budget. Don’t just take our word for it, Speaker. There’s a story in today’s Belleville Intelligencer from the warden of Hastings county, which I’m fortunate enough to represent. He says there’s “not a lot of substance” in this budget. To paraphrase, he says there are a lot of platitudes in this budget but there’s no real, concrete action for rural Ontario.

The mayor of Quinte West had the opportunity to listen to the Premier speak in Belleville last week at the OSUM conference, the Ontario Small Urban Municipalities conference. He said he was not impressed at all, because there’s nothing there in this budget except for reannouncements from last year and a lot of platitudes again coming from this government. There is no real action to improve life in rural Ontario. I think it just speaks to the larger picture that this government either doesn’t care about rural Ontario or doesn’t understand rural Ontario.

There’s $100 million in an infrastructure fund for small and rural municipalities, but they don’t know how to get their hands on it. There has been no information as to how they can access that money.

At the question-and-answer last week, the deputy mayor of Greater Napanee asked about electricity infrastructure. Just last week, we learned that we were missing out on a $100-million investment by Goodyear in Napanee, and the reason that it’s not going there is because of the energy policies of this government which drove that plant and that infrastructure to Mexico.

There’s nothing in this budget for us to support. I stand shoulder to shoulder with my colleague from Wellington–Halton Hills, and we will not be supporting the budget.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Ms. Cindy Forster: In this short two minutes, I think I’m going to comment on the comments.

The member from Cambridge talked about the residents in her community having comfort that this construction is going on in this great expansion to the hospital in her area. Well, in my area, five hospitals have closed or are slated for closing: Fort Erie, Port Colborne, Niagara-on-the-Lake, just April 1 in the member from Niagara Falls’ riding, and a proposed closure of the Welland hospital, a hospital that supports a population of 100,000 people.

This Liberal budget with its 6% cuts and zero increases to hospitals is continuing to lay off nurses in this province—hundreds of nurses have been laid off across this province. As a nurse, the member will know that every time you decrease a nursing position, you increase mortality rates of patients. In this province and across North America, there are lots of studies on this issue.

Teachers are on strike because of budget cuts.

There are 6% cuts to all of the agencies that actually support occupational health and safety in this province. Just in the last month we have had five deaths here in the city of Toronto in areas of construction—people falling off of scaffolds, people dying in blasts—and at the same time, this government is cutting those budgets.

She talked about youth strategies and their investment. Well, in fact, the Liberal government is cutting $50 million from the youth employment tax credits that were there last year, an initiative that they put in place for a year, and all they’re doing now is shifting the dollars.

I won’t be supporting this budget.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate?

Mr. Ted Arnott: Don’t I get a response?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Oh, I’m sorry; forgive me. Absolutely. I got ahead of myself there; sorry about that.

Back to the member from Wellington–Halton Hills.

Mr. Ted Arnott: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the member for London–Fanshawe, the member for Cambridge, the member for Prince Edward–Hastings and the member for Welland for their responses.

I’m pleased to see that the Deputy Premier is in the House, and I want to acknowledge—there was one element of the budget that was in fact good news in my constituency, and that was the restoration of the Connecting Link Program.

Reading in the Wellington Advertiser last night, I was made aware of the fact that the Deputy Premier called the warden of Wellington county, George Bridge, to inform him that the Connecting Link Program was being restored. We’re trying to remember which Liberal minister cancelled the Connecting Link Program—I think it was two years ago or thereabouts; maybe two and a half years ago. We can’t remember which minister it was, but I’m sure that minister would want to own up to the fact that it was a mistake.

I also want to give acknowledgement to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, who I think made public statements right off the bat that it was a mistake to cancel the Connecting Link Program, and I think he advocated within cabinet for its restoration.

Certainly, on this side of the House, we represent rural Ontario in this caucus, largely speaking, and we advocated for the restoration of the Connecting Link Program. I just would say to the Deputy Premier that I hope she didn’t call the warden of Wellington county until after the budget was presented, because we certainly wouldn’t want to divulge confidential budgetary information in advance of the presentation of the budget. So I would hope—no, we wouldn’t want to do that.

But again, I do want to acknowledge that that was received as good news in our riding and certainly in the town of Halton Hills, which had felt very shortchanged by the arbitrary cancellation of the Connecting Link Program. They had a long-term plan to do a number of projects, and in fact, they are now relieved to see that that program is going to be continued.

But I still have questions about it. I asked rhetorically, when the announcement was made, whether or not this was an allocation of new money or a reallocation of existing funding programs that exist within the provincial government. I also noted in past years—although the minister said that it was a $15-million program being reinstated. In fact, in recent years, as much as $25 million was spent on the Connecting Link Program. So we’ll reserve our final judgment on whether or not the government is keeping its commitment, and obviously bring forward the concerns of our constituents in this Legislature as this goes forward.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’ve had the opportunity to learn many new things since being elected. Every time I speak on behalf of my constituents, I ensure that I have done my homework. I want to be sure that their voices are heard in this Legislature. I also want to know all that I can about issues that affect the province. So here I stand to discuss the budget and to fight to keep hydro public.

The teacher in me cannot resist the opportunity to shed a bit of light on the proud history of public hydro and electricity. Since we are literally standing here on the verge of a new government-induced dark age—literally—our province is on the brink of a time that families and businesses won’t be able to afford to keep their lights on. Since that is the case, let me share a bit about public power so we can fully appreciate it for the next few weeks that we still have it.

I’d like to share an

article from the Dictionary of Canadian Biography on Sir Adam Beck. But before I do that, I’ll flash forward. Sir Adam Beck fought for public hydro. He was knighted because he championed good ideas for the people. In fact, a statue was erected in his honour; a bronze monument of Sir Adam Beck is not far from here. Schools have been named in his memory—schools that soon might not be able to pay for their electricity and, like so many others, might have to close when costs skyrocket and funding evaporates. But I digress.

I’ll read part of an

article researched and written by H.V. Nelles. “The Prometheus of Canadian politics during the first quarter of the 20th century, Sir Adam Beck, brought the inestimable benefit of cheap electric light and power to the citizens of Ontario through a publicly owned utility, the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario. He had to fight continuously to build Hydro, as it came to be called, but supported by municipal allies he succeeded in creating one of the largest publicly owned integrated electric systems in the world....

Adam Beck more than any other public figure in Ontario reshaped the institutional life of the province by making electricity a public utility and legitimizing, through his accomplishments, public ownership as an effective instrument of policy throughout Canada.”

Beck is quoted as insisting that, “It is the duty of the government to see that development is not hindered by permitting a handful of people to enrich themselves out of these treasures at the expense of the general public.” What a great thought. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, I’m going to read it again: “It is the duty of the government to see that development is not hindered by permitting a handful of people to enrich themselves out of these treasures at the expense of the general public.” Continuing from the article, Beck “extolled the power of abundant cheap light to brighten the homes of working people; cheap electricity would create more jobs in the factories of the province; hydro would lighten the drudgery of the barn and the household; and electric railways radiating out from the cities into the countryside would create more prosperous, progressive farms even as light and power made brighter, cleaner cities.”

In 1914, just more than 100 years ago, he received a knighthood. Here we are, 100 years later, rush-debating—probably in six and a half hours—so that this majority government can tear public hydro down and sell it for parts to some backroom money crowd. When I realized that the Premier of our province in just a few weeks will have sold affordable public power without the understanding or support of the people of this province, all the while knowing it is a despicable thing to do—it turns my stomach.

The Premier of this province and leader of the government of Ontario is actually undertaking to punch the lights out of the middle class and the business community and to make sure that our struggling economy can now look forward to struggling in the dark. She is ensuring that small businesses will always stay small and won’t be able to pay their bills. Wynne’s money crowd wants to make a quick buck while the rest of us pay the price.

Just to review, Sir Adam Beck wanted to “brighten the homes of working people”; Premier Kathleen Wynne wants to ensure higher rates for families who are already paying the highest bills in Canada. Sir Adam Beck knew that “cheap electricity would create more jobs in the factories of the province”; Premier Kathleen Wynne wants to ensure that companies like General Motors pay more and more to do business here and is undermining the goal of strengthening opportunities for growth in manufacturing.

Sir Adam Beck knew that “hydro would lighten the drudgery of the barn and the household”; Premier Kathleen Wynne doesn’t seem to care that constituents across this province already can scarcely afford to heat their homes or use their appliances, and now she might expect them to ration their electric light usage. She wants us back in the dark ages. This government likes to keep Ontarians in the dark, and now she wants Ontarians to live in the dark.

If you think I’m being dramatic, which might happen, I will put you in touch with my constituents who are still trying to pay bills from two winters ago—people who live in a basement apartment and only have one baseboard heater that they have to ration use of so they can afford to eat. And that’s just because of deregulation since 1999. What on earth are they going to do once their rates jump another 20% or so?

Sir Adam Beck proposed that “electric railways radiating out from the cities into the countryside would create more prosperous, progressive farms” while “light and power made brighter, cleaner cities.”

But Premier Kathleen Wynne just celebrated a diesel train and has pretended that the point of selling off revenue-generating assets was to invest in transit. They’re sneak-selling a revenue-generating asset that puts money into our provincial health care, into our provincial education, into communities across the province to put 3% of what’s been promised into the Toronto pot for Toronto transit. I begrudge Toronto nothing, but 3% at the expense of every business and household across the province? Who came up with this plan?

The Liberals across from us seem surprised by the little details that we’ve been bringing forward from Bill 91. Who wrote this bill? The Minister of Finance doesn’t seem to have read the fine print. Maybe things are different on that side, but over here when we write a bill, we’re involved in the process. I’ve got a private member’s bill coming up and I know what’s in it, because that’s my job. My name is going to be on it. It is intending to make something better, to fix something. Bill 91 is tearing apart our public power and making a mockery of our democratic process.

Shame on this Premier and shame on the Liberal caucus that isn’t standing up to her and isn’t standing up for their constituents.

To finish the story of Sir Adam Beck and to again quote from the article, “He worried on his deathbed that political partisanship would overcome it and that Hydro as an independent entity would not survive. But in his absence it continued to flourish, firmly rooted in the towns and cities, along the back concessions and amongst the merchants, workers, farmers and homemakers of the province.

Hydroelectricity generated and delivered by a crown corporation to municipally owned utilities at the lowest cost had become an Ontario institution that would outlive changing governments and passing ideologies”—until now; until Premier Kathleen Wynne; until 2015, when this short-sighted Liberal government plans to pull the plug on public power.

New Democrats have invited Ontarians to fight against the sale of Hydro One and, Mr. Speaker, you can too if you go to www.youpaytheprice.ca. We are also holding town halls and meetings across the province. Since you weren’t able to make it to our round table in Oshawa, I’ll be happy to tell you about it.

Andrea Horwath and I hosted a round table discussion to hear from local voices about the sale of hydro. We are fortunate to have a very active local coalition called Keep Hydro Public and I am pleased to read to you from their presentation:

“Keep Hydro Public is a group of concerned Oshawa citizens. We are not opposed to transit and infrastructure, and realize that every budget has plums and barbs, but the sell-off of Hydro One is a barb, will raise hydro rates and have a direct impact on manufacturing jobs all across Ontario and we believe it will be difficult to retain the jobs we presently have. Wasteful spending scandals on eHealth, Ornge, gas plants, software glitches etc. could have paid for transit and infrastructure without selling Hydro One.”

Also at that meeting were teachers who recognize the damage that even less funding, as a result of less revenue, would do and how it would impact our education system and students. At the meeting were community members who can’t understand why this government won’t listen to anyone. At the meeting were electricians who were concerned about what privatizing and lack of oversight will mean in terms of safety standards and certifications. Electricity isn’t a game. This is serious. Again, it’s clear that this government is making a rash, short-sighted decision where communities will be paying the price.

Oshawa, like cities across the province, is concerned about what this sell-off will mean. This isn’t partisan; this is a provincial concern.

I would like to share the front page of Business Matters, which is a regular publication in my community from the Greater Oshawa Chamber of Commerce. The headline is “Budgets 2015: Business Drowning in Energy Debt and No GO for Durham.” I’ll read excerpts from it to share the voice of businesses on this issue:

“With the Ontario budget just completed, the Ontario chamber and the chamber network are concerned about the government’s decisions that are negatively impacting business ... undermining the capacity of businesses to grow and create jobs in Ontario.

“The Ontario Energy Board recently announced that starting May 1 rates will go up by $5.71 per month for an average Ontario household. However, this hydro rate increase has far greater significance for businesses. Increases will range between 7% and 15% per kilowatt hour, impacting, for example, restaurants, fast food outlets and small industry that operate during on-peak and mid-peak times.... This takes on much greater significance given the backdrop of an impending partial sale of Hydro One.”

The chamber goes on, Mr. Speaker: “‘Budget 2015 does little to address business’ concerns over rising electricity rates,’ stated Bob Malcolmson, CEO of the Greater Oshawa Chamber of Commerce, ‘and according to the most recent Ontario Chamber survey, rising electricity prices are the number one factor hurting business competitiveness. Last year alone 2,700 companies left Ontario.’”

Just this past week it was announced that 1,000 jobs at GM will be gone. That’s 1,000 good-paying jobs just gone. In the auto industry, one job in manufacturing has seven to 10 spin-off jobs in the connected industry. That’s a lot of workers. Those are a lot of families. Those are a lot of connected businesses. On the heels of that announcement, this government is ramming through this legislation with no one wanting them to do it; ramming through legislation to increase the cost of electricity and the cost of doing business in Ontario. How can businesses exist when they can’t predict the rising costs or afford to pay them? Who is driving this runaway train?

Speaker, I wonder, through you to the Premier, what hydro experts they have talked to on this issue. What do you even know about hydro? What’s required to build and maintain an efficient hydro system? What do you understand about generation, transmission and distribution systems? Who is your expert, and what do they know about it? Ed Clark is a banker, so who is your hydro expert? Who is advising you? You don’t know what you’re selling and why you are selling it. If you haven’t talked to a hydro expert then you don’t know what you’re doing.

Paul Kahnert worked in the industry for 33 years. He knows hydro. I’m glad to be able to share parts of a recent

article that he wrote for the Hamilton Spectator. Paul worked in the industry, as I said, for 33 years and was spokesperson for the Ontario Electricity Coalition from 2001 to 2010, which campaigned against hydro privatization across the province and stopped the sale of Hydro One in court in the spring of 2002.

The title of the

article was “Wynne’s Sale of Hydro One Is a Betrayal of the Public Interest.” From the article: “If you’re driving your car and the steering wheel comes off in your hands, do you step on the gas or step on the brakes? Hydro rates are out of control in Ontario and with the proposed sale of Hydro One, Kathleen Wynne is stepping on the gas....

“Where is the demand coming from? There are no public demonstrations outside Queen’s Park demanding that Hydro One be sold. The demand is coming from Bay Street and the investment community. Wynne is also looking for a quick fix for Ontario’s deficit.

“There is no such thing as free money. There are permanent consequences from privatization.

“Giving up forever all future revenue (now $1 billion a year) for a one-time cash payment for Hydro One is not a very wise thing to do.”

He continues, “Wynne is promising that all money from the sale will go towards transportation infrastructure. Infrastructure lasts 40 to 50 years and then needs to be rebuilt again. The problem with selling public assets is that you can only sell them once. We said 14 years ago that it’s like burning your furniture to heat your home. What do you burn next? ....

“The private sector does a fabulous job of manufacturing transformers, insulators, wire, relays, switches, connectors and all the materials we need to build our electrical system but they do a poor job of running hydro in the public interest. They can’t. Their fiduciary duty legally requires them to maximize profits for their shareholder. Now, more than $1 billion a year now goes out of the province in private power profits. That money used to go out to businesses and citizens in the form of low and stable rates.

“Politicians did not sell Ontario Hydro during the depths of the Great Depression nor during the height of the Second World War. Those economic times were far worse than what we face now. Those politicians wisely kept hydro to create jobs and to help the economy recover from those lean times.

“The world’s climate is in trouble. Now, more than ever, it is critical that governments have the levers of public ownership to curb global warming and institute real conservation programs.

“The hydro privatization experiment has failed in Ontario. In fact, there is not one jurisdiction anywhere in the world where privatization hasn’t resulted in big rate hikes. The promise of deregulation was ‘lower rates.’ The promise of smart meters was that ‘smart meters will save you money.’ Both promises were completely false.”

He continues, if can you imagine: “Kathleen Wynne needs to scrap the idea of selling Hydro One and put the brakes on hydro deregulation and privatization. It’s in the public interest, both for the economy and environment.

“It’s important to note that during the provincial election on September 5, 2003, McGuinty, low in the polls, took the main campaign plank from the NDP and promised ‘public power.’ Closing the phony IESO electricity market and regulating rates would be a good start on that promise.

“Let’s remember that Sir Adam Beck, a Tory, backed by business, after a 10-year campaign and 18 municipal referendums, brought public power to Ontario in 1905. For 95 years, Ontario grew and prospered under public power. On his deathbed, Sir Adam Beck said, ‘I wish I could have lived long enough to build a band of iron around Hydro, to keep it safe from the politicians.’ He might have added, ‘And safe from the profiteers.’” I’m pleased to be able to share these words from Paul Kahnert, who remembers because he’d gone through this back in 2002.

And back in 2002, Judge Gans ruled on April 19 that the provincial government did not have the right to sell Hydro One and that it belonged to the people of Ontario.

Ernie Eves didn’t like that, so in June 2002 Eves passed Bill 58, which gave the Tory government the legal ability to sell Hydro One. But they didn’t dare sell it because the Star poll of the day said that 94% of Ontarians didn’t want it. What a startling thought: The government of the day listening to the people of the province. But here we are with this government, on this day, determined to put us back 100 years. Is this a Liberal plan or is this a Kathleen Wynne initiative? I don’t know.

On September 5, 2003, then-Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty said in an exclusive interview with the Toronto Sun’s editorial board, “Deregulation and privatization hasn’t worked and we can’t go back there. I’ve drawn a lesson from that. Number one, we’ve got to keep hydro public.”

Interjection.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Right?

Who is driving this? Premier Wynne, you don’t have the moral authority. The legal authority you are borrowing from Tory legislation. You don’t have a mandate. You haven’t consulted the owners: the people of Ontario. Have you really thought this through? Do you have any clue of the damage you are doing? Do you care? You are going to get rid of 10 or 20 years of profit and you are selling the future out from under our kids. And somehow, you’re defending that decision.

I would also ask you, on a point of interest: What are you going to do with the statue—are you going to bury that too—of Sir Adam Beck, or are we going to melt that down for the bronze and sell it off?

This government says it is accountable and transparent. Transparent? The only thing that is clear is that this Premier and her blind followers don’t know right from wrong.

This is an historic turning point. This government is flipping the switch on opportunity and growth in the province. Ontarians will pay the price now and for generations to come. This government, though, if they don’t stop for sober second thought, is going to have to live with doing this to Ontario. Selling public power is an awful thing to do.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Questions and comments?

Hon. Dipika Damerla: It’s a privilege to speak to this bill, the budget bill. I have to say that I’m a little dismayed and disappointed at the misinformation that was being presented and disguised as debate from the member opposite. I’m just wondering: What part of our proposal does the member opposite not understand? Is it the part that says that the Ontario Energy Board will continue to set prices? Is it the part that says that Hydro One will continue to be regulated, with the Ontario government as the largest shareholder?

Is it the part that says that the Ontario government will have a veto on all key decisions; the part that allows us, in part because of this transaction, to build the LRT in Mississauga; or the electrification of the GO train that is going to allow 15-minute service on so many GO corridors and two-way, all-day service? Is it the 100,000 jobs that our infrastructure plan is going to create every year? Is it the Eglinton Crosstown LRT that she doesn’t understand? Is it the Sheppard East LRT that she doesn’t support? Is it the Finch West LRT that she doesn’t support?

I just fail to understand: What part of the plan does she have issue with? Are these not good initiatives? Is it the structuring of the way we are going to broaden the shareholding base of Hydro One that she doesn’t understand? I’m just surprised at some of the rhetoric I heard because it seems to either stem from a wilful desire to not understand the proposal, or perhaps she just hasn’t understood the proposal.

She went on to say that on their side of the House, they actually read that which they write and they actually read that which is written, so I would ask her to go back and reread the budget bill. I would ask her to back and reread the proposal that we have put forward for Hydro One.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’m happy to rise today to provide some feedback on the Liberal budget. I’d actually like to congratulate to the member from Oshawa, who obviously did a lot of homework and research for her remarks this morning. Also, I’m happy to follow the Associate Minister of Health.

I think our PC finance critic yesterday, the member from Nipissing, had the best line of the day when it came to the Liberal budget, and that is that the Liberals need to start paying with a debit card versus a credit card.

We all know that there is a fiscal crisis in this province. We’re seeing in this budget that it is clearly a typical tax-and-spend Liberal budget. In fact, I just read in one of the media reports this morning that there’s $2 billion in extra taxes and fees in this budget. Of course, this allows the Liberals to continue with some of their wasteful spending in Ontario.

Speaking of the spending side, we’re seeing this government continually increase by billions and billions of dollars the spending side of the budget, and long-term, it’s devastating for the province of Ontario. I often speak about the parents out there who have kids, and we’re just passing this burden on to the next generation. That’s the greatest injustice of the Kathleen Wynne Liberal government: to pass the burden to the next generation of Ontarians.

It’s the responsibility of this Legislature to deal with the crisis that’s in front of us. To see Kathleen Wynne and the Liberals continually tax and spend and make life tougher for the next generation is the greatest injustice.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Michael Mantha: I was enjoying the comments from the member from Oshawa this morning. As I was reading my mail—this is from a constituent up in Elliot Lake. I don’t have their permission to read out their name yet, but I will read their views. It says:

“Dear Premier” Kathleen Wynne:

“My wife and I are viewing with alarm the media reports of your plans to sell off ... hydro, or at least a major portion of it, to private investors. We are aware that in the last election you scored a victory at the polls and received a majority in the Legislature. However, having viewed your election platform when you were running for office, we were well aware of your plans once you formed a government. Nowhere in your platform was there a mention of selling” Hydro One.

They go on to say, “It is our opinion that this is why you did not make the sale of hydro part of your election platform, and it is furthermore our opinion that not having done so, your mandate does not address its sale. If you insist on acting on this proposal, you should hold a referendum on the matter. We also expect that this will not happen because you are well aware that Ontario voters are very much against such a plan....

“If you insist on carrying out such folly, selling such a valuable asset to build rapid transit that will forever require a large subsidy to continue operating, and having sold a revenue-generating asset to build it, where will the subsidy come from? ....

“Please scrap this foolish and unpopular idea and come up with a better plan. Another Liberal administration after that disastrous one of Dalton McGuinty’s would be too much to bear.”

These are from constituents of mine who I saw over the weekend. That was the resounding response that I got at the Elliot Lake Trade Show this weekend, where I got thousands of signatures, trying to steer this government in order to get away from their wrong-headed idea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Yvan Baker: It’s an honour to speak today to the budget. I have to say that I’m incredibly proud of this budget. I’m incredibly proud of our Premier and the work that this government has been doing. It’s easy to find fault in things; it’s not always easy to find solutions. I think the Premier and this government have worked very hard to find solutions to some of the challenges they face, but to seize the opportunities for the future. This is a budget that thinks about the short term, but also one that thinks about the long term.

There’s just a few things that I want to highlight in the budget to add to what the minister was saying earlier. On jobs and the economy: In this budget, you have the introduction of the Canada-Ontario Job Grant, covering “two-thirds of total eligible training costs” with “flexibility for small employers”—supporting business, supporting employers. We’re “renewing the Ontario Youth Jobs Strategy by investing an additional $250 million over the next two years,” helping our young people access the job market and address that youth unemployment we face.

We’re investing $55 million towards in-class apprenticeship training and support programs, again, helping our young people get jobs. When it comes to developing our highly-skilled work force, we’re investing $75 million to support construction of a six-storey, 260,000-square-foot learning resource commons at Humber College. This is in my community of Etobicoke. I’m incredibly proud of that. It’s something that’s going to enhance the opportunities for young people in the years to come.

I talked about the youth jobs strategy: $23 million towards the Apprenticeship Enhancement Fund, investing in equipment, technology and space, again, helping young people get jobs. We’re investing $130 billion over 10 years in infrastructure.

Again, this is thinking about the future, not just thinking about the present. I think what this budget has done is all of this and many other things, while at the same time thinking about our fiscal future and ensuring that we’re good custodians of the taxpayer dollar. That means laying out a plan to balance the budget, doing so gradually, doing so responsibly, but doing so. It is so critical and important—not just to this generations but to future generations—that we do so, so that we have the funding to provide those programs and that quality of life that we’ve all come to expect and enjoy.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member from Oshawa for her final comments.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’m pleased to respond to the comments of my colleagues in this House.

To the Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care: It actually isn’t a wilful desire not to understand. It’s a wilful desire to actually read what’s there and not just listen to the spin and to understand that, yes, the OEB sets rates; they set a 42% increase in gas rates. You gave us a list of positives, and that’s great. Where’s the list of negatives? I’ve got one for you: no FIPPA, no Auditor General, no FAO, no freedom of information, no Ombudsman oversight and no transparency. There’s a list for you. Also, I know that 60% trumps 40% every time.

To the member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex: Thank you, I appreciate your comments, your attention and your shout-out for my homework.

To the member from Algoma–Manitoulin: I know that you’re hearing from your constituents, and I’m pleased that you’re sharing that with us. We’re all hearing from our constituents. Even the Liberal members are hearing from their constituents, and I would challenge them to listen to those constituents.

To the member from Etobicoke Centre: Thank you for bringing up jobs and the economy and talking about the Youth Jobs Strategy. The people of Oshawa are very concerned about what on earth we’re going to do for jobs now and what on earth we’re going to do for any kind of job security in the future, especially, when we’re looking at GM, We’re in flux right now. We’ve just had that announcement. We’ve lost 1,000 jobs and all of those spin-off jobs in the community. Our community is going to be affected now and down the road. We don’t know what will happen.

Maybe we will be able to secure a GM product, and things will be fine. But if the hydro rates continue to go up and up and up and they can’t plan for those expenses—they don’t know what they’re going to be. What business can plan when they can’t predict? What business is going to feel comfortable staying in a climate when they can’t afford to keep the lights on?

To your point of gradually and responsibly rolling out this budget: We’re talking two weeks and then the public power is gone. That doesn’t seem gradual, nor does it seem responsible.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate?

Mr. Mike Colle: I’ll be sharing my time with the members from Cambridge, Kitchener Centre, and Beaches–East York.

The C.D. Howe Institute estimates—this is in a study in 2013—“the congestion cost for the greater Toronto area and Hamilton to be between $7.5 billion”—with a B—“to $11 billion”—with a B—“per year.” That’s what congestion costs. People stuck in traffic on the 401 and the QEW, stuck going to work every day, delivering goods and services—these are people who are contributing to the economy. If we think we’re going to pay for our hospitals and schools with an economy that loses $7 billion to $11 billion a year, we ain’t gonna do it. We have no choice.

The Conservatives and NDP basically have no plan. All they do is say, “Do nothing,” and somehow, magically, this congestion will disappear. This is a critical issue that is costing everybody in Ontario extra time lost, extra time to pay for gas and extra time in delivering food, products and industrial products.

These billions of dollars cost everybody, year after year. This is not a one-time cost, so building infrastructure—roads, bridges, public transit—is an imperative. We have no choice. Therefore, I wonder what their plan is to build transit or to build roads or to fix our bridges. They have none. All they say is, “We don’t like the way you’re going to do it.”

Sure, the way we’re going to do it is outlined in the budget. They’ve got, as usual, everything negative to say about Ontario, everything negative to say about the future of this province. But the future of this province is in its economy, in moving goods and services. We’ve got an amazing workforce in this province, from Cornwall to Kenora, but we can’t let this workforce go to work if we’ve got people stuck in traffic and trucks stuck in traffic every day—$7 billion to $11 billion a year.

What is their plan to do something? The plan is basically zero. All they say is, “Oh, we love Hydro One” all of a sudden. I’ve been sitting here for a number of years; I never heard one of them on either side ever stand up and say anything good about Hydro One in 20 years—now they love Hydro One—or the Beer Store—now they’re in love with the Beer Store.

Now, all of a sudden, every day, they’re saying, “Whoa. Isn’t Hydro One fantastic?” They stood up here, day after day, hammering it as poorly run: “It’s got to be done better. People are complaining.” The Beer Store: “We’ve got to get more competition in the Beer Store.” We finally do something, and they say, “Oh, don’t do it. We love it as it is.”

The status quo, Mr. Speaker, is not an option, because we can’t borrow any more. Maybe that’s what they want to do. Maybe we should increase borrowing.

Ms. Cindy Forster: You can’t borrow more.

Mr. Mike Colle: Right, so we can’t borrow.

Or maybe they say perhaps that we should increase taxes to pay for infrastructure. They basically have no way of paying to build the roads, the bridges and the public transit.

As we build the roads, the bridges and the public transit, we actually do something fantastic, and that is that we give people good-paying jobs in construction and all the supportive work that goes into construction—all the design work, all the planning work. People actually make a good living in building infrastructure.

They don’t like that. They say, “Don’t do it. Don’t build the infrastructure. We can’t afford it. We don’t have the money. Don’t do it this way.”

We need the jobs. We need to get rid of the congestion. This budget basically makes an investment in Ontario, in its people and its future, so that we can grow the economy to provide health care, education, and help for our most vulnerable. They don’t have any idea how they would do that. They just say, “Don’t do it your way. It’s wrong.”

And what is their way? They have no way, Mr. Speaker: no plan, no idea; nothing but criticism. You’ll never hear them say one good thing about the budget. It’s impossible to find one thing. They’re negative—

Mr. Michael Mantha: Because it’s a Liberal budget.

Mr. Mike Colle: Exactly. They just said it. Because it’s from the Liberals, they’re against every aspect of the budget.

But the people want to get rid of congestion, and the people want jobs, and they don’t want us to just defend the old Beer Store and Hydro One and say “Oh, don’t touch these holy grails.”

They’re stuck in the past. Get with it. Get with the people who want jobs and want to get rid of congestion.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate?

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: I’m glad to add my voice this morning to the budget debate. I certainly welcome some of the comments from my colleague from Eglinton–Lawrence.

One of the things that I’m really happy to see in this budget is the support that we’ve got for children and youth. I’ve spoken frequently in the House about my two appropriate-aged sons for the youth jobs strategy—I have an 18- and a 21-year-old at home—but it’s also the friends that they bring home from school and those friends who are looking forward to their future and wondering what’s out there for them. So I’m really pleased to see that we’re renewing Ontario’s Youth Jobs Strategy by investing $250 million more over two years. That benefits the students and youth in Cambridge, in particular, and I see a great benefit so they have more options for their future.

I wanted to talk about Cambridge’s manufacturing sector. Cambridge was actually founded on manufacturing. I wanted to say that I’m really happy with the fact that our advanced manufacturing sector has grown over 4% in the last few years. It also means that our manufacturing plants need more highly skilled trades. I’ve often noted that Conestoga College in Cambridge has many skilled trades programs, and I’m really pleased to see another investment of $13 million over two years for pre-apprenticeship programs and investing another $19 million over the next three years to support training for apprenticeship programs. This really benefits the manufacturing plants in my city.

Investing $23 million more over two years in the Apprenticeship Enhancement Fund in Cambridge is also great news. As I’ve said, we’ve been growing manufacturing, and I’ve had a lot of conversations and tours of our local manufacturing companies. They are very happy not only with the investment in the highly skilled trades department and the apprenticeship programs, but they’re also very pleased about the ongoing support with our Southwestern Ontario Development Fund.

We have many businesses in Cambridge that have benefited from the investment from this fund, and many more that are looking to apply to this program. Recent examples are Meridian Manufacturing, Cambridge Towel, and COM DEV, to name a few. They’re very happy with the ongoing support.

The Jobs and Prosperity Fund is also important to a dynamic business environment, in particular, again, in Cambridge because of our highly skilled and manufacturing plants.

Some of the recent tours that I’ve had in Cambridge really confirm the fact that the energy program from the Ontario Liberal government over the last few years has been key to their success. Why? Well, I toured a plant on Friday, and part of their business is making vinyl products. When there is an interruption in electricity supply, the batch is ruined, and they have a whole protocol on how to shut down the machines and make sure that they can take the molten vinyl off the lines before it gums up and interferes with their machinery.

This company has been in Cambridge for over 100 years, so they remember the times in the 1990s, and again the big shutdown in their plant in 2003 when the electricity system failed in our part of the world. They really do appreciate the fact that now when they flip the switch on, the electricity system is reliable, and that they’re able to continue to manufacture.

As a matter of a fact, at a recent round table, there were 19 manufacturers and businesses at that round table on economic development put on by our chamber of commerce. Business after business kept praising the fact that they do have reliable electricity, which is key to making sure that their manufacturing processes are intact. It’s a real waste when they have to ruin a batch of product if the electricity fails in the meantime.

We’ve had a recent company invest in Cambridge because of the low corporate taxes and because of the ongoing investment in the highly skilled trades project. We welcomed Héroux-Devtek just a couple of months ago to open their doors, and they’re building high-end landing gear for big aircraft. We’re really happy to have them, and it’s because of the ongoing support in this budget from the Jobs and Prosperity Fund and the ongoing investment in skills training.

Speaker, I’m going to stop there and allow my colleagues also to enter in, but I’m certainly very, very supportive of this budget.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Seeing as it is now 10:15, this Legislature stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Steve Clark: I want to welcome the paramedics that are here from CUPE Ontario and the committee chair, Chris Day. Unfortunately, I think the breakfast was over by the time I got down there, but I know that a number of my caucus colleagues will be meeting with them today, so welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I hate to do “me too,” but that’s exactly where I’m going. I just want to welcome the paramedics on behalf of our leader, Andrea Horwath, and New Democrats, and specifically the chair, Chris Day, who is here today with paramedics from across the province. Welcome.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: On behalf of our Premier and the entire government of Ontario, I do want to welcome and thank all the paramedics who are here today. Thank you very much for being the first responders on pretty much every scene when it comes to injuries in our community. As we celebrate first responders week, we thank you for your sacrifice and your heroism in our community.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I’d like, in particular with the paramedics, to introduce Patricia MacFarlane from the Perth paramedic service, and Norm Robillard from the Ottawa paramedics, whom I met with earlier. We had a great chat on the post-traumatic stress disorder issue.

Mr. Wayne Gates: Once again, I’d like to welcome the paramedics from Niagara Falls. They’re here as part of CUPE Queen’s Park paramedic day: Blaine Bittman, Jim Simpson, Jon Brunarski, Dave Barnett and Kyle Gemmill.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I’d like to introduce to the Legislature today Miles Wu and Morgan Stahl, who are working as interns at the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport this summer. Welcome.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’d like to introduce today, with the CUPE paramedics—the ambulance committee of Ontario is having a Queen’s Park lobby day—from my riding of Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, Chris Day, who is also the acting chair of the CUPE Ambulance Committee of Ontario. Welcome to Queen’s Park. I’ve had a chance to meet with Chris in the past and had very good discussions.

M me France Gélinas: I also have a visitor all the way from Sudbury, a paramedic with the city of greater Sudbury, Mr. Bruce Welch. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’d like to welcome Lymphoma Canada to Queen’s Park today. We’re also joined by two of my summer interns, Will Eberlee and Kate Dotsikas, in the members’ gallery. But particularly, I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome the paramedics attending question period today in the public gallery. We’ve got representatives here representing over 5,500 paramedics and dispatchers, members of CUPE, and the committee chair is here, Chris Day.

Mrs. Julia Munro: I’m here on behalf of the member for Haldimand–Norfolk to introduce the family of page captain Olivia Collver: father, Mark Collver, aunt, Carolyn Wade and her grandfather, Gerald Walsh.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I just wanted to add my voice and welcome the paramedics from the great city of Toronto, in particular Leslie Bremner, who was on my radio show today on post-traumatic stress disorder and how we need it covered.

Mr. Harinder S. Takhar: I want to introduce the grade 10 students from St. Aloysius Gonzaga high school in my riding of Mississauga–Erindale. They are here in the building and should be in the Legislature soon, along with the staff and the volunteers. I want to welcome them.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: It’s hard to see from where I’m sitting, but I believe I see Pete Wright from OPSEU. I’m always glad to see him here at the Legislature. Also, I’d like to add my voice to welcome the paramedics from across Ontario. I believe I see Jeff Van Pelt from Oshawa up there, if I’m not mistaken. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Bob Delaney: On behalf of the member for Scarborough–Guildwood and page captain Ishika Tiwari, I’d like to introduce the page’s mother, Anita Tiwari, and father, Sudhir “Sid” Tiwari, who are in the public gallery this morning. Welcome.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I’d like to welcome a visitor, Jozef Kowalewski, here to the Legislative Assembly today. He’s here to have lunch with me.

Mr. Chris Ballard: I’d like to introduce two people from the Ontario Association of Food Banks: Erin Fotheringham and Carolyn Stewart, who are with us today in the members’ gallery.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I am happy to introduce my two interns, James Liles and Pierre-Olivier Gagné-Corriveau. They are starting their internship in my office this week. Bienvenue.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I would also like to acknowledge that we have the three interns who will be working in my office over the summer. We’re joined here today in the gallery by Alex Cohen, Francesca Cesario and Amir Soltania.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’d like to welcome two interns who have joined my office for the summer. I think they might still be in the security lineup. Logan Byberg and Christian Pottier are joining us today for question period.

Privatization of public assets

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Timmins–James Bay has given me notice of intent to raise a point of privilege. I am prepared to hear the member now.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I will try not to be too long, but I just want you to know that I’ve filed a point of privilege not only with you, but also with the other two House leaders.

Pursuant to standing order 21(c), I gave you notice of my intent to raise a point of privilege this morning—I did that—concerning a possible breach of privilege with regard to the government’s tentative deal with Ontario Power Generation and Hydro One employees, who are both represented by the Power Workers’ Union.

After the recommendation of the Premier’s Advisory Council on Government Assets, the government has been explicitly clear that it intends to privatize Hydro One, a publicly owned crown corporation. This decision was pursued and included in the budget bill presented to this Legislature on April 23, 2015. The proposal in this budget marks the most significant shift in public service delivery within the last 25 years, and the subsequent implications of the budget will resonate for at least a generation. Debate on the budget, including the sale of Hydro One laid out in it, has just begun, and the budget has not seen a minute of committee hearings.

The government has been clear that the proceeds from the sale of Hydro One will be used to invest in the province’s infrastructure and transit. Yet the Globe and Mail on May 1, as well as other media outlets, have reported that the tentative deal with the power generation and Hydro One employees would include shares equivalent to 2.75% of their salaries every 15 years and 2.7% of their salaries every 12 years respectively. The government has consistently demonstrated an acute awareness of these negotiations of a tentative collective bargaining agreement with the Power Workers’ Union.

I want to quote. This is a quote from Deb Matthews from the House on April 30: “We are very pleased that a tentative agreement has been reached with the Power Workers’ Union. It is a net-zero deal, but it is” ours “for ratification. I’m not going to comment on a deal that actually is before the members of that union so they can make their” own “decision about ratification. I’m going to respect that process.

“But I am very, very pleased that the leadership of the Power Workers’ Union has expressed support. I’m actually very excited that workers who work in Hydro One are demonstrating that they may be interested in being owners of” a partially owned utility. “I really believe when workers own part of the company they’re working for, that” will make “for a stronger company.”

Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli on April 30 in the Toronto Star said, “It’s a win-win for both sides.”

“It’s a tentative ‘net zero’ contract. It’s compliant with our policies”—and I underline “our policies.”

Again, the Toronto Star, Bob Chiarelli, April 30: “The tentative settlement ... is very broad-based and deals with all of the important issues that we need to accommodate on both sides.”

New Democrats maintain serious concerns about the negative long-term effects and costs of privatization of Hydro One. We are equally troubled by the government’s decision to prematurely negotiate deals involving the distribution of Hydro One shares before the Legislature has approved such privatization. That really goes to the centre of what the point of privilege is all about. How can this happen, when the Legislature has not yet passed the legislation, that the government has somehow acquiesced to the ability of Hydro One to negotiate such a deal of shares with the Power Workers’ Union?

It seems to us that that’s putting the cart before the horse, and also it’s flagrantly against what the precedents are in this House.

It is our assertion that this action represents a breach of privilege and constitutes a contempt of Parliament. Clearly the government has given the go-ahead for hydro to negotiate this without the authorization of this Legislature.

Information regarding the tentative deal reached by the government with Ontario Power Generation and Hydro One workers involving the distribution of shares that have yet to be approved by this assembly has been made publicly available and has been reported in the Globe and Mail, the Financial Post, the Toronto Star, Metro news and Newstalk 1010, amongst others. By pre-empting the bill’s progression through the House, the government has acted in a fashion that signals that the appropriate parliamentary processes are unnecessary for the completion of any deal. Again, Mr. Speaker, this bill is still before the House. We have not passed such a bill.

In 1997, a prima facie ruling by Speaker Stockwell regarding a document involved with government advertising, warned as follows—if you remember, Speaker, it was related to the megacity bill. The government had put out advertising—specifically, had put out a flyer—where they were talking about what was going to happen should this legislation pass.

Stockwell had this to say: He warned that “a reader of that document could be left with an incorrect impression about how parliamentary democracy works in Ontario, an impression that undermines respect for our parliamentary institutions.”

An unassuming member of the public could infer from any of the media outlets above that the distribution of Hydro One shares by the government is a foregone conclusion and not contingent on

an act of the House that has yet to occur.

Erskine May explains the concept of contempt in the following terms: “Generally speaking, any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency”—and I say “tendency”—“directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence. It is therefore impossible to list every act which might be considered to amount to a contempt, the power to punish for such an offence being of its nature discretionary” to the Speaker.

“Indignities offered to the House by words spoken or writings published reflecting on its character or proceedings have been constantly punished by both the Lords and the Commons upon the principle that such acts tend to obstruct the Houses in the performance of their functions by diminishing the respect due to them....

“Other acts besides words spoken or writings published reflecting upon either House or its proceedings which, though they do not tend directly to obstruct or impede either House in the performance of its functions, yet have a tendency to produce this result indirectly or by bringing such House into odium, contempt or ridicule or by lowering its authorities may constitute contempts,” according to Erskine May.

I finish on this: By negotiating the distribution of private shares of a public crown asset such as Ontario hydro before the Legislature of Ontario has approved the sale of such shares, the government undermines the authority of this House.

It is clear that the concerns of various speakers identified not only in Stockwell’s 1997 ruling, but others, raises questions about the manner in which the government is negotiating the sale of Hydro One shares. It is for these reasons I hope that you rule in favour of a prima facie case of contempt and allow this House to investigate this matter fully.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank the member.

On the same point of privilege, the member from Leeds–Grenville.

Mr. Steve Clark: I’m pleased to respond. I received the letter from the House leader from the third party about an hour ago, and I did have a very casual conversation with him just prior to the introductions portion of question period.

I make no bones, Speaker. I’ve said in the past that I have serious concerns about this government undermining the 107 members of this Legislature, the fact that I believe on a number of occasions they’ve undermined the relevance of this Legislature.

I too share the concerns of the member from Timmins–James Bay about the decisions and the statements that this government has made outside of this House about the Hydro One share sale, the distribution of those shares and, in addition, statements that they’ve made outside of this point of privilege just on the sale of hydro, the sale of Hydro One Brampton—the feeling from the members of the public that these deals are all done. It really flies in the face of all of us and our parliamentary democracy that the government continues down this path without the debate that I believe is deserved.

I also agree with the member’s statements around Speaker Stockwell’s rulings about the impression that the public has that decisions have been made when there hasn’t been that discussion in this House.

While Progressive Conservatives have not had ample time to be able to provide a written submission, we do share the road that this government is taking all Ontarians down in this sale. The fact is that we have a parliamentary place that deserves debate for those significant items of the public good, so we support this letter and this issue. We hope that you will rule in favour. I think the member’s last comments about more investigation and more discussion—I hope that’s the road you will put us on this morning, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On the same point of privilege, the government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Speaker. I respectfully ask that you dismiss this point of privilege from the honourable member from Timmins–James Bay because notice was not given at the first available opportunity.

By his own admission, the honourable member from Timmins–James Bay quotes in his letter that he has known about this for at least five days. The member quotes an

article from the Toronto Star dated April 30 where the Minister of Energy, Bob Chiarelli, speaks to a tentative deal. In fact, Speaker, if you look, the earliest reporting of this issue goes back to an

article in the Globe and Mail, to March 20, 2015, and the first line of that

article reads as follows: “Ontario’s two main power workers’ unions could end up owning a slice of a partially privatized Hydro One.”

Speaker, I would like to quote from your ruling of April 21, 2015, where you ruled on the timing of a point of privilege:

“Yesterday, the member from Leeds–Grenville provided me with an additional written notice of intent to raise a point of privilege, as required by standing order 21(c). The notice refers to the release last week of the report of the Premier’s Advisory Council on Government Assets, and principally about the fact the announcement took place outside the Legislative Assembly and at a time that conflicted with the day’s question period.

“I have to advise the member that I cannot accept his notice. A point of privilege must be raised at the earliest opportunity after the alleged breach has occurred. Having received the member’s notice only late last night, which relates to events that occurred four days previous, I do not believe the member has met the timeline’s requirement.”

In your ruling from April 21, you found that this point of privilege had not met the timeline’s requirement. The circumstances that we are discussing today are no different. At the very least, the member for Timmins–James Bay had the opportunity to raise this point yesterday. He chose not to do so, and on this basis alone, precedent dictates that you not accept this point of privilege.

In regard to the potential point of privilege raised by the member for Timmins–James Bay, the events in question by his own admission occurred five days previous to when the notice was given. Further, just last week, the member from Nepean–Carleton asked a question on the same issue in the assembly during question period.

Because this point of privilege was not raised at the earliest opportunity, I respectfully ask that you dismiss it. Should you choose to rule on it, I would ask, given that the notice for this motion was just received earlier today, that an opportunity be provided for us to provide a more fulsome written response by the end of today that would illustrate how the potential agreement with the Power Workers’ Union does not presume passage of the budget bill and how previous Speakers’ rulings made it clear that civil servants can take reasonable planning measures in advance of the passage of the requisite legislation.

Furthermore, if a deal is eventually ratified, it would of course be contingent on the Legislature passing the budget. There has been no suggestion otherwise.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The continuance: the member from Timmins–James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I just want to say—I don’t want to prolong this any longer than I have to, but I think there are a couple of points that need to be made.

First of all, we just started writing this up yesterday because it finally occurred to us through research. In fact, that’s where we got those quotes. I got them from the research. I saw that in an email in regard to the media stories sometime this weekend. It takes time to put that together.

The other thing is, I’ll remind this House, when it came to the decision in regard to the last time we got into this, in regard to the gas plant committee, that issue had been happening at committee for some time before it ever got to the House. So I don’t think arguing timelines is quite right.

The issue here is that when I found out, I started to put together a point of privilege. It takes a while, as you can be aware, to do some research. I asked my staff to go through the media clippings in order to find clippings that would indicate that in fact the government did support this particular initiative, and that’s what they found. That’s why they’re included in the letter. It’s not because I read them on that day. It’s because they actually did the research, and we wrote this particular point of privilege yesterday. Unfortunately, by 5 o’clock I went to your office and you were not there.

I got there around 5 o’clock. I’m not chastising you, but it’s just the reality that you weren’t there. That’s why I immediately went to your office this morning to bring it in.

I also want to say, just on the last point, the issue here is that this Legislature has a function, and the function is to approve the budgetary process of the government and approve legislation. When a government decides to enact and to put into place what it is supposing to happen as a result of passage of legislation before the legislation is ever passed, I think it is an affront to this Legislature. That’s really what the crux of it is. I won’t repeat that, but I’m sure you understand why we raised this, and I ask you not to take into consideration the comments made by the government House leader.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): To be clear, I take all comments into consideration.

I’m going to reserve my ruling on this matter and will deliver it at a future date.

Also, I’m going to ask that the written submissions that have been referred to are delivered to me no later than 3 p.m. this afternoon.

Oral Questions

Privatization of public assets

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Premier. Premier, we’ve been talking a lot lately about this upcoming sale of shares in Hydro One, but there’s been very little talk of your sale of Hydro One Brampton.

Ed Clark’s report states that a deal has already been reached with three private companies, yet your government never publicly put Hydro One Brampton up for sale. You never even asked for a single competitive bid. Ontarians have no guarantee that they’re getting maximum value for the sale of Hydro One Brampton.

Premier, if you’re going to sell public assets, can you at least provide some evidence that it’s being done properly?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Minister of Energy is going to want to comment in the supplementaries, but I just want to be clear that I believe it is very important that we work with local distribution companies in this province. I think consolidation is something that we can agree is an important thing.

The proposed merger of Enersource, Horizon, Hydro One Brampton and PowerStream will create the second-largest distributor. This merged entity would be able to deliver efficiencies and economies of scale that would translate into savings for their respective ratepayers. That is critical.

I would just also comment on the agreement that consolidation is a good thing: The PC’s white paper encouraged consolidation for “stronger utilities and lower operations, maintenance, and administrative costs.” They actually are onside with this.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: I think you said you believed that the gas plant cancellation was going to be $40 million.

Premier, when talking about alcohol sales, Ed Clark wrote, “We expressed the view that some degree of competition is always healthy... ,” yet when talking about the sale of hydro assets, he wrote, “The council believes that the province should not conduct an open auction or procurement process for Hydro One Brampton.” It’s a classic Liberal move: Say one thing, do another.

Premier, if Ed Clark states that competition is always healthy, why won’t you allow a single competitive bid process on the sale of Hydro One Brampton?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: After considerable consultation and examining the market, the council—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. Like yesterday, I’ll jump quickly.

Carry on.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The council’s report emphasized, “This option results in a strong consolidator in the GTHA at a value that was as high as could otherwise be achieved”—and they did explore the market, Mr. Speaker. This proposed merger is a unique circumstance that presented itself, and the council was of the belief that its value could not be replicated through any alternative process.

In considering what form of strategic sale or merger to pursue, the council was influenced strongly by the importance of creating a strong, stand-alone industry consolidator.

Again, their Paths to Prosperity stated—

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Sure, we’ll just trust you on this one like we’ve done in the past.

Premier, you’re asking Ontarians to trust you on this deal. With your track record, that’s just not good enough. That’s why I wrote to the Auditor General to ask her to investigate the sale of Hydro One Brampton before you remove her ability to do so in the coming weeks, with the passing of the budget bill.

We know that you like to say you’re open and transparent, so now’s your chance to back that up. If you truly have nothing to hide, you will support my request to let the Auditor General, with her vast experience in the energy sector, investigate the sale of Hydro One Brampton.

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Dufferin–Caledon, come to order. Yes, I said that I was going to be sharp—especially when I’m standing.

Carry on.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The transaction represents eight municipalities, some of whom are already consolidated in one form or another. The circumstances were extremely unique. Our government intends to proceed with the merger of Enersource, Horizon, Hydro One Brampton and PowerStream to ensure value for the province and to encourage local distribution company consolidation for the benefit of ratepayers.

They issued a white paper. They talked about trying to create circumstances for consolidation. They issued a white paper that asked to broaden the ownership of Hydro One and OPG. Now they’re turning against themselves only to be critical, and have no positive options to offer in this House.

Winter highway maintenance

Mr. Michael Harris: My question is to the Premier. Premier, last week’s auditor’s report revealed the truth of the fatal impact of your decisions to sign cost-cutting, substandard contracts for winter road maintenance. And yet when asked yesterday, you tried to spin a tale suggesting that standards after your cost-cutting contracts were the same as before they were signed. You even tried to blame a previous government that you know full well had nothing to do with you lowering the bar on standards.

The auditor made it clear regarding your government’s contract substituting outcome targets for previously long-held standards. Contractors were making it up as they went along. Previous requirements protecting the safety of Ontario motorists went right out the window when you introduced the new agreements.

Premier, this is on you. Admit it: Your cost-cutting contracts weren’t the result of previous governments; they were about you and yours alone.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: As I said yesterday, I want to thank the member from Kitchener–Conestoga for that question; and as I said last week when the auditor released her report, I thank her and her team for the thorough review that they’ve conducted into the Ministry of Transportation’s winter maintenance program.

As a result of the 2013 internal review that the ministry conducted on this program, we have brought forward over 105 pieces of additional equipment, 55 pieces mostly for northern Ontario and 50 pieces for southern Ontario. We brought in 20 additional area inspectors to help enhance the oversight within the program itself.

Last week’s 2015 Ontario budget included additional measures that, if passed, will help us provide more anti-icing liquid through our contractors as needed, as well as additional unique spreaders for sand and salt, both for northern areas and congested urban areas.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Harris: Back to the Premier: Premier, apparently you just can’t handle the truth, even after the auditor spelled it out in black and white. After years of rhetoric and doublespeak by an endless line of transportation ministers from Jim Bradley to Kathleen Wynne to Bob Chiarelli to Glen Murray, the report details a road management scheme that you passed around like a hot potato, all the while jeopardizing Ontario motorists.

Four separate ministers, and now a rookie fifth, are willing to turn their heads while contracts you signed ensured substandard maintenance on winter roads, leading to injuries and even death. You all signed these contracts. People have lost loved ones as a result. You are all implicated and yet you keep talking about a “too little, too late” review that’s not even public yet.

Premier, quit the game-playing, the finger-pointing and own up to the truths the auditor has revealed.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): This will be my last reminder about this today, and that is, you use member’s ridings or their titles and that’s it.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I thank the member for that question. As I also mentioned last week both in response directly to the auditor’s report but also in response to questions that occurred here in the Legislature, amongst all of the eight recommendations and all of the background information that the auditor provided—and, by the way, the Ministry of Transportation and I, as Minister of Transportation, accept all eight of the auditor’s recommendations. We’ll be moving forward to make sure that we continue to provide the service that’s required.

But amongst all of those recommendations, the auditor did acknowledge that the province of Ontario, for the last 13 years, has consistently ranked first or second in North America when it comes to highway safety. In fact—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Steven Del Duca: —specifically in 2012, the only other jurisdiction in North America that had a better record than Ontario was the District of Columbia.

It doesn’t mean that our work is done—

Interjection.

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

One wrap-up sentence, please.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: It doesn’t mean that the work is done. That’s why I said very clearly last week that I accept full responsibility for going forward. I will work with our area maintenance contractors and we will make sure the program continues to provide the service that the people of Ontario deserve.

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

Mr. Michael Harris: —the 2013 report shortly.

Premier, the fact is that the auditor report only paints part of the picture. That picture becomes darker still when you consider the fatalities that continue to mark Ontario highways while government turns the other way.

Carol Milojkovich wonders if her husband, Robert, and her son Daniel would still be alive today following a fatal collision with a transport truck on February 3 on a stretch of highway near Cornwall many considered a winter trouble spot.

Premier, we have a growing death toll, lawsuits and a damning auditor’s report, and instead of apologies and action these families get platitudes to future fixes.

Premier, quit saving money on the backs of Ontario motorists. Apologize, and make damn sure your winter maintenance decisions don’t jeopardize the lives of—

Interjections.

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

Mr. Michael Harris: Withdraw.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Speaker, when I spoke last week in response to the auditor’s report I did say—and I’ll repeat it here this morning—that every single day of the week I use Ontario’s highways, as does my wife. Very often both of our young daughters are in the car with us. I know that many on all sides of this House do the exact same thing. I feel a profound sense of responsibility with respect to making sure that, going forward, we continue to bring the improvements that are required to the winter maintenance program to provide, as I said earlier, that level of service that the people of Ontario deserve.

I should also say that I have specifically written to the auditor with respect to asking her to come back in at the end of the next winter season—at the end of winter 2015-16—to provide the Ministry of Transportation, the media and the public at large with an update with respect to our progress. That’s real accountability. We’re going to keep working on this program, and we’ll have that report next year.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. The Premier is selling off Hydro One without even asking Ontarians what they think. Instead of hearing from them as part of the budget process, she’s keeping everything on lockdown here in Toronto.

Why isn’t the Premier interested in hearing from people across Ontario about her decision to sell off their Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I remarked yesterday, we are having more hearings on our budget than the history of the other two parties would demonstrate. We’ve increased the number of days of hearings. I think the member opposite knows that people from around the province can delegate to the budget committee. They can provide information. Either in written form or in person, they can provide information.

Quite the opposite of what the member opposite is suggesting, we are interested in hearing from people on the plan that we have put forward in the budget—a plan, I might say, we ran on, and we have put into our budget. We ran on reviewing our assets.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: While the Premier won’t listen to Ontarians, we know she will listen to high-priced consultants about what they think about selling Hydro One. While she has paid nearly $7 million to high-priced consultants, she won’t tell Ontarians what they gave her in terms of advice.

I think there are some other people she should be consulting with: the people who actually own Hydro One and the people who pay the bills. This might surprise the Premier, but Hydro One doesn’t belong to the Liberal Party; it belongs to Ontarians.

Can the Premier explain why it is that she paid $7 million to get advice from Bay Street consulting firms, but she won’t consult with the people of Ontario about the sale of their Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Once again, let me just challenge the leader of the third party by reminding her that there has been a proposal presented to both opposition House leaders that would increase the standard for committee consideration to six days. Let’s remember that when their party was in office, in 1991 and 1992 there was one day of committee hearings. Under the PCs, from 1996 to 2002—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Simcoe North will come to order; second time.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: In 1996, two days of hearings; in 1997, two days; in 2000, two days; in 2002, zero days of committee hearings. The fact is, we are going to be hearing from the people of Ontario.

But Mr. Speaker, to the point about having experts give us advice, it was a complicated process, and we did have—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Six days is not enough time for Ontarians to have their say on one of the biggest public policy decisions that has come through this chamber in a decade or more. It is not right, Speaker. It is wrong. She is treating the sell-off of Hydro One like it is a done deal; that’s what the point of privilege was about this morning.

To those of you on the backbenches, you just have to remember this: It is you who is going to have to go to your constituents and explain why your Premier is putting this through the Legislature without talking—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. The Minister of Economic Development.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Not now, member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex.

As part of the convention, if comments and questions are put to the Speaker, we tend not to have this.

Please finish.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s not just me saying this. Almost 25,000 Ontarians have sent a message to the Premier through our website. Even Liberal riding activists are launching campaigns to stop their very own Premier from this wrong-headed decision.

Can she explain to Ontario families why it is that she will not take the time to listen to them and give them the respect they deserve?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What I will say to the leader of the third party and to the people of Ontario is that we—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —are very interested in their comments. I am very interested in hearing from them, as we did in pre-budget hearings around the province. I’m very interested in hearing their responses on the budget, which is why we have increased the number of days that we would like to have post-budget hearings.

But a couple of things that the leader of the third party has said are very indicative of what she’s trying to do at this moment. The fact is, on this side of the House, we have had very clear discussions in the leadup to the budget about what was in that budget. We are a team that has taken this budget to the people of the province. It may be that the way the third party works is that it’s a one-woman show. That’s not how it works over here. We actually have a combined approach that—

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

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. New question.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Premier. The Premier says that selling Hydro One is the only way to pay for transit and infrastructure, but she’s just given away the very first shares in Hydro One, and it won’t put a nickel into infrastructure or transit. The Premier says that selling off Hydro One is the only way. New Democrats say it is the wrong way.

The Premier does have other options but she refuses to look at them: things like corporate taxes, things like closing HST loopholes or keeping the billions of dollars—

Interjections.

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

The Minister of Energy, come to order; the Minister of Economic Development, the member from Trinity–Spadina.

I’m catching up. You can laugh all you want. I do know who is.

Please finish.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: —or keeping the billions of dollars in long-term, stable revenue that Hydro One brings to fund all of our services here in this province.

The Premier says selling Hydro One is the only choice, but she is glossing over the fact that it will pay for only 3% of her $130 billion in promises.

Will the Premier explain why it is she’s ramming through a plan to sell Hydro One, a plan that isn’t needed for transit and infrastructure but does leave families paying the price?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let’s just be clear that what the leader of the third party wants to do now is once again block the implementation of a budget that would build new transit, that would continue to reduce auto rates, that would continue to implement an Ontario Retirement Pension Plan. She’s not interested in doing any of those things.

She’s not putting a plan forward for how she would make the investments in infrastructure—$130 billion over 10 years—and she knows perfectly well that in order to make that investment, there are a number of things that we have to do. She knows perfectly well that we have allocated HST and gas tax to put towards those investments. She knows perfectly well that the opening of ownership of Hydro One is only one part of that plan, and it is a plan to make investments that she is apparently not interested in making.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier does not have a mandate to sell Hydro One, and that is the bottom line. She does not have a good reason to sell Hydro One. Sure, it will make a handful of high-paid consultants, Bay Street bankers and Liberal insiders very, very rich, but it will leave families—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Transportation.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: —paying higher bills for generations to come. The Premier didn’t give people a say on this during the election because no matter how hard she protests, she didn’t run on it and everybody knows it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): There is some back and forth going on while a question is being put by members of that side, and there are members, while the answer is being put, dialoguing and trying to egg each other on. I get it. I hope you get it that it’s not supposed to happen.

Did you wrap up? Please.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: No matter how hard she protests, she knows darn well she did not run on this plan. Everybody knows it. Now she’s ramming it through the House.

Why is the Premier ramming through a plan that’s bad for Ontarians without even asking them what they think?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I would say to the leader of the third party: What is it about making investments in this province to the tune of $130 billion for the next 10 years, investing in transit and transportation infrastructure, and by that I mean roads and bridges, across this province—why is it that she does not see that this is necessary to the economic health and well-being of this province?

We ran on this. We said we were going to make those investments and we said that part of our plan was to review the assets that were owned by the people of Ontario and make sure that we could leverage them to have the ability to invest in the infrastructure and the assets that are needed for the 21st century. We ran on that. She ran on that. We are implementing the plan that we ran on.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What is it about actually getting a mandate from the people in a democracy that this Premier does not understand? The Premier did not get a mandate to sell off Hydro One. That is the truth—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. There are a few people who are on two.

Please finish.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: And the sad thing is, now that she has an opportunity to get input through the committee process, instead she’s going to ram it through the House. She is not interested in what people have to say. Instead, she is pushing for a privatization agenda that is worse than what we saw with Ernie Eves and Mike Harris.

Will the Premier stop listening to bankers, stop listening—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Please finish.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Will the Premier stop listening to bankers, stop listening to high-paid consultants, stop listening to Liberal insiders and start listening to the people of Ontario and give them a chance to have their say and put a stop to—

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

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just remind the leader of the third party of the text of our 2014 budget: “The government will look at maximizing and unlocking value from assets it currently holds, including real estate holdings as well as crown corporations such as Ontario Power Generation, Hydro One and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.”

We said in our 2014 platform: “Our Moving Ontario Forward plan includes a balanced and responsible approach to paying for these investments. The funds will be dedicated from sources of revenue:” Asset optimization we pegged at $3.15 billion or 10.9%. That’s what we ran on.

But underlying that was a plan to make the investments that we know are needed in this province that will allow this economy to grow. She doesn’t want to talk to experts. The leader of the third party is not interested in—

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

Correctional facilities

Mr. Rick Nicholls: My question is to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. We have known for over a year that your ministry has been gearing up for a strike. You started building strike accommodations 10 months before the corrections contracts had even ended, a clear sign that you aren’t planning to bargain in good faith.

This past week, we learned that those buildings cost $5.8 million. For a government that is selling everything they can to pay their debts, that money could have gone a long way elsewhere.

Almost every ministry is slashing front-line services. Minister, bargain in good faith. Wouldn’t that $5.8 million have been better spent on correctional front-line services?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I thank the member opposite for asking the question. I am sure, also, that the member opposite knows that when it comes to matters dealing with collective bargaining, it would be highly inappropriate for anybody in this House to speak to that.

I think that we on this side of the House firmly believe that the best place for bargaining to take place is at the table between our labour partners and management, and I really urge the member that we should not interfere in that bargaining process. I have the utmost respect for the process. I know that negotiations are ongoing, and I will not interfere in those negotiations.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Well, Minister, I’m not so certain that I really got an answer to this.

That $5.8 million was spent 10 months before contracts even ended. Meanwhile, you allowed new superjails in Toronto and Windsor to operate for a year without infirmaries, while facilities like the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre are overcrowded and understaffed.

This is inexcusable, yet you would rather pour—

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I would ask that the crowd not engage in any activities that are disruptive to the House. Sergeant-at-Arms—okay? Thank you.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Thank you, Speaker.

So we were talking about operating for a year without infirmaries, while facilities like the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre are overcrowded and understaffed. It’s inexcusable, yet you would rather pour millions into preparing for a strike that may not happen.

Maybe you had the foresight that students across the province would be out of the classroom because your colleague refuses to negotiate; the foresight that correctional institutions would strike next. Clearly, Minister, you have no hope of getting a deal done.

Minister, is that $5.8 million part of your net-zero deals or—

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

Minister?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Again, I would restate that we respect the collective bargaining process, and we let the bargaining take place at the table between our labour partners and management. I think that it’s not appropriate for any member to engage in that process here in the House.

Also, I want to note the fact that our number one priority is the health and safety of our correctional staff and of the inmates. When you are engaged in collective bargaining and dealing with places like our correctional institutions, it would be highly irresponsible for any government not to engage in some planning ahead of time, to ensure that the health and safety of all correctional staff and inmates is protected at all times.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier. The Premier hasn’t even passed her budget bill yet, but she’s already handing away shares of Hydro One worth tens of millions of dollars a year and hundreds of millions of dollars over the lifetime of that deal, all without ever asking Ontarians.

The Premier promised that all the money from Hydro One would go to transit and infrastructure, but those hundreds of millions of dollars that the Premier is giving away won’t build any bridges, won’t pave any roads, won’t dig any subway tunnels—and she’s doing it all before a budget has even been passed.

Does the Premier think that her decisions trump the will of the Legislature?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The critic for the NDP knows, in fact, that there is a tentative agreement, and that we cannot discuss or disclose those details until there has been a ratification vote.

But it’s time. The GTA has the worst congestion of any municipal area in the world. The city of Hamilton needs funding for its rapid transit. Rural communities have been asking to expand natural gas. The proceeds of sharing ownership of Hydro One will be invested in infrastructure, and in that process, we’re respecting the interests of the ratepayers.

Mr. Speaker, they have no plan of any nature or kind, other than—they admitted today—that they are going to tax to pay for infrastructure. We’ll tell the province that they are going to tax for infrastructure. We are going to repurpose our—

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

Supplementary.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Quite a performance.

Selling Hydro One is the wrong decision. It means that bills will go up and that families will pay the price. Handing away shares will cost hundreds of millions of dollars over the lifetime of the Premier’s scheme. That’s hundreds of millions of dollars not going to transit or infrastructure that the minister just spoke about. The Premier is handing away hundreds of millions of dollars in Hydro One shares before the budget has even been passed.

Can the Premier explain why she doesn’t seem to care about what people have to say or even waiting until the budget has been to committee, let alone passed?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The opposition continues to say that the ratepayer will pay. We just heard that again. The member knows that the Ontario Energy Board approves all prices that consumers will pay. In fact, there is a r