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

November 24, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Nov-24 (PDF)

L124 - Tue 24 Nov 2015 / Mar 24 nov 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 24 November 2015 Mardi 24 novembre 2015

Energy Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois sur l’énergie

Introduction of Visitors

Death of member for Calgary–Greenway

Oral Questions

Child protection

Health care funding

Climate change

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Refugees

Human trafficking

Housing Services Corp.

Correctional services

Ontario public service

Manufacturing jobs

Collective bargaining

Veterans

Education funding

Homelessness

Research and innovation

Correction of record

Visitors

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Holodomor

Steel industry

Community awards

Hannah Flinn

Climate change

Dan Prendergast

Diabetes

Highway of Heroes tribute

Diabetes

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

Standing Committee on Social Policy

Introduction of Bills

Workplace Safety and Insurance Amendment Act (Firefighter Benefits), 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant la

Loi sur la sécurité professionnelle et l’assurance contre les accidents du travail (prestations des pompiers)

Protection of Vulnerable Seniors in the Community Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection des personnes âgées vulnérables dans la collectivité

Petitions

Health care funding

Privatization of public assets

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Privatization of public assets

Human rights

Physiotherapy services

Poet laureate

Water fluoridation

Hyperbaric therapy

Ontario Disability Support Program

Orders of the Day

Budget Measures Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur les mesures budgétaires

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, 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois sur l’énergie

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 18, 2015, on the motion for second 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 Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further debate?

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: Mr. Speaker, this morning I’ll be sharing my time with the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

I want to say that I’m very pleased to rise in my place in the House today to add some comments to this debate on Bill 135, on behalf of my constituents in Cambridge. Bill 135, the Energy Statute Law Amendment Act, is going to help Ontario families, businesses and the province as a whole by maximizing the value and reliability of energy transmission projects while maintaining our government’s commitment to energy conservation.

Amendments to the Electricity Act, 1998, and the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, will replace the current electricity planning process, known as the integrated power system plan process, with the long-term energy plan process. This new process would enshrine the successful 2010 and 2013 long-term energy plans to ensure that future long-term energy plans are developed consistent with the principles of cost effectiveness, reliability, clean energy, and community and aboriginal engagement.

As well, the amendments would empower the Independent Electricity System Operator to undertake competitive selection or procurement processes for electricity transmission projects when appropriate. This would help ensure that ratepayers get the greatest value for new infrastructure investment.

In this new planning process, conservation is the first resource considered before building expensive new generation, transmission and distribution infrastructure. Our government believes that this approach will provide multiple benefits to Ontarians by helping families and businesses save money on energy bills, reducing the need to build expensive energy projects and upward pressure on energy prices.

Significantly, this conservation initiative would contribute to fulfilling Ontario’s climate change strategy objectives by lowering greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution while ensuring that ratepayers get the best value from new infrastructure developments.

The second major focus of the bill involves amendments to the Green Energy Act that would introduce two energy and water conservation initiatives. The first of the initiatives is the energy and water reporting and benchmarking initiative for large buildings. This initiative would require property owners of buildings of 50,000 square feet or more to track those buildings’ energy and water use and greenhouse gas emissions over time in order to determine how a building’s energy performance is changing and how it compares to similar buildings. Many leading jurisdictions around the world in energy consumption have such reporting and benchmarking requirements already in place.

Recently, a similar program in the United States was found by the Environmental Protection Agency to result in a 7% improvement in energy consumption savings over a three-year period in buildings that continuously met conservation benchmarks. Think of that, Speaker—that savings on energy bills. Thus, this initiative shows promise to achieve greater energy conservation, and its expected low implementation cost will result in further savings for building owners—something they are certainly all looking towards.

The second initiative created through the amendment is the water efficiency standards for energy-consuming products and appliances that would set water efficiency standards for products that consume both energy and water. This initiative would assist energy-conscious Ontarians in making more environmentally friendly choices when shopping for appliances and would strengthen Ontario’s leadership in the regulation of product energy efficiency in Canada by creating more stringent energy requirements. I have to say, when I go shopping for new appliances with my sons, the first thing that they look at when they’re with me in the stores are those signs showing that these appliances save energy.

These initiatives would go a long way in helping families and businesses save money on their energy bills, reduce the need to build expensive energy infrastructure along with greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. Not only does that save our environment in the future, but decreasing air pollution certainly helps those 2.4 million Ontarians who have respiratory difficulties. Any reduction in air pollution in this province certainly decreases their need for expensive hospitalizations. Furthermore, these initiatives would bring Ontario in line with other jurisdictions, saving consumers money and showing our province’s continued leadership in setting efficiency standards.

In closing, this bill is yet another example of this government’s commitment to ensuring that long-term energy planning in this province prioritizes energy conservation and also the environment while ensuring the best value for Ontario ratepayers. That, Mr. Speaker, is something we all want to see.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I now recognize the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much, and thanks to my colleague from Cambridge for leading off this debate. I’m very pleased to have an opportunity to be a part of this debate. It’s an important discussion and, obviously, an important piece of legislation. I think everyone in the Legislature recognizes how important the long-term energy planning process is for, perhaps, a number of obvious reasons. I’ll try to break some of those down in terms of the time that I have to make remarks today.

May I say, certainly as an MPP from northern Ontario and as the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, I’m very conscious of the long-term planning projects that are under way and are a priority for our government in terms of the north. That really is because we know that there is a high level of needs. It’s also important that we actually do it right, that we get the process right. That, in fact, is really what Bill 135 is all about.

I think it is extremely important that we bring forward a process that is transparent, efficient and able to respond to ever-changing policy and system needs. So it needs to be pretty fluid in that regard. So as part of this particular legislation, we’re introducing two new initiatives to help Ontario’s families and businesses, and the province as a whole, to conserve energy and water to manage costs.

As my colleague pointed out, and I think it’s probably worthwhile repeating, Bill 135 very specifically amends the Electricity Act, 1998, and the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, to replace the current electricity planning process, known as the integrated power system plan, the IPSP—we’ve all got these acronyms; we try to avoid them—with a long-term energy plan process, and also to empower the IESO to undertake competitive selection or procurement processes for electricity transmission projects when appropriate. That’s obviously a very important part of the work we’re doing today, in terms of this particular legislation.

I think it’s fair to say—and I trust there would be agreement by most members in the House—that the long-term energy plan process has proven to be more adaptive to a fast-moving policy environment than the previous process under the integrated power system plan. Again, a significant part of this is that the long-term energy plan would continue to be informed by a high degree of stakeholder, public, and aboriginal and Métis community feedback.

In terms of the energy system planning process itself, again I can speak specifically about some of the projects that are under way in Thunder Bay, but I think it’s important to put the larger context of this legislation in place.

The legislation would enshrine the long-term energy planning process that developed both the 2010 and 2013 long-term energy plans to ensure that future long-term energy plans are developed consistent with the principles of cost effectiveness, clearly an important point; reliability, hugely important; clean energy, something we need to continue to move forward on; and, of course, community and aboriginal engagement, again something that I work on very hard, as a local member, to make sure that community and aboriginal engagement continues to be part of the process. This basically enshrines this.

From a transmission point of view, the Independent Electricity System Operator, the IESO, would be authorized to plan and undertake competitive approaches for transmitter selection and procurement of transmission projects to ensure that ratepayers do indeed get the greatest value from new infrastructure investments, which are significant investments. That’s pretty important and significant and, I think, obviously needs to be put into our legislation, which is why it’s there and why we hope to get support for it.

Other aspects of Bill 135: It also proposes amendments to the Green Energy Act, 2009, to enable the implementation of two energy and water conservation initiatives—again, hugely important—one of them being large building energy and water reporting and benchmarking. This would require the owners of large buildings—I think it’s 50,000 square feet and above, in terms of actual size—to annually report their monthly whole building energy and water consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and other building characteristics.

The other of those two amendments would be water efficiency standards for energy-consuming products and appliances, which would set water efficiency standards for energy-using products and appliances that consume water as well. Of course, examples would be, obviously, residential and commercial clothes washers and integrated washer-dryers, residential and commercial dishwashers, and commercial ice makers.

Under this proposed legislation, the IESO and the Ontario Energy Board would independently develop a plan for achieving the policy goals of the long-term energy plan. It’s complex but it’s actually remarkably straightforward in terms of what the goals and the commitments are under this legislation.

I think we all acknowledge a number of facts, one of them being that long-term energy planning is absolutely essential. The right decisions need to be made in terms of our long-term energy planning all across the province.

Again, I have, perhaps, specific and particular sensitivities related to northern Ontario and some projects that indeed are priorities for our government. I’m working very closely with all those involved in those projects.

Long-term energy planning is absolutely essential to a clean, reliable and affordable energy future—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Affordable? That’s a joke.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I see I have agreement from the other side of the House, and I’m very grateful to have that.

The fact is that I think Ontarians, the people of our province—and again, I can reflect on northerners’ point of view: They’ve been very clear to me and to many of us that they want to play a more significant role in the government’s long-term energy planning process. That is why we have listened and we are introducing the Energy Statute Law Amendment Act.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but there’s only so much time that we have to make our remarks: If passed, this legislation would ensure that a consistent and a transparent long-term planning process is followed. That’s very important.

It would enshrine in law a requirement for extensive consultation with the public, with stakeholders and with aboriginal groups in the development of energy plans. That is already standard practice, but we’re going to enshrine that in legislation.

It would amend the Green Energy Act to introduce those two new initiatives I just referenced earlier that I know have support from all sides of the House to help Ontario families and businesses—

Mr. John Yakabuski: How about repealing it?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: A warm smile from the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. I appreciate that. Thank you very much.

Those two initiatives will help Ontario families, businesses and the province as a whole, Mr. Speaker. I don’t mean to divert from you. I know I’ve got to pay attention to you, as Speaker, and I understand that.

We want to conserve energy and water, to manage costs. That’s something that’s a huge priority for everyone. We want to enshrine that.

We also want to support the increased competition and enhance ratepayer value by empowering the integrated energy system operator to undertake those competitive processes for transmitter selection or procurement when appropriate.

It’s probably not a bad time to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the 2013 long-term energy plan was the biggest, the most open, the most comprehensive consultation process in the Ministry of Energy’s history.

Mr. John Yakabuski: So you say.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Let me give you some examples of that, just to more completely make that point.

Part of that openness, part of that comprehensive quality, was that we posted the long-term energy plan discussion document on the Environmental Registry. There were 12 regional sessions, including a round table discussion with stakeholders and open houses for the public. There were 10 aboriginal sessions.

There was an academic focus, an innovation session, something that we probably cannot speak enough about in terms of the importance of so many initiatives in the province. That certainly is something we relate to, from the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines’ perspective: the importance to move forward in innovation.

In fact, we had a northern leaders’ dialogue a couple of weeks ago. Under an agreement we have with the Northern Ontario Large Urban Mayors, we bring together the large municipal and aboriginal leaders twice a year to discuss the northern Ontario growth plan, moving forward on the northern Ontario growth plan. What was one of the clear priorities of our discussion a couple of weeks ago was innovation, entrepreneurship and innovation, and how important it is. That’s certainly a very important part of these discussions as well.

So in terms of the long-term energy plan, to get myself back on track with that, there was an academic-focused innovation session that was done in development with the Mowat Centre. The Mowat Centre, of course, actually has a very important relationship with the Northern Policy Institute, something else that we’re very proud of that we’ve been supporting through the northern Ontario growth plan. One of our benchmark initiatives when we released the growth plan in March 2011 was to put in place an independent, not-for-profit research institute, the Northern Policy Institute, which has been doing some remarkable work, and we’re very, very proud of that.

As I get close to needing to wrap up, Mr. Speaker—the legislation before us is indeed important. I do think it’s something that, again, I would hope we’d get support on from all sides of the House for all the right reasons. I think it’s fair to say that the current integrated power system plan, or the IPSP as it is described—the current process, I think it’s not impolite to say that it is slow. May I say I think it’s not impolite to say that it might be a tad unresponsive to the changing environment of the energy sector, and I think it’s fair to say it’s costly.

So the fact is that this legislation is very much focused on trying to make a difference in terms of how those decisions are made while we continue to enshrine in legislation a transparent, consultative opportunity for everyone.

There is not much time left, but certainly one of the issues I would like to have had more time to speak about is energy conservation. It’s one of our government’s key goals. Again, I think this is something that is shared by all members of the Legislature. There really is no argument that conservation can sure help families and businesses save money on their energy bills. It does reduce the need to build expensive energy infrastructure, and it reduces greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution as well. That’s all good.

So these are all important aspects of Bill 135. Again, I’m looking forward to the fullness of the debate this morning and am grateful to have had an opportunity to express my feelings on this piece of legislation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I thank the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Questions and comments?

Mr. Jim McDonell: I’m pleased to rise today to talk about another government long-term energy plan. I’ve been here four years, and I think we’ve seen five long-term energy plans here. It just seems that every week there’s a new one out. We should change the name from long-term to short-term.

We see a record here, where peak power is up 77% under this government. We have the gas plants cancellation costing $1 billion, moved to Kingston, where a plant is now idle, not being used, so why we need to double the capacity there I’m not sure. We have the smart meter plan; $2 billion. We have the highest rates in North America. The sale of Hydro One—the Financial Accountability Officer has already told them it’s a net loss. It would be cheaper to go out and borrow money—not that they need to borrow any more money. This government has double the revenue they had when they came to power, and they’re still broke.

What are they doing? We have people leaving the province now because they can’t afford to operate and run a business. Ontarians refuse to pay the high price of our own manufacturing because it’s too expensive. We buy American manufactured goods because their hydro rates are now cheaper.

It’s a real mess, and where are we going? More regulation. We have a government that specializes in regulation. I meet with businesses and small farmers; they talk about the amount of paperwork that’s required. They can’t do their work. One farmer in our area built his own generator, a diesel-powered generator—it’s cheaper than getting on Hydro One. As people are getting off Hydro One, there are fewer people to pay for the grid. That means, again, higher rates, and this government is talking about another 42%. I don’t know where it ends.

I guess it ends when we can’t afford to even run our plants that are here, we shut off the lights altogether and declare bankruptcy, because that’s where we’re going. We see it every day, and it’s time that we take a different direction and look at the consumer of this province.

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: I’m particularly somewhat in a very good mood today. Why? Because yesterday I was with family up in Timmins at an unfortunate family funeral. My uncle Conrad Carriere passed away. He’s the last uncle from my mom’s side. He was a doer. He stood for his community, and he acted. He was a very honourable man. He was a man who was only completed by his wife, my aunt Lucille.

Ma tante Lucille, je te dis bonjour aujourd’hui. Puis, je vais dire que mon oncle Conrad est tout le temps à la même place où, moi, quand j’ai besoin de ma mère, Rita Mantha—il est tout le temps là et va tout le temps t’écouter. Fait rien que de lui parler; il va t’écouter.

We’re talking about this bill here this morning. We’re in this bill; I’m looking at it. The IESO, the OEB, the OPA: It’s an alphabet soup of what’s going on in this bill.

My friend the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and also the member from Cambridge, who I work a lot with on committee, are two individuals who I find very honourable. I enjoy sitting and having many discussions with them.

However, let’s call a spade a spade, and let’s call this bill what it is. It’s a freeway to privatization is what it is. This is what’s happening with this bill: When you look at this bill, and you’re going to open up all of it, and you’re going to restrict all of it to any type of people who are going to come in and question this process—any type of testing, any type of engagement with the communities—you’re going to open up a freeway and make it that much faster to make more gas plants, to make more problems within our energy act and increase rates that much more quickly. This is what you’re doing.

Come on, let’s call a spade a spade. That’s what you’re doing. You’re taking away public scrutiny is what you’re doing. You’re taking away oversight. And you’re celebrating this? Shame on you.

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

Ms. Soo Wong: It’s a always pleasure to rise and speak in support of the government bill, Bill 135.

Let me begin my remarks by sending my condolences to the member from Algoma–Manitoulin for his loss. Anytime you have a family loss, it’s a sad thing for the family.

But I want to challenge the member opposite because the 2013 long-term energy plan had the largest and most comprehensive consultation process. So I’d like to think that the member opposite of the third party always listens to his constituents. You know the government has consulted on this bill.

We posted the discussion documents on the Environmental Registry—12 regional sessions, including the round table discussions with stakeholders and open houses for the public, 10 aboriginal sessions, an academic-focused innovation session that the Minister of Northern Development and Mines talked about with the Mowat Centre, and 7,883 question-responses. So I want to challenge the member opposite when he says that this is like an alphabet soup and that it wasn’t discussed etc.

The proposed bill, if passed, would amend the Electricity Act, 1998, and the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998. At the end of the day, there’s a lot of criticism about the proposed legislation. I want to remind both opposition parties that the proposed legislation was drafted in consultation with the public. At the end of the day, I constantly hear the members opposite saying that the government has not listened. Well, folks, we have listened, we have consulted, and now we’re moving forward.

This morning, I want to pay tribute to Robert Fisher. He was at the session this morning at the library. He talked about the changes from typewriter to the tweeting process in the Queen’s Park gallery. The proposed legislation will move with the times and technology. I believe that technology is there to support what we do here at the Legislature, I want to remind the members opposite.

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

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m pleased to join the debate today. When we take a look at this particular bill, there’s lots to be worried about. In particular, I found it interesting that one of the members opposite mentioned that this bill, Bill 135, would enshrine the long-term energy plan process to develop consistent, economically viable options. Well, I have a problem with his concept of what’s economically viable in Ontario these days because, quite frankly, it seems like they’re doubling down; they’re adding burden upon burden on taxpayer shoulders.

Just yesterday, when we met with OREA, I had Ontario realtors from the counties of Huron, Perth and Bruce joining me, and with that said, they’re offering concerns that seniors are going to be burdened with energy audits. Those conservation energy audits are a concern in that if a senior wanted to sell their home, they would have to take a look at their windows and their furnaces. The burden to ensure that their furnaces and their windows meet specs and are energy-efficient, if you will, will totally take away from, perhaps, their life savings and/or the ultimate return on the sale of their house. Do seniors in Ontario really deserve this? I think not.

Another thing that I’m concerned about in this particular bill is how they revisit the Green Energy Act. If they were serious about being economically viable and ensuring that a process in terms of long-term energy planning is viable, they would be throwing out microFIT contracts and FIT contracts altogether, because they’re paying out subsidies that we cannot afford.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines for a final comment.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

I want to thank the members from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry and Algoma–Manitoulin; my colleague from Scarborough–Agincourt for her very wise comments; and, of course, the member from Huron–Bruce.

Let me also express my condolences to my friend and colleague from Algoma–Manitoulin on the passing of your uncle. He sounds like a remarkable, special man. Of course, we all feel for those when we have those losses.

But now that we’re back in the Legislature, and the member will follow with his comments, I actually found his comments a little startling from the point of view that I also think it’s fair to say that I could look at the third party, particularly the member as someone who recognizes what a priority consultation is and what priority transparency is—and to suggest that this is actually an open door to do something else simply isn’t reflective of what’s in the legislation or the intent of the legislation.

I understand opposition politics. I spent eight years myself on the other side of the House when I was first elected, so I recognize that you have an obligation, perhaps, to go on a bit.

If one looks at this legislation, again, as my colleague from Scarborough–Agincourt pretty accurately pointed out, look at the level and the kind of consultation we had.

May I say, also, that the fact that the member for Huron–Bruce in particular talked about pieces of legislation that focused on the long-term energy planning in the past—the long and the short of it is that we really are determined to make this process work better for consumers, work better for businesses, work better in terms of long-term energy needs in the province. That’s something that’s a huge priority for our government, as I know it is for all members of the Legislature.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate. I recognize the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke for a continuation of where he left off last—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you very much, Speaker. I appreciate the indulgence of the chamber in allowing me to finish the speech that I could not finish a couple of weeks back, and giving me the opportunity to finish it today.

It’s interesting how you get the two perspectives. You’ve got the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, who spoke at some length today talking about Bill 135 like this was the panacea: “This is the thing that is going to turn Ontario around. It’s the best energy bill since sliced bread.”

But then the opposition, you see, which has done its job of holding the government to account, points out the problems associated with the bill and the fear that we have, not just because we’ve somehow invented it. Based on the record of this government over the past 12 years, we have a fear about what could happen if this bill becomes law without significant amendment. We have some serious concerns about how the power is concentrated.

The minister says, “Oh, this actually empowers the IESO and the OEB.” That’s the Independent Electricity System Operator and the Ontario Energy Board, two of the key components in managing the energy system, but they’ve become, quite frankly, tools of the government.

The number of directives this minister has used, I believe, is 37 since he has become the minister: directives telling the IESO and the OEB what to do. So 37 times he has issued a directive to those agencies saying, “You’re going to do this.” How independent is an agency when it’s constantly working under the threat of a government directive, a ministerial directive, if they are not doing things or if their actions somehow displease the minister who happens to hold the office at the time?

So now they’re codifying this in law, that the minister is going to draw up the long-term energy plan. The Minister of Northern Development and Mines was so proud of that long-term energy plan that they did in 2013. He talked about the extensive consultation that took place across Ontario. Well, I would like to find out from members of this House—give me the names of two constituents who were actually consulted on the long-term energy plan.

You see, when this government talks about consultation, this is what it means: “We will hand-pick a group of people who we know already in advance are going to be in general agreement with what we’re doing. We will bring them into a meeting. We will sit them down”—perhaps buy them pizza; you never know—“and then we’re going to leave that meeting, compile all the information from the meetings throughout the province, and we’re going to declare that we’ve had the most extensive consultations on this long-term energy plan ever in the history of the province.”

And all of the Liberal minions are going to stand and applaud, and there’s going to be a press conference and they are going to say, “Yes, yes, this has been an extensive consultation.” But then if you go and try to find anybody in the province of Ontario who was actually consulted, you can’t find them; you cannot find them. But first of all, they declare that a consultation is something where we put something out on a website, call it a meeting, never really had a meeting, but that’s consultation too; that’s consultation too. We’ve seen it time and time again in this process here in Liberal Ontario.

So right off the bat, the basis of what they say, that they’ve had extensive consultations on long-term energy plans or anything else, is absolutely false. It is invented; it is fictitious; it is not true. In their mind, they believe they’ve had consultations, but, Speaker, we have come to doubt the Liberal mind in this province. I think the people have come to doubt the Liberal mind; they have come to question it, and they’ve come to wonder what makes the Liberal mind work. Well, with their definition of consultations, I think you can get a pretty clear picture of what I’m talking about.

The biggest concern people across this province have about energy—the pillars of energy policy are sustainability, reliability and affordability. Let’s just start with affordability. That’s the number one issue for the people in the province of Ontario who pay their hydro bills every month: Is energy affordable in this province?

If that was the question that was put to everyone in this province—“Is energy affordable in this province?”—I can categorically say that the majority of people would say no, and they would base it on the record of the past 12 years, where energy prices have quadrupled since 2003 when this government took office. Now, I want you to think about that, Speaker. That is not doubled, that is not tripled; that is quadrupled since this government took office. On-peak electricity was 4.3 cents a kilowatt hour in 2003. On-peak electricity today is 17.5 cents a kilowatt hour.

Now, through all of this time, every time you turn around, the government has come out with one of these new programs that are supposed to mitigate the damage they’ve done. There has been a veritable cornucopia of programs since they came out with the Green Energy Act in 2009, because that was the biggest driver of the change in energy prices in this province. There were increases in energy prices from 2003 to 2009, but when they came out with the Green Energy Act, the whole world changed. The acceleration and the rapidity of energy increases became far greater than it had been in the past.

So the government was forced to do something, because they were under such duress, I would say, from the public, and from the members of the opposition, who were going home and hearing from their constituents about the problems in this province with regard to the price of energy.

One of the issues we’ve heard the most about in our ridings over the last seven years has been the price of energy, but interestingly enough, you never hear it from the members on the other side. We hear it in our constituencies, and the members of the third party hear it in their constituencies. But they would have you believe, on the Liberal side, that they never hear a complaint from anybody about energy prices. You never hear them raise it in the House.

But, you see, secretively, they don’t want to talk about it, but they know it’s happening. That’s why the government has brought in these so-called mitigation measures when it comes to the price of hydro.

So, here we are now with the latest one, the Ontario Electricity Support Program—

Hon. Mario Sergio: That’s a good program.

Mr. John Yakabuski: The minister responsible for seniors’ affairs says, “That’s a good program.”

Well, now, here is this new program. The government has now drawn some lines in the sand where some people are going to be getting a rebate on their energy bills. This is just the latest shell game. You see, at the end of the year, a couple of things are happening. The debt retirement charge is going to end—that’s 2016. The debt retirement charge is going to end on people’s hydro bills—

Hon. Dipika Damerla: Aren’t you happy about that?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Oh, yes, we’re happy about that, but it should have ended in 2011. It should have ended in 2011. I say to the Associate Minister of Health, you should not be crowing about the end of the debt retirement charge in 2016. You should be ashamed of yourselves that it took five years longer for it to happen. That’s what you should be doing. You should be apologizing to the people of Ontario.

The debt retirement charge is going to end at the end of this year, the beginning of next year. But one of those so-called mitigation “we are the Liberals and we are guilty” programs, the clean energy benefit, is going to end too—10% off the hydro bill because they were so embarrassed by what happened on hydro bills. That 10% is going to end too.

Now, with the Ontario Electricity Support Program, if you’re one of these individuals who just falls outside of the line—the way I describe it is this: They are pitting one energy-poor family against another energy-poor family, and the Liberals are drawing the battle line. They’re drawing the line in the sand that says, “If you are on this side of the line, you’re eligible for the Ontario Electricity Support Program. But if you’re on that side of the line, you’re not eligible.”

If you’re one of these people who falls just outside the line, not only do you not benefit or get any rebate or derive any other benefit from the Ontario Electricity Support Program, but you are now one of the rest of the province who pays for the program. These programs are self-sustaining within the energy envelope. You either benefit, or you pay for the benefit. Your rates are going to go up even more in order to pay for the benefit that you’re not eligible for.

How does that make someone feel? The line is not like the equator, where it’s an imaginary line, but it is paper-thin: a dollar on this side, a dollar difference on the other side. If you’re one of those people who fall just outside that line where you’re eligible, you must really have felt like you were about the unluckiest person in the world the day the Minister of Energy, Bob Chiarelli, brought out this so-called great program.

They not only believe it’s a great program, but they’re spending millions of dollars advertising it. You can’t pick up a newspaper, you can’t turn on the radio—I haven’t seen it on television yet, but I haven’t been watching that much television. But as I was driving last week throughout my riding, I don’t know how many times I heard the ad about calling the 1-800 number—1-855 or whatever it is, something or other—to see if you qualify for the Ontario Electricity Support Program. It’s basically telling people, “You know what? This government is wonderful.

We’re going to make energy affordable for you.” Well, I say to the minister: The bottom line is, energy is not affordable, and each and every day it gets less affordable in Liberal Ontario.

Interjections.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I say to the Minister of Natural Resources, please stay. I’m not done yet.

What should they do? What should the Liberals do in order to bring real energy relief to the people of Ontario? Let me just preface this by going back a little bit and reminding you, Speaker, of how the Green Energy Act changed the energy landscape here in the province of Ontario. That was the critical piece of legislation.

Do you remember—well, I know you remember, Speaker, because you were here. You had already been here for quite some time, and you were here when energy was 4.3 cents a kilowatt hour. Do you remember the famous George Smitherman? George Smitherman. Do you remember George Smitherman, Speaker? I know you do. He went for a tour and visited his friends at Samsung, and he came up with this plan. He came up with this plan that was going to bankrupt Ontario in energy but it was going to look really good from an environmental point of view. He decided to invent this Green Energy Act.

Since the Green Energy Act became law in 2009, that’s when energy prices really escalated. Part of the Green Energy Act was that they were going to take forms of energy generation that were unlikely to be able to make much penetration on their own because of the costs involved, and—speaking back on one of those pillars of energy policy, reliability—the reliability factor wasn’t there either.

When you look at something like large-scale wind developments, are they sustainable? They’re sustainable from the point of view that, as long as we’re on this Earth, the wind is going to blow at some time. The problem is that we don’t know when. So are they sustainable? Yes. Reliable? Absolutely not. No one could ever argue that something that is reliant on nature is reliable, because nature is fickle at best. But nature rules the day. We don’t control nature; we have to live with nature and prepare and deal with nature as best we can. When she’s having a good day, it’s wonderful.

When she’s having a bad day, it’s not very pretty. We don’t have that control over nature, so we don’t have that control over when the wind blows or when it doesn’t blow. That inherently makes the energy form unreliable.

Solar was another one. The government paid huge subsidies to these types of generation. So there was also solar. Is solar sustainable? Of course, because we will have the sun—when we no longer have the sun, we will no longer be. It’s as simple as that. Everything we have depends upon the sun. The sun will be there long after the sons and daughters over there are gone; the sun will be there long after I’m gone.

So is it sustainable? Yes. Is it reliable? No, because the sun interacts with Mother Nature, and sometimes those nasty clouds block the sun from getting to us. Then we don’t have sun. And because we have an earth that rotates, we only have the sun, at best, for part of the day. So is it reliable? No.

Then we go to the third pillar: Is it affordable? The Liberals have answered that in spades over and over and over and over again. I could say “over and over” a few more times because that’s how many energy increases we’ve had since 2009. Every six months the price of electricity has gone up in this province—every six months. There has not been a six-month cycle where the price of electricity has not gone up in this province. That is, in short, the answer to the question, “Is it affordable?”

So they’ve made their decision. They’ve made their decision on how we’re going to generate energy, and the decision for this majority government is that we are not going to generate energy based on the third pillar, affordability, and we are not going to generate based on reliability.

I like to say positive things about the government whenever I have the opportunity. I certainly agree with the government—I don’t necessarily agree with their schedule, and I know I have people in the third party who will disagree with me, but it’s vitally important that we proceed with the refurbishment of our nuclear generators. Some 60% of our electricity is coming from nuclear generation. We can’t survive in this province without it. It is not replaceable in any short term. So it is vitally important that we refurbish our nuclear generators in this province, our nuclear units.

However, the

schedule that this government has, or is at least looking at, by the time they can actually make a decision—perhaps they’re having more consultations. Actually, no, they’re not having consultations. They just can’t seem to make a decision. By the time they actually get to going ahead and approving the next plan for nuclear refurbishment, we’re going to have a huge problem in this province, and that is the overlap.

When a unit is down, we’re not taking a few megawatts out of service; we’re taking, in the case of Darlington, closer to 900 megawatts out of service; in the case of the Bruce, we’re taking around 800 megawatts out of service at that time. When you take those down, because of the calendar, we’re going to have times when we have more than one nuclear unit down for refurbishment at the same time. That is going to have a huge impact on the reliability of our supply, because we’re going to be caught in a situation where demand could very well exceed supply.

Why has that happened? Because the government couldn’t make up its mind and was playing the political game about whether or not they’d do it, whether they’d do a new build or whether they’d do refurbishment—we have to do both. Perhaps not at this moment do we have to do a new build, but we have to do both, because we’re not going to be able to have a secure energy future if nuclear is not a big part of that mix here in the province of Ontario, full stop. It’s not even possible.

There aren’t enough places to put windmills to generate enough power to make this province go, and on a day that the wind doesn’t blow, you’d have nothing anyway. So we are going to need to make those decisions with regard to nuclear power, with regard to refurbishment and with regard to new build.

Having said that, while those units are in refurbishment mode, while they are taken down for refurbishment or off for refurbishment, we’re going to see a significant increase in our greenhouse gas emissions because we’re going to have to fire up gas plants that are not normally running on a continuous basis. They’ve been there to be ramped up when the need is greater, and they pull them back down when the need is not there. We’re going to have a situation where we’re going to have a significant increase in our greenhouse gas emissions here in the province of Ontario.

All of those things are going to be issues that the government has to deal with over the next several years. Hopefully, there’s a government in place that knows how to deal with them. We know that we have an election year in 2018, and hopefully things change so that the people who are in charge are able to handle that issue during that time.

But I want to talk a little more about the mechanics of Bill 135 here, the Energy Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015. I had to make sure I had my glasses here, Speaker, because this printing is a little small for me.

George Vegh is an energy writer at McCarthy Tétrault. He wrote a very good piece on Bill 135 in which he questions it on the same basis that we do: If enacted, are we simply cutting the legs off the IESO and the OEB and concentrating all of the decision-making—we get it. The decision-making powers always have rested and always will rest with the government. They’ll rest in the minister’s and the Premier’s offices. We understand that. But there were always safeguards built in that they had to take into great significant consideration, and they would have to justify if they worked against the recommendations of the agencies the government created.

The OEB was created by the Conservative government many, many years ago, even before your time, Speaker. The IESO used to be the IMO, independent market operator, which was created by the Conservative government that you were a member of. It became the IESO under this government. And then remember the OPA? That was created by this government with Bill 100 back in about 2005. Then the OPA amalgamated with the IESO, because it was clear the government finally got our message that there were redundant agencies and one of them needed to be moulded into the other. So the OPA disappeared.

But, you see, the OPA, which is now part of the IESO—its work hasn’t gone away; it just doesn’t exist in name. But it was primarily created to act as a deflection shield for the government. You understand as well as I do that whenever the government had a situation where the news was not good, it always seemed to come from the OPA, because the government and the minister would say, “Well, that’s the OPA. The OPA looks after that. We don’t really have anything to do with that. The OPA deals with that.”

But if there was ever an announcement that the government really felt proud about, the minister himself would trot out—or herself, depending upon the situation; Donna Cansfield was minister at one time. So depending on the situation, the ministers would make the announcements themselves, but when things went bad, then it was the OPA again. Good news: my problem. Bad news: their problem. Unbelievable how they used that agency to their own gain, just to treat it like a little bit of a game where, you know, “You’re my fair-weather friend.” The OPA was their fair-weather friend.

When it was good news, “We love you at the OPA.” When it was bad news, “Well, the OPA deals with that, and maybe they need to take a good look at that and see what they’re doing.”

But all along, they were getting ministerial directives for almost everything they did, continuously. I don’t want to single out the current energy minister, because his predecessors used ministry directives continuously as well. When the member from Scarborough was the minister, he issued 20-some ministerial directives, maybe more.

But just to put the case in point, when the member for Simcoe–Grey, Mr. Wilson, was the energy minister in the previous government, do you know how many ministerial directives he issued while he was Minister of Energy?

Mr. Steve Clark: Not very many.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Two. Two ministerial directives. We allowed the agencies to operate the way they were intended to do in the best interest of the people of Ontario. We didn’t interfere unless it was absolutely necessary. Two directives for Mr. Wilson; 37 directives for the current minister. I leave that to the people to decide whether the world has changed that much—Conservative world; Liberal world.

I guess we know some people like to let things work through and trust the people they put in place and make a decision if it is necessary, and some people just like to meddle all the time because they’re playing politics with the energy system.

Do you remember when Dwight Duncan brought in Bill 100? You were here. “We’re going to take the politics out of the energy system.” Do you remember? “There will be no politics in energy with Bill 100.” That was Dwight Duncan. He was the energy minister at the time. Now, energy is more political than it has ever been. Since Adam Beck, energy has never been more political than it is today.

Why is that? Well, you see—I don’t know if I can say this or not, but if I can: When you screw it up, you have to keep screwing. That’s what happened to this energy system. They screwed it up so bad with Bill 100 and the Green Energy Act that now they can’t get out of it. Every day they’ve got to do something more, because it’s such a mess. The system can’t heal itself because they have injected it with some kind of virus that is incurable. It’s a virus of their doing, with their Green Energy Act, but it just continues to inflict more and more damage on the energy system.

Each and every day they’re trying to have some kind of a cure, hoping that maybe things will get better. Then they mask it and confuse it by saying, “This is the latest energy mitigation program that the government is bringing out on your behalf for the people of Ontario to help you with your hydro bills.”

But it doesn’t help, because every day, each and every one of those people out there—maybe it’s different for the people on the Liberal side, but I’ve never had anybody come to my office and say, “You know what, John? That hydro is just too cheap. My bills—I can’t stand it—are just getting too small. I’m so tired of how, every time I turn around, my hydro bills are going down.” I have had nobody come to my office with that complaint.

Now, I don’t know; have any of my colleagues had that complaint?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: No.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Nobody here. Anybody in the third party had that complaint? No, no, no, no. But, what about over there? Are people telling you their bills are too low? Are they even telling you they’re manageable?

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: They’re thanking us for closing the coal plants.

Mr. John Yakabuski: No, they’re not thanking you for closing coal plants.

Interjection.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Oh, the member for Burlington has awakened and is engaged in the conversation.

Interjection.

Mr. John Yakabuski: That is correct. Not correct about the coal plants, but that is correct. You do have a choice. I say to the member that you do have a choice. You could go back to your office, get on the phone and call some of your constituents. You could ask them, “What do you feel about your energy bills? Do you think they’re too high? Do you think they’re too low? Do you think they’re just about right? Is there something we could be doing?”

I could ask the member: Did she call anybody in the last week in her constituency to ask them how their hydro bills are doing? Has she made that call to her constituents? That’s what I would like to know. I would like to know, on behalf of everybody in the province of Ontario: How many over there are making those calls to their constituents? That would be a wonderful use of your time.

We hear about it. I cannot believe that they don’t hear about it. I’m absolutely certain that they do.

Do you know what else I’m certain of, Speaker? And I understand how it works. I may have been a little harsh on the member from Burlington there because I realize they don’t really get much to say about this.

Mr. Steve Clark: They’re not allowed to.

Mr. John Yakabuski: They’re not allowed to. The backbenchers in the Liberal party—

Interjection.

Mr. John Yakabuski: You can rise if you want to, I say to the member from Mississauga–Streetsville.

The backbenchers in the Liberal Party are basically told what to say. All of the orders come from the Premier’s office. If they want to be viewed favourably in the eyes of the Premier, they will do as they’re told.

Mr. Bob Delaney: A point of order.

Mr. Steve Clark: Sit down, Bob. There’s no point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): Point of order: the member from Mississauga East.

Mr. Bob Delaney: Thank you, Speaker. That would be Mississauga–Streetsville.

While my colleague is welcome to make his case, he is, however, constrained by the standing orders from either imputing motive—which he has just done—or from making an assertion against members, which he has just done.

Mr. Steve Clark: You should stand and talk about your constituents—the fact that their hydro bills are too high. Why don’t you represent your constituents and talk about their hydro bills?

Mr. Bob Delaney: He can talk about whatever it is he wants, but he cannot do so by imputing motive on behalf of members, either on his side or on this side, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): It’s not a point of order. The member will continue.

Mr. John Yakabuski: The member from Mississauga–Streetsville must be on a crusade to get his name into Hansard as often as possible because he continues to raise ridiculous and fictitious points of order. I am not impugning motives or making assertions in any way, shape or form.

I am stating a fact of life in Liberal Ontario. The members on that side are told what to say. They get their speaking notes. They get their marching orders. They come into this House and they do as they’re told. And if they want to please the Premier, they’re going to continue doing that. From time to time, there will be a little bit of a charade about standing up and asking a question and pretending that they’re holding the minister to account, but that’s just the way it works over there. That’s just the way it works, with puffball questions. At the end of the day, nothing really changes.

Having said that, I want to try to get my three minutes in so I’m going to try—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): Order, please.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’m going to try to lower the temperature, as the Speaker says all the time, on the folks over there because they get very sensitive and then they start to react, and then I have a hard time getting my message across.

As I was saying about George Vegh: The point of it was the independence of the so-called independent agencies. That is the key: the independence of the so-called independent agencies. It even exists in their name. That is the irony of it, Speaker. The Independent Electricity System Operator: They used to be the ones who would write the LTEP, the long-term energy plan. Under this bill, it is the minister who’s going to write the LTEP, not the IESO.

Right off the bat, I think in a reasonable person’s mind that would conjure up a picture of: “Boy, is this making the independent agency more powerful or less powerful; more influential or less influential; more relevant to energy policy in the province of Ontario or less relevant to energy policy in the province of Ontario?” I think a reasonable person would probably come to the conclusion that if the minister is now codifying into law things that required a ministerial directive in the past, you are weakening the independence of those agencies.

Given the fact that we have had, every six months, year after year, massive increases in the price of energy in this province, who do you think the people would rather have being influential on energy policy? The so-called independent agencies? Or the government that has brought them a quadrupling of energy prices in their term?

Well, I’m quite confident in saying that the people would want those independent agencies to retain their independence, to retain their power—not power to be exercised willy-nilly or in a nefarious way, but to retain their power to be as influential as possible. The technocrats who understand the energy system should be the ones that the minister relies on to a great degree in devising energy policy.

But never forget that we are all here to serve the people. Number one, energy policy or any other policy, if it does not serve the people, then it is the wrong policy.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): That concludes the time for this morning’s debate.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): The House will stand recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1011 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’d like to welcome somebody we all know who’s been in Alberta for some time: Marion Nader, who’s here with her minister. She’s here attending question period today.

Hon. Jeff Leal: In the members’ west gallery today we have Jennifer Wilson, who is the executive director of the Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society, from my riding of Peterborough, and Jennifer McLauchlan, who also works for the Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society. They’re here today as part of their advocacy day for children’s aid societies for Ontario.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: It’s a pleasure to welcome Stephen Scott and Jennifer Moore from the Dufferin Child and Family Services, as well as Stephen Bald, Lucie Baistrocchi and Bryan Schone from the Peel Children’s Aid Society. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: We’re joined today in the members’ gallery, and I believe soon to be in one of the public galleries, by a number of very special guests. We are joined today by the mayor of Sora, Italy, Dr. Ernesto Tersigni; Monsignor Gerardo Antonazzo; Monsignor Antonio Lecce; and Monsignor Bruno Antonellis.

We also have Frank Cipollone, Vince and Rita Mariani, Rocco and Mary Grossi, Joe Tersigni and my very good friend Sam Ciccolini, who I believe will be joining us in one of the galleries soon. Welcome to our special guests.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I am delighted to welcome today to Queen’s Park Denise Dilbey, Jeff Morley and Jack McCrudden of the Guelph and District Association of Realtors, as well as Daniel Moore, who for years has been our executive director at the Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Cindy Forster: I’d like to introduce page captain Benjamin Shoalts’s mother, Kerry Shoalts, and his aunt Shannon Donnelly, who are here in the members’ gallery today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: As members know, today is Hamilton Day at Queen’s Park.

Interjection: Go Tiger-Cats!

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Yeah, I wish.

We’ll be joined momentarily by His Worship Mayor Fred Eisenberger and many distinguished members of council.

Mr. Norm Miller: I’d like to welcome Susan Carmichael and Melanie Cooper from Simcoe Muskoka Family Connexions, the children’s aid society of Simcoe-Muskoka, here to Queen’s Park today.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I’d like to welcome members of the Association of Native Child and Family Service Agencies of Ontario and the members of the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies to Queen’s Park. I have had a number of meetings with them this morning, and I encourage everyone to attend the lunchtime reception in room 228.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m pleased to welcome representatives from our local Huron–Bruce CAS branches: Shaun Joulis, Marie Parsons, Janet Culliton, Phyllis Lovell and Dave Wyles.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It is Hamilton Day today and we have a former mayor of Hamilton with us as well in the gallery: Larry Di Ianni and his wife—oh, no, his wife is not with him, but he’s here with a number of other Hamiltonians as well. Welcome.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I would like to introduce and welcome Heather Morrison, the board chair of the Family and Children’s Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington.

As well, in the members’ gallery are Sylvie DesHaies, chair of the political action committee of the Kingston and Area Real Estate Association; and Susan Nish, executive officer, Kingston and Area Real Estate Association. Welcome.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I’d like to welcome to the House today Christianne Newton, Lisa Cyr-Ault and Paul Martin from the Rideau-St. Lawrence Real Estate Board, as well as Adam Rayner from the Kingston real estate board.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I think we all want to welcome the grade 5 class from Royal St. George’s College who are here in the public gallery today, along with their fine, dedicated teacher, Mr. Kearsey. Welcome.

Mr. Bill Walker: I’d like to welcome Phyllis Lovell and David Wyles from Bruce Grey Child and Family Services. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: A little bit earlier, when I introduced the guests who are here, I did forget one name, and that is Danny Montesano, who will also be joining us today.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to welcome Sue Christiansen, a friend and a great volunteer from Perth–Wellington.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: It is my privilege to welcome Smokey Thomas, president of OPSEU, here today for a press conference, along with Monte Vieselmeyer, Gord Longhi, Tom O’Neill, Lyndsay Chapman, Alex Sawicki, Greg Arnold, Tim Humphries, Gareth Jones and Jim Richards. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I’d like to introduce a number of members of our Ukrainian Canadian community who are here with us today. As you know, it’s Holodomor Awareness Week this week. They were here today in front of the Legislature to launch the Holodomor awareness tour and the Holodomor mobile classroom, which the province has funded.

With us today are a number of guests. I won’t be able to introduce you all by name, but I do want to highlight a few of the people who are here and thank you all for coming.

I’d like to start in the east members’ gallery. We have with us Bishop Stephen Chmilar, of the Ukrainian Canadian Catholic church. We have Bishop Andriy, of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada.

Up in the gallery, we have Bob Onyschuk, who is chairing the Holodomor awareness tour. We have Denny Dzerowicz, one of the inspirations behind the tour. We have Taras Bahriy, who is president of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, Toronto branch. We have Victor Hetmanczuk, who is the president of the Canada Ukraine Foundation.

We have with us a survivor of the Holodomor of 1932-33: Stepan Horlatsch is with us today as well.

Thank you all for joining us at Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I will entertain further introductions.

Mr. Todd Smith: I’d like to welcome Mark Kartusch from the Highland Shores Children’s Aid Society, and chair of the board, Mike McLeod, who wears many hats in Prince Edward county.

Miss Monique Taylor: I am very pleased to welcome many folks from Hamilton today, including two guests who I have brought into the side gallery here. We have Judi Partridge, from ward 15, and Jason Farr, from ward 2. Up there, I see our former mayor Larry Di Ianni, and I’m sure there are many others from Hamilton.

Welcome to Hamilton Day at Queen’s Park.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Although I don’t see them in the chamber right now, I do also want to welcome OPSEU president Smokey Thomas; the chair of the MERC committee, correctional officer Monte Vieselmeyer; and Tom O’Neill to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Yesterday, I was pleased to meet with representatives from the Chatham-Kent real estate board. I’d like to welcome to the Legislature Janice Wieringa, Barb Phillips and Michael Gibbons. It was a pleasure to meet with you yesterday. Thank you. Welcome.

Mr. Mike Colle: A point of order, Mr. Speaker: I’d like to move unanimous consent for a moment’s silence and for us to send condolences to the Alberta Legislature for the tragic death of a colleague member, an MLA of the Alberta Legislature, who died yesterday while trying to help a fellow Albertan in a car accident. I’d like a moment of silence for the passing of MLA Manmeet Bhullar.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): With your indulgence, I did see a couple more introductions to do before we interrupt with that, and I want to give that its full respect. So with your indulgence, I’m going to finish with the introductions, as I saw there were a few more to be made.

Mr. Chris Ballard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to welcome Colette Prévost, the CEO of York Region Children’s Aid Society, to Queen’s Park today.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I, too, would like to welcome two hard-working folks from CAS Highland Shores: Mark Kartusch, executive director, and chair Mike McLeod. Welcome.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I’d also like to welcome, from the Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society, Jennifer Wilson and Jennifer McLauchlan.

Mr. Arthur Potts: I want to welcome our new constituency assistant, Kimberley Aherne, who is joining us today; and a very good friend, Amiel Blajchman, who is a neighbour but also a great community activist. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Death of member for Calgary–Greenway

Ms. Harinder Malhi: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent today to rise and observe a moment of silence to mark the tragic and untimely death of Manmeet Singh Bhullar, a member of the Alberta Legislature. He was a leader, a friend, a role model and somebody who embodied true values of public service. Our thoughts and prayers are with the Bhullar family in this difficult time.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ll consider this a unanimous consent similar to the member from Eglinton–Lawrence and collectively do that as one. The unanimous consent is that we rise and observe a moment of silence to mark the tragic death yesterday of Manmeet Bhullar, a member of the Alberta Legislature. Do we agree? Agreed.

I would ask—first of all, thank you all for joining us, but I would ask all members of this place to stand and observe a moment of silence.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Pray be seated.

It is now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Child protection

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is to the Premier. Alberta, Manitoba, British Columbia, Quebec and New Brunswick all provide child protection services for youth over the age of 16. As you know, in Ontario, children’s aid societies are forced to turn away youth over 16 unless they are already receiving assistance. We are turning young people away when they are asking for help.

Premier, when will you extend and fund child protection services to youth over the age of 16?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Children and Youth Services is going to want to comment on the specifics, but I appreciate the member opposite raising this important concern.

I know that the minister has been working on extending supports. I know that there is more that we can do. I will say to the member opposite that we are looking at how to best support children in care, young people in care, across the province, including how to support them in their education path and how to help them in post-secondary. We will, in the supplementary, speak to the specifics.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Well, Premier, it isn’t even mentioned in the minister’s mandate letter, so I’m not sure how we can talk about how important it is if you don’t task her with the responsibility in her mandate letter.

Not only do other provinces believe it’s right to provide care to youth over the age of 16, but the Youth Leaving Care Working Group’s 2012 report, Blueprint for Fundamental Change to Ontario’s Child Welfare System, called for the age of protection to be extended to 18. The UN defines a child as 18 years old and below. By ending support at 16, Ontario is actually in contravention of the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies also supports extending child protection services to the age of 18. The Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth also supports raising the age of protection to the age of 18.

Minister, when will you extend and fund child protection services to the age of 18?

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

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank my critic from the opposition party for this very important question on this particular day when we have so many people in from the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies and our aboriginal partners in children’s aid. We talked about exactly what she’s asking about this morning: the age of protection for children in Ontario.

As I’m sure the critic knows from attending briefings, the Child and Family Services Act review has recently been completed. This is a very significant theme, in terms of whether we should adjust the age of protection in Ontario. I take that advice and the input from the CFSA very seriously, and I’ll just say that it’s under active consideration.

I’m guided by what is best for children and youth in this province. I’m guided by what our sector tells us, and we, I think, all agree that the welfare and protection of our children is important in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary. The member for Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry.

Mr. Jim McDonell: Back to the minister: Raising the age of protection was also a major request from contributors to the Child and Family Services Act review, which was completed earlier this year.

Minister, a solution is staring at us right from the order paper. With all-party support, we owe it to our vulnerable youth, who today face the real risk of homelessness, poor school performance or being forced out of school and becoming a victim of crime just to survive. Can Ontarians count on this government taking the necessary steps to ensure that Bill 54, the Right to Care Act, passes by this summer? Minister, it is the right thing to do.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I appreciate the question from the opposition. I take all good ideas that come forward that help protect and support our children who are at risk and who need protection. All ideas are welcome here.

We’re taking a number of measures in our government to enhance child protection and welfare in Ontario. We are supporting our children’s aid societies through continued investments. I know they’re doing a great job locally as well, but I’m absolutely open to any other means that will enhance their care.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Pass the private member’s bill.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Dufferin–Caledon, come to order.

New question.

Health care funding

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is to the Premier. Our province has pledged to receive 10,000 Syrian refugees by the end of this year. When they arrive, they deserve the same high quality of health care that every Ontarian expects. But as you know, there are over—

Interjections.

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

Please finish.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: There are over 800,000 Ontarians without a family doctor, and at the same time, this government has cut over 50 residency spots. We will need each and every one of our doctors to help.

Mr. Speaker, will the government reverse their decision to cut residency positions?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m very surprised that the member opposite is asking this question in this particular way, given that his leader—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It goes both ways. Any comment from here on in is not acceptable.

Please finish.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —that his leader was part of a government that cut the health care services for refugees. Our government subsequently picked up those costs; we paid those costs for refugees. And now the newly elected Liberal government is going to reverse that decision of the Conservatives and reinstate those supports for refugees.

I am thrilled that in our meetings yesterday in Ottawa, it was clear that the supports that used to be in place that were cut by the Conservative government are going to be reinstated for refugees.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Back to the Premier: Based on the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Syrians could be expected to present with communicable diseases, pregnancy, chronic diseases and mental health problems. Relationships with medical associations will be critical in meeting the health requirements for the provision of primary care. This province’s doctors and nurses will be at the forefront, helping these new Ontarians settle, while at the same time this government will slash the doctors’ and nurses’ fees.

Mr. Speaker, will this government stop their attack on doctors and will they help them treat the new Syrians in our province?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just begin by saying that I am so proud of this province and I am proud of this country for opening our doors and being clear that we will take our responsibilities seriously to help out in this humanitarian crisis.

If the member opposite is saying that our doctors are not going to work with the refugees because they’re not being paid enough, I really think that that is a shameful, shameful position to take and that is not what I know of Ontario doctors.

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

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Back to the Premier: This government capped physician services to a 1.25% increase in the budget when the natural growth is 2.5%. That’s mainly due to the 140,000 new patients every year and the baby boom population that’s aging. This budget did not provide for such a sudden increase in residents.

The Syrian refugees deserve the same health care as Ontarians. Will the government penalize the doctors wanting to help the Syrian refugees if the budget cap they set is exceeded?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, again, I know that the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care wants to answer this question so badly, but I really need to take the member on. The reality is, we’re opening our doors to 10,000 refugees. We are doing our part as Ontarians; it’s our moral responsibility. I’m proud of our country and I’m proud of the new Liberal government that is restoring the refugee health services that were cut by the previous Conservative government. If—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Ahem.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I have enormous faith that the health professionals in this province will step up and will be caring for the refugees who come here, as they have in the past. That is my understanding of who Ontario doctors are.

Climate change

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. One of the greatest challenges facing us today is climate change. In 2008, this Legislature voted in favour of a cap-and-trade system. We’ve waited eight years and, so far, there has been no real action.

I hope today’s announcement will be different; however, any plan will be made weaker and less effective by the Premier’s decision to sell off Hydro One. The Liberals are giving up one of our most powerful tools to drive conservation and to fight climate change.

Will Ontario’s climate master plan explain why the Premier is putting corporate dividends ahead of clean air and action on climate change?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: That’s a pretty convoluted argument. I welcome the leader of the third party to the party. I welcome her on board as we continue in our actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The reality is that the single most important initiative has been taken in this country, the initiative that the former Prime Minister inadvertently, without naming us, actually leaned on as he touted around the world the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of the country. That initiative was in Ontario—begun by my predecessor—to shut down the coal-fired plants. We have continued; those coal-fired plants are gone. That is the single most important initiative in North America in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

I welcome the leader of the third party to this discussion.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: A privatized Hydro One has only one job: making money for its shareholders. The more energy people consume, the bigger the dividend cheques for their investors.

With Hydro One in private hands, the government loses another tool to help in the fight against climate change. That is a fact. Publicly owned utilities in British Columbia, Manitoba and Quebec invest more in conservation, and consumers pay less in those provinces. Why is this Premier taking a step backward on conservation and climate change by selling off Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I would ask the leader of the third party—perhaps she might want to look at what has happened in Alberta, where there is private distribution. She might want to look at what has happened in Alberta, where a significant decision was made by the NDP Premier of Alberta—who is part of the discussion at the Premiers’ table and who will be going to Paris with me, with Premier Couillard, with other Premiers and with the Prime Minister to take a stand internationally. That is the stand of a progressive country moving on initiatives to reduce climate change, to fight climate change. That’s what we’re doing. That’s the work that we’re doing.

Yesterday, the legislation passed to ban coal-fired plants in the province permanently. I look forward to the announcement today that we are going to be making in terms of our climate change strategy. All of that is significant, and I hope that the leader of the third party will be supportive.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It took the NDP Premier of Alberta, Rachel Notley, a whole six months to actually act on climate change in her province. The Liberals talked about it for eight years and we still don’t have anything here in this province. Quebec, Manitoba and BC’s public hydro agencies have among the lowest hydro rates in Canada—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Just forget the—

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

Finish, please.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: They’re the top three provinces for investing in conservation, with nearly twice the investment of Ontario. Selling Hydro One is going to mean even less investment in conservation.

It’s time to do the right thing for the economy and for the environment and stop the sale of Hydro One. Will this Premier admit that selling Hydro One is the wrong decision for the environment in this province?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, the question demonstrates that, really, the context is not well understood by the leader of the third party. We started shutting down the coal-fired plants. In fact, we continued an initiative that had been begun years ago, and we have shut down those coal-fired plants. We’ve jump-started a renewable energy industry in this province. We’ve been doing that work all along.

It’s fantastic that Rachel Notley has made the decision that she has made, but Alberta has a huge, huge hill to climb, so they need to get going, absolutely. We are on that road. We have taken initiative. We have made significant sacrifices in this province in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We will continue to do that, and we will put in place a cap-and-trade system that will foster innovation and will actually make our businesses more competitive. That’s the track we’re on, and we welcome the leader of the third party to join us.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. On page 5 of his report, Ontario’s independent Financial Accountability Officer wrote that the net proceeds of the full 60% sale would be between $1.4 billion to $3.1 billion. Yet this government keeps claiming that selling Hydro One will put $4 billion into transit.

But $3.1 billion is less than $4 billion, and $1.4 billion is a lot less than $4 billion. The Premier’s numbers simply don’t add up, and it is Ontario families that get stuck holding the bag. Will the Premier admit that her Hydro One math simply does not add up?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We’re on track to realize the $9 billion that we are going to be investing, part of which is going to pay down debt and part of which we’re going to invest in transportation and infrastructure. Now, the leader of the third party is saying there’s not enough money to invest in transit and transportation. She needs to make up her mind: either she believes in those investments or she doesn’t.

Our plan laid out clearly that in order to make those investments, we needed to leverage our existing assets to invest in new assets. That’s what we are doing by broadening the ownership of Hydro One. Municipalities and communities across this province need investments in roads, in bridges and transit. They need investment in waste water systems. They need those investments in order to be economically viable. Either she is onside with that or she’s not, and clearly at this moment she’s not.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, $1.4 billion is a mere 1% of this Premier’s promises for infrastructure and transit investment. It is really barely scratching the surface. Everyone knows, however, that the sell-off of Hydro One is a lousy deal, and that this government is in total denial in that regard. The Minister of Finance said that the government has already put $3 billion in the bank, but the truth is that the government is counting on billions of dollars that they simply cannot spend, that are not cash. Those are just numbers on a spreadsheet.

There’s an old saying that you’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts. Will the Premier admit that her plan is based on billions of dollars that she cannot actually spend?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, Mr. Speaker, I play that expression back to the leader of the third party. The fact is that we have realized $3 billion. We are on track to realize that $4 billion, to be able to invest in transit and transportation and infrastructure.

But the fact is that the opening gambit of the leader of the third party around climate change and around the importance of these investments now, the importance of taking the initiative right now in order to not just be able to go to Paris and stand with countries around the world, but, in fact, to actually make a difference—we have an opportunity as a country, as provinces and territories working with the federal government, to make a difference on this enormous challenge that is facing us. We’re taking that responsibility, and part of that is investing in the transit that we know is needed in order to get people out of cars and get them onto public transportation.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Liberals insisted that selling off Hydro One would be a painless way to pay for transit, but here’s the truth: The cold truth is that it’s not really paying for transit, and everyone who pays an electricity bill is going to feel that pain. Families know it, businesses know it, the independent watchdogs of this province know it, municipal leaders know it and Liberal backbenchers know it. Everyone knows it. I expect the Premier knows it too. Why is she so stubbornly ignoring the facts despite the harm to Ontario’s families and businesses?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, let’s talk about the facts. The facts is that we’re investing more in infrastructure than any government in Ontario’s history. The facts is that, as we broadened the ownership of Hydro One, we were able—

Mr. John Yakabuski: “The facts is”? The facts are.

Interjections.

Hon. Charles Sousa: The facts is, there’s an amendment before this House—

Interjections.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Just say “are.”

Hon. Charles Sousa: —yes—with the Trillium Trust that allows for non-cash items to be credited to the Trillium Trust. That will net $3 billion into the Trillium Trust, to be reinvested in infrastructure. An additional $1 billion will be used to pay down debt. That would never have happened had we not increased the valuation of Hydro One and broadened its ownership. We still own 84% of a much more valuable company than we did before.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Todd Smith: My question this morning is for the Premier. Premier, as you sold off Hydro One, you repeatedly told us that ratepayers would be protected by the Ontario Energy Board and that this would be a transparent process. But with Bill 135, which you’ve introduced to the Legislature, you’re silencing the experts by putting all of the power in this minister’s office. And with Bill 144, you’ve buried elements of the Hydro One sale in an omnibus bill that has 23 schedules that include electricity, liquor sales and horse racing. Is there a single tactic that this Premier won’t resort to to hide the seedier elements of the Hydro One sale from the public?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, we have made it very clear, with the bill before this House, that we’re increasing the understanding of how the Trillium Trust will enable us to reinvest and dedicate those funds to the trust to reinvest in infrastructure. That’s what is happening here. Also, we’re getting rid of the debt retirement charge nine months early, for the benefit of certainty and to allow those businesses to benefit from lower costs. That’s what we’re putting in this bill. It’s all about helping the people of Ontario and the families of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Todd Smith: Back to the Premier: The government has done everything possible to keep the behind-the-scenes details of the Hydro One sale out of the public eye. When they announced it, for goodness’ sake, they had a big sign behind them that said, “Beer in grocery stores,” at the same time that they were announcing the sell-off of Hydro One. There’s a big, black curtain that exists over there, and it’s time they came out from behind it.

When a woman in the Quinte region wanted the background correspondence from the Ministry of Energy about the sale, the government sent her a freedom-of-information request with a bill for $7,100 attached to that. She could have gotten a better rate from a loan shark.

Is the Hydro One sale now so bad for ratepayers that even an FOI request to the government comes with a global adjustment attached to it?

Hon. Charles Sousa: We had a prospectus. We had a draft prospectus. We had months of consultations with the public, and it was very detailed, explaining very clearly the Hydro One opportunity. Members of the opposition had the opportunity to review it, as did many others. In fact, the market spoke: They gave a high value for Hydro One. We received the high end; we’re on track to receive $9 billion over the course of four years when we look at the way we provide for the broadening of that ownership. It’s happening, and it’s providing greater opportunity for us to reinvest into our communities.

We’re also talking about merging the OLG with horse racing, something I think the opposition would like us to see. We’re facilitating that in this bill as well, all of which is very detailed and enables us to provide for greater support to communities everywhere.

Refugees

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: My question is to the Premier. Ontario’s New Democrats are proud to stand with Ontarians and welcome Syrian refugees into the province. We believe Ontario should be an example for the world to follow. This begins with making sure that they start their lives here in Ontario with dignity. The province needs a concrete resettlement strategy, because a promise is simply not enough to build a life on.

My question is to the Premier. Where is your health plan? Where is your housing plan? Where is your jobs plan and your education plan?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade.

Hon. Michael Chan: Speaker, recently there has been lots of media coverage on the refugee issue—and lots of speculation, by the way. I want to thank Ontarians who are concerned and care about the coming of the Syrian refugees.

Today, the federal government will have a big announcement in terms of their logistics and also their updated plan. We are waiting for that announcement.

Having said that, Speaker, I want to let you know that Ontario has contributed $10.5 million in helping the Syrian refugees, with $2 million going directly to the United Nations and $8.5 million to strengthen servicing and resettlement of the incoming refugees. So Ontario is committed with the 10,000 refugees we have committed to come to Ontario, and we will bring them over.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Back to the Premier. With winter quickly approaching and temperatures dropping, refugees need a warm place to live, money for food and winter clothes, and access to health care services. This government needs to come forward with a plan that ensures that they receive the adequate services they so desperately need.

Last week, I sent a letter to the Premier asking her to outline this plan. Will the Premier commit to creating a robust resettlement strategy for refugees and sharing it with myself and Ontarians?

Hon. Michael Chan: Speaker, I refer to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I appreciate the interest and support and advocacy from the third party on this important issue. I have to say, having been involved in refugee issues all my professional life, I couldn’t be prouder than I am today in terms of the outpouring of support from Ontarians to support the incoming refugees, to welcome them and to provide them with that safe and secure environment.

And they’re right; the third party is correct that we have an important role to play as government in terms of preparations. We are well under way in developing our strategy on housing, on education, on health care, virtually every issue that’s important to the incoming refugees and important to Ontarians.

I’ve been so impressed by the literally hundreds of Ontarians from every walk of life who have come forward to me and expressed their support, wanting to help, asking for ways that they can get personally involved. I’m confident not only in our strategy that we’re developing together with the federal government, but I’m confident in Ontarians that this is going to be a huge success.

Human trafficking

Mr. Glenn Thibeault: My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Many of my community members in Sudbury and across our province are troubled by reports of human trafficking taking place in our neighbourhoods. This is a practice that overwhelmingly targets women and girls and preys upon some of the most vulnerable members of our society.

Last week, Ontario held its first Summit on Sexual Violence and Harassment, where presenters spoke about ending sexual violence and harassment and supporting survivors in the best and most appropriate ways possible. It is important that Ontarians know how serious we are about fighting all types of sexual violence and harassment in our province. It is also important that Ontarians see the strong actions that are being taken to fight human trafficking in our province.

Mr. Speaker, through you, can the minister please explain what steps we are taking to stop this deplorable practice in our province?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to thank the member for asking a very important question.

The member from Sudbury is absolutely right. Human trafficking is a disgraceful practice and there’s no room for it anywhere in our communities.

It is essential that we collaborate between all levels of government, municipalities and police services to eliminate this practice, and this collaboration is already taking place. In October, a major investigation led by the OPP was responsible for rescuing 20 people, some as young as 14, who were thought to have been forced into the sex trade. This operation, known as Operation Northern Spotlight, brought together 350 officers and support staff from 40 police services, including the RCMP and the FBI.

Our government has also funded 11 projects totalling $1.4 million through the proceeds of crime grant alongside an additional $200,000 of funding for police services from the ministry to fight human trafficking in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Glenn Thibeault: I’d like to thank the minister for his answer.

It is certainly encouraging that the OPP led such an expansive and successful operation. I’m glad to hear that the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services is taking the issue so seriously.

But we also know that to tackle human trafficking, we need to see co-operation across ministries. Policing is an important element of our response to human trafficking, but we also need to see supports in social services and legal sectors as well.

Can the minister please inform the House of the work going on across government to address human trafficking?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Minister responsible for women’s issues.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: The Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services is absolutely right. Human trafficking is a heinous crime. It’s an issue I take very seriously as the Ontario minister responsible for women’s issues.

There are a number of ministries working together collaboratively to combat human trafficking. In addition to the police measures that the minister mentioned, the Ontario Women’s Directorate provides $225,000 in funding to the White Ribbon Campaign to develop resources for young men in ending human trafficking and sexual violence. We’re also providing over $9 million to help victims of sexual violence across health care and legal and social services in more than 70 languages.

Last year, wearing my other hat as the Minister of Children and Youth Services, we funded a pilot project in York region to support youth involved in trafficking. Our Attorney General’s ministry has crown attorneys with knowledge of human trafficking to advise on trafficking prosecutions and policies.

We take this kind of crime very seriously as a government. I’m looking forward to continuing this important work with all members of the Legislature.

Housing Services Corp.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Social housing providers recently renewed their insurance. For many of them, once again, the cost from Housing Services Corp. was far higher than if they were allowed to purchase the exact same insurance from another source.

The social housing providers are being forced to pay the Housing Service Corp. to be allowed to purchase the cheaper insurance because the minister refuses to let them opt out. Last year, there were 100 providers who paid the kickback to the HSC because he wouldn’t let them opt out.

Could the minister tell us why he is forcing social housing providers to waste money that could otherwise be providing housing for people in need?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I think the member opposite would be the ideal person to make any principled argument since it was his government that established the HSC and put in place the provision of pooling for insurance purposes.

The honourable member has risen in this House now 28 times to talk about the integrity of the Housing Services Corp. He fails to mention that we did an independent review. The review came back quite positively in as much as the HSC agreed to a number of provisions, including a revisitation—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton Mountain, come to order. The member from Leeds–Grenville, come to order.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: It’s clear that the member opposite is going to go back in history and not acknowledge the good work that we’ve done to fix the problem that they set up in the first place.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Harris: Back to the minister: Perhaps he’ll give me a different answer than the one he just gave that’s 12 years told.

The minister may want to play off getting out of the provincial insurance trap fee as a pittance, but in Waterloo region we’ve now seen close to $30,000 stripped from local housing. That’s $30,000 just for the privilege of choosing a better insurance deal than the province’s Housing Services Corp. wants to force on them. That’s $30,000 that should be supporting housing for vulnerable families diverted straight to the pockets of the HSC. If the minister can’t tell us why he allows this punitive practice to continue, can he tell us when we can expect the $30,000 back to the Waterloo region?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: The answer is a simple one, and it’s one that the party opposite ingrained in their original legislation, and that’s that the good of the many supersedes the good of the one. There are advantages to pooling—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Leeds–Grenville, second time.

Finish, please.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: There are advantages to pooling, Mr. Speaker. I’ve had several meetings with service managers where we’ve raised the question of the Housing Services Corp. and asked them about our approach vis-à-vis the study and whether it’s serving well. We have not heard the kinds of complaints that the member opposite is raising.

Correctional services

Ms. Jennifer K. French: My question is to the Premier. Today, we are once again joined by a group of this province’s hard-working front-line correctional officers. The truth is, they have joined us many times over this past year, and that’s because there’s an ongoing crisis in corrections under this government’s watch. Crumbling infrastructure built through P3 arrangements, understaffing and overcrowding levels are dangerous for everyone living and working in our corrections system.

Ignoring a problem doesn’t make it go away; ignoring a problem gives it the chance to grow and get worse. Other than tout its review, what tangibly is this government doing to fix the dire situation in our correctional facilities?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Let me start by thanking our corrections and probation and parole officers for the incredible work they do in our correctional institutions in our communities every single day. They are truly a front line to ensuring that our communities are safe at all times. In all my conversations that I’ve had with them—and the work that I’ve heard from members opposite as well—I think we all recognize that we need to collectively work to ensure that we’re transforming our correctional services system, a system that moves away from just warehousing individuals and, most importantly, focuses on rehabilitating and reintegrating them better in the community.

One of the mandates that has been given to me by the Premier is to ensure that we do not address the issues around capacity in our jails by building more jails but in fact we deal with capacity by reducing the demand for jails. That is why the transformation of our system, in partnership with our correctional officers, is extremely important.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: As we’ve said, there is a crisis in corrections, and pretending that there isn’t is not an acceptable strategy. Talking about rehabilitation and talking about the vision for the jails without ensuring that those things can happen—well, again, that’s just talk.

This government is being asked what it’s doing about the lack of mental health training for staff. It’s being asked about malfunctioning locks and a worsening situation at the Toronto South Detention Centre and a hunger strike by inmates. It is being asked about multiple inmate deaths across the province. It is being asked why it is content to lock down facilities with inexperienced managers rather than reach a deal with its professional staff. Why is this government content to fiddle while our correctional system burns?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: There is a lot of work that has already started in partnership with our correctional staff in our system to ensure that we do that transformation. We are moving forward with better mental health supports and enhanced rehabilitation and reintegration programs so that we can help break the cycle of reoffending and build safer, stronger communities right across the province. That’s why we have already hired 500 new correctional officers since 2013, and we’re working hard to hire more. In fact, there are almost 100 new officers who are going through training at the correctional college as we speak.

As part of our transformation, Speaker, we have also launched a comprehensive review of Ontario’s use of segregation within our correctional facilities.

We have also begun construction of a 112-bed new regional intermittent centre at EMDC to ensure that we address the capacity issue, reduce contraband and improve safety of our correctional staff. I look forward to working with correctional staff on this.

Ontario public service

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. I understand that the Ontario public service was again recognized as one of Canada’s top 100 employers for 2016 in a special

section of the Globe and Mail. This is the second consecutive year that our public service has received this honour. I’d like to congratulate the dedicated men and women of the Ontario public service and thank them for the hard work that they do every day, providing us with the best advice in helping us deliver on our plans to build Ontario up.

Speaker, through you, can the minister please tell us more about the significance of this recognition for the Ontario public service?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member from Kingston and the Islands for this question and for recognizing the hard work and dedication of our extraordinary public service. I second her congratulations, and I’m sure everyone in this House joins me in congratulations to the OPS for this honour.

Our public service is second to none. They are dedicated, they are talented, and they are committed to delivering the best possible government for the people of Ontario. As the member notes, the Ontario public service was again recognized as one of Canada’s top employers for 2016, making this the sixth time that the OPS has received this recognition.

Our public service has also been recognized as one of the greater Toronto area’s top employers for the past seven years in a row, one of Canada’s greenest employers for six years in a row, and one of Canada’s best diversity employers for eight years in a row. Speaker, this recognition is important as it helps us attract and retain the very best.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: Speaker, as someone who has had the great pleasure of working with our public service, I wholeheartedly agree that this recognition is well earned. We rely on their advice, their professionalism and expertise to help us make Ontario the best place to live, work and do business. They’re absolutely instrumental in the development and delivery of programs and services to the people of this province. It’s wonderful to hear that our public service continues to be recognized as a top employer in a number of categories, and that the Ontario public service is seen as a leading employer.

I hope that the minister can tell us more about why the Ontario public service continues to be selected as a top employer and what our government is doing to maintain our status as a leading employer.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, as Secretary of Cabinet Steve Orsini said recently, this recognition is a testament to the hard work of our public service each and every day, and it’s a testament to the hard work that’s been done to make the OPS a great place to work.

Ontario is a leader when it comes to inclusive, accessible, respectful, healthy and productive workplaces. For example, we have strong employee networks like the OPS Pride Network, which provides support to employees on LGBTQ issues, and Tomorrow’s Ontario Public Service, or TOPS, which is fostering future leaders.

The OPS will continue to lead by example and set a high standard for other employers to emulate, but we need to work hard to stay in the top tier of employers. That’s why we’ve released a new HR plan for the next five years focused on fostering a positive and inclusive workplace culture, developing engaged and innovative leaders, and implementing effective and fair HR practices.

Manufacturing jobs

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Mr. Speaker, my question this morning is to the Premier. On November 4, I wrote to the Premier to ask that she take a leadership role by advocating for the proposed expansion at Billy Bishop airport here in Toronto. As you know, it is estimated that the proposal will create 2,000 new, well-paying jobs. Many of these jobs will be at the iconic Canadian company Bombardier, including jobs here in Toronto at Bombardier Downsview, which recently had to lay off 500 workers.

The Premier’s support for this project would send an important signal to the federal government and would be the kind of leadership that Ontario desperately needs.

Speaker, will the Premier take the opportunity here this morning to stand up for Ontario’s workers and clear the air by declaring her support for this important proposal?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I thank the member from across the way for the question. It’s the exact same question that he asked here in the Legislature only a few days ago, Speaker. The answer today remains the same as it was then, which is that, as it relates to this particular issue, it’s a matter between the federal government, the city of Toronto and the Toronto Port Authority. I understand that those are the authorities that are taking care of this matter.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Monte McNaughton: There are 2,000 jobs at stake, and all this Premier wants to do is continue to pass the buck.

Speaker, back to the Premier: In 2013, Porter Airlines signed a $2-billion deal with Bombardier to buy up to 30 CS100 planes. Those planes would allow the airline to fly passengers to destinations as far as Vancouver, Los Angeles and the Caribbean while also increasing services to locations throughout both southern and northern Ontario. This proposal will create 2,000 well-paying jobs while generating more than $250 million in annual economic impact for the city of Toronto, but this Premier won’t even add her voice to support it.

The Premier knows that there’s a $2-billion deal, thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions in annual economic activity all at risk. Speaker, will this Premier stand up for the workers at Bombardier and declare her support for this important proposal today?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Again I thank the member for the supplementary question. This is essentially a repeat of what we said the last time we had this back and forth on this issue.

What’s interesting to me, in particular, is that the member opposite is talking about the potential for job creation. Speaker, I’m not sure if that member or the leader of his party or his caucus understands that, with the infrastructure investments that our Premier and our government are making across Ontario, we will create or sustain 110,000 jobs each and every single year.

What’s fascinating, I know, for the people of Toronto, for the people of the GTHA and for the people of Ontario is that, with our plan to create over 100,000 jobs annually with infrastructure investments, that member and that party on the Conservative benches continuously vote against and oppose our plan to move the province forward. So there’s something that’s a little bit off here, Speaker. He asks questions about job creation and he rejects our efforts to build the province up and move Ontario forward.

Collective bargaining

Ms. Cindy Forster: My question is to the Premier. Last week, the Liberal government reintroduced a 2014 Conservative bill that the Premier herself voted against just last year. Essentially, this government is giving well-connected Liberal insiders an early Christmas present by releasing corporate construction giant and major Liberal donor EllisDon from its 60-year-old obligation to hire unionized workers. Speaker, why is this government putting well-connected insiders and friends ahead of hard-working Ontario families?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Labour.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thanks to the member opposite for the question again. What the member will understand is that there was a private member’s bill before the House that would do what the courts were asking the Legislature to do, and that was to act on this issue.

If you’ll recall, the first bill that was before this House would have given everything that one side wanted and nothing to the building trades union. What I asked these groups to do, as a result of this coming back again from the courts, was to sit in the same room, spend a weekend together and see if they can reach a settlement to resolve this long-standing issue.

They were able to reach a settlement within that room. One of the parties was able to ratify that agreement; the other wasn’t. What we’re doing today, what we’re asking the House to do, is to pass the legislation that gives us a vehicle to implement a regulation based primarily on what the arbitrator is asking us to do.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Cindy Forster: Speaker, hard-working Ontarians know full well that this has got nothing to do with a fair settlement, as the minister claims. Despite numerous court decisions upholding EllisDon’s obligations, despite tools available to solve labour disputes, we know full well that this is about thanking the Liberal Party’s highest donor, building on great relationships between cabinet members and their insider friends. This is about a Liberal government interfering in workers’ democratic right to negotiate a fair deal—

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

I’m listening very carefully, and you’re tiptoeing so tight. I’m going to have to warn the member not to get into an accusation that I know you know is unparliamentary. Carry on and finish. I’m listening carefully to that.

Ms. Cindy Forster: This is about the Liberal government interfering in the workers’ democratic right to negotiate a fair deal with a private corporation.

Will the Premier do the right thing and remove this

section of the bill and put Ontarians ahead of corporate donors?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thanks again to the member for the question. What we have, specifically, is each and every one of those—

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Sir, I’m going to ask you to leave, please. We cannot have people participate in House business—observation only. Thank you.

Please finish.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: The fact is that the building trades unions retain every one of their rights in the province of Ontario. What we did is we brought in, I think, one of the best mediators, one of the best arbitrators in this country, and sat down with these parties. They reached an agreement on that weekend; one party was able to ratify, the other party was not.

The arbitrator, Kevin Burkett, has come back to me; he said that what we should be doing is we should be framing the regulation to resolve this dispute based primarily on the agreement that was reached on that weekend. I’m suggesting that’s the best way forward. It’s a way forward that I think protects the interests of both parties in this regard.

Veterans

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Every November, we come together as a nation to recognize the sacrifices made by our veterans. Last year, while attending a community tree-planting event in Oshawa, as part of the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry’s partnership with Trees Ontario under the 50 Million Tree Program, I was approached by Forests Ontario with a wonderful idea, one that would create a unique and lasting tribute to Canada’s fallen soldiers, a tribute that would allow all Ontarians the opportunity to commemorate these veterans every day of the year in perpetuity via a living legacy.

Can the minister please tell the members of this House about this initiative and our partnership with Forests Ontario?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I want to begin by thanking the member from Burlington for the question and also for her tremendous leadership on this very important issue.

In 2007, as everyone in this chamber will know, the Ontario government dedicated the segment of Highway 401 between Glen Miller Road in Trenton and Keele Street in Toronto as the Highway of Heroes. This dedication was a fitting way of commemorating the bravery and sacrifice of Canadian soldiers whose lives have been tragically cut short in defence of our country.

I was extremely proud to join the member from Burlington to announce that our government has formalized a partnership with Forests Ontario to move forward with the Highway of Heroes tree-planting partnership. This partnership will see 117,000 trees planted along the Highway of Heroes—one tree for every soldier who has died serving Canada since Confederation. The formal tree planting will begin in the spring of 2016, and this wonderful initiative will stand forever as a living memorial to those who have proudly served our country.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: I want to thank the minister for his response.

I was incredibly proud to stand with him to announce our government’s partnership with Forests Ontario for the Highway of Heroes tree-planting initiative. I join him in thanking them and, in particular, Mark Cullen for his passion and commitment not only to this program but to our veterans.

I’m also pleased to note that this is not the first investment that our government has made for our veterans. This past summer, our government announced a new initiative that seeks to help military personnel in making a transition to civilian work and life.

Can the minister please tell the members of this House more about this important new initiative?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Again, I thank the member from Burlington for the supplementary question.

She is right. This past June, I had the honour of standing with the representatives from the Department of National Defence, the organization known as Helmets to Hardhats and the Ontario Trucking Association to make an important announcement. As of this past July 1, our government is making it easier for Canadian military personnel and veterans by allowing them to exchange their Department of National Defence 404 driver’s permits for an applicable Ontario licence. Extensive review of DND’s licensing standards have shown us that military training and testing requirements meet Ontario’s licence standards.

Taking this important step will help those leaving the military transition to civilian work and assist them in finding jobs in the trucking sector. While Ontario will waive knowledge and road tests, we will still require applicants to complete a vision test, meet medical standards and satisfy identification requirements.

I am very proud to be a member of a government that stands up for, defends and helps those who serve our country.

Education funding

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Minister of Education. As the minister knows, for a number of years people in Wasaga Beach have wondered when they will get a high school. We think we have enough local students to justify the building of a high school.

I ask the minister to tell this House: Who is it that makes that decision, and has the Simcoe County District School Board ever asked the minister to build a high school in Wasaga Beach?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m very pleased to talk about our capital priorities program. We just recently announced funding for 56 capital projects totalling almost half a billion dollars.

I can confirm that the Simcoe County District School Board did not submit a request for a new high school in Wasaga Beach to our capital priorities program. In fact, I can confirm that none of the four boards that serve Wasaga Beach—that would be Simcoe county, Simcoe Muskoka, Viamonde and Centre-Sud—submitted a request for a school in Wasaga Beach. Although we did get 220 requests for $2.7 billion, I don’t fund projects if I don’t get a request.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Again to the Minister of Education: I keep getting told that one reason the school board is reluctant to ask for a high school in Wasaga Beach is that it might jeopardize the viability of Stayner Collegiate and/or Collingwood Collegiate.

Can the minister tell us if that is true? Will Stayner and Collingwood be affected? And what does the minister say to those of us who truly believe we have a good case for a high school in Wasaga Beach?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Obviously, given that the case wasn’t submitted, I can’t comment on its impact on other schools, but what I can share with the member is that one of the 56 projects that was successful was Simcoe county’s request for a school in Elmvale. As the member opposite knows, Elmvale is 15 kilometres down the road from Wasaga Beach and, in fact, does serve the students from Wasaga Beach.

We did approve the request for construction of an addition to Elmvale District High School. We approved a 180-pupil-place addition, with funding of $5.5 million. The students who reside in Wasaga Beach will be well served by that updated high school in Elmvale.

Homelessness

Ms. Sarah Campbell: My question is to the Premier. This week, we learned that poverty and homelessness continue to grow in northern Ontario. This Liberal government’s rhetoric and record on homelessness and poverty simply do not match up.

In Sudbury, the homeless population has more than doubled since 2009. Shockingly, almost 1% of Sudbury’s population is hom