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

May 5, 2016

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-May-05 (PDF)

L169 - Thu 5 May 2016 / Jeu 5 mai 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 5 May 2016 Jeudi 5 mai 2016

Orders of the Day

Energy Statute Law Amendment Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant des lois sur l’énergie

Introduction of Visitors

Order of business

Death of member’s son

Oral Questions

Autism treatment

Autism treatment

Autism treatment

Energy policies

Autism treatment

Autism treatment

Accès à la justice

Autism treatment

Member’s conduct

Education funding

Autism treatment

Hospital funding

Post-secondary education

Notice of dissatisfaction

Deferred Votes

Time allocation

Health Information Protection Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la protection des renseignements sur la santé

Members’ Statements

Baptism of Poland

Tamil Genocide Remembrance Month

South Asian Heritage Month

Innovation and technology sector in Durham

Environmental protection

Maison Vale Hospice

Tree planting

Toronto Raptors

Jewish Heritage Month

Introduction of Bills

Child Care and Early Years Amendment Act (Waiting Lists), 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant la

Loi sur la garde d’enfants et la petite enfance (listes d’attente)

1733387 Ontario Corp. Act, 2016

Petitions

Automotive dealers

Hospital funding

Lung health

Autism treatment

Newborn health

Men’s health

Home care

Autism treatment

Water fluoridation

Autism treatment

Ontario Northland Transportation Commission

Unaddressed mail

Private Members’ Public Business

Childhood Cancer Awareness Month

Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Number Plates and Carrying Racks), 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant le Code de la route (plaques d’immatriculation et supports de transport)

Commission of Inquiry into Accessible Parking in Municipalities Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 concernant la commission d’enquête sur le stationnement accessible dans les municipalités

Childhood Cancer Awareness Month

Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Number Plates and Carrying Racks), 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant le Code de la route (plaques d’immatriculation et supports de transport)

Commission of Inquiry into Accessible Parking in Municipalities Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 concernant la commission d’enquête sur le stationnement accessible dans les municipalités

Orders of the Day

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan Act (Strengthening Retirement Security for Ontarians), 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le Régime de retraite de la province de l’Ontario (sécuriser la retraite en Ontario)

Alternative Financial Services Statute Law Amendment Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant des lois concernant les services financiers de rechange

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Energy Statute Law Amendment Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant des lois sur l’énergie

Mr. Chiarelli moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 135,

An Act to amend several statutes and revoke several regulations in relation to energy conservation and long-term energy planning / Projet de loi 135, Loi modifiant plusieurs lois et abrogeant plusieurs règlements en ce qui concerne la conservation de l’énergie et la planification énergétique à long terme.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I recognize the minister.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I’m pleased to share my time today with my colleague, the hard-working member from Burlington, Eleanor McMahon.

Speaker, today I rise to move third reading of Bill 135, the Energy Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015. This proposed legislation would accomplish several very important measures for a stronger, more collaborative energy planning process. It would improve energy transmission reliability in the province of Ontario, and the new planning regimen creates a strong platform to keep electricity rates competitive and for a strong economy.

Before I get into more detail of the proposed legislation, Speaker, I want to recognize the hard work, dedication and commitment of the Ministry of Energy staff and the staff across our energy agencies, including the Independent Electricity System Operator, the Ontario Energy Board and Ontario Power Generation, all of whom have worked tirelessly on this vital piece of legislation and the effort they devote to the energy sector throughout the province every day.

I’d also like to acknowledge energy’s role in building Ontario up. Nothing is more essential to our everyday quality of life and economic success than a steady supply of clean, reliable and affordable electricity. Our economy continues to grow, and as technical and operational innovations accelerate, ratepayers, economies, industry and governments need to adapt, and adapt quickly.

I’m talking about electric cars, electrified transit, behind-the-meter generation, smart grid technology, electricity storage, innovations in renewable energy, off-grid generation, modernizing building codes and, most of all, eliminating carbon emissions. This makes our unwavering commitment to innovative, cost-effective, clean and reliable power an ongoing necessity for our economy, our environment and our quality of life.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 135 creates a reliable planning mechanism to keep electricity rates competitive and our economy strong and growing. One of the biggest myths we hear—I know it’s one often promulgated by members of the opposition—is that electricity prices in Ontario are the highest in North America. This is just plain wrong. Ontario’s residential electricity rates are, and will remain, competitive with jurisdictions in North America. When comparing the cost per kilowatt hour, Ontario’s rates are lower than most American cities and significantly lower than electricity rates in European cities.

While some Canadian provinces have lower prices than Ontario, Ontario has competitive prices with other provinces such as Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Saskatchewan and PEI.

While most other jurisdictions are still burning dirty coal for two thirds of their power, our government is proud that we have achieved competitive rates while undertaking the largest climate change initiative in North America. This requires smart planning legislation and smart planning policies.

Our 2013 long-term energy plan is putting Ontario in a competitive place. The 2013 long-term energy plan is the platform on which we’re building the needs of the future through Bill 135.

Looking across Canada, Ontario’s recent 2.5% bill increase is reasonable and stacks up competitively across our comparators. BC Hydro rates increased by 4% on April 1, 2016; Saskatchewan power rates were approved for a 5% increase in 2015; Manitoba Hydro applied a rate increase of 3.95% as of April 1, 2016; and Newfoundland Power applied for a rate increase of 3.6% for residential customers as of July 1. Yes, our rates went up by 2.5%; I challenge any member in the Legislature to find a jurisdiction in North America where rates are not going up. The issue is, how do you keep the increases to a minimum? That is a very, very significant issue when it comes to electricity planning.

We also recognize that the price of electricity can be difficult for those who pay a higher share of their income toward the bill, particularly low-income families and seniors on a fixed income. That’s why the Ontario Energy Board launched the Ontario Electricity Support Program for lower-income families, and that is why the debt retirement charge was removed on January 1 of this year, saving the average family a combined $430 annually.

We also know that bills can be even harder for families and seniors in rural and remote areas that heat with electricity or use medically assistive devices. That’s why we doubled the monthly benefit these families can access to up to $100.

Bill 135, when passed, represents a planning framework that makes these price mitigation measures possible by government.

Through our planning framework, we have additional programs that help reduce bills for Ontario families. The Ontario Energy and Property Tax Credit saves qualifying individuals up to $993 per year; the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program provides emergency financial support; the saveONenergy Home Assistance Program provides free home energy efficiency assessments and energy-saving measures; and the Northern Ontario Energy Credit helps families and individuals in northern Ontario, providing individuals up to $143 in savings.

Regarding industrial prices, northern Ontario actually has one of the lowest industrial electricity rates in North America—among the lowest in Canada and lower than 49 American states; the third-lowest in North America. Industrial rates in southern Ontario are lower than in Michigan, Wisconsin, New Jersey and California, and below the American average.

Just a few weeks ago, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce partnered with the Ministry of Energy to publish clear data on these facts. It’s called the Ontario Energy Report and it’s available on the ministry website at www.ontarioenergyreport.ca. I’m going to read that again: www.ontarioenergyreport.ca. Speaker, it’s there. There’s a chart showing the comparable prices. It’s credible, it’s objective and it shows that Ontario is doing extremely well compared to our competitors.

Bill 135, if passed, would allow a planning framework to continue and expand existing programs. Just last week, I was in Timmins discussing some of the programs the Ministry of Energy now offers to even further reduce the impact of electricity prices on the bottom line of some of Ontario’s industrial consumers. That’s the industrial electricity incentive.

This is a program our government launched in 2012 to offer sharply discounted rates of up to 50% for job creators across the province, with a special focus on industrial consumers like the mining industry, greenhouse growers, refrigerated warehouses and data-processing centres. Speaker, I want to provide some examples of companies that are benefiting from this IEI program, which provides up to a 50% discount off their electricity bills, a program that could be expanded under the Bill 135 planning process.

I was fortunate to be in Timmins to highlight two local companies, Alamos Gold and St. Andrew Goldfields, which both have made use of this program and expanded their mining operations in that region. We were up there with our staff two or three weeks ago. We had a very positive reception, particularly from the company involved. Alamos, for example, has increased its daily gold output by 2,000 tonnes per day, creating 75 new jobs and supporting more than 700 good jobs for this community. The CEO of that company credits this program with enabling them to proceed in this way.

These two success stories in the riding of the member from Timmins–James Bay aren’t the only companies participating in this program.

Mr. John Yakabuski: What about in Pembroke?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: My critic the member from Pembroke-Renfrew talks about the company in his riding that benefited very significantly and was able to rehire over 100 jobs. I appreciate the fact that my critic gives us credit, once in a while, for doing something good. Thank you.

In fact, the list of IEI program beneficiaries includes FNX Mining Company Inc., in the member from Sudbury’s community; Vision Extrusions, in the member from Vaughan’s community; Roelands Plant Farms Inc., in the member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex’s community; Amco Farms Inc., in the member from Chatham-Kent–Essex’s community; Omya Canada Inc. and Tweed Inc., in the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington’s community; New Gold Inc. and EACOM Timber Corp., in the member from Kenora–Rainy River’s community; White River Forest Products, in the member from Algoma–Manitoulin’s community; and Resolute FP Canada Inc., in the Thunder Bay community.

Just for the record, Speaker, seven of these 10 examples are benefiting companies and communities that are located in opposition members’ ridings.

Mr. Speaker, we’re going to continue to focus on ensuring that our electricity system is clean, reliable and affordable for all. That can only be accomplished with a modern, updated planning framework, which Bill 135 would provide. And we’re continuing to make significant progress in transforming the electricity system into one that Ontarians can continue to count on for reliability, leadership and clean energy.

Speaker, when our government came to office, 25% of Ontario’s generation was from very cheap but very dirty coal. A central priority of the government when it comes to energy planning was to ensure a very clean supply mix so that we’d have a healthy population, and a strong planning platform is needed to initiate these types of transformational policies. In that context, Speaker, we have closed all of our coal-fired electricity plants, helping to clean up the air that was making our kids sick and saving the province $4.4 billion per year in environmental and health care costs.

That is the largest emissions reduction action plan in North America, taking the equivalent of seven million cars’ worth of emissions off the roads in Ontario, efforts that reduce carbon emissions and fight climate change. It wasn’t an easy decision, Speaker, but it was one our government committed to achieve, and, as they say, promise made, promise kept.

But, Speaker, we can’t lay down our tools. And one of the best tools we have, moving forward, will be Bill 135. We’ve taken energy planning and electricity reliability to a level ignored under previous governments, and we have rebuilt our transmission and distribution systems, investing $34 billion in the generation and transmission that ensure that when Ontario needs electricity, you can count on it to be there. It’s easy to forget that this wasn’t always the case, not long ago, and the system was crying out for proper planning frameworks.

I think we can all recall the rolling brownouts and blackouts that made Ontario an unreliable place to do business and set up shop, and that the then-PC government had installed large portable generators in downtown Toronto as a backup for an unreliable and dirty system that had a deficit of electricity. So after years and years of underinvestment, we finally turned the page and ensured that when you flip the switch, the lights will come on.

Speaker, Ontario has also recently confirmed that the future of energy planning in Ontario is strongly rooted in an affordable, reliable, emissions-free supply of baseload nuclear power. This was planned for under the 2013 long-term energy plan, the predecessor to Bill 135. Under that plan, we will continue building for the future, undertaking a very significant nuclear refurbishment plan at the Darlington and Bruce reactors.

What’s truly amazing about this commitment is that all nuclear facilities in Ontario are variants of the Candu reactor design, and it’s significant that more than 90% of the supply chain that supports this type of nuclear units is located right here in Ontario. That supply chain represents more than 180 companies employing tens of thousands of Ontarians in well-paying jobs.

Refurbishment is also a direct vote of confidence in this supply chain and this domestic industry. It’s a vote of confidence in companies like Cambridge’s BWXT Canada Ltd., which employs more than 500 people in the community, or Peterborough’s General Electric Hitachi nuclear energy facility, which employs more than 350 people in highly skilled trades in the nuclear industry, or perhaps a vote of confidence in Cameco’s Port Hope facility, which employs 660 people in the nuclear industry. That energy planning vote of confidence is going to create 60,000 Ontario jobs.

It’s going to invest $25 billion in updated and needed energy infrastructure. It’s going to drive economic growth in communities across Ontario, and it’s going to secure 30 years of emissions-free power. That’s amazing as well.

If all that wasn’t enough, it’s going to help stabilize prices in Ontario. It’s going to secure three decades of emissions-free power at a very affordable price of just 7.7 cents per kilowatt hour on average going into the grid.

The planning framework that enabled this success needs a refresh, and that’s going to take place in Bill 135. An affordable, clean supply mix is central to our planning. That has recently been reflected in the IESO’s first competitive procurement for renewable energy contracts. Last month, the IESO announced that this successful first round would come in at an average price of 8.5 cents per kilowatt hour, which is comparable to conventional generation, and will include 13 projects, or 80% of the total projects, with significant aboriginal or First Nation participation. And 75% of these 16 projects had local community support, Speaker.

So yes, the world of energy and electricity is changing at an accelerated pace. That’s what Bill 135 is all about. What’s incredibly significant about our renewable achievements of local support and lower prices is that, compared to the forecasts in our 2013 long-term energy plan, our system now benefits from $3.3 billion in savings, saving the average consumer $1.67 per month on their electricity bill, thanks to renewables. This is a significant change in how we procure renewable power in Ontario and sets a strong benchmark for the future of energy planning in this province, one that includes nuclear, renewables, water power and natural gas.

All of these decisions and actions taken by our government to drive cost pressures down, to ensure reliable supply and transmission and to transform our system from one dependent on coal to one free of it relate directly to the legislation we are considering here today.

If passed, this act would establish in law a long-term energy planning process that is transparent, efficient and able to respond to changing policy and system needs, and also, very critically, enable to change a plan and adjust quickly to the accelerated innovation that we’re seeing across the energy and electricity sector. This is consistent with our government’s commitment to enhance transparency and community participation through open data, open dialogue and open government initiatives.

This act would also support increased competition and enhanced ratepayer value by empowering the Independent Electricity System Operator to competitively procure transmission projects. This is important because previously, there was a regimen that allowed, for example, Hydro One to initiate transmission projects and to implement them. We now have implemented a competitive process where the IESO will open up transmission implementation to all players in these sectors.

This act would also introduce two new initiatives to help Ontario families and businesses conserve energy and water to help manage costs at both the retail customer level and the system as a whole.

First, it would require owners of large buildings to track their buildings’ energy and water use and greenhouse gas emissions over time, to allow owners and renters to determine how a building’s energy performance is changing and how it compares to similar buildings.

Second, it would set water efficiency standards for products such as appliances that consume both energy and water, like dishwashers and washing machines, allowing Ontarians to make the best choices for themselves when shopping for appliances.

We are not reinventing the wheel here with these two initiatives. Both of these initiatives follow best practices in a significant number of jurisdictions in Canada, the US and the United Kingdom.

This legislation would protect the long-term energy planning principles that developed the 2010 and 2013 long-term energy plans to ensure that future plans are developed consistent with the principles of cost-effectiveness, reliability, clean energy, early community and indigenous people’s engagement, with much more attention to innovation, new technologies and climate change.

Our government knows that sound, prudent, long-term energy planning is essential to a clean, reliable and affordable energy system. The best way to ensure that kind of robust system planning occurs is to consult with the public, indigenous communities, industry and the energy stakeholder community. The proposed legislation includes a role for the Ontario Energy Board and the Independent Electricity System Operator in facilitating the implementation of cabinet-approved principles.

In essence, the proposed legislation would give the government the ability to set goals and objectives for the energy sector, but only after consideration of independent technical information on the sector from the IESO and after broad and substantive consultations with the public, stakeholders and aboriginal communities. Once the long-term energy plan has been developed, the IESO and the Ontario Energy Board would be responsible for independently executing and implementing that plan.

The proposed act would ensure that energy planning is conducted in a transparent manner consistent with the government’s open dialogue initiative, requiring that the government undertake consultations with the public and relevant stakeholders and consider the results of those consultations when developing the long-term energy plan. This would build on the model of the comprehensive public consultation and engagement already undertaken with consumers, stakeholders and First Nation and Métis communities as part of the 2013 long-term energy planning process.

For the 2013 long-term energy plan, the comprehensive engagement included a number of stakeholder sessions and public town halls which took place in over a dozen communities across the province. More than 1,000 formal submissions were considered, and the ministry received about 8,000 responses to an online survey.

This act would enshrine in legislation the kind of planning process that the ministry used to develop the 2013 long-term energy plan. There is more work to be done, and having an energy planning process that is more open, transparent and responsive to changing times and innovation will help us to continue to build on our achievements.

We are anxious to get moving with this legislation to ensure that open, consultative planning continues to be the watchword of this government. We have heard often from opposition critics that a reliable and affordable electricity system is essential for a strong and competitive economy.

I’d like to conclude this morning by briefly reviewing the strong economic results that energy planning in this province has directly supported.

Ontario’s GDP is currently 2.9%. Tied with British Columbia, we are together leading the country. TD Economics has just released its updated forecasts for the country. It projects that Ontario’s GDP growth will be 2.9% in 2016, 0.7% higher than we projected in our 2016 budget released just a short while ago.

Ontario has gained 22,500 jobs in the last three months and 85,000 jobs since this time last year, with 90% of those jobs, Speaker, being full-time jobs and 76% being in above-average wage-earning industries.

Our job recovery rate since the great recession is 224%, well outpacing the United States at 161%.

Speaker, we hear the opposition alleging that job losses are resulting from bad energy planning, but the converse is the reality. Good energy policies contribute to a healthy economy and to job creation.

It should not be a surprise that Ontario has been named number one in North American jurisdictions for foreign direct investment for a second year in a row. Investors and companies from around the world are voting for Ontario with their chequebooks. That’s the bottom line. Our unemployment rate is 6.8%, well below the national unemployment rate of 7.1%.

Ontario’s combined federal and provincial corporate tax rate is the second-lowest of all North American jurisdictions. Together with a reliable, clean, affordable and well-planned electricity sector, Ontario is a magnet to attract investors. So it should come as no surprise that Moody’s rating agency has recently upgraded Ontario’s rating because of our strong economy, cost containment, and positive deficit reduction results.

Ontario made a choice to continue to invest in people, in infrastructure and in a robust energy sector and to take a little longer to get back to balance. That is why today, Ontario is right up there with British Columbia, leading Canada in economic growth, job creation and exports.

I encourage all members of this House to focus on moving this legislation forward, to securing an open and engaging process for energy planning. Together, we will continue to build Ontario up, to build our local and regional economies and, most importantly, to build a better and carbon-free future for our kids and grandkids.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I recognize the member from Burlington.

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to begin this morning by thanking the Minister of Energy for his leadership in helping to rebuild and strengthen Ontario’s energy system. We are extremely fortunate to have in Ontario a strong mix of reliable sources for our energy needs. This enormously complicated file requires someone steady and wise at the helm, and this minister is definitely both. He is leading Ontario transformation to a clean, green, reliable and affordable future, and for this he deserves our admiration and our thanks as one of the best public servants to hold this portfolio in the history of our province. I thank him for his diligence and his leadership.

Due to his and this government’s efforts, Ontario has come so far in building a clean, reliable and diverse energy system. That is why I am pleased to rise today in support of the third reading of Bill 135, the Energy Statute Law Amendment Act, 2016.

Madam Speaker, the current legislative process for energy and electricity planning is burdensome, slow, unresponsive to the changing environment of the energy sector, and unnecessarily costly. That’s exactly why our government has proposed a new process which would be able to respond in a timely manner to the emerging policy, program and technology needs that have the potential to make our system stronger and more focused on consumer needs. It would reduce process red tape that can bog down effective planning and reflect a more integrated approach to planning, consultation and implementation.

But mostly, Speaker, this is a tried and tested process, one used already in the development of both the 2010 and 2013 long-term energy plans.

Now we have the opportunity to replace the outdated system officially with a planning process that works, both across government and with and among our stakeholders—and it has been embraced, I should note, by them.

The act would bring about improvements in three areas.

First, it would establish in the law a long-term energy planning process that is transparent, efficient and able to respond to changing policy and system needs.

Second, it would support increased competition and enhanced ratepayer value by empowering the Independent Electricity System Operator, or IESO, to competitively procure transmission projects.

Third, it would introduce two new initiatives to help Ontario families, businesses and our province as a whole conserve energy and water to manage costs.

Let’s begin with the long-term energy planning process. This government recognizes that sound, prudent long-term energy planning is essential to a clean, reliable and affordable energy future. This goal is being achieved through the implementation of the 2013 long-term energy plan, more commonly known as the LTEP. In fact, the 2013 LTEP was the biggest, most open and comprehensive consultation in ministry history and an early leading example of the principles of open government.

To give you some more background, the 2013 LTEP was designed to balance five principles that guide all of our decisions: cost-effectiveness, reliability, clean energy, community engagement and putting conservation first. For the past two-plus years, we have been rolling out a variety of initiatives under the plan, and it will continue to guide our efforts. The overarching theme throughout the LTEP, and the guiding principle of the plan, is that commitment to putting conservation first.

The 2013 LTEP reinforced this government’s commitment to conservation. In fact, it set a long-term conservation target of 30 terawatt hours in 2032. This target represents a 16% reduction in forecast gross demand for electricity, the equivalent of more than all of the power used in 2013 by the city of Toronto alone. The 2013 LTEP also set a goal of meeting 10% of peak demand using demand response by 2025.

Energy efficiency will also help us with another key priority: Meeting the objectives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through this government’s Climate Change Action Plan. The Ministry of Energy is making progress in implementing conservation first by launching electricity and natural gas conservation frameworks. Both frameworks are long-term commitments to support the delivery of conservation programs and are aligned to promote collaboration of conservation efforts among electricity and natural gas utilities.

It’s important to understand that what is being accomplished on conservation is all driven by the commitments laid out in the LTEP. It is the guiding document and process for the Ministry of Energy, its agencies and the broader energy sector. A high degree of thought and care goes into planning the energy system for the future, including efforts to reduce costs and complexity. Quite simply, this means prioritizing the reliability of our energy supply and making the requisite investment in our energy system.

It means thinking beyond the four-year election cycle and planning for the longer term, to ensure that Ontario businesses and residents have the reliability that has become the hallmark of this government’s energy policy.

Effective planning also means securing input, and our government is committed to stakeholder and public participation in energy system planning. With this in mind, the province has refined a planning process which is efficient, responsive to changing policy and system needs, and supported by robust stakeholder consultations.

Under the proposed legislation, the IESO technical report is a starting point, a launching pad for stakeholder consultations. Developing the LTEP is a highly collaborative process in which the Ministry of Energy directly engages with stakeholders, indigenous communities and the public. The feedback from consultations and engagements would then be considered in the development of the plan itself. The ministry, with support from its agencies, would then be responsible for preparing the LTEP based on the data provided by the IESO and feedback received through consultations.

The LTEP would include specific goals and objectives for Ontario’s energy system and would require cabinet approval before it is issued to the public. Cabinet would also issue directives to the IESO and the Ontario Energy Board asking for implementation plans from both to meet the plan’s goals and objectives.

Both the IESO and the Ontario Energy Board would then develop their respective implementation plans outlining frameworks on how best to implement the government’s objectives and requirements as set out in the plan.

These implementation plans would be subject to the Minister of Energy’s approval. Once the minister has reviewed and approved the implementation plans, the IESO and the OEB would proceed with procurements and developing programs or policies as outlined in their prospective implementation plans.

While this series of checks and balances might seem and feel as though it is very process-oriented, as the saying goes, “Fail to plan, plan to fail.” Getting the plan right is critical.

In support of open government, open dialogue and open data, Bill 135 would require consultation in a variety of forums and mediums when developing LTEPs and would require publication of key background information and data used in their development.

The report would be similar to the technical report that the IESO will be developing on the electricity sector under proposed legislation.

Speaker, as you can see, the built-in consultation in this process is impressive. As I said before, the preparation of the plan, the 2013 LTEP, involved the biggest, most open and comprehensive consultation in Ministry of Energy history, and was an early leading example of following the principles of open government. Opening up the process not only ensures greater input; it also enhances understanding of the enormous complexities that are inherent in the energy system process.

Consultations included 12 regional sessions; round-table discussions with over 600 stakeholders, including evening open houses so the public could participate, and, excitingly, 300 members of the public did so; and 10 indigenous engagement sessions, meetings with a total of about 275 participants from over 100 First Nations and Métis communities and organizations.

An academic-focused innovation session, in development with the Mowat Centre, was held to discuss best leading-edge practices in conservation, community energy planning, emerging technologies and ensuring grid resiliency.

The Ministry of Energy also heard from individuals, municipalities, industry associations, businesses, non-government organizations, First Nations and Métis communities and other groups.

The ministry received more than 1,200 EBR submissions, 2,000 emails through letter-writing campaigns and close to 8,000 questionnaire responses. All of this has shaped our plan moving forward, Madam Speaker.

The Ministry of Energy went to these communities, and senior officials met face to face with thousands of people. This is meaningful consultation, not conducted in some closed-door boardroom. The LTEP consultation process is a very public one.

One initiative that has resulted from the LTEP planning process is the Ontario Energy Report and website. This quarterly report brings together approximately 60 datasets from across Ontario’s energy sector and makes them available to everyone—an excellent example of transparency and open government in action.

Over the 2010 and 2013 LTEP rounds, the LTEP planning process has proven itself an effective means of establishing the government’s key goals and priorities for our province’s energy system. Again, the effectiveness of this planning process is yet another reason why the government is proposing a statutory basis for long-term-energy planning that would build on the 2010 and 2013 processes. This plan would make consultation with the public, stakeholders, First Nations and Métis groups throughout Ontario a requirement in the development of energy plans moving forward, as well as ensuring that energy plans and their supporting technical data are made public.

There has been a lot of support for Ontario’s leadership in energy planning and setting a standard for openness and transparency in the process. Many positive comments were shared by stakeholders during public committee hearings for this bill. I can tell you that in my own riding of Burlington, where a good cross-section of the nuclear energy supply chain is resident, there is broad support for the minister’s leadership, the hard work of his officials and the steady hand that is guiding the helm of the long-term energy planning process.

Indeed, Chris Hughes, the CEO of Laker Energy, a company in my riding and a supplier engaged in the Bruce nuclear refurbishments, has said publicly that this is the best energy minister he has worked with in the history of his career.

He is not alone in his praise of the important work that our government and this ministry is doing. For example, Deputy Grand Chief Derek Fox of the Nishnawbe Aski Nation said:

“Bill 135 is a clear recognition that energy has far-reaching political, economic, social and environmental impacts—all of which are critical to NAN and the 49 First Nations it represents.

“Bill 135 clearly establishes the requirement to consult with First Nations” of NAN, and, in acknowledging that First Nations must be consulted, that we “must be an active participant and beneficiary of Ontario’s energy industry.”

Also, David McFadden, chair of the Ontario Energy Association, said:

“I’ll outline a few of the reasons why we think Bill 135 is important.

“First, and perhaps most importantly, it provides clarification on how energy planning will proceed in the future in this province. Predictability is very important for the energy sector, as you well know, because energy projects are often capital-intensive and require long lead times for development and construction....

“Energy infrastructure is vital to our province’s economic prosperity and to our standard of living. Proper planning is essential. By spelling out when and how energy planning will be done, Bill 135 greatly improves the ability of energy companies to do business in Ontario and provides Ontario’s citizens and businesses with reliable and sustainable energy supplies.”

He continued: “Bill 135 also makes some specific positive changes to the role of the Independent Electricity System Operator. In particular, Bill 135 adds electricity storage and transmission projects to the IESO’s procurement authorities. The proposed IESO procurement mechanisms will improve the integration of renewable power into Ontario’s energy system while encouraging new, competitive entry into Ontario’s storage and transmission businesses.

“If any of you participated in the 2013 LTEP,” he continued, “then much of this will sound familiar, and that’s because the government did an unprecedented job in developing the plan, consulting with our industry and the public, and working closely with the IESO to get the facts right.”

The second change proposed in this bill is a change to transmission planning and procurement. Electricity transmission system planning is the responsibility of the IESO and involves assessing need and timing for new transmission infrastructure. Key bulk system transmission projects may be identified in the proposed LTEP process that I just described. Currently, the IESO can procure generation assets and electricity capacity, but it does not have the authority to undertake procurement for transmission. The legislation would provide the IESO with this ability, and it will allow for it to undertake competitive processes for transmitter selection or procurement, where appropriate.

A shift to a competitive procurement approach to transmission reflects the increasing role of the private sector in the transmission system with all of the inherent efficiencies this brings, and will ensure ratepayers receive the best value when investments are made to upgrade the system. And those need to be made, make no mistake. To suggest otherwise is to imperil our system and it would mean a return to the brownouts that were a hallmark of our past.

The IESO is well positioned to undertake the selection or procurement processes. If passed, Bill 135 would empower the Independent Electricity System Operator to undertake competitive selection or procurement of transmission where appropriate, leading to enhanced affordability.

The third change under Bill 135 relates to energy conservation. Conservation is one of the five pillars of Ontario’s long-term energy plan, along with cost-effectiveness, reliability, clean energy and community engagement. Conservation is the cleanest and most cost-effective energy resource. It helps families and businesses save money on their energy bills and reduces the need to build expensive energy infrastructure. Conservation also reduces greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, creating a cleaner future for our children and grandchildren.

It builds on our investments in the system, which saw us transition from dirty coal to a cleaner energy future, the single most transformative clean energy decision in North America. Fewer smog days and hospital admissions have been the powerful legacy of that investment, and as an asthmatic, I’m grateful for both of those.

As the government plans our energy needs for the next 20 years, conservation will be the first resource considered before building new generation, transmission and distribution infrastructure, wherever cost-effective. When you consider the potential for large-scale electrification, making the most of our existing resources and achieving maximum efficiency becomes doubly important.

Ontario has already made great strides in building a culture of conservation. From 2005 to 2014, Ontarians conserved 9.9 terawatts of electricity, enough to power the cities of Ottawa and Windsor in 2014. As mentioned earlier, the electricity conservation target is 30 terawatt hours by 2032. We are also aiming to use demand response to meet 10% of peak demand by 2025.

Bill 135 introduces two new initiatives that would help Ontario families, businesses and our province as a whole conserve water and energy and manage costs. The first of these mechanisms is the energy and water reporting and benchmarking initiative for large buildings. If this legislation is passed, the energy and water reporting and benchmarking initiative for large buildings would help building owners identify opportunities to save energy and water, thereby saving money on their utility bills.

It would also help tenants and buyers make informed property decisions, enabling property and financial markets to value energy- and water-efficient buildings. It would help Ontario, too, to meet its conservation and greenhouse gas reduction goals.

Buildings accounted for 19% of Ontario’s total greenhouse gas emissions in 2013. This means that large building owners can play an important role in helping Ontario meet its conservation and greenhouse gas reduction objectives. The new legislation would enable a requirement for property owners of large buildings that are 50,000 square feet and above to track their building’s energy and water use, as well as greenhouse gas emissions, over time to determine how a building’s energy performance is changing over time and how it compares to similar buildings, giving businesses the tools they need to remain competitive and save money, too.

Ontario is already demonstrating leadership through energy reporting and benchmarking requirements for government and broader public sector buildings. Extending this requirement to large commercial buildings would align our policy with jurisdictions across the United States, Europe, the United Kingdom and Asia, which is all very critical and important in the global economy that we operate in.

The second one is setting water efficiency standards for energy-using products. Ontario already has the most stringent efficiency requirements in Canada for a number of products. The Ministry of Energy has been regulating the energy efficiency of products and appliances for more than 25 years. Bill 135 proposes to add the water efficiency standards for energy-consuming products initiatives.

To maintain Ontario’s leadership role in regulating energy efficiency and to fully harmonize efficiency requirements, as I mentioned earlier, with leading North American jurisdictions, the Ministry of Energy is proposing to regulate the water efficiency of products and appliances that consume both water and energy, such as dishwashers and washing machines. Products that meet both energy and water efficiency requirements use less energy.

Currently, manufacturers can supply the Ontario market with models that meet our energy efficiency requirements but consume more energy than they would if we also included water efficiency standards. Other jurisdictions, including the province of British Columbia and the US Department of Energy, regulate both energy and water efficiency standards for these products. By harmonizing with the US standards for these products, Ontario can streamline the process for manufacturers, save consumers money and show continued leadership in setting efficiency standards.

Adding water efficiency standards to the existing energy efficiency regulation would streamline requirements for manufacturers and increase opportunities for consumers to choose a more efficient product. We are, Speaker, empowering consumers with this initiative.

During the committee public hearings for this bill, we heard positive reactions from several stakeholders, including from the Building Owners and Managers Association, the Toronto Atmospheric Fund, the Real Property Association of Canada and companies working in the energy efficiency sector. Brian Purcell, director of policy and programs at the Toronto Atmospheric Fund, said, “We really encourage the province to move forward with that type of policy, and we’re encouraged to see it as part of the package of legislative updates to the Green Energy Act that are part of Bill 135.”

Bala Gnanam, director of sustainability and building technologies with the Building Owners and Managers Association, said, “As a major stakeholder in the province’s commercial real estate industry, we are fully supportive of any initiative aimed at promoting building performance and environmental stewardship. We also welcome the minister’s customer-centric approach to the province’s long-term energy plan.”

Brooks Barnett, manager of government relations, said: “We view this bill in its entirety as a major enabler of enhanced energy management and improved communication of key industry trends. The overarching theme throughout Ontario’s long-term energy plan is the commitment to put conservation first. We believe that these proposals are indicative of the government’s commitment to energy conservation in Ontario.

“In this, Ontario has a chance to lead by example.”

To sum up, Madam Speaker, the planning of the 2013 long-term energy plan was based on both a wide range of datasets and the most comprehensive consultation in Ministry of Energy history. By enshrining this planning process in legislation, this will ensure that we have the best information and planning for Ontario’s energy future and that the process is transparent and the data is made available to inform the public and the process.

The ministry and government have worked so hard to finally be here in the Legislature and are so close to solidifying the act. If passed, Bill 135 means an open, transparent and highly collaborative future, with energy planning that is conducted in a manner consistent with the government’s open-dialogue initiative. It would continue to build on the comprehensive public consultation and engagement already undertaken with consumers, stakeholders and aboriginal communities as part of the 2013 long-term energy planning process, more commonly known, of course, as LTEP.

In conservation, if passed, the new legislation would give Ontarians the information we need to make smart energy decisions about the products we use and the places we live and work. As more Ontarians want to conserve energy, we are empowering them to do so, which is a really important next step. The new knowledge would help people manage their energy bills, help businesses remain competitive and create jobs, and help our province reach its conservation and greenhouse gas emission goals as well.

From conservation first to helping consumers, businesses and industries save money and nuclear refurbishment, the Ministry of Energy is at the forefront of projects that matter to people. The top priority will always be ensuring that Ontario’s electricity needs are met in a sustainable manner. Developing renewable energy sources and fostering a culture of conservation are cornerstones of Ontario’s balanced plan to provide clean and reliable energy while encouraging the development of a clean energy economy for our future. Our efforts today will have benefits lasting for many years and many generations to come.

Speaker, I look forward to seeing how this act, if accepted, will make that future happen, and I encourage all members of this House to support this cleaner, carbon-free future.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments? I recognize the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Speaker, you caught me a little by surprise. I didn’t think they were going to end quite so early. But I was up all night preparing remarks anyway to respond to the Minister of Energy and the member from Burlington.

I only have a couple of minutes here, but I’m just going to start by saying—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I need to remind the member that we address each other by the riding or “the minister.” I just want to be very clear. You know the rules.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I didn’t call anyone by name. I said “the member from Burlington.”

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): No, you addressed the minister by his first name. Let’s remember that the rules of the House are that you address each other by riding or the minister’s title.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you, Speaker.

I get now the Liberals’ new austerity program. They brought back Bill 135. I got it from the table, and it says, “First reading October 28, 2015.” Do you know why there was no reason to bring back one that said “second reading”? Because, Speaker, the bill came back in exactly the same form that it came here in first reading. How perfect have the Liberals gotten? They brought forth a bill in October of 2015 and took it to committee.

We heard from stakeholders from all across the province from every sector, from the energy sector, from the environment, Greenpeace and everybody else who wanted to see significant amendments to this bill. Thirty-four amendments were proposed to this bill, many by the third party, the NDP—I’m pleased to see the critic for the third party; I can’t say his name, but he’s the member for Danforth—and myself. We proposed many amendments. Not one was accepted.

I hope I get a chance to speak to this again, Speaker.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I appreciate the opportunity, and I appreciate the recognition by the energy critic for the opposition.

This is a bill that will be condemned for years to come. This is a bill that will be condemned in the same way that the fire sale of Hydro One has been and will be condemned. This is a bill that will be condemned in future inquiries into energy scandals in this province without a doubt. They’ll say, “Where did all this come from?” Trace it back to the roots. The roots were in this bill, which set up the Minister of Energy, no matter who that person, as the energy czar for Ontario.

This bill substantially reduces the accountability of the minister and the Ministry of Energy. This bill locks out the public. This bill makes sure that the ability of those who are critical of an electricity plan are not able to actually put decision-makers and researchers on a witness stand and cross-examine them under oath to determine the validity of any particular evidence that’s put forward.

I expected a variety of defences from this government on this bill. The one I had not expected, the one I didn’t prepare for, was the argument that this bill is simply a codification of the practices that have led to so many successes with the energy policy of this government in this province. That, I had never expected. There was not a word from the member from Burlington or the Minister of Energy about the $1.5 billion in surplus power that we have to dump on electricity markets outside Ontario every year—$1.5 billion, and we get back pennies on the dollar.

It’s a burden on electricity payers, families, businesses across this province, and that’s not even to mention smart meters or the gas plant scandal. This bill is a disaster.

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

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I’m pleased to stand today and make some responses in support of Bill 135. I would like to focus on a couple of comments that have been brought forward by the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke and the member from Toronto–Danforth.

I’m not seeing this bill as has been described by the opposition. I don’t see this as a new austerity program. I feel compelled that we need to point out and continue to reiterate that we have been leaders in our approach to energy: not only in Canada but in North America. The first jurisdiction to eliminate coal-fired plants is something to be proud of—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Can we stop the clock? I’m going to remind the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke—

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’m having a conversation.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): No, no. There’s no cross-talk. It’s very disrespectful. There is a member speaking right now. I just want to remind the member: The next time I stand up, it will be a warning. And you remember that today there are some votes. Okay?

I’m going to return to the member from Kingston and the Islands.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and well done.

If we’re going to talk about our energy minister as the energy czar, I think that it’s incredibly important we acknowledge the work that has been done. The simple fact of removing coal-fired energy plants from our province has meant that we have had zero smog days—zero.

My brother—my family—has been profoundly affected by this. He has very serious asthma, and he’s only one of many, many people in the province who are benefiting from this change. We need to acknowledge that. We need to recognize that we have been leaders in North America in making this change, and that is something to be proud of.

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

Mr. Norm Miller: I’m pleased to add some comments on Bill 135,

An Act to amend several statutes and revoke several regulations in relation to energy conservation and long-term energy planning, and comment on the speech from the Minister of Energy and others.

I thought I was living in another province when I was listening to the Minister of Energy’s speech, because he was talking about how affordable electricity prices are and all of the wonderful things that the government is doing to make electricity more affordable. He was talking about kilowatt hours and how competitive our prices are for individuals and industry compared to other provinces and states. I have to say that certainly my experience in opening my hydro bill each month does not relate in any way to the minister’s speech. It’s just another world.

I’ll give an example: Last Friday, I attended the Parry Sound Municipal Association meeting, a meeting I try to get to every year. I walked in and saw some seniors gathering. They were actually preparing the lunch for the municipal meeting. I walked in to say hi to them, and what’s first thing they said to me? They said, “What’s going on with electricity prices?” That was the first thing they said. Most people open their electricity bill with trepidation because they just wonder how expensive it’s going to be each month. That is the reality, certainly in rural Ontario.

I think what this government needs to do is focus on affordability of electricity and get away from their crazy policies so people can afford to live in this province. Last week in private members’ business we were talking about building wind turbines two nautical miles away from Collingwood airport and Stayner airport. That is insane. That is what this government’s policy is allowing. As a pilot, that’s crazy, and that demonstrates a lot of your energy policies in this province.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I’m going to return to the member from Burlington.

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: Not surprisingly, Speaker, there’s a number of points of view on this legislation but I have to tell you, as I said in my remarks earlier this morning, I couldn’t be prouder of the long-term planning that our government is investing in to provide a predictable future for Ontarians and to provide businesses and organizations in this province with the kind of processes they need to invest in technology. We’re looking at long-term energy savings and conservation, which, quite frankly, doesn’t get a lot of airtime because it’s not, I suppose, a terribly sexy word. Nonetheless, it’s incredibly important.

This legislation will enable a conservation planning framework and imbed it. It was also imbedded—I’m surprised this didn’t get commented on by the opposition because they like to talk about open government, as do we. As a hallmark of the open government process, this will imbed consultation in the long-term energy processes—significant consultation with stakeholders from the energy sector, consumers, ratepayers, businesses of all sizes and our First Nations people.

You heard me quote in my remarks the head of NAN, the grand chief, talk about the importance of engaging our First Nations peoples, our indigenous peoples, in this important conversation, and of recognizing implicitly that they need to and should benefit from our long-term energy planning.

All in all, I hope that when it comes to a vote on this important legislation, the opposition gives ear to the importance of creating for our government the long-term energy planning processes that are inherent in making good decisions, whether it comes to conservation, saving Ontarians money or ensuring that we have fewer smog days and a cleaner and greener energy future.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Further debate?

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’m going to clarify the comments to the member from Kingston and the Islands. I didn’t imply that there was an austerity program in this bill. What it amounts to is the austerity program of this government in just bringing back bills unamended, which means they don’t even have to print them again to bring them back to the House. That’s about as much as they’ve done to save money in this province: ignoring what has been said to them at committee by many, many stakeholders through a broad

section of this province. It’s just people who are involved in the energy business, such as the Ontario Energy Association, which proposed some very, very noteworthy and well-considered amendments to this bill. But environmental groups such as Greenpeace were also very concerned about the concentration of power in the minister’s office.

In this province, does anybody remember the gas plant scandal? Oh, excuse me. Nobody’s ever going to forget it, because it cost you over $1 billion. Even though the Liberals got up and said it was going to be a $40-million mess, it turned out to be 25 times that—an over-$1-billion scandal, one of the greatest scandals in this province’s history.

Interjection.

Mr. John Yakabuski: And the member for Davenport—we never heckled the minister once during their speeches, but now, Speaker, you’re allowing that kind of stuff to go on. Get control of this place, please.

She wants to go on that the opposition parties would have cancelled the gas plants too. The opposition parties wouldn’t have built them there in the first place. That’s the problem. You didn’t listen to the people when you decided to build them there, and when the pressure got too hot, when the heat got too hot for you people—you were afraid of losing seats in the 2011 election—you decided to cancel—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Okay, I’m hearing lots of shouting and making statements. Can we stop the clock? I want to remind the members that the member from Renfrew has the floor, okay? So let’s be respectful in this debate. I know there will be colourful language. I’m going to return back to the member. If I hear any more shouting and innuendo, you will be warned.

The member from Renfrew.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you very much, Speaker. It’s wonderful to be able to get up here and, hopefully, be able to get through my remarks without being disturbed by the heckles from the other side.

The minister then ignored the views of the people, went ahead and decided where those plants were going to go. Then when the heat got too much, the Premier at the time, Dalton McGuinty, decided to cancel the gas plants.

It seemed like, “Oh, it’s $40 million. It’s not the end of the world.” But they weren’t being honest when they said it was $40 million, and an investigation proved that. The auditor proved that—$1.1 billion.

So let’s see what it turned out to be. They cancel a gas plant in Oakville. Now they’ve had to—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I’m going to remind the member we’re debating Bill 135. Stick to Bill 135.

Mr. John Yakabuski: It is about Bill 135, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): No—

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s about the minister’s power under Bill 135.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): You are going to stick to Bill 135 in your comments.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Speaker, I listened to the minister for an hour, and he barely talked about Bill 135. He talked about energy rates.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I just need to remind the member: You are going to debate, in your comments, Bill 135.

Mr. John Yakabuski: On a point of order, Speaker: I listened to the minister—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Okay. You’re going to ask for a point of order?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yes, I am. I would expect that the treatment for the members on the opposite side would be the same as the government side. The minister spoke about all kinds of different energy programs that had nothing to do with Bill 135. We never interrupted, and he was allowed to do so.

Mr. Tim Hudak: On the same point of order, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I recognize the member for Niagara West.

Mr. Tim Hudak: It seems to me that in Bill 135, the Energy Statute Law Amendment Act, the whole thing has to deal with how the Minister of Energy is going to treat issues and establish a level of trust in the new powers of the minister—whether the minister will use them appropriately. I do think the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke respectfully has a very fair point here in terms of why the opposition is not supporting this bill.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I just want to remind the member to stay as close to the bill as possible.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I am doing that, Speaker, very closely, because this is about the power of the minister. But in order to establish why we are so opposed to this bill, we have to talk a little bit about the history of the Ministry of Energy and what they did to this province, costing us $1billion—shameful.

Let’s go back to that. The minister then cancelled the plants. Now we’ve got a situation where we’re building transmission lines from Sarnia down to Oakville, from Lennox down to Mississauga. Why? Because they decided they were going to cancel it for political reasons. As the Premier said herself, admitted herself, it was a political decision—a political decision. Political decisions aren’t made by what used to be the OPA or the IESO. Political decisions are made by the politicians. That was a political decision that cost this province and its energy ratepayers over $1 billion.

That was when the minister didn’t have Bill 135 in his or her pocket, whoever the minister will be today, tomorrow and into the future. That was without Bill 135. Now this government, through the power of its majority, where it ran roughshod over us at committee, has decided that they don’t want to retain the powers the minister had; they want to increase those powers so that the minister can actually ignore the best advice of the professionals at the IESO and the Ontario Energy Board.

They can just take the OEB and the IESO, fold them into a little ball and toss them in the garbage, because they don’t need to talk to them anymore. The minister is the supreme being. The minister will make the decisions.

They talk about consultation? That is a sham. We looked at that in the bill. Oh, yes, they’re going to travel all over the province, just like they do on everything else. What about those pre-budget hearings that amounted to nothing? The minister had already written the budget, and they were still out, going around the province: “Oh, what do you think we should do in the budget?” What a joke that was. So what do you think we’re going to get on a consultation process throughout this province if Bill 135 passes?

You know what? I love the way they line up their supporters and get their quotes. When they’re answering questions in the House, they’ll have some group that will say, “Oh, this is the best thing since the invention of the wheel.” And then they say, “See, everybody loves us.” They even talk about that when it comes to hydro rates. They say, “Oh, look at Joe from wherever, Kalamazoo”—it might as well be Kalamazoo—“says that his hydro bill has gone down.” So the Minister of Finance gets up in the House, saying, “Hydro rates are going down in the province of Ontario.”

Now we’re going to have Bill 135, where we don’t just crown the minister; we make him the emperor of energy. Not the energy czar; that’s not high enough. I hate to disagree with my friend from Toronto–Danforth, but “energy czar” is not a strong enough title. He’s going to be the emperor of energy. He will just be able to ignore the sound advice of the professionals.

We had the Society of Energy Professionals—the professionals who run the plants, the professionals who run the system. It’s highly unusual for them to come to a committee hearing and disagree with a minister of the crown, but they came to the hearings and said, “Don’t proceed with this bill unamended. We cannot have that kind of power put into the hands of one person.” Ignored.

I’ve got to say to my colleague from Toronto–Danforth, I was shocked, and I believe he was as well. I can’t speak for him, but he is the member from Toronto–Danforth, and he is the energy critic for the third party. I believe he was as shocked as I was that none of our amendments were accepted by the government. They ask us: “Are you going to vote for this?” Are they crazy? We didn’t vote for it the last time. They didn’t make any changes. We won’t be—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Okay, seeing it is 10:15, we’ll recess until 10:30.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Lorne Coe: I’m pleased this morning to introduce three members from the Whitby–Oshawa riding: Michelle Makris, Sandra Kim Ferri and Diane Morton, who are in the gallery right here. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Joe Dickson: I’m pleased to introduce this morning, in our lobby, the new northern development and mining representative, Marc Di Rosa. Good to have you with us, Marc.

Mr. Norm Miller: I’m pleased to introduce Eli Preston and Danielle Preston, who are here at Queen’s Park for the first time, visiting from the United States. Today is Eli’s birthday. Please welcome them.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I’m delighted today to invite all members to the Tibetan lunch—it’s Tibet Day—on behalf of the Ontario Parliamentary Friends of Tibet. We also have, in the gallery, Mr. Phunstok Chomphel, Ms. Kalsang Dolker Gyaltsen, Miss Chime Lhamo, and the president of the organizations, Mr. Sonam Lankar. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I’d like to introduce a few people: first, Sarah Cannon, who’s the executive director of Parents for Children’s Mental Health—it is Children’s Mental Health Week—as well as Kim Moran, the CEO of Children’s Mental Health Ontario. I think Angela Fowler is here with her as well. She’s the director of strategic initiatives at Children’s Mental Health.

I want to acknowledge some parents I met, parents of children with autism, whom I talked to briefly before question period. Thank you for being here.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: In the members’ gallery, I would like to welcome Fire Chief Chuck Parsons and his wife, Wendy, as well as Deputy Fire Chief Mike Bradt and his wife, Sandy. They are from the Leamington fire department in the great riding of Chatham-Kent–Essex. Welcome.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s my pleasure to welcome a number of parents from Waterloo region who are here today to bring attention to the government’s cuts to autism services: Sarah Jones, Laurie Shiffer, Amy Fee, Kathie Shaw, Laura Pastrik, Niveen Shrem, Kohar Kilejian, Kanika Kahmida, Tina Mach-Stevenson, Elizabeth Everest-Rendall, Jill Bernhard and Dana Pettis. Thank you for coming to Queen’s Park today.

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I’d like to introduce Gillian Rowatt, a fantastic member of my staff in my constit office. Welcome to Queen’s Park, Gillian.

Mrs. Julia Munro: We are joined today by Ross and Korine Maclean, from my riding of York–Simcoe, who are here today in support of their daughter, Serenity, who has autism.

Miss Monique Taylor: I’d like to welcome some guests today—families with autism. We have Nancy Marchese, Shiri Bartman, Tracie Linblad, Sharon Gabison, Laura and Bruce McIntosh, Kara Onofrio, Nancy Warren, Kristen Ellison, Diana Rojas, Kim Kirkos, Dax Giguere, Jill and Adriana Breugem, Penny Batey, Cliff McIntosh and Christina Charalambous. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I’d like to welcome Warren “Smokey” Thomas. The president of OPSEU is in the crowd this morning. Welcome to Queen’s Park yet again, sir.

Mr. Todd Smith: I’d like to welcome Sue Jamjekian, her husband, Garo, and her two sons, Manny and Gabriel, who are visiting from the Quinte region today as part of the autism protest.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’m very pleased today to welcome a school from my riding. G.L. Roberts collegiate is here. And the grade 10 civics classes? I taught them in grade 8, so welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Please join me in welcoming Penny Batey, Cliff McIntosh, Clara McIntosh and Heather Wood, who are joining the autism rally later on today.

Miss Monique Taylor: I’m really pleased to welcome our page captain, Laura Persichini. Her mother is here with us today in gallery: Mary Persichini. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Seated in the gallery this morning, I’d like to welcome the press gallery summer intern, Sindi Skenderi, in the Speaker’s gallery. Sindi, welcome. She’ll be working with the Queen’s Park press gallery until September. A pleasure. Thank you for joining us.

Also in the Speaker’s gallery is not only a personal friend but the Speaker of Manitoba, here in the Speaker’s gallery with his wife. Their names are Daryl and Sheila Reid. Welcome, Mr. Speaker. I might add in terms of his service to his province that he is retiring. I want to thank him and wish him well in his future endeavours. Congratulations, Mr. Speaker.

Order of business

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Members will be aware that there appear on today’s Orders and Notices paper two notices of opposition days to be debated next week. Under standing order 43(c), the Speaker is required to select one of those notices for consideration. I would like to advise the members that the motion by Ms. Horwath is the one that will be selected for debate next week.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Point of order: the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’m just wondering if there’s been an optional statutory holiday declared for cabinet ministers.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. The member will know that that’s not appropriate. He does know that, which also makes it a little less tolerant of my patience.

Death of member’s son

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Simcoe–Grey on a point of order.

Mr. Jim Wilson: It’s with sadness that I regret to inform the House that two evenings ago, Toby Barrett’s son Brett died peacefully at home, surrounded by his family, after a three-month battle with cancer. Brett was just 31 years old. I know I speak on behalf of all members that our prayers and thoughts are with Toby and his family at this very difficult time.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank the member for his point of order and would echo his comments in that I know that all of us, when family is involved—in this circumstance, a friend of mine, as Toby is—I offer him my personal sadness.

Oral Questions

Autism treatment

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. I’ve told the Legislature the story of seven-year-old Joshua and his family from Oakville. You’ve heard about seven-year-old Warren from the Peterborough area. But you’ve taken no action to help them. The stories are countless. There is four-year-old Lila from Etobicoke, seven-year-old Wesley from Grimsby and four-year-old Adam from Mississauga. There’s five-year-old Keith from Toronto and four-year-old Mason from Oshawa. This government has turned their back on all these young children.

IBI is effective after the age of five. Autism does not end at five. Why can’t these children receive the IBI treatment they were promised? Why can’t they receive the IBI treatment they deserve?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I just want to reinforce that our thoughts are with Toby Barrett in this very sad moment.

The plan that we are putting in place, the $333 million that will change the program in the province, is designed exactly to provide the kind of intense service for all of the children that the Leader of the Opposition has named. Right now, we have a situation where children are on a waiting list. They are not getting service. That is unacceptable to us. What we are doing is investing in those children, in those families, to make sure that they come off a waiting list into service, and that that service is tailored, that program is designed for those children, and they get exactly the level of intensity that they need.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from Dufferin–Caledon.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Back to the Premier: A family in my riding is considering leaving the province to get the support their daughter needs. In their letter, they write:

“There are many people discussing moving province or country and we have the option for both. We own a manufacturing business. We operate here and we can move it if need be. We would have to leave our friends and family and our amazing school supports here in Dufferin.... Should we move now to save her?” These parents only want the best for their children and will do anything for them.

Premier, it’s never too late to do the right thing. Will you reverse your decision and restore IBI therapy to children over five?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I thank the member for the important question, and again, I want to acknowledge the families that are here today.

I think we’re in agreement, I would say to the critic from the opposition, that we want the best for these children. We want these children to reach their full potential. That is something I hear from parents all the time. I’m meeting with parents on a continuous basis. Many of them have told us what this new program should look like. That feedback has been incorporated, but there are additional opportunities to hear parents’ voices, and to hear children’s voices, too, as this program transitions over the next couple of years.

I’ve met with the Ontario Autism Coalition and the alliance of parents for children with autism. They’re giving us great feedback about how this program should move forward. I look forward to that continued dialogue.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary. The member for Prince Edward–Hastings.

Mr. Todd Smith: My question is back to the Premier. Premier, I want to tell you about Sue Jamjekian and her son Gabriel, who is six, who join us here in the Legislature today. Gabriel is on the autism spectrum. When he was younger, he was almost totally non-verbal. He had no vocabulary. He now speaks in full sentences, takes direction, and his outbursts are fewer and far between because he doesn’t feel like he can’t communicate.

Gabriel’s brother Manny is also on the autism spectrum. Manny turns five later this year. Gabriel, in his mother Sue’s words, is living proof that IBI at any age can change lives.

My question to the Premier is simple: Why is she abandoning kids like Gabriel and Manny? Why does she insist that autism ends at age five?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: It’s important for me to say again in the House, especially with parents here today, that I do not believe that autism ends at age five. Our government doesn’t believe that; I don’t think anybody believes that.

The new program represents 16,000 additional spaces to be added, and wait-lists will be cut. The intent of the program is to ensure that children get the individual support they need, with the right intensity for the right duration.

It’s important to note that children are not being removed immediately from treatment. There is a transition—and I acknowledge that transition can be challenging; absolutely. That’s why it’s important that I keep hearing from parents, I keep hearing from the experts and I keep hearing from the medical community and others to make sure, as we move through this process, that all voices are heard and we get this right.

Autism treatment

Mrs. Gila Martow: Again to the Premier: Two weeks ago, I reminded the Premier of her recent interaction with a teenager from my riding of Thornhill. The teenager spoke eloquently to the Premier at the end of an autism rally outside her constituency office. That teenager was Cliff McIntosh, who received IBI therapy after the age of five.

Does the Premier agree that IBI therapy is helpful after the age of five?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I did speak with Cliff, and I acknowledge the families who are here.

Last week, I spoke with families with children with autism every day, and I understand, absolutely, that we need to make sure that young people get the intensity of therapy, the intensity of service that they need. That is exactly why we need to do what we’re doing. Right now, those kids are not getting service. Some of them are not getting service at all, and those who are getting service are not getting the level of intensity that they need. That’s why we are investing in this program. That’s why this transition is important: so that young people, whatever their age, can get the therapy and service that they need that’s tailored to their needs.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary. The member from Niagara West–Glanbrook.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, this weekend you’ll celebrate Mother’s Day, but little Enzo’s mom, Shawna, has never heard her own son say “I love you” and never heard even the single word “Mom.” Five-year-old Enzo lives in Grimsby. He was diagnosed with autism, and he has been waiting for life-saving IBI therapy for two years. Enzo doesn’t speak. He is aggressive. He has poor motor skills. And he’s in fragile health because, as a result of his autism, he has a fear of most foods. All of this is treatable, but without IBI, Enzo’s mom, Shawna, fears that it’s too late for her son. It’s a very treatable condition, but he’ll be stuck there, potentially, for the rest of his life.

Premier, please don’t deny Enzo’s mom, Shawna, an opportunity to hear those four precious words: “I love you, Mom.”

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, this is exactly why we are making this change: because we don’t want Enzo to continue to wait for service while the biological window closes, where that intensity of service can be of the most use.

Part of the $333 million is being invested in early identification, because early identification, which we have heard from parents—quite frankly, I have heard from parents for years, from the time I was the Minister of Education, that we need more early intervention, and we need that to be more universal across the province. That early intervention, accompanied by tailored services that are the right intensity for the child, whether that child is age four or whether that child is age 11—that they get the intensity of service that they need. That’s exactly what this program is designed to provide, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Second time for the member from Hamilton Mountain.

The member from Wellington–Halton Hills on the final supplementary.

Mr. Ted Arnott: Back to the Premier: The government’s answers to our questions on IBI funding seem to display a callousness in contradiction to a government which claims to care.

I have heard from Meghan Graham, who grew up in Elora and, years ago, was actually a legislative page here. Her son Daniel is autistic. Daniel needed, received and benefited from IBI therapy from the ages of seven to nine, and he has made great strides. Daniel’s mom has passionately made the case to me that all autistic children need to be able to access IBI therapy.

We need the Premier to stand up in this House, acknowledge that autism doesn’t end at age five, and say, “We’re going to find a way to eliminate these wait-lists and help all autistic children, including those older than five, to reach their full potential,” and then work hard to bring truth to that statement. Why won’t she do that?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Again, thanks to the opposition for the important question.

It’s important to clarify that children who are currently receiving IBI are not being immediately removed from service. They will receive their clinical assessment at the regular six-month interval, Speaker, and a transition plan will be identified that’s specific to their needs. So if they continue to need those kinds of intensive services, they will get intensive services. It will be more tailored and more customized for the right duration to meet that child’s needs.

I encourage the opposition to reach out to my office. I’ve shared information with the opposition on the facts of the new program. I do welcome opposition feedback; I appreciate the letters. I’ve talked to a number of them. It’s important that we all have our facts straight. I worry a bit, Speaker, if the facts are not clear, so I’m very committed to helping the opposition get clarity on that.

Autism treatment

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Hundreds of parents are coming to Queen’s Park today to fight for the autism services that their kids need. Many of these parents have already been to Queen’s Park to rally on the lawn or to tell their stories in press conferences. Their children are being cut off from the waiting list. Schools are not ready for this change and neither are service providers. This is a recipe for chaos. Implementation of this program, this plan, has already gone off the rails.

There is no need to rush through bad policy. Will the Premier listen to these parents and cancel her plan to cut off IBI services for children over the age of five?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to just say to the leader of the third party that I completely agree with her that the implementation and the transition, for parents, is extremely important in this. I’m glad that she is focusing on that because it is extremely important that families know what the transition is. I will say, Mr. Speaker, that a number of the parents that I spoke to last week were saying that to me: that they weren’t getting enough information. The minister is working on making sure that families get the information about when the assessment will take place and what the transition plan will be.

But we are not willing to leave children sitting on a waiting list not getting service when we know full well that getting service to those children earlier is what will help them in their immediate lives and in the long term. That’s what this plan is about. But I agree with the leader of the third party that making sure that those transition plans are in place and that families know what is happening is paramount.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I find that very interesting, Speaker. Earlier this year, this Premier admitted that she made a mistake when she planned to nearly double the cost of prescriptions for Ontario seniors. It was the wrong decision. Today, there are hundreds of Ontario parents who are telling this government that cancelling IBI autism therapy for kids over five is wrong.

It is not just parents, though, Speaker—it is not just parents. It is the Ontario Public School Boards Association that is calling on the government to change its decision, as are educators, labour, the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth and the Ontario Autism Coalition. It’s not too late for this Premier to do the right thing and show these children and their parents the respect that they deserve.

Will this Premier cancel her plan to cut off autism therapy for thousands of children that are currently on the waiting list?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Since we are talking about what’s happening today, I thought I’d take a moment to explain the process and what is happening with families right now.

Every child who is receiving or is on a wait-list for IBI or ABA has been sent a letter from their service provider. Next week, service providers will start meeting with families who are transitioning from the wait-list; those are children over five who are on the IBI wait-list. Within 10 days of reviewing that situation, what we call an “eligibility agreement,” those families will immediately receive $8,000 so the children can come off the wait-list and into immediate service. All families should have completed those meetings by mid-June, and we’ll be receiving very regular updates and reports from the service providers to make sure that’s exactly what’s happening. And I’ll—

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

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The parents who are here today know that their children can benefit from IBI therapy, and they know what life will be like for their children—for them and their children—without IBI therapy.

Last month, Kristen Ellison came to Queen’s Park and she shared her story; it was heart-wrenching, Speaker. She said, “Realizing I may never hear ‘Mom, I love you’ is enough to kill a mother inside.” That’s what she said.

Will this Premier look these kids in the eye, look these parents in the eye, and tell them how she can so callously cut their children off from this life-changing therapy?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Thank you, Speaker.

I just have to say that the Premier and I are both very committed to continuing the dialogue with parents and continuing the dialogue with the autism organizations to make sure that this is being implemented as smoothly as it can and in a supportive way for families.

It’s important for me to continue to get that feedback. I’m doing that every day. I am very happy to meet with families. I have enjoyed very much meeting with the children as well to hear about how things are going for them, whether they’re in school now, whether they will be going to school, whether they have some combination of school and private support. I think it’s very important, and I am in discussions with the Minister of Education about that—children who are in school.

That dialogue needs to continue, and I am open to all advice.

Energy policies

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. Ontario’s energy sector should have one objective: making sure families and businesses have reliable, affordable and clean energy. But the Liberals looked at the energy sector and said, “What can this do for the Liberal Party?” So they cancelled gas plants to save seats, they cancelled wind contracts to save seats and they cancelled OPG nuclear plans after getting $100,000 from private nuclear companies. The Premier decided to sell off Hydro One and use that sell-off to help the Liberal Party fill its war chest.

Enough is enough, Speaker. Will this Premier do the right thing and call a commission of inquiry?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, when we came into office, we had an unreliable electricity grid in Ontario. We have rebuilt and invested in more than 10,000 kilometres of line. We have shut down all of the coal plants in Ontario. We have no smog days in Ontario now. By doing that, we took the single most important action to reduce climate change in North America.

We have clean, renewable energy. We have an industry in Ontario that was jump-started because of our decisions to invest in and promote renewable energy. We have made a decision around building transit that is leading to the broadening of the ownership of Hydro One. I know the NDP doesn’t support our investments in transit, but that’s—

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: And we have electricity rates that families can’t afford and that are driving business and industry out of this province. Congratulations to the Premier on that.

Yesterday, I asked the Premier about the fifth OPP anti-rackets investigation into her government. When asked about cancelling this wind contract to save Liberal seats, the Premier said they “made a decision to gather evidence and to look at the research.” Actually, the OPP is investigating this situation because it’s alleged that the government wasn’t gathering evidence; it was deleting evidence—again.

The Premier insists that everything is just fine. Will she actually prove that by calling a commission of inquiry to ensure that the awarding and cancelling of energy contracts in this province isn’t corrupt?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It’s interesting that the leader of the third party talked about our economic situation and companies coming to this province. Ontario is one of the leaders in economic growth in this country. I don’t know what the leader of the third party is talking about, but we were the number one jurisdiction for foreign direct investment for two years in a row in North America. There’s something going on here that means that businesses are growing, expanding and coming to Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, we made a decision on offshore wind power. There is decades of evidence in terms of research, as I said, in terms of land-based wind turbines. That same body of research does not exist for offshore. We are doing that research and we await the recommendations.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This government has used Ontario’s energy system to abuse fundraising rules and fill the Liberal war chest. They have cancelled energy contracts to try to win seats. Energy policy should be about energy, not about political benefits for the Liberal Party.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Labour, come to order.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: People deserve a system that works for them, not just for the Ontario Liberal Party.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Trinity–Spadina, come to order.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Will this Premier call a Charbonneau-type commission for Ontario, a commission of inquiry on the awarding and management of public contracts in the energy industry?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, again, there are a number of issues that the leader of the third party has raised. She talked about fundraising, and of course she doesn’t want to talk about the substance of fundraising changes that we’re making. We’ve asked for input on draft legislation; she doesn’t want to talk about that.

The reality is that we made a decision. We made a decision in terms of offshore wind turbines. There is not the research that has been done on land-based wind turbines for offshore freshwater turbines—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We take our record-keeping responsibilities very, very seriously. We have changed the rules. There is training that has been done across government to make sure that records are retained in the way that they should be.

Autism treatment

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is for the Premier. I have a constituent, Stephanie, from Cannington, whose son, Dax, has been on a wait-list for IBI since he was diagnosed with autism at two and a half years old. Dax has received ABA at a cost of $20,000 out of his family’s own pockets, but after two years, Dax is still considered non-verbal and needs more intensive IBI therapy in order for him to communicate with his own mother.

Dax was getting close to the top of the list for IBI, where he could have had the therapy he needed in order to have a better future. But last month, Stephanie was told that her son was being removed from the wait-list because he is over five years old. But we all know that autism doesn’t end at five.

Mr. Speaker, why does the Premier think it is acceptable to shorten wait-lists by kicking children off?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank the member for her question. It’s important to note that what is driving this change, Speaker, is not wait-list reduction. It’s about providing better service, at the right time and at the right intensity, for all children with autism.

This family is a good example of where, yes, he’ll be removed from that particular wait-list, but into immediate service with the $8,000. Most of those children in that kind of situation are already on the ABA wait-list, so it should be a fairly quick and seamless transition to the new expanded program, where it will be more customized, it will be more intense and of longer duration for that child.

It’s important we convey how this is going to work. I expect the service providers will continue to provide that kind of information to the families as we go forward. If that’s not the case, I want to hear about it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert Bailey: My question is to the Premier. For the last year a young constituent in my riding, Xavier, has received 30 hours of IBI therapy per week through the direct funding model. As of May 1, Xavier is no longer eligible for support because Xavier turned six and was determined to be too old for your government’s new model.

After years of paperwork, assessment and wait-lists, Xavier and other children like him in Sarnia–Lambton will now only have access to IBI therapy if their parents can afford the full cost. In Xavier’s case, that’s nearly $11,000 per month.

Will you commit today, Premier, to rethink your plan so that children in Sarnia–Lambton like Xavier get the therapy they would benefit from the most, not just the therapy they can afford?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank the member from Sarnia–Lambton for the question. This is a good example of a real situation where a child is in IBI currently. They are not being removed immediately from therapy; as I said earlier, they will have a clinical assessment at six months, and they may or may not taper off to the new program. It’s going to depend on that clinical assessment, and it is up to the experts to assess that child and determine what the best path forward is for that child. The principle will always be that they get the right amount of service, the right intensity for the right duration.

I have heard the comment about direct funding, and again, I’ve been talking to the coalitions and the alliances and parents about those options going forward. I am open to that as we go forward to implement the program further.

Autism treatment

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is to the Premier. Hundreds of parents of children with autism have once again come to Queen’s Park to protest the Premier’s decision to take away essential therapy from kids. They have been outside Liberal MPPs’ offices. They have been blocked by Liberal MPPs on Twitter for simply requesting a meeting.

If taking away essential therapy from kids with autism is defensible, why won’t the Liberal members meet with parents? Even the Liberal member from Beaches–East York—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. I’d like to deal with somebody on this side. It’s not helpful.

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: Exactly.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Burlington, come to order. The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport, come to order. There were a few others I had in my mind, but I was not allowed to do what I was going to do.

Finish your question, please.

Miss Monique Taylor: If taking away essential therapy from kids with autism is defensible, why won’t these Liberal members meet with parents? Even the Liberal MPP—

Interjections.

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

Finish your question, please.

Miss Monique Taylor: It appears that the Liberal caucus is divided on this matter, Speaker. Some will have the spine to stand up for kids with autism, but most of them won’t.

Knowing this, will the Premier slow down, do the right thing and immediately stop changes to autism services—

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I believe that this issue is essentially a nonpartisan issue. I believe that this is about children who need more service.

I will say, if that’s the tone that the third party and this member want to take, I know for a fact that members of my caucus are meeting with the people who come to their offices—all of them. I honestly don’t think that it’s befitting this discussion to take it to that level.

The reality is that we are looking for a solution. This is a complex issue. We are putting $333 million in to solve this—

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

Supplementary, please.

Miss Monique Taylor: Speaker, they can say whatever they want, but there are snapshots and photographs of parents being blocked.

Kids with autism have been taken off the IBI wait-list. They’re being told that they will have to wait for years to get this so-called “enhanced program.” But nobody knows what the enhanced program even is.

Even the school boards are sounding the alarms, asking this government to rethink this decision. Apparently, the new program may include group therapy instead of one-on-one support. This is just plain wrong. Implementation has already been disastrous. It’s really time to slow down.

Speaker, will the Premier look up at all the parents who are here today and tell them that she will do the right thing and stop her changes to autism services?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m very pleased to be able to talk about some of the work—

Miss Monique Taylor: Who were you elected to represent—Kids or the Liberals? Tell me.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You’re not helping.

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): If it continues, the member will be named.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton Mountain is named.

Miss Taylor was escorted from the chamber.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Labour, second time. The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport, second time. Oh, I’ve got a good memory. This is from before, while I was waiting. I don’t need to explain myself.

New question.

M. Shafiq Qaadri: Ma question est pour la procureure générale et la ministre responsable—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Forgive my interference; I forgot to finish the minister’s answer.

Hon. Liz Sandals: Yes, I was actually looking forward to giving the answer, Speaker.

We’ve actually invested $77 million in school boards specifically for programs for children with autism. Our focus has been on strengthening the ABA capacity for school-age children. This has included targeted funding for ABA training at the Geneva Centre for Autism to train teachers’ assistants—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Windsor West, come to order.

Please finish.

Hon. Liz Sandals: Since the summer of 2006, we’ve actually provided almost $49 million to boards to hire and train professionals with ABA expertise to support principals, teachers and multidisciplinary transition teams. To date, more than 20,000 educators have been trained to prepare them to offer ABA support services in publicly funded school boards.

Accès à la justice

M. Shafiq Qaadri: Maintenant, ma question est pour la procureure générale et la ministre responsable des Affaires francophones.

L’hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Je voudrais remercier le député d’Etobicoke-Nord pour sa question très intéressante.

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

Question supplémentaire?

Est-ce que la ministre peut nous en dire un peu plus à propos de ce projet?

Le Président (L’hon. Dave Levac): Merci beaucoup.

Autism treatment

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is to the Premier. My constituent Valerie Brodrick’s grandson is one of the children whose treatment you’re withholding because he is five. In Valerie’s words, “He has now been considered trash, unfixable because of his age. The provincial lifetime buyout to parents of $8,000 when therapy can cost up to $5,000 a year—is this what you call equality for children in Ontario?”

Mr. Speaker, this is inherently wrong. Families should not go bankrupt in order to pay for treatment for their child. This goes beyond just being a critical health issue. Withholding IBI treatment violates the child’s rights.

I want to know: Will the Premier recognize IBI as medically necessary treatment and pay for it for all Ontario children who need it?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank the member for the question.

We know that wait times have increased, but more importantly, children who need services are not getting it. That’s why we’re making this investment. We are investing the 333 million new dollars on top of the $190 million we spend each and every year on this program so that families don’t have to wait longer.

We want to make sure they get into service and off wait-lists wherever possible. That’s why, in this particular case, this child will be transitioned and the family will have the $8,000. Then they will move up the wait-list for the new program and, hopefully, be at the top of that wait-list at the end of the $8,000, and get the intensity and the duration of the services that they need to reach their full potential. That’s my commitment.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary. The member from Oxford.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: My question is also to the Premier. On Monday, I told this House about Lawson, a six-year-old with autism who is being cut off IBI. Today I’m rising on behalf of Xavier, a five-year-old from Oxford with autism. He has been on the waiting list for IBI since he was three years old. In January, he finally started receiving therapy. His mother says you cannot even express the emotional factor when her five-year-old spoke to her for essentially the first time. Then she got the devastating news that Xavier’s IBI is being phased out immediately, because at age five, the government says, he’s too old.

Will the Premier reconsider and give Xavier and other children like him the services they need and depend upon?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank the member for his question.

My message to Xavier’s family is that I want to make sure he gets the right support at the right time and that he has every potential to succeed in his life, whatever Xavier decides to do. It sounds like he’s in therapy already; he will not be removed immediately from therapy.

As I said before, children who are in IBI therapy over the age of five will be assessed by a clinician and then the plan will go from there, in terms of what’s the right intensity and duration for that child. If they are transitioning off, it would be a tapered process. It would not be sudden. We want to make sure it’s as seamless as possible, that families get the support they need, both directly from the autism funding program but our other programs that support these children as well: speech and language, respite for the parents, and so on. Those all continue.

Member’s conduct

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Premier. Last year, your Minister of Energy made sexist and patronizing remarks about Ontario’s Auditor General. Then he doubled down, calling our leader, the leader of Ontario’s NDP, “that woman.” Yesterday he made comments again about our leader that were sexist, unparliamentary and don’t bear repeating. Surely, the Liberal code of conduct doesn’t say that comparing women to dogs is okay. Premier, it’s never okay. A code of conduct obviously doesn’t go far enough. It’s 2016. When is enough enough?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The minister has clarified his remarks, and he has—

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The minister has clarified his remarks. He has been clear that he understands—we all understand—that offensive language has no place in this Legislature. As the Ottawa Citizen reported, Karen Fischer, the managing editor of the transcription service of the Legislature, said that based on the audio, they decided that “she’s—she’s all over the map” was the right representation of the words. Sometimes—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. Order.

A one sentence wrap-up, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I was in the House at the time. Sometimes people do stumble over their words. The minister has apologized for any misunderstanding.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: A year ago the Minister of Energy decided to “mansplain” the electricity system to Ontario’s Auditor General, even though she spent 10 years at Manitoba Hydro. Then, yesterday, he decided to continue this pattern of degrading and disrespecting women. The minister’s conduct was again an embarrassment to this assembly. No woman should have to put up with this kind of casual sexism.

Here at Queen’s Park we should be leading by example. The Premier’s credibility on sexual violence and harassment is being called into question. As she says, it’s never okay, not even for her own caucus members and certainly not for her cabinet members. Will the Premier do what she should have done a year ago and show the Minister of Energy the door?

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Lanark knows well what my concern is about what he just did.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The minister came into the House yesterday afternoon. He made an apology. He explained what had happened. He was very clear with the people of the—with the Legislature—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’d prefer not the armchair decisions, please. The member from Prince Edward–Hastings will withdraw.

Mr. Todd Smith: I’ll withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): There was somebody else who said something unparliamentary, and I wish that that would not happen any longer.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It is entirely appropriate, and it is what I would expect of one of my members: If there was a misunderstanding, if something was said that was inappropriate, that there would be an apology, that there would be an explanation. That is exactly what has happened.

Education funding

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: My question is for the Minister of Education. Minister, you recently announced that Ontario’s high school graduation rate is now at its highest level in the province’s history. Congratulations.

In 2015, the five-year graduation rate surpassed the government’s goal of 85%. Now, more Ontario students than ever before are graduating with the skills and knowledge they need to reach their full potential. I think that’s fantastic news.

I know students in my riding of Halton are working hard because graduation rates have also risen there to 89.9% in the district school board and to 92.4% in the Catholic school board.

Investing in our young people is a top priority for this government. Specialist High Skills Major programs help students graduate and provide them with more opportunities for future careers.

The minister announced recently that the Specialist High Skills Major program has been expanded.

Minister, can you please tell us more about this important announcement?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I want to thank the member for the question and for her support of Specialist High Skills Majors.

Yesterday morning, I visited Bishop Marrocco/Thomas Merton Catholic Secondary School here in Toronto, where we announced that Ontario is expanding two programs. First, we are expanding the Specialist High Skills Major program to accommodate an additional 2,000 students in just over 100 new programs for the 2016-17 school year. That will bring us to a total of more than 48,000 students who will be enrolled in 1,835 Specialist High Skills Majors across the province.

Second, we are expanding the Dual Credit Program, where students have one credit—partly high school, partly college—and that will be expanded to include 400 more students next year.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Minister, I am pleased to hear that the expansion of the Specialist High Skills Major program will enable students to focus on graduating and will assist them in pursuing their post-secondary goals. This is a significant step toward securing a good future for themselves and their families.

This specialized program allows students to target their learning in a specific economic sector while also meeting the requirements for the Ontario Secondary School Diploma. It helps students make the important transition from high school to apprenticeship training, college, university or the workplace.

Mr. Speaker, I’ve seen first-hand just how great some of these programs are. In fact, I toured some of them in Halton with the minister, including a fantastic aquaponics program at Notre Dame Catholic Secondary School. These programs are a key part of our government’s commitment to keep young people engaged.

Minister, please explain how the Specialist High Skills Major program benefits students.

Hon. Liz Sandals: Just following up on what the member said, the aquaponics program was really cool because it wasn’t just horticulture; it actually combined the computer tech students who were doing the control systems for the hydroponics. So it was a very cool example of things that you can do with Specialist High Skills Majors.

One of the things that’s happening in 2016-17 is that all of the SHSM programs will have access to an innovation, creativity and entrepreneurship module that was developed in partnership with the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management.

District school boards report that the Specialist High Skills Major program is particularly engaging for students considering college and workplace destinations. Students taking workplace courses achieve credits at the rate of 94% in their SHSM, as opposed to non—

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

New question.

Autism treatment

Mrs. Julia Munro: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. Ross, a constituent in my riding, contacted me about his daughter Serenity. Serenity has autism, as does his older son. Serenity had the opportunity to experience five weeks of IBI therapy, and grew remarkably during this time. It is almost time for her six-month reassessment, and by all indications she will lose this vital therapy. To make matters worse, nobody, not even the providers, has a clear understanding of what the enhanced ABA treatment actually is.

Serenity’s family followed the rules, but at the stroke of a pen saw their daughter’s opportunities disappear. How do you explain to her father that there is fairness in a system that denies her treatment that she has been waiting for for years?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As the Minister of Children and Youth Services has said, the point of the changes we’re making is that Serenity needs to be able to continue the service and the intensity of the therapy that she needs. That is exactly why we are doing this: So that young people who are sitting on a waiting list—now, Serenity is already getting service, so we want to make sure that she can continue with the intensity that she needs.

That’s why the programs need to be tailored. That’s why the assessment—as the minister has said, there will be a look at what kind of service needs to continue. If that intensity is necessary, then that’s what she will get going forward.

But our deep concern is that there are children sitting on a waiting list who are not getting any service. That is unacceptable. It cannot go on. That is why we are making this investment.

As I said about the comments of the leader of the third party, I agree that the implementation is extremely important. Parents need to understand. The ministry is working with providers to make sure that people get the information that will help them understand what’s going to happen.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary. The member from Nipissing.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. Kristen Tignanelli lives in North Bay. Her son Luca was diagnosed with autism at the age of three. Luca previously qualified for IBI therapy, but when Kristen recently reapplied, she was told he could no longer receive the important therapy he needs. You see, Luca had recently turned five, and he no longer meets the arbitrary age cut-off imposed by the government.

This government has a responsibility to ensure individuals with autism can realize their full potential. Instead, after years of waste, scandal and mismanagement, the Premier is attempting to balance the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable. Will the Premier reverse the changes to IBI and help Luca—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

One-sentence wrap-up, please.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Will the Premier reverse the changes to IBI and help Luca realize his full potential?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Speaker, I have a responsibility as the Minister of Children and Youth Services to make sure we’re doing absolutely everything we can to help children with autism and all children with special needs reach their full potential. That’s why we’re making this historic investment. That’s why we’re cutting wait times for services.

It is precisely this kind of situation which the member opposite is talking about, where unfortunately the youngest children who would benefit the most from intensive IBI are not getting it. That’s why we have to change this system. But for that particular child, we want to make sure the transition to the new program is as smooth and successful as possible, that that child gets the intensive supports they need going forward and that they get a flexible program that meets their needs, and for the right duration.

My commitment is to all children with autism in Ontario. I will not waiver from my commitment to these children. We’ll keep working—

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

New question.

Hospital funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. No matter who you are, the health of your family comes first, and it should come first for the government, too. But this Premier’s hospital cuts are hurting patient care across southwestern Ontario.

In the past four months alone—just the past four months, Speaker—we’ve seen 169 nurses cut in Windsor, almost 125 jobs cut from hospitals in London, 68 in Kitchener and another 12 health care workers cut in Sarnia. The list goes on and on.

Patients and families know exactly what that means. It means less care and longer wait times for people in the emergency room, for seniors who need surgery and for mums and dads with sick children. Why is this Premier turning her back on the people of southwestern Ontario by cutting the hospital care that every family depends on?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: The leader of the third party knows that we’re making important investments in our health care system, to the tune of an additional $1 billion this year—so almost $52 billion spent on health care. That’s 25% of the government’s budget—sorry; that’s nearly 45% of the government’s budget.

Specifically, when it comes to our hospitals, the new, additional $345-million investment that we have in our budget—which includes a 1% increase to the base budget of hospitals, which is part of the funding they receive—overall, it’s a 2.1% increase, far above the rate of inflation, that will allow our hospitals to invest in our front-line health care workers. It will allow our hospitals to ensure that they’re providing the highest-quality services for Ontarians, services that Ontarians deserve.

We’re doing much more on the capital side as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the Premier and her health minister should pay less attention to their own spin and more attention to patients in southwestern Ontario. Health care is the silent crisis of this Liberal government, and this Premier is only making problems worse.

St. Joe’s in London say that they’ve seen a $36.5-million reduction to their total budget over the past four years.

London Health Sciences said that this year marks the fifth year in a row that funding will not keep up with inflationary pressures. That’s not me, Speaker; that is what London Health Sciences is saying.

Across the southwest, from Sarnia to Wallaceburg to St. Thomas to Kitchener, hospitals are cutting patient care and they are laying off dedicated front-line caregivers. That is the fact. The very people who save lives and provide exceptional care when families need it the most are being given a pink slip.

When will this Premier start putting the best interests of patients first for a change and stop the Liberal cuts to hospitals across southwestern Ontario?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I know that yesterday I talked about the fact that the NDP, when they were in government, closed 24% of the hospital beds in the province and 13% of the mental health budget. They cut hospital funding in their last year, but I think it’s fair to talk about more recent as well: that in the 2014 election campaign, when they committed to finding $600 million, the leader of the third party refused to identify where that would come from.

Fortunately, the candidate for Kitchener–Waterloo was forced to admit that the health care and post-secondary education sectors were singled out for their deepest cuts. She said that—in fact, it’s quoted on CBC News—the minister would look to find efficiencies—sorry, the new accountability minister that they talked about would find efficiencies in the health care and post-secondary education sectors. When the member for Kitchener was pressed on it, she sai