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

April 9, 2019

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2019-Apr-09 (PDF)

L090 - Tue 9 Apr 2019 / Mar 9 avr 2019

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 9 April 2019 Mardi 9 avril 2019

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Wearing of pins

Oral Questions

Education funding

Education

Health care

Teachers

Rural schools

Taxation

Pay equity

Education funding

Long-term care

Toronto Transit Commission

Services for children and youth

Northern economy

Special investigations unit

Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre

Highway safety

Visitors

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Walter Allward

City of Richmond Hill

Matthieu and Roch Mantha

Elmira Maple Syrup Festival

Dudley-Hewitt Cup

Student assistance

Megan Oldham

Anniversary of Rwandan genocide

Fusion Pharmaceuticals

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Equal Pay Day

Vimy Ridge Day

Equal Pay Day

Vimy Ridge Day

Journée de l’équité salariale / Equal Pay Day

Vimy Ridge Day / Jour de la bataille de Vimy

Petitions

Child care workers

Social assistance

Campus radio stations

Toronto Transit Commission

Fish and wildlife management

GO Transit

Campus radio stations

Fish and wildlife management

Education funding

Mental health services

Fish and wildlife management

Toronto Transit Commission

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Let us pray.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Time allocation

Hon. Steve Clark: I move that, pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 87,

An Act to amend various statutes related to energy, when the bill is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

That, at such time the bill shall be ordered referred to the Standing Committee on General Government; and

That the Standing Committee on General Government be authorized to meet on Monday, April 15, 2019, from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. to 6 p.m., and Wednesday, April 17, 2019, from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. to 6 p.m., for public hearings on the bill; and

That the Clerk of the Committee, in consultation with the committee Chair, be authorized to arrange the following with regard to Bill 87:

—That the deadline for requests to appear be 12 noon on Thursday, April 11, 2019; and

—That the Clerk of the Committee provide a list of all interested presenters to each member of the subcommittee and their designate following the deadline for requests to appear by 2 p.m. on Thursday, April 11, 2019; and

—That each member of the subcommittee or their designate provide the Clerk of the Committee with a prioritized list of presenters to be scheduled, chosen from the list of all interested presenters received by the Clerk, by 6 p.m. on Thursday, April 11, 2019; and

—That each witness will receive up to six minutes for their presentation followed by 14 minutes divided equally amongst the recognized parties for questioning; and

That the deadline for filing written submissions be 6 p.m. on Wednesday, April 17, 2019; and

That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be 6 p.m. on Tuesday, April 23, 2019; and

That the Standing Committee on General Government shall be authorized to meet on Monday, April 29, 2019, from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and 2 p.m. to 6 p.m., and Wednesday, May 1, 2019, from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m., for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

That on Wednesday, May 1, 2019, at 5:30 p.m., those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. At this time, the Chair shall allow one 20-minute waiting period pursuant to standing order 129(a); and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House no later than Thursday, May 2, 2019. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and

That, upon receiving the report of the Standing Committee on General Government, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading, which order may be called that same day; and

That, notwithstanding standing order 81(c), the bill may be called for third reading more than once in the same sessional day; and

That, notwithstanding standing order 71(d), the bill may be considered in any standing or select committee while any matter, including a procedural motion, relating to the same policy field is being considered in the House; and

That, in the event of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to 20 minutes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Mr. Clark, has moved motion 35, time allocation of Bill 87. Would the minister like to lead off debate?

Hon. Steve Clark: Yes, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): I recognize the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Steve Clark: We want to move forward.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): I recognize the member from Carleton.

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: It’s always humbling to rise in the Ontario Legislature to speak on behalf of the people of Carleton. I still can’t believe that nine months have passed since June 7, the day that the people of Ontario put their faith and their trust in Premier Ford and his all-star team.

It really seems like it was only yesterday that I first had the privilege of speaking in this House on behalf of the people of Carleton. I guess they say time flies when you’re having fun, and, I can say, that after 15 years of waste, mismanagement and scandal after scandal after scandal that cost Ontario’s taxpayers billions and billions of dollars, diving head-first under the Premier’s leadership to fix the mess has been a lot of hard work, but it has also been really fun.

The feedback that I have received from the people of Carleton after our government for the people has tackled and solved yet another problem left by the previous government not only motivates me and energizes me to work harder, but it also makes the job fun. So, yes, time does seem to fly by, especially since I’m enjoying every moment of it.

That brings me to Bill 87, the Fixing the Hydro Mess Act, 2019, and why it’s so critical to have this time allocation motion. We need to fix this mess, and we need to fix it fast. After 15 years of Liberal waste, scandal and mismanagement, Ontarians just don’t have the luxury of waiting any longer. I’d like to take an opportunity to thank the Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines for introducing this important piece of legislation.

Even before our government for the people was elected, the Progressive Conservative caucus that was in the opposition was focused on the hydro file, and all throughout the election our party was very vocal on the need to clean up the hydro mess created by the previous Liberal government. In fact, it was one of our five core commitments. It is critical that we fix this mess quickly, and that is why it’s so important to have time allocation on Bill 87.

Part of the reason that we were so focused on the hydro file—and my colleagues who served then, and the candidates who fought so hard in the lead-up to the last election will know—and the reason we fought so hard is that we saw the damage that was being done to the residents of Ontario. Since we got elected, we have been methodically taking a step-by-step approach to bring back our hydro system, to put back into place a system that our small, medium and large job creators can rely upon and, most importantly, to bring back a system that the taxpayers of Ontario can rely upon.

For decades, one of the things that separated Ontario from other jurisdictions we competed with was the fact that we had a strong, stable, reliable and affordable energy sector. It’s what drove our manufacturers to the province, it’s what gave us confidence in those long winter months, and it’s what allowed our great province to thrive and grow. That was an advantage that we lost, Mr. Speaker, not because we had a bad energy sector but exclusively because of bad government policy. Ontarians have been waiting far too long for us to get that advantage back, and that is why we need time allocation on this legislation.

For 42 years, Ontario had a strong, stable, progressive government in this province that built a magnificent infrastructure built on a hydro sector that helped us become the engine of Canada’s economy. I know you’ve heard this time and time again, Mr. Speaker, but that is because it’s true. A strong Ontario means a strong Canada. When Ontario is booming, so is the rest of the country. That is what we lost because of bad policy decisions.

Over the years, it has been policies that have been built up and introduced by the Progressive Conservatives, backed by a strong energy sector, that have helped us build and pay for this massive infrastructure and the economy. Where we have gone wrong in this province over the last 15 years of the Liberal-NDP coalition government is that we lurched from one ideological disaster to the next, looking for a solution in terms of energy policy.

We all fought for the opportunity to get elected, and we fought because we knew what was at stake. We knew that when we got elected, we were going to have to do something about the hydro mess. We also realized that we could do one of two things: We could follow the failed approach of the previous government; or we could take a step back, re-evaluate and do it properly. We would consult. We would work with communities. We would work with industry. We would work with the sector that helped build a strong Ontario.

And step by step, we would unravel, and we will unravel, the bad policies that were put in place and make those policy decisions that did work, work even better. And we will reduce the cost to our taxpayers, to our ratepayers, and we will really sit down with our small, medium and large job creators to find out how we could do things better.

We needed to act, Mr. Speaker, and we needed to act fast. That is exactly what we are doing with this bill, and that is exactly why time allocation on Bill 87 is so important. It follows on the important work that we have already done on the green energy file and on the Green Energy Act. It follows, of course, on the work that the Premier, the cabinet and the government caucus has worked on with respect to eliminating contracts for power that we simply did not need.

As I said, Bill 87 is the next step. This bill focuses on three main areas: It focuses on energy conservation; it focuses on modernizing the Ontario Energy Board; and it talks about changes to the rate structure and how we finance some of the bad policies that were brought in by the previous Liberal government.

One of the first things that you will see in the bill, Mr. Speaker, and I think it’s critical to how we move forward, is how we deal with energy conservation. Of course, there is a role for conservation in the energy sector, and it is important. It is something that consumers, businesses and all of us focus on daily. Unfortunately, a big part of the reason why many of us have been focusing on it so intensely is because of the horrifyingly high cost of electricity that was brought on by the previous government, which forced Ontarians into looking at different alternatives.

There are some programs that work; however, there are a great many more that simply do not. That is what the government is looking at. We looked at how the financing was handled. Under this bill, we’re eliminating those energy conservation programs that just don’t make sense, that cost too much, that cost ratepayers more than the benefit that we get back. That is why time allocation is so important: because we cannot afford, Ontarians cannot afford to have any more of their taxpayer dollars wasted on these devastating and totally—

Mr. Michael Mantha: Can’t say the words, eh?

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: I haven’t had my coffee yet. We were all out of coffee.

Mr. Mike Harris: Useless; useless programs.

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Useless; useless programs, essentially. That’s what it was.

As always, we are working closely with out small, medium and large job creators, because we understand that there is work to be done. Despite the fact that we have had tremendous job success in creating jobs since this government took office—built in no small part by the hard work of the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade—removing red tape is extraordinarily important. But there’s still a lot of work to be done, Mr. Speaker, particularly when it comes to the high cost of energy. This is something that all of us, on both sides of the House, continue to hear about and it’s something that we all focus on, so we’re working closely with that sector as well.

Mr. Speaker, here’s a quote from the Auditor General’s report in 2017. The Auditor General of Ontario herself said that “it was known that the planned financing structure” undertaken by the former Liberal government “could result in significant unnecessary costs for Ontarians.” She went on to say: “The substance of the issue is straightforward. Ratepayers’ hydro bills will be lower than the cost of the electricity used as a result of the electricity rate reduction. However, power generators will still be owed the full cost of electricity they supply, so the government needs to borrow cash to cover the shortfall to pay them.”

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Further debate?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’m not pleased to participate, yet again, in another time allocation debate that this government has brought forward. You know, if you listened to the Conservatives when they were on the opposition benches, Mr. Speaker, you would have thought that they, like us as New Democrats, thought the use of time allocation was an excessive tool that took away the right of individuals—not just of members of the House, but the right of individuals—in this province to be part of our legislative process.

I remember the speeches, Mr. Speaker; I think you might remember a few yourself, as you were here as well. We had the members of the opposition then—the members from Lanark and Renfrew, the member who is now the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the current finance minister, and others—who would get up in this House and speak eloquently against the Liberal government’s use of time allocation, and they used some very, very good arguments.

The Conservatives of the day, in opposition, like the current Minister of Community and Social Services, would talk about how it’s an excessive use of force, blocking the right of individuals from being able to have a say about what it is that their government is doing or not doing in a piece of legislation.

There are two parts to time allocation. There’s one part that—yes, it’s true—limits the ability for members to participate and debate in the House. That’s bad enough, because the Legislature is supposed to be about that. But equally and probably worse, Mr. Speaker, it takes away the ability of the public to have their say, because we have a committee structure in Ontario that’s been developed through the British parliamentary system that has served Ontario and other Parliaments around the world well, that allows the public to come before committees, travel those committees and have people speak to issues such as the bill that is the subject of this time allocation motion.

It was not that long ago, when I first got to this Legislature, that there was no time allocation. There was no limit on speeches in the House. Governments did send their bills out in order to be heard across the province. And you know what happened, Mr. Speaker? People came and the public participated, and they would say to the government of the day—whoever it was, because all three parties have served in that system, New Democrats, Liberals and Conservatives, without time allocation.

They would come before our committees in places like Kenora, places like Cornwall, places like Hamilton—you name it—across the province. They would come to us and say, “We like this bill for the following reasons, but we think you need to amend it there.” Or some people would come and say, “No, I don’t like this bill. This is why I’m opposed to the bill in its entirety.” Then governments used to take those amendments that were brought—the committee members would hear what the people would had to say and they would draft amendments to the bill. And, Mr.

Speaker, I know it’s hard to believe, but governments used to accept amendments in committee.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Shocking.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I know. Mr. Speaker, can you believe it? They actually took the amendments and amended their own bills, even if it didn’t come from the government side. I know that I’m not dreaming; I lived that experience. But you know what? It worked, because a government doesn’t have a monopoly on all the good ideas. And the public is paying attention. I don’t know if the Conservatives have figured that out, but they’re the ones who are paying the bill, the citizens of this province, who work hard every day, who go to work, who pay their taxes, and we’re spending the money here.

So the public has to have a right to take a look at the product that’s coming out of the place they’re paying for called the Ontario Legislature.

This government while in opposition understood that. The Conservatives of the day would speak to those issues. They would hearken back to the days—because other members in the Conservative caucus then, like me, were members prior to time allocation: our current Speaker, for one; Mr. Wilson, the member for—I can’t use his name, but I don’t know his riding—the former Minister of International Trade. They were there at the time and understood that time allocation didn’t exist.

There was no limit on how long you could speak in the House, and what that did is forced the parties to work together, because a government was not able to just get their way by passing a time allocation motion: “Oh, my God. We have to pass that bill today. The world is going to come to an end,” says the government. The reality is, the legislative process is meant to be a bit of a slower process so that we can have sober second thought to whatever bill is before us, so that the public can have their say and that we can do amendments.

For example, in this bill, the government purports to try to fix the hydro mess. Do New Democrats agree with Conservatives that the Liberals created a hydro mess? Absolutely. My God, the Liberals in office when it came to hydro were just horrible on this file. Our hydro bills went up over 200% as a result of what the Liberals did and what the Conservatives did prior to that under Mike Harris. But most of the blame does go to the Liberals, I will agree, because they not only privatized over half of Hydro One, but they also privatized a large part of our generating stock, which really drove up the hydro.

I heard some of the government members across the way talk to that, saying that it made no sense that they were signing long-term energy deals at way above the price that it cost us to generate electricity under OPG.

For example, back then when they signed those deals, the average cost of electricity generated by OPG was somewhere around eight cents, 8.5 cents per kilowatt hour. They were signing deals as high as 80 cents. What was worse, they would sign the deal and say, “Not only am I going to pay you 80 cents” or 20 cents or whatever the deal was, “but I’m going to pay you for all of your production, even if I don’t need it.” Meanwhile, Ontario, which generates 25,000 megs, would have a demand of, let’s say, 17,000—it was on Sunday; I looked at my app on my phone. The demand for electricity on Sunday: 13,000 megs.

The Liberals went and built about 15,000 megs of power on private power contracts, for the most part, and were having to pay to get that power, which was far more expensive than what it cost us to generate. So we idled our own generating stock. Dams in my ridings and dams in your riding, and probably up in yours as well, that are owned by OPG and that generate electricity, more times than not, were spinning their motors backwards, from generators to motors, in order to balance the load on the distribution system. It’s ludicrous. What the Liberals did to electricity is ludicrous.

The government purports in this bill that they’re going to fix it. Well, they’re not. They’re not undoing any of what the government previously put in place. The only thing that this bill does, for the larger part, is deal with the financing aspect to the reduction of electricity prices that the government dealt with prior to the last election. You remember, Mr. Speaker. The Liberals said, “Oh, well, we hear you now. The electricity prices are high. We’ve got to do something about it.” So they promised they would drop the price of electricity by 25% of the total cost.

What they did is that they went to OPG and they off-booked the cost of that and borrowed on the OPG credit card to give us all a 25% reduction in electricity. We all got the 25% reduction in electricity. I saw it on my hydro bill. If you’re a mining company, you saw it on your hydro bill. But who was paying for it? It was us who was paying for it. It’s like saying, “I’m going to take my Visa to pay my Mastercard, and, when that doesn’t work, I guess I’m going to sell my house.” That’s what these guys are doing. What they tried to do is off-book the cost.

This bill that is now being time allocated: All it does is—which is not a bad thing; I’m not going to argue against what the government did—they moved it from off-book to put it on the books. They’re saying, “That should rightfully belong as an expense of the Ontario government, and it should be reported in our numbers as the budget numbers.” I agree with that. I think that was the right thing to do, for a number of reasons. The obvious one is transparency. You have to have transparency when it comes to the money that we spend here in the Legislature.

The other part of it is, it’s cheaper for us to borrow money than it is for OPG, so you save money because we have a much better ability to borrow large sums of money for less interest.

So we will save some money as a result of the financing cost of the Liberal hydro scheme, but now what we have is a Tory hydro scheme. The only thing that you’ve done is, you’ve changed the words “Liberal hydro plan” to “Conservative hydro plan,” and you adopted it as your own.

You do not have an energy policy that’s substantially different than what the Liberals have done. Are you doing anything to go after those high-paid contracts that we signed with the private sector on the OPG side? Not one. No. You have not done anything to deal with that. Have you dealt with time-of-use pricing, something that New Democrats said needs to be done? In fact, I think it’s the member from Kingston and the Islands who has a bill before the House that essentially asks to deal with time-of-use pricing. There’s no change in time-of-use pricing. Are you doing anything in order to reverse the privatization of Hydro One? None of that.

We didn’t argue, as New Democrats, that we were going to do it in one fell swoop. But you can certainly go from 51% ownership by the private sector down to 49%, for not a heck of a lot of money, to get control and to start doing the things at Hydro One that we need to do to reduce hydro prices.

The whole issue of distribution, the price of hydro: I think it was the member from Algoma–Manitoulin who was giving a story the other day about a constituent of his—who could have been my constituent because it’s the same story—you get a hydro bill for $140; $40 is hydro and $100 is transportation. It’s just like: We need to deal with rural transportation rates. Why is it that somebody living in rural or northern Ontario has to pay substantially more for electricity than you do here in the city of Toronto? It’s not fair. Right? We figured how to do that with natural gas; why can’t we do it with electricity?

When you pay for natural gas in Toronto or you pay for natural gas in Timmins, the cost is not hugely different. There’s a bit of a difference, but it’s not huge. In the case of electricity, transportation costs are real. They’re huge. It makes a big difference in people’s hydro bills. Does your bill deal with any of that? Absolutely not.

What your bill does do, though, I guess in a way, is that it takes away some of what the Liberals did under the Fair Hydro Plan, but I think not in the place that you should have done it. The member previous spoke at great lengths about how she was proud to do that, and that is to eliminate conservation programs. How ludicrous can we be? If you want to effectively deal with supply and demand when it comes to electricity, the most economical way to do it—in other words, the cheapest, for a big bang for your buck, and you help the environment—is to reduce the need for electricity.

We had programs like GreenON that allowed people to go out and buy windows and change their leaking windows so that they could save heat in their homes.

I live out on a lake, where there’s wind off the lake in the winter. I have windows that I put in originally, when I put that in for my mom when she had the cottage. They were not meant to be year-round windows; they were meant to be summer-plus kind of windows. Right? If GreenON was on, I could have gone there and got windows installed a lot easier than I can now. Now I’m going to have to do it—it’s much more expensive, so you’re having to do it much slower.

My point is, people were able to invest in their own homes and be assisted by way of these programs, reducing the need to buy electricity in order to heat your home, or buy natural gas—whatever your heating method was.

The government is proud of getting rid of conservation programs. To me, it’s a pretty scary thing to listen to a government saying, “It’s a really great thing that we got rid of a whole bunch of conservation programs.” It makes no sense. We have a planet that is warming up. We have found out, by reports this weekend, that Canada’s climate is rising at the fastest rate of any place in the world, and we’re seeing it. We saw it this winter, we saw it last winter, what it means to our climate. This government is doing almost nothing to be able to try to combat climate change. Where we did have programs that had some effect, the government, with this bill, is taking them away.

So, yes, the public should have a right to come before a committee and speak to your bill. Imagine if you went to Kenora, imagine if you went to Ottawa, imagine if you went to Kingston and different places, and you actually listened to what the people had to say. The government might find out that their hymn book was wrong—their ideological hymn book that they read from, where it says, “I am a Conservative. I hate all things that are energy-efficient. I believe in the following principles. I believe only in privatization.” They may find out that their book is wrong.

They may find out that the fiction they’ve been reading from the Doug Ford Conservative school might be something that could be amended.

Maybe the government is on to something when they say, “We want to fix the Liberal hydro plan.” I think you would have lots of people running to committee saying, “Hallelujah, great idea.” But they might actually give you some ideas in order to make this bill do what the title says it’s going to do. This is not fixing the Liberal hydro plan. This is adopting the Liberal hydro plan. That’s all you’re doing in this bill. You’re taking the Liberal hydro plan and you’re calling it a Conservative hydro plan. You’re bringing it onto the books, and you’re eliminating conservation programs. That’s all you’re doing here.

I listened to the government members on the other side get up and talk about how great of a thing it is, and how they got here, and how it’s nine months that they’ve been in government and they’re working at breakneck speed and they’re doing all—no. I bet if you went out and talked to the public, they may have a bit of a different view. But that’s the point. The government doesn’t want to hear the other view. The government is not interested in listening to the people.

I remind the Conservative members—they should know this—who pays the bills here. It’s the people, the people that you say you’re supposedly governing for. “We, the government of the people,” they say.

Interjection: Exactly.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, no, not exactly. That’s not what you’re doing here.

If you were the government of the people, you would actually be going out to committee and communities, and hearing what people have to say about bills like this, about your Conservative hydro plan that you’ve adopted from the Liberals. You would have taken out the health privatization act that you’ve put in place, that’s now in committee and dealing with amendments, as we speak, in the Legislature. You would actually let the public come and have their say, because the public may inform you there are better ways to do it.

From that point on, Parliament, the people and the King—or Queen, depending on the time—worked out this system that we call the British Parliament, which gave commoners—that’s why we call it the House of Commons—a voice in what the King was able to do. Eventually, what we did is that we became a responsible government where now the King is a figurehead and is technically the head of government. The Queen is the head of our government. She is Her Royal Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, who reigns over us.

But we, as independent Legislatures and Houses of Commons in Westminster, decide what we’re going to do as far as governing for the public. Well, that’s the point. The whole process of how we develop the British parliamentary system put in it a mechanism to allow the people to participate, and I think that is brilliant.

The British parliamentary system, for all its faults, is probably one of the best systems of government that you can find when it comes to how Legislatures work because there’s a balance, and one of those balances was the people. We gave the people the right to have access to the legislation and their MPPs—or MPs, federally. People are able to come before our committees and speak to us about legislation that we have in the House that eventually has to go to committee because one of the rights that we still have—and the government may take this away at some point—is the right to force a bill after second reading into committee.

I wouldn’t be surprised if at one point the government just takes that away and says, “To heck with it. We’re going to go from second to third, and we are going to skip over the formality of committee, and maybe use—”

Interjection.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: No, they already thought about it. I’m not telling them anything they haven’t thought about—and possibly just go to Committee of the Whole as a way of amending bills, if they need to do that after second reading, or write the bill by completely delegating the authority to cabinet so that cabinet can decide everything behind closed doors. I wouldn’t be surprised that that’s where this is going, because the temptation is there.

The fact that we have time allocation in our standing orders, and the fact that we limit debates in the House and take away the ability of members to be able to hold their own government, or the government, to account is a problem, because the person who gets caught in this seizing of power on the part of the executive—in this case, the Premier, because that’s the executive, because cabinet is the executive. The people who get caught in that seizing of power are the people. So why wouldn’t you want the public to come and speak to your Conservative hydro plan?

Why wouldn’t you want the public coming to speak about your health care plan? You might learn something. We may actually have better legislation.

I remember, for example, when Mike Harris was in power, he put together a bill which was in order to give snowmobile clubs the legislative authority to deal with building Ski-Doo trails across northern Ontario. That bill travelled for at least a couple of weeks, if not three weeks. I was on that particular committee. It was pretty non-partisan, because back then, things were a little bit less partisan than they are now. It was something that both sides of the House agreed to. We thought, “Hey, this is a good idea.”

The bill went out in committee. We travelled around. People came before us, and they raised things that we never would have thought of, Mr. Speaker. Because as we sit in the bubble of Queen’s Park, bills are drafted by legislative counsel, who probably never drove a Ski-Doo, right? I don’t mean that disparagingly, but if you live in Toronto, you probably haven’t had much chance to drive a Ski-Doo or know what it is to cross a farmer’s field, or cross a person’s trap line, or go on somebody’s ancestral burial ground. They wouldn’t have a concept of those things.

So when we went out and travelled the bill, people came before us, and they made suggestions. We ended up amending that bill fairly significantly as a result of what the public had to say. I know, because I moved some of those amendments myself, and the government accepted the amendments.

The point I make is this: That bill still stands today, 20 years later, or 18 years later, or whatever it is. It still stands in the original form, and we haven’t had to amend it. We haven’t had to do any regulatory change, because we got it right. We didn’t delegate authority to the cabinet back then, the way that we do now. The bill determined in the language what was supposed to happen; it wasn’t up to cabinet to decide that. As a result of that, we drafted a better bill. Isn’t that the intent of what the government wants here?

Doesn’t the government want to have a well-drafted Conservative hydro plan that achieves the goals that they say they want to achieve in the bill and gives the public pause to say, “Hey, the government got this right”?

You’re shortchanging two people by using time allocation. You’re shortchanging the public, because this is the public’s House, and the public has a right to a say. But you’re also shortchanging yourself as a government, because you’re not benefiting from the knowledge that is out there on the part of the public on how it is that you should amend your legislation. So you end up with much faultier legislation, and the losers in this are the public and yourselves. This is the part that’s just beyond me, why a government wouldn’t want to be able to get a bill out into the public.

Now, if it was a bill, Mr. Speaker, that had such an urgency—you know, you have a disaster somewhere and you need legislation to deal with the disaster—then okay, then I can understand. If there’s something like that happening, you need to be able to move quickly. All right, you may want to, by agreement of the House, and I guess by time allocation, get something done quickly. But every bill that the government has introduced in this House since they’ve been here has been time-allocated.

We’ve followed the same pattern: The bill gets time-allocated on a Tuesday, or even on a Wednesday. The last time, a bill was passed on a Thursday—the health bill, I think, was passed on a Thursday—and the committee hearings that you applied to come and sit at had to be done by Friday. You had barely 24 hours—less than 24 hours—to say you wanted to get standing before a committee. In that time, we ended up with 1,500 people who wanted to sit at committee, of which we could only accommodate 30. Doesn’t that tell you something, that 1,500 people asked to go before that committee?

When I raised that with the government House leader, he said, “Oh, those are all your friends. Those are the people you said to apply.” Boy, I wish I had that influence.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I didn’t think you had any friends.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: That’s exactly it, to my friend Bob Bailey. I wish I had two friends, let alone 1,500. Does any member here honestly think that any political party can motivate 1,500 people to come and present before a committee in less than 24 hours? I know the Tories tried it in the past.

We certainly want some people to come forward. I told people in my riding, “You should apply.” The director of our hospital, people at the hospital, people in the family health teams and others—I told them all. I said, “You should apply for standing at the committee when this bill comes forward.” But I’m telling you, those 1,500, for the large part—I would say 95% were people who were concerned, who had something to say about your bill.

And the government said, “Well, don’t worry about it. Be happy.” Remember that song? “Don’t worry, be happy.” Remember that? I wish I could sing. I wish I was like you, Mr. Speaker. I can’t sing worth a darn. But the point was, they tell us to be happy: “Just send us a letter and we’ll read your letter and everything will be fine.” We had how many? Was it 20,000? About 20,000 submissions were sent to the committee. Those things are still coming in after the deadline, and nobody’s had a chance to read them. So, we have all these citizens, the people who pay the bill—

Mr. Robert Bailey: You’ve got all summer to read them.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Summer reading? The bill will be passed by then. The government member says that will be our summer reading. It won’t do us any good to read that in the summer; this bill is going to pass this week. The health bill will be done this week; it will pass third reading. That will be the end of it—next week, at the very latest. So the government is saying we can do summer reading and read those 20,000 submissions some time this summer. That won’t do us any good; the bill has already passed.

What was the point of sending it to committee? Why in time allocation would you send a bill to committee for two days, have 1,500 people apply, 20,000 people send you submissions, and not give them the time to be heard? The American Revolution started on less than that, right? It was on opposing a tax. There was a tax imposed by England and eventually England withdrew the tax because it was so unpopular, and the Americans created their own nation.

Well, here we have a government that’s going to make major changes in the electricity sector—I wouldn’t argue major changes; excuse me. Here we’ve got a government that is adopting the Liberal hydro plan, right? That’s all they’re doing here. Let’s be real. And you’re not going to give the public a chance to have their say? Now I know why: They understand that the people would look at this and they would say, “Hang on. Doug, I thought you said you were going to do something to help my hydro bill. All you’ve done is adopted the Liberal hydro plan.” Maybe that’s why you don’t want this bill travelling.

Ah, I think I just got on to something here. They don’t want this bill travelling because they darn well know that they’re going to get crucified.

It’s the same thing with the health bill. They know there are people out there who are very opposed to where they’re going with health care. We know this is all about privatization. The government minister says, “Don’t worry, it’s going to be paid by your health card.” Yes, that’s right. It’s going to get paid by the health card. Mark my words, Mr. Speaker: There is going to be more privatization as a result of Bill 74, number one, and there will be user fees.

Remember that story that came out about the colonoscopies and not paying for the anaesthetic in order to get that? Don’t be surprised when you see a situation where they say, “Well, if you’d like to have deep sedation, just pay. Not a problem.” I think that’s where they’re going. It’s going to be user fees and privatization.

Here’s the thing, Mr. Speaker: It’s going to cost us more money. We’re not going to save any money through Bill 74, which was time-allocated—related to time allocation; it was a time-allocated bill. We’re not going to save any money because health care delivered by the private sector costs more money.

I gave an example at the health coalition town hall on Saturday. One of my neighbours ended up in a Florida hospital for 12 days. He almost died. Luckily, he survived. When he was being discharged from the hospital, his wife was calling me. She called me every day because at one point, they thought he was dying. Luckily, he took a turn for the better, and he’s still alive and doing well today. She got the bill: $275,000 it had cost the insurance. Between the hospital charges and the doctors’ bills, it was $275,000 for those 12 days. I took that bill, I brought it to the Timmins and District Hospital and I said, “What would that cost in our system?” They said $27,000. That’s a big difference.

That’s what’s going to happen when you privatize. You’re going to have to have a profit margin, because no company operates as a not-for-profit. No private company wants to make no money; they all want to make a return on investment. And the return on investment—ROI, as they say—they want at least double digits; otherwise it’s not even worth investing into. You look at return on investment in most companies—a mining company, pharmaceutical, whatever it is—they want upwards of 20% return on investment to be able to get the money to get a project off the ground.

Well, do 20% on $60 billion and see where that takes you. I’m going to argue it will be more than 20%. We spend today just under $60 billion a year on health care. Mark my words: Once this bill, Bill 74, comes into effect and the government has had a chance to implement it all—and it’s going to take a while. It’s not going to be next year; it’s probably the length of six years or so, by the time you see all of that shake out. The cost of health care will be significantly more than it would be under a public system. Not only are we going to get worse services, not only are we going to have to pay user fees to get those services, but it’s going to be done more and more by the private sector.

That’s why government does not want to send bills out to committee. The government has decided—and this is their strategy. Every bill that they’ve had since they’ve been here, pretty well, it’s the same thing: a time allocation motion in the middle of the week, two days of committee hearings in Toronto the following week, followed by a day or two of clause-by-clause and we’re done. They don’t want the public to have their say, because if the public starts to realize what it is they’re doing, the public may actually push back and they might tell the government, “You’re not the government of the people.

I’m the people, and you’re not representing my views in what you’re doing in your legislation.”

This particular bill with regard to energy is certainly not what people are asking for. People voted the Liberals out because of the Liberal hydro plan. Why are you putting in a Conservative hydro plan which is essentially the same? You’re not doing anything that undoes the damage the Liberals have done, other than—yes, there is a savings of money in moving the dollars from off-book to on-book; I’ll give you that. But you’re not getting rid of time-of-use pricing. You’re not dealing with the substantial differences that we pay, depending on where we live in Ontario for delivery charges for electricity.

You’re not dealing with any of the other issues that we raised in our hydro plan that we put to the people in the last election. Essentially, all you’re doing in this bill—you’re not fixing the Liberal hydro mess; you’re saying, “The Liberal hydro plan is now the Conservative hydro plan.” That’s all you’re doing.

So there’s a reason, I think, Mr. Speaker, that they’re not sending things out to committee, because they understand far too well that the public ain’t buying what these people are doing. With that, Mr. Speaker, I’m sure there are other people in our caucus who would have something to say.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Further debate?

Mr. Mike Harris: I’m happy to rise today in the Legislature to speak to motion 35, time allocation on Bill 87, the Fixing the Hydro Mess Act.

I would like to remind the member for Timmins that there are a lot of things that go into fixing the hydro mess, and this is just one step. In my 10 minutes here I’m going to highlight a few of the other things we’ve done.

Our government was elected on a strong mandate to restore affordability and accountability in governing Ontario’s energy system. Since forming government, we have been steadfast in carrying out this commitment. Before introducing Bill 87, the Minister of Energy, Northern Development Mines and our government had already taken many significant steps on the energy file.

One of the first major undertakings for our government was the repeal of the previous government’s disastrous Green Energy Act. That is step one in moving things forward in cleaning up the hydro mess. Mr. Speaker, I’m sure I don’t need to remind the House that this Green Energy Act had to go, but I will give a quick recap here of why: Quite simply, the Green Energy Act, with its disastrous feed-in tariff program, fuelled skyrocketing hydro rates for Ontario families and businesses while forcing unfair energy contracts on municipalities.

Between 2006 and 2016, the amount an average Ontario household spent on electricity more than doubled. To put this into perspective, in 2006, the average household spent just a little over $40 on electricity per month. That’s before taxes and delivery charges. By 2016, this amount had doubled to more than $83 a month, according to the OEB.

In her 2015 annual report, the Auditor General concluded that ratepayers forked out—are you ready for this, Mr. Speaker?—$37 billion more than necessary from 2006 to 2014 and would have spent an additional—this number is just astounding—$133 billion more by 2032 due to global adjustment electricity fees on hydro bills. In some areas of the province where delivery fees are highest, particularly in rural and northern communities, some residents said their bills have increased by as much as 200%.

Those I represent in Waterloo region, including those in the rural townships of Wilmot, Wellesley and Woolwich, felt the negative impacts of these increased costs. Let’s be clear, Mr. Speaker: In the recent election, no issue caused more anger and resentment than hydro. My constituents in Kitchener–Conestoga saw decisions made in downtown Toronto that raised rates year after year despite individuals, businesses and families feeling the pain.

Under the poor management of the previous government, too many businesses and factories in my riding and across the province closed up shop due to unmanageable costs. We saw it time and time again with the escalation of hydro prices and operational costs. Companies that provided good jobs for working families fled to more competitive jurisdictions south of the border. To hammer this point home, let me point out that Waterloo region lost nearly 12,000 manufacturing jobs in the last decade.

Let me also point out that the rural townships I represent are home to many farms and large agricultural, food and manufacturing sectors. These producers are the backbone of our regional economy. That is no exaggeration, Mr. Speaker; there are nearly 1,300 farms in Waterloo region. Out of that, over 1,100 are in my riding of Kitchener–Conestoga. I heard loud and clear from farmers in my riding during the election that soaring hydro rates were impacting their bottom line. That is why I fully support the steps that our government has taken to reform the way we handle energy in this province.

By repealing the Green Energy Act, our government gained the authority to make regulations to block approvals for wasteful energy projects.

Immediately after taking office, the Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines cancelled more than 750 renewable energy contracts, saving Ontario taxpayers $790 million—almost a billion dollars.

Then, with the scrapping of the Green Energy Act, our government enabled itself to put the brakes on additional projects that would add costs to electricity bills that the people of Ontario simply cannot afford.

Scaling back the renewable energy contracts signed under the previous government was essential, because if you take a minute to step back and examine what those contracts were, you can see they facilitated the largest transfer of money from the poor and middle class to the rich in Ontario’s history. Liberal insiders, energy speculators and friends of the former government made fortunes putting up solar panels and wind farms that did nothing more than gouge families, businesses and ratepayers, all while generating energy the province did not need.

Ontarians don’t need a government that is for their buddies; they need a government that will work for families and for the prosperity of this beautiful province, Mr. Speaker.

Under the previous government, executive compensation was out of control at Hydro One. The former CEO of Hydro One took home $6.2 million in 2017. When you have working families barely making ends meet, there is no reason that Hydro One salaries should be so bloated at the top end. Thankfully, our government has swiftly put an end to that, Mr. Speaker. The maximum CEO compensation at Hydro One will now be $1.5 million annually. It’s quite a reduction.

Here we are, less than one year into our government’s mandate, and what we have done to fix the energy file is to put more money back into the pockets of Ontarians. How are we doing this? Well, to put it simply, the Green Energy Act, the bad renewable energy contracts, the six-million-dollar man—they’re gone; they’re finished; they’re done. Bill 87 is another crucial step forward, Mr. Speaker. As per its title, Bill 87 is all about fixing the hydro mess that the previous government left behind.

Before I get into the specifics of what this bill will accomplish for the hard-working families of this province, I want to stress why time allocation is a proper step to take here in the passing of Bill 87. This makes sense for Bill 87 because Ontarians cannot and should not be subject to an unfair electricity system any longer. I said it before, Mr. Speaker: When I spoke to those in my riding during the last election, fixing Ontario hydro was the number one issue at the doors. People want a system that is fair, transparent and affordable, and they want it now. There is no time to lose.

We wasted no time when it came to ensuring that the lights stayed on at Christmas, and we are not going to waste time now. When we make a promise, we keep it. It’s time to give the people of Ontario the hydro system they deserve.

In amending several acts governing Ontario’s electricity system, including the Electricity Act, the Ontario Energy Board Act, the Ontario Fair Hydro Plan Act and the Ontario Rebate For Electricity Consumers Act, the government is taking concrete steps to replace the global adjustment refinancing structure, modernize the Ontario Energy Board, and wind down the inefficient electricity conservation programs put in place by the previous government.

The previous government neglected the OEB, allowing it to become a drain on the system, Mr. Speaker. The OEB became a wasteful and outdated regulatory body. As a regulator, it became notorious for delaying key decisions and holding up key project developments. Our changes to the OEB are aimed at making it more efficient, transparent and accountable. We want a regulator that Ontarians can trust again—one that works for them.

The changes proposed under Bill 87 would, if passed, improve the organizational governance structure of the OEB. For example, Bill 87’s provisions direct the formation of a new board of directors and a new CEO. This restructuring will improve the efficiency of the OEB’s decision-making process by clearly separating and defining organizational roles and responsibilities. In addition to this, our plan is proposing the reduction of duplication of responsibilities between the OEB and the IESO.

It doesn’t end there, Mr. Speaker. Under our government’s new system, it will be a requirement that the OEB report annually its progress towards regulatory simplification and red tape reduction.

We are working on making all areas of government administration more cost-effective and efficient. When it comes to Ontario’s conservation programs, achieving this objective will require taking a more targeted approach, Mr. Speaker. Due to poor planning and management of the previous government, Ontario’s electricity conservation programs became a source of duplication and inefficiency. We need to focus on the most cost-effective conservation initiatives and programs.

The global adjustment refinancing program inherited by our government from our predecessors is one with many cracks, and it is not fair to the people of this province. The main problems with its current program stem from its lack of transparency. Its long-term borrowing costs are far too high. Ontarians need to know where their money is going and how much they are paying for their electricity.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I got involved in politics. I was tired of seeing my children’s future mortgaged for the Liberals to be able to buy votes. I didn’t think that was right. That’s part of the reason why I’m standing here today, and this is why I will be supporting time allocation on this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Further debate?

Ms. Laura Mae Lindo: I find it ironic, the amount of times as a new member that we’ve stood up as part of the official opposition to have this discussion around time allocation. I also find it ironic that we’ve had this discussion around time allocation and often heard government members say that their work is transparent. I don’t understand how their work is transparent if at every opportunity to travel the bill—a bill that is, in fact, going to have to address something that people at the doors were talking about—they don’t want to go out and speak to the people.

I’m just going to focus my comments today on that: on the importance of taking the time as members of the government to actually speak to the people of Ontario.

I think that maybe part of the challenge is that the government, in their debates and as they speak in this House about this bill—and to be honest, about other bills before it—the assumption is that people of Ontario only want to speak about what happened under the Liberal government, as though what happened in the past is done. That’s it; that’s all that Ontarians want to speak about; they do not want to speak about their future. But I would argue that many, many people in my riding of Kitchener Centre want to speak about the future of Ontario. That means they want to speak to the legislation that’s before us in this House.

We know that based on what happened with the health care bill, there was a lot of rhetoric and discussion about, “Well, in the past 15 years, the Liberals did this and that, and now we’re talking about what we’re going to do.” Then, all of a sudden, they don’t want to talk to the people anymore. I think that we have to be really, really honest about what it is that we’re doing, or we can’t say that this government is acting in a way that’s truly transparent. Transparent isn’t telling people what you think about the past. It’s telling people about what you think about the future.

I think that part of where Ontarians are concerned is that we have no sense of what the vision is. What we have seen is that we limit debate so that less and less people in Ontario—not us in our bubble, but people in Ontario, the people that we were elected and we were brought here to represent—are no longer able to speak about something that the government says is a totally different direction but that, in actuality, is exactly the same place. Transparency would allow the people in Kitchener Centre to speak to this. Their expertise would be able to be part of the legislation that we have before us—and I think, most importantly, the rebuilding of trust.

I’m going to take a step back. For 15 years, the Liberal government made promises, and then they weren’t kept. There were some things when we were nearing the election time that were kind of thrown out into the public. There was some hope there that the Liberal government would be able to make some changes and maybe things would be okay. But it was 15 years. So now the people of Ontario are trying to figure out if they can trust their government.

How are they supposed to do that if every time one of the major issues that led people to vote in a variety of different ways—I’m in a riding where they’ve never voted NDP, and here I am. People want change, but the only way to rebuild the trust with the people is to go and talk to them. Imagine that: talking to the people.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Wow. You’re a revolutionary.

Ms. Laura Mae Lindo: I am a revolutionary. I hope that that’s captured in Hansard.

So here we are with another bill that represents literally a major and consistent issue that Ontarians felt is something that, whoever they vote for, “We’ve got to address this. We’ve got to address this.” This was a major issue during the campaign. So then why would we be worried about talking to the people with regard to what direction we want to go in? Or, in the case of this particular bill, whether or not they’re willing to just slap a new name on exactly the same approach? I don’t think that Ontarians would be happy with that.

And knowing that, and knowing that I’m part of this group of humbled leaders who sit in this bubble when the House is sitting to try and help move Ontario into a better place, I think it’s important for us to be honest and go out and talk to them. Let’s find out if I’m wrong. I’m okay with being wrong. But we’d have to go and speak to Ontarians to find that out, right?

It’s wonderful that we’re sitting here and having this discussion and time-allocating yet another important bill, but I guarantee that if a health care bill—which was also way high up on the list of issues Ontarians had during this past election that they were concerned about, that they raised their voices about. If 15,000—right? No, how many people actually tried to speak to committee? So we’ve got 15,000 people who said, “Hey, I want to speak about this.” To me, that’s a sign of a very healthy democracy. People want to get involved. We’re going to double-check the actual amount of submissions.

We know that close to 20,000 people wrote in; that one, we know. Close to 20,000 people wrote in, because that was the only way for them to engage with us.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: It’s 1,500.

Ms. Laura Mae Lindo: And 1,500—correcting the record—wanted to present. So 1,500 Ontarians said, “I want to speak to you,” and close to 20,000 Ontarians said, “I want to speak to you.” I would guess that Ontarians want to speak to us—just saying. I’m just saying that it’s very possible that they would like to speak.

When we now take another major issue and say, “We don’t really want to speak to you all that much”—and people have to see this as what has happened in the past; I think that’s the same advice that people give you about relationships. The behaviour—not the words—is the sign of what this relationship is really going to be like. And that’s why Ontarians are worried.

Interjection.

Ms. Laura Mae Lindo: Well, that’s why they’re worried. So we can talk all the talk. We can slap on bumper stickers. We can spend Ontarians’ money to make sure that the talk is out there. What they want is action. And that means they want to speak to us. They want to rebuild that trust. In my opinion, we should see this as an opportunity—an opportunity to get to know Ontario now. Not the Ontarians that thought, “Okay, this is what I think about the Liberal government,” but what do Ontarians right now think of the Conservative government?

I’m sad to say that in Kitchener Centre, with the onslaught of emails that I’ve received every single time the government makes a decision to just move forward without speaking to people, it’s not looking so hot. It is not looking so hot.

Let me help you help yourself. Go speak to the people. See what they say. Then make a decision, and make that decision be informed. If regular people say, “Oh, I think we should go in this direction,” and you have real proof and arguments and facts and information to provide otherwise, maybe they’ll change their mind. Or maybe, imagine this, they have information and facts that they want to share with us so that we can move Ontario in a brighter direction. Why are we afraid to talk to each other about stuff? That’s what time allocation does. It doesn’t allow us to speak to each other.

If this is what leadership looks like in 2019, imagine what’s going to happen next. What’s going to happen next? They’re going to look to the people who are willing to talk to them, because Ontarians want to speak to us. They want to engage. I think, as much as we talk about transparency, as much as we say we’re listening, I don’t feel like we’re listening. I don’t feel like the government is truly listening. I feel badly, actually, for my government colleagues who think that this is going to be okay, because it’s not going to be.

Because imagine yourself in any scenario where the people in charge don’t listen to you, and ask yourself how well that goes. What do you think about when you go home, when you turn on the news, when you sit down and eat with your family?

Do you say, “You know what, I love my leadership.” Or do you go home and say, “You know what, Liberals and Conservatives, they’re doing exactly the same thing, so I’m going to go the route of the official opposition”—I don’t know if Hansard can actually pick up the way I said that, but since it can’t, I used a very musical tone to accentuate my excitement at being part of the official opposition.

The reason I am here is because I listen to people, because I am part of a party that wants to hear what Ontario needs and will address those needs by talking to them, by taking them seriously, by recognizing and respecting that they are part of what we do here. They’re not the enemy, and that’s what it feels like when you shut down debate, when you don’t listen to them, when you say, “Oh, 20,000 people wrote to us? We’ll read that in the summer, after we pass the bill that’s going to impact them about the thing they just talked to us about.”

My job as a member of the official opposition is to help support the movement of Ontario. Sometimes what that means is, I may not agree with a vote that happens in this House, but my job is to be able to go back to Kitchener Centre and speak to my constituents about why things happened. I wish that I could get a why. I’ve heard many, many people in the government stand up and say what they’re going to do. I don’t know if there’s a real, clear understanding of why they would do it without listening to Ontarians, the people that they say they’re doing this for. Those are the most important people.

It’s kind of like a classroom. Do you know who the most important people are in a classroom? The students—also with a musical tone. The students are the ones that you’re working for. They’re the people who are the focus of this. Well, the whole reason why we’re here is because we’re supposed to be focused on Ontarians, the people that we’re supposed to be working for. And yet time and time again, with something extremely important, something that is going to impact them for a long, long time, we decide, “We’ll talk to them for—nah, let’s not.” That’s essentially what we’re doing. We’re saying that we’ll pretend like we’re talking to them, because we know better.

I will just wrap up with this: If the goal, ultimately, is for true transparency—if that is the ultimate goal—then I think it’s extremely important that we stop time-allocating and actually go and travel bills and let people talk to us about where their concerns are so that we can do better. We have to do better, and we can. That involves going out across Ontario and actually speaking to people who want to speak to us. Thank you.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Seeing that it’s 10:13 and we’re going to break at 10:15, we will go in recess now until question period at 10:30.

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Before I ask members to introduce their guests, I would like to draw everyone’s attention to some very special guests we have with us in the Speaker’s gallery today. We have with us, from the Parliament of Scotland, the deputy presiding officer and member of Scottish Parliament, Ms. Linda Fabiani; member of Scottish Parliament Mr. Liam McArthur; and international relations officer Mr. Steven Bell.

Welcome to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. We’re delighted to have you here.

Ms. Rima Berns-McGown: I’d like to welcome my constituent Rayne Fisher-Quann to Queen’s Park. Welcome, Rayne.

Mr. Dave Smith: I’d like to introduce the mother and aunt of today’s page captain, Arthur McLeod—his mother, Andrea McLeod, and his aunt Jennifer Moore.

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park Frank Napolitano and Vince Agozzino, who are here with Mortgage Professionals Canada. I had the pleasure of meeting with them this morning.

Mr. Stan Cho: I want to introduce my friend Dong Lee, who I see in the gallery today. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: I’d like to welcome Holy Name of Mary College School from the riding of Mississauga–Lakeshore.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I’m pleased to introduce to the Legislative Assembly John Rycroft and Sandi Wilcox. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Christine Hogarth: Good morning. It is my pleasure to introduce Paul Taylor, the Mortgage Professionals Canada president and CEO; Tracy Valko, on the Mortgage Professionals Canada board of directors; and Kris Barnier, Genworth Canada’s vice-president of government relations. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I just want to welcome the members of the Ontario Waste Management Association who are here at Queen’s Park today. I enjoyed meeting with them and invite everyone to go to their lunch reception today.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: I, too, want to thank the Ontario Waste Management Association for being here today, and I welcome everyone to the reception this afternoon.

Wearing of pins

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has informed me that he’d like to rise on a point of order. I recognize the minister.

Hon. Steve Clark: Thank you, Speaker. I seek unanimous consent that members be allowed to wear daffodil pins in honour of the cancer society’s daffodil campaign for cancer awareness.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Municipal Affairs is seeking unanimous consent of the House to allow the members to wear daffodil pins in recognition of Cancer Awareness Month. Agreed? Agreed.

Oral Questions

Education funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Acting Premier. Yesterday, British Columbia’s Minister of Education made a surprising offer to Ontario’s teachers. He said that while Ontario may not want teachers, BC certainly does. In fact, they’re holding job fairs in Ontario, hoping to poach our front-line educators because, to quote the minister, “teachers are interested in coming to British Columbia” because, “first and foremost, there is a government that is supportive of public education here now.”

Was it the government’s intention to start a talent drain of educators leaving Ontario, or are they willing to consider this as a sign that their attack on world-class educators isn’t working?

Hon. Christine Elliott: To the Minister of Education.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Referred to the Minister of Education.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Thank you very much, Speaker. I appreciate it very much. I have to tell you, the premise that the opposition leader is trying to perpetuate is absolutely ridiculous. We stand by our teachers and we stand by making sure we have the best learning environments in the classroom across Canada.

That said, we are also making sure, though, that our education system in Ontario is sustainable, and on March 15 we presented a plan for education, a plan that works for you, that has been embraced by everyone in this province in the sense that we’re touching on the important parts of job skills and life skills that students sorely have been lacking because of the failed experiments and ideology that the Liberal administration inflicted upon classrooms over the last 15 years.

We were given a mandate last June to get education in Ontario back on track, and that is exactly what we’re doing. People will be embracing our plan because, again, the fact of the matter is—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you.

Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, parents, students and teachers are finding it hard to believe the Premier’s and the minister’s claims. In fact, last weekend, thousands of students, parents and education workers from across Ontario came to be heard in unprecedented numbers in the demonstration that took place on the lawn. They know that larger classes mean that schools will soon be losing shop classes, music classes and the teachers who teach them.

Yesterday, the Premier said that not one single teacher is going to lose their job, but school board after school board is announcing cuts. How many teaching positions will this government eliminate before they admit that teachers are actually losing their jobs?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Honestly, you would think that the Leader of the Opposition would have more integrity than fearmongering like she has insisted to do day after day—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to caution the minister and remind all members that intemperate language leads to disruption in the House. We have to have a reasonable debate over the course of this question period.

I’d ask the minister to conclude her response.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: When it comes to the actions that school boards are taking over the recent weeks, that’s routine annual activity where they take a look at their roster, they evaluate how many teachers are retiring, how many teachers are redeploying, how many teachers are actually resigning, and then they reallocate teachers accordingly.

So it’s just part and parcel of an annual process that is absolutely irresponsible to use as an excuse to fearmonger and make teachers think that they’re going to be losing their jobs, because, quite frankly, we’re going to be looking to hire more elementary—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. Final supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: With all due respect, I think that the school boards know more than the minister about what’s happening in their classrooms at their schools.

The Premier expects students, parents and workers on the front line in our schools to ignore the facts. The thousands of the people on the lawn this weekend shows how believable that is.

Toronto’s board has sent notices to 1,000 teachers telling them there are no jobs for them next year. In York region, they’re eliminating 300 teachers; in Peel, 500; in Kawartha, 90; and in Hamilton, 136. In Waterloo, the Catholic board is eliminating 22 jobs next year.

How can thousands of teaching jobs disappear in communities across Ontario while the Premier claims not a single job has been lost? Does the minister think that maybe he needs a math refresh?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Well, I would suggest that the Leader of the Opposition needs an education herself because, quite frankly, the school boards act as the employers of the teachers. She needs to get that straight and stop the fearmongering because, quite frankly, we’re taking a look at how to improve education after 15 failed years under the Liberal administration.

One thing Ontario can guarantee will be a result from us: We will never, ever use the classroom as a soapbox to perpetuate fearmongering, because we have a job to do, and that job is to get education back on track. We are not going to be bullied by unions. We’re not going to be put off-key by fearmongering. We’re focusing on getting students back to the basics. They’re going to learn math. They’re going to learn job skills. They’re going to learn life skills, because (

a) teachers, parents and students have asked for it, and (

b) we’re going to deliver because we want those students graduating with the skills they need for the jobs—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. Next question.

Education

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Acting Premier. The Premier has gone on record in this House accusing the organizers behind the Students Say No campaign of being “pawns” for teachers’ unions, dismissing their hard work and the voices of over 100,000 students who supported them. Yesterday, the Premier had an opportunity to apologize for those comments, but he refused.

One of the young organizers is here with us today. She was introduced by one of our members. My question, of course, is to the Premier; unfortunately, I guess it’s the Acting Premier who is going to have to answer it. Will they—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. The government side—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Order.

Do I need to say again that from time to time members might be away? Some of us are not here every day. We don’t take attendance, but some of us aren’t here. That’s why we don’t make reference to the absence of each other, because sometimes we’re away for good reasons. I’ll remind all members once again.

Restart the clock. The Leader of the Opposition can conclude her question.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The question is: Will the Premier apologize to her and the other young people who, even if the Premier and the government disagree with them, they should at least give credit for having their own opinions?

Hon. Christine Elliott: To the Minister of Education.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: It’s my opinion that past behaviour is indicative of future behaviour, and we know that in the past, union bosses organized student walkouts under the previous Liberal government. They organized against Bob Rae’s government. They organized against the Liberal government. It’s just routine. It’s just a practice.

But what I can tell you, as well—and I want to be perfectly clear—is that no one, including the unions, gets to veto our education plan. No one is going to stop us from getting education back on track and delivering value for students and their families. It’s the tax dollars generated from Ontario parents that pay for education here in Ontario, and they deserve better than what they’ve been getting. We stand beside parents across this province when we say we’ve listened, and the plan that I introduced on March 15 demonstrates that once and for all. Education in Ontario is going to work for—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock.

Restart the clock. Supplementary question.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, we know about past behaviour, like the last time the Conservatives were in government and cut, cut, cut education in Ontario, to the point where we had less than 70% of high school students graduating. Less than 70% graduated the last time the government across the way was in office in this province.

But look, the letter that the student organizers of the provincial walkout put together says this: “To claim that this walkout was organized, orchestrated, or puppeteered by adults is not only false, but extremely insulting to the young people of Ontario.”

Interjections.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the government, if they would care to listen. These students want to know: Will the government acknowledge that the resounding success of the Students Say No campaign was born out of the hard work of students across the province like Natalie, and Rayne Fisher-Quann, who is with us here in the House today?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. There were numerous outbursts from the government side. I could barely hear the person asking the question, the Leader of the Opposition. Come to order.

Start the clock. To the minister to reply.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Well, Speaker, we are never going to take a history lesson from the Leader of the Opposition, because if we were to take a look at history, just a few decades ago, under Bob Rae and the NDP government, 100,000 people were out of work. A million people were on social assistance.

I can tell you that we are developing an education plan that will guarantee that our future generations will never have to experience that again. We’re focusing on an education system that’s going to get people to work. Our education system is getting back to the basics, and we’re embracing amazing things that people spoke about in our consultation last fall. Never before has mental health been a focus like we’re going to be focusing on. Never before have skilled trades been embraced like this government, and we are going to get it right: 100,000 jobs are waiting for people interested in skilled trades.

We need to embrace that. We need to celebrate it and encourage students to pursue the careers—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s really quite unfortunate for the students of Ontario that this minister doesn’t know that you’re doomed to repeat history if you don’t remember it. They should remember their history in government and not doom our students to repeating that history.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Government side, come to order.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Students across the province have tried every possible way to get this government to listen to what they have to say, and the government’s only solution is to pretend that the students didn’t even say it. They don’t want larger classes. They don’t want students to lose music class or shop class. They don’t want thousands of teachers to lose their jobs and leave the province.

In

summary, they don’t want a Premier slicing and dicing their education. They want a good future here in Ontario. Instead of pretending they don’t exist, why won’t this Premier and his government listen to what they have to say?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I have to tell you, Speaker—let’s use our example of the fall consultation. We listened to over 72,000 respondents, parents, students, teachers, grandparents, employers. Honestly, we’re getting it right because they chose to contribute their voice in a forum that allowed online consultation, telephone town halls, as well as written submissions.

We are moving forward on research that matters—qualitative and quantitative. It’s qualitative research that we have to really take a look at because, again, in opposition to the fearmongering that’s coming from across the House here, there is no research that says smaller classrooms are indicative and correlate to student success. Take a look at our own Liberal government and what they achieved: declining math scores and poor student success. The fact of the matter is—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. Next question.

Health care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Acting Premier. But I have to say, of the thousands of parents and students I talked to, not a single one has told me that they want larger classrooms and fewer adults in the schools. Not a single one, Speaker.

Yesterday, the Minister of Health said that “there is a lot of health care that is delivered privately,” and as a result, we should not be concerned about the expansion of private, for-profit care, apparently. In the Acting Premier’s view, should there be any limit at all on how big a role private, for-profit care should play in our health care system?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Well, thank you very much for the question, but I believe—through you, Mr. Speaker—that the leader of the official opposition is trying to put words in my mouth with things that I did not say. What I did indicate—and the fact of the matter is that there is already private delivery in the health care system, but it is paid for with public dollars. Doctors, for example, in private practice are entrepreneurs. They are in private practice. Should we not have doctors anymore? Should we not have pharmacists? Should we not have labs? It’s not practical, what they’re suggesting—

Interjections.

Hon. Christine Elliott: —absolutely not practical. We need to have that care in our system. It’s working—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. Government side, come to order.

I apologize to the Deputy Premier. I had to interrupt her because of the ovation on the government side. I couldn’t hear the minister answering the question.

Hon. John Yakabuski: Nationalize the doctors. Nationalize the pharmacists.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, come to order.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Nationalize your mouth.

Hon. John Yakabuski: Oh, my. Are we getting under your skin, Andrea?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry will come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Restart the clock. Supplementary question.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I would say to the government that the failing of our private home care system is not something that this government should be proud of. It was the Conservatives who privatized home care, and it is one heck of a mess in our province. If that’s what they’re so proud of, I think they should take a double look at what it is that they’ve done in the past.

Here’s what families are worried about: The same Premier who said he would leave no stone unturned when it comes to privatization is refusing to set limits on how much private, for-profit care can creep into our system. Families know what that means. It means less care, more and longer waits, and more fees.

If the Premier isn’t determined to plow ahead with privatization, why is the government defeating NDP amendments to their health bill that would prevent a massive increase in privatization in our health care system?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Before I ask for a response, the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services needs to come to order, as does the member for King–Vaughan.

Start the clock. Response, Minister?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Again, through you, Speaker, I think it’s really important to say that the system of our health care is as it is now, not as the leader of the official opposition and the official opposition would like it to be. This has been the situation in Ontario for many, many years. We are not changing any of that.

What we are doing is to strengthen our public health care system. That’s what Bill 74 actually speaks to. We are determined to do that. We are going to make sure that our public health care system is strengthened, that local health care providers perform the needs of local communities, that they provide the care that’s necessary, that we take away some of the boundaries that have existed before in the Ministry of Health to allow that integrated care to happen—all within the context of our public health care system.

Teachers

Ms. Christine Hogarth: My question is for the Minister of Education. As a proud daughter and daughter-in-law of retired teachers, it’s really concerning to hear all the misinformation being spread about what our government is doing to support teachers.

Mr. Speaker, I heard it loud and clear when knocking on doors in Etobicoke–Lakeshore that students are leaving their classrooms without being prepared for the real world. Our government knows that our students’ supports start at home, but we also need to be sure that that they are getting the best supports inside the classrooms.

Can the Minister of Education tell us what our government is doing to ensure that our education system is back on track and to ensure that we have the best teachers in our classrooms?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Thank you to the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore. I have many teachers in my family as well and I can appreciate exactly what your parents are feeling.

As Minister of Education, I’m so glad to talk about the great work that our teachers are doing in our classrooms. We know Ontario has some of the best teachers in the world. It’s something we’re very proud of and it’s something that we can invest in and support more in terms of what they do in the classroom. That’s why I am so pleased to share with everyone today that we’re going to be providing full funding for every teacher in Ontario who wants to get additional qualifications in math. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear: This is about investing in our educators to get it right for our students, once and for all.

We understand the difficult job teachers have, but what we don’t want to do is to allow another generation of students to get left behind without the skills they need for the jobs of today and tomorrow. This is about getting it right, and we look forward to working with our teachers across this province so parents have confidence in our—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. Supplementary question.

Ms. Christine Hogarth: Through you, Mr. Speaker: Thank you to the minister for that response. I am so grateful that we have a government that is ready to support all of our students and our teachers. I know that this government is focused on getting it right for our teachers. But I know that we have outdated hiring practices. They allow situations where our teachers are not able to find the job they want.

Can the minister help us and talk to us about what our government is proposing so that our teachers can get the job that is right for them?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Again, thank you very much to the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore. I appreciate her question very much because, as a member of the opposition, I heard this from teachers for years. We heard it through our consultation, loud and clear, that we need to increase teacher mobility.

The previous government, sadly, instituted outdated hiring practices that rewarded teachers based on seniority and did not recognize teachers who are excelling at their jobs. That needs to change, and we’re going to get that job done.

Mr. Speaker, I’ve said it before, and I’ll repeat it now: We need to ensure that we have the right teacher in the right classroom. Our proposal to allow new teachers direct access to apply to permanent positions in any school board is a step towards accomplishing just that.

This isn’t about an outdated regulation; this is about doing the right thing for our students, and the right move for our teachers. We’re standing by our teachers. We’re making sure the best teachers are in the classroom, doing what they enjoy, by supporting not only their education but also making sure—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. Next question.

Rural schools

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Minister of Education. The recent policy change that your government has announced for increasing class size for secondary classes could lead to something in rural schools, northern schools and small schools called “class stacking.” So, you don’t have enough students in grade nine applied, so you throw in academic, and then maybe you throw in grade 10. What’s ultimately going to happen is, parents and kids are going to notice that the teacher can’t keep up, and they’re going to look for another school—a bigger school.

How can this government claim to be wanting to protect rural schools yet implement policies that, in the end, are going to close the school in my hometown and going to close the school in the minister’s hometown? How can you do that?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: First things first: We stood up against the former Liberal government in closing 600 schools. We stood up against that. Secondly, I can tell you that we will never, ever play politics with the success and well-being of our students, no matter where they are in Ontario. It doesn’t matter whether it’s urban Ontario or rural Ontario.

The fact of the matter is, our Education that Works for You plan was highlighted on March 15. That very day, I opened up consultations for our education partners, to hear from them, to work with them, through to May 31—to hear how we can move forward together, making sure we get it right for every student across Ontario.

I look forward to their input because, again, we want to make sure the learning environment in the classroom is absolutely improved and make sure that our students are focusing in on the basics and the fundamentals that will ensure that they have great opportunities in the future—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you.

Supplementary?

Mr. John Vanthof: I asked about class stacking and didn’t get an answer.

As small schools close across rural Ontario, the students are going to be bused farther and farther. Do you know what? The school bus will pick up the student in the morning, and the school bus will bring the student home in the afternoon. But do you know what doesn’t follow students in many places in rural Ontario? Broadband—actual, usable Internet. You guys want to have four secondary school classes be e-learning, but in many cases the only place that those kids are going to do that is at school or in the library. Come on. Rural Ontario needs the same access as the rest of the province.

How can you talk about e-learning when students in rural Ontario don’t have access to usable, accessible broadband?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members please take their seats.

Minister?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: It gives me an opportunity to stand up in this House and congratulate the Minister of Infrastructure for the amazing work that he’s doing across Ontario, because I could tell you—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Once again, I’ll remind members to make your comments through the floor. I can’t hear you when you turn your back to me. Secondly, as soon as the standing ovation started, I could not hear the member and had to interrupt.

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I would ask our guest to refrain from heckling the members, or you will have to leave.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Government side, come to order.

Interjection: We’ve got to find out who let him in.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): That reaction from the government side was not the least bit helpful to our security services, to our Legislative Protective Service.

The Minister of Education has the floor. Please restart the clock.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Again, I want to thank the Minister of Infrastructure for following through on a commitment that we had made going into the election and we carried through to this day. We’re absolutely committed to make sure that all of Ontario has access to high-speed Internet connectivity. It’s a promise we made and it’s a promise we’re going to keep. In doing that very thing and investing in broadband across Ontario and following through on our strategy, we’re going to ensure that every home and school in Ontario has access to high-speed that will enable students to employ online learning. It’s a tool that many colleges are already utilizing. It’s a tool that they need—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you.

Next question.

Taxation

Mr. Aris Babikian: My question is for the Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines, and Indigenous Affairs. From day one, our government has been focused on lowering energy costs for low-income families, seniors and small businesses. We cancelled the Liberals’ cap-and-trade scheme that made life unaffordable for the people of Ontario. Our government is putting money back in the pockets of families who are struggling to make ends meet.

Now, the federal government is imposing their own carbon tax, which came into effect on April 1. Mr. Speaker, can the minister update us on how much Ontarians will pay under Justin Trudeau’s job-killing carbon tax?

Hon. Greg Rickford: I thank the member from Scarborough–Agincourt for his great work in his constituency and for raising this question in this place. The heart of this is all about transparency. That’s why we followed the Auditor General’s instructions when it came to being transparent about the real cost of electricity and the subsidies and moved it out onto their bills. That’s why I wrote the Ontario Energy Board and asked them to identify clearly, on a line, how much this job-killing carbon tax was going to increase their home heating bills.

For businesses, how much more expensive it was going to be to fire their manufacturing plants, to operate forestry mills and mines. Make no mistake about it: This is a tax on everything.

So how do we take that transparency to the next level? If anything can, a sticker sure can, Mr. Speaker, and we’re going to put stickers on gas pumps to remind the people of Ontario that gas has gone up 4.4 cents and 11 cents in the future, and we can’t afford that and we reject that tax.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Aris Babikian: It is clear that the minister takes the concerns of drivers across this province very seriously. It is important that drivers are aware of the adverse impact that Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax will have on their day-to-day lives. When I speak to small business owners and families in my riding, they tell me that they are concerned. They are worried about the true cost that the carbon tax will have. This carbon tax threatens the affordability and the competitiveness of our province. The federal carbon tax will increase the price of almost everything.

Can the minister tell this House what other impacts the people of Ontario can expect?

Hon. Greg Rickford: Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.

Hon. Rod Phillips: Thank you to the member for his question. I was with the Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines just yesterday in Oakville, with the great member there, talking about these impacts—not just the impacts at the pump; the impact on our hospitals, $27 million; the impact on our colleges and universities, $20 million.

Mr. Speaker, myself and the Minister for Seniors were with a couple last week where, sitting in their kitchen, they talked about could they afford healthy food or would they be paying Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax.

Mr. Speaker, these impacts will affect more than just families, more than just business; they will affect all Ontario. That’s why, Mr. Speaker, we will make sure that Ontarians know the cost of the Trudeau carbon tax. We’ll make sure that we use every tool at our disposal, including going to the courts next week, joined by Manitoba and joined by Saskatchewan, to fight this carbon tax with every tool we have.

Pay equity

Ms. Suze Morrison: My question is to the Acting Premier. Women in Ontario are still only earning 71 cents on the dollar compared to men, and racialized women take only 60% of what white men make. Closing the wage gap makes sense, Speaker. It’s just the right thing to do, and honestly, it’s 2019; it is time. The government should be taking meaningful steps to close the gender wage gap, but instead they have stalled the implementation of the Pay Transparency Act, all so that they can ask businesses how much of a burden it would be to pay women equally. Will the Premier reverse that decision and implement the Pay Transparency Act by May 1?

Hon. Christine Elliott: This is in fact the Ontario government’s fifth Equal Pay Day. Let me say from the outset that our government believes that men and women should be earning equal wages. There is still work that needs to be done on that, but in fact we have taken many steps.

Right now, since August 2018, the number of women involved in the workforce has increased by approximately 45,000 women; 50% of all new businesses in Canada are led by women, and women wholly own or partially own 47% of all small and medium-sized enterprises. So progress is being made. We are meeting women’s needs with innovative approaches to child care, tuition, student loans and microloans for entrepreneurs. We continue to work with stakeholders and with women to find out the other solutions to allow women to get into the workforce and certainly to make sure that they earn equal pay.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary: the member for Waterloo.

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Acting Premier. Let me be clear to all the women in this province: Ensuring that you have equal pay for equal work is not a burden, it is not bureaucratic and it is certainly not red tape.

Mr. Speaker, we are asking for a plan and for a commitment, and women in this province should expect as much. Instead we have a Minister of Labour saying one thing when she was in opposition and another thing when she is in government. On April 11, 2017, the now Minister of Labour stated, “The women of this province deserve equal pay for work of equal value,” yet they still do not have it.

Will the Acting Premier ensure that this minister follows through on what she said in opposition when she was over here on this side of the bench, ensure that all women receive equal pay for equal work and implement the Pay Transparency Act today?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members please take their seats.

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Christine Elliott: The ministry is already working very hard to ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work. As the member would know well, this is a legislated requirement under the Pay Equity Act of 1987. However, the Pay Transparency Act is something quite different. I think the member will know that the Pay Transparency Act is about reporting and publishing information about compensation. It is not about pay equity. That is what the Pay Equity Act deals with.

When the Liberal government rushed out the Pay Transparency Act, it should be noted, just ahead of the last election, it contained no regulations, no guidelines and no information as to how it would be enacted. In fact, the members of the gender wage gap steering committee indicated it would probably take three years for that to be enacted. So that is being worked on. We have delayed it so that we could enter into those consultations that must be had so that we understand exactly where we—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Hamilton East–Stoney Creek and the member for Waterloo must come to order.

Next question.

Education funding

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne: My question is for the Minister of Education. With the budget about to be introduced in the Legislature on Thursday, there are lots of rumours about what may or may not be contained in the document. One of the areas of concern, Mr. Speaker, is full-day kindergarten. I know that the minister has assured parents and children that FDK will remain in place, and that’s a great thing, but there continue to be rumours about how the classroom might change.

In the description of FDK on the minister’s website, the explanation of the teaching model is that “a teacher and an early childhood educator (ECE) work together to help young students learn during the regular school day. These educators have complementary skills that create a learning environment to support the unique needs of each child.” In other words, the team’s skills fit together, and that prepares the young child for grade 1, and those complex little beings get the support they need.

Will the minister tell us today whether the current teaching model for full-day kindergarten will be maintained?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: First things first: I will absolutely make clear that we will not be closing hundreds of schools, like the member opposite’s government did in the previous 15 years—and that included closing kindergarten classes. We’re not going to be doing that.

The other thing that we’re going to be doing is focusing in on the fact that we want to ensure that parents have confidence, when we talk about class sizes—not one change is going to happen with the class sizes from kindergarten to grade 3.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: That’s not the question.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: In grades 4 to 8, not one student more—no more than one student will be seen as an increase in grades 4 to 8.

Again, in terms of average class sizes in high school, secondary classes will go up to an average size of 28.

The CBC fact check of March 25 shows that those class sizes are some of the lowest across Canada.

In terms of kindergarten, we’re going to get it right. Our—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. The member for Orléans has to come to order.

Supplementary.

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, it was actually a very straightforward question. It was a yes-or-no question, and that answer does not provide much assurance.

On the issue of school closures: I hope the government is going to open the hundreds and hundreds of schools that we opened, as well.

I want to just ask again: Given that the preliminary research from McMaster and Queen’s University, also available on the minister’s website, showed that, “overall, students in FDK are better prepared to enter grade 1 and to be more successful in school,” and, “in every area, students improved their readiness for grade 1 and accelerated their development,” does the minister agree that the current model is working, and is she advocating, with her Minister of Finance, who is, I know, looking for cuts, for that complementary team that is working so well in full-day kindergarten?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Once again, I’ll ask the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry to come to order and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to come to order.

Minister.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Speaker, again, when it comes to getting our young people on track, our four- and five-year-olds deserve the best start possible.

We’re not going to be closing the schools like they did under the Liberal government. That’s where it all stops and starts.

Over and above that, we’re going to make sure that our young people get the best start possible—and that’s by listening to our parents and focusing on the fundamentals, to make sure that we get it right. We want the best people in the classrooms. We just passed a bill last week that we celebrated—safe and supportive classroom environments. That’s exactly what our PC government is going to achieve.

The fact of the matter is, we absolutely embrace all the good learning techniques that are used in kindergarten straight through to secondary school. We’re going to be working to ensure that what matters to parents—is that quality education and that they’re getting their students off on the right track. Again, that’s getting back to the basics and focusing on the fundamentals and making sure our students are prepared for the jobs of today and tomorrow.

Long-term care

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Mr. Speaker, our government for the people is moving forward with our campaign commitment to modernize our public health care system and centre it squarely on the needs of patients, families and caregivers. This is incredibly important for my constituency of Ottawa West–Nepean because we have the largest seniors population in all of Ontario.

An important part of this plan includes our commitment to adding 15,000 long-term-care beds in the next five years.

Can the minister please inform the members of this Legislature on how this government is finally delivering results for Ontario seniors?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you very much, to the member from Ottawa West–Nepean, for your question.

Our government envisions a health care system that allows seniors to enjoy the highest possible quality of life and, when available, stay healthy at home, whether that’s through home care services or retirement home communities.

However, we have also committed to adding 15,000 new long-term-care spaces within the next five years. In just nine months, we have already allocated over 7,200 new long-term-care beds, fulfilling almost half of our commitment toward building these spaces within five years. Our government will ensure seniors will have a long-term-care bed when and where they need it.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: I would like to thank the minister for her response. I am proud of the fact that our government is taking patient care so seriously by taking immediate action on this important issue. The previous government failed to address many of the most pressing issues facing Ontario’s public health care system. My constituents and seniors across Ontario will certainly benefit from these new long-term-care beds and spaces.

Could the minister please explain why adding more long-term-care capacity is part of our broader plan to strengthen Ontario’s public health care system?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thanks again to the member for the question. Adding more capacity to long-term care will strengthen Ontario’s public health care system by helping to reduce wait times for those who need care immediately. This will help take pressure off hospitals, allowing nurses and doctors to prepare and care for patients the way that they were trained to do: in proper rooms instead of hospital hallways and storage closets.

We envision a public health care system where patients and families will have access to better, faster and more connected services, a system where patients are supported when transitioning from one health care space to another; for example, from hospital to home care or from hospital to long-term care.

The people, including Ontario’s seniors, have been and always will be our government’s top priority, and we will create a health care system that works for them, for patients, for families and for caregivers.

Toronto Transit Commission

Ms. Jessica Bell: This is a question for the Acting Premier. There is a report today in the Toronto Star indicating that neither the TTC, the mayor of Toronto nor city council has any details about the Premier’s hostile takeover of Toronto’s subway system. No one at the city knows what the Premier is proposing for the relief line: whether it will be underground or overground, what route it will take, how much it will cost, or how long it will be delayed because of this Premier’s antics.

Why is the Acting Premier keeping the city of Toronto in the dark?

Hon. Christine Elliott: To the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Thanks to the member for that question. I would think the member would agree with me that the current transportation system isn’t working for the riders of this province. People aren’t able to ride the subway without it being overworked. For decades, the city of Toronto has been unable to expand the subway network. We’re making the way forward to make changes to that.

We have been working with the city of Toronto since last year, after Michael Lindsay was appointed our adviser, working towards a new partnership between the city of Toronto, the TTC and the province of Ontario in order to upload the subway system where the province would take ownership of the rails and the stations and take care of the maintenance, and the city of Toronto would continue to have the TTC run the day-to-day operations and at the same time keep the fares that they’re collecting today. It would be a new partnership that’s going to be great, not only for the people of Toronto and the GTHA as a whole but for the rider. That’s where the focus is going to be and—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Ottawa Centre and the member for King–Vaughan will come to order.

Supplementary?

Ms. Jessica Bell: Back to the Acting Premier: The city has spent years in partnership with the province developing plans for the relief line, the Eglinton West LRT and the Yonge subway extension. Some $200 million has been spent on planning, design and other work, and the city was nearly ready to launch the procurement process. But now the Premier wants to rip up these schemes and replace them with his own plan, setting us back years and costing us unknown millions of dollars.

Why won’t the Premier let the city get on with building transit, instead of wasting even more time and money with his misguided, hostile takeover?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: We have been working closely with the city of Toronto for the last few months developing our terms of reference, which is leading towards the final conclusion of the upload of the subway system, which is going to create a new partnership, which will allow us to move forward with the expansions.

Right now there has been a lot of talk—for decades. For decades, people have been waiting for the relief line on the Yonge line. Unfortunately, they have been unable to deliver. It’s not the fault of any one particular person. It’s the system that’s at fault; it’s the system that needs change.

We’re proposing a change to that system so that we can actually take these plans and turn them into projects. Under the leadership of Premier Doug Ford, we’re going to do just that: We’re going to expand the subway system, and we’re going to create a whole new rider experience for the people of Toronto, the user of the TTC. We’re going to create a regional network that works for the riders of the region.

Services for children and youth

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Next question? The member for Don Valley East.

Mr. Michael Coteau: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for the question.

Deputy Premier, for almost 20 years, in my entire career, I’ve been fighting for the next generation here in Ontario. I’ve worked as a youth worker, I’ve organized family literacy day, I’ve run a literacy organization, and I’ve worked as an MPP and of course as the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

But, Deputy Premier, I’m concerned that over the last 10 months we’ve seen so many cuts that are particularly targeting young people: increasing class sizes by 27%, the elimination of 3,000 teaching positions, cuts to children with autism services, the cancellation of after-school programs and summer employment programs, the elimination of the child advocate, the cuts to post-secondary budgets by 5%, the cancellation of free tuition, the scrapping of Ontario’s first French-speaking university, cuts to mental health and so much more.

My question to the Deputy Premier: Deputy Premier, why are your cuts targeting young people here in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Christine Elliott: To the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I want to say thank you very much to the Deputy Premier for referring this question to me, because between herself, the Minister of Education and so many more ministries, we are—for the first time in Ontario’s history—taking a whole-of-government approach in the matters of education and in the matters of health care for our children and youth across this province. That is why we are engaging and we are right now in the process of appointing three tables, one for children in the justice system, one for children in our Indigenous child welfare system, as well as for our children in the welfare system as a broad whole.

We are working together through wraparound supports to support children with autism, which is why we doubled the funding—a historic funding announcement of over $600 million in just the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services alone, in addition to the supports provided through the health care system, in addition to the supports that are provided to the tune of over $3 billion for children with special needs in our education system.

This is a government that is for the people, but more importantly, Speaker, it’s for the children.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Michael Coteau: I’ll ask a question about a specific program. In 2017, the previous Liberal government put forward a program to support Black youth here in the province of Ontario. It was a $47-million commitment that, when fully implemented, would support over 10,000 young Black children here in the province of Ontario.

Over the last 10 months, in the 80 programs that were funded, they haven’t heard a word from the government. All the information that was on the website has been removed. All of the grants have been removed from the website. We know, Mr. Speaker, that this is a blatant way to remove funding for some of the most vulnerable kids in our city.

My question is to the Deputy Premier: Why are you removing much-needed funding to some of the most vulnerable children here in the province of Ontario?

I heard it a few weeks ago; the minister responsible for children said, “No one in this government will ever apologize for the best social program, which is a job.” Mr. Speaker, our program—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. Minister to reply.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I appreciate the opportunity to respond to this, because when he was the former Minister of Children, Community and Social Services, we had the opportunity to work together and he introduced me to somebody who is a mutual friend of both of ours now, Farley Flex, who has been engaged with my ministry and who I’m planning to encourage to do a lot of work with youth at risk across the province.

We are taking our time. As you know, the budget will come forward on Thursday. But let me be perfectly clear: For children who are at risk, particularly Black youth at risk in our major cities, particularly in Toronto and Ottawa, we are making sure that we continue to extend investments for the internationally recognized Stop Now and Plan, which is why I announced, as one of my first acts in this job, plans to expand that program across the province of Ontario, in particular in the city of Ottawa, where I reside and where we were able to do that.

Let me be perfectly clear: This government is committed to ensuring that children who are overrepresented in the child welfare system, as well as in the youth justice system—which is overwhelmingly Indigenous or Black youth—we are committed to making sure we have better outcomes for all of those children.

Northern economy

Ms. Donna Skelly: My question is for the Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines. Our government made a commitment to the people of Ontario that we would create good jobs. Early in our mandate, we’ve done exactly that: over 75,000 jobs, Mr. Speaker, in under a year. Imagine how many jobs will be created as we move forward with our open-for-business mandate, eliminating the barriers that have been holding businesses back for the past 15 years.

Our government is focusing on major job-creating sectors, but we aren’t forgetting how important local economies can be in northern Ontario. Unlike the Liberals, our government will never discriminate by region. Can the minister please tell the members of this House how a recent investment in Algoma is unlocking the potential in northern Ontario?

Hon. Greg Rickford: I want to thank the member from Flamborough–Glanbrook, who is actually a Nickel Belt girl, born and raised in Capreol. She cares deeply about what we’re doing in northern Ontario. As we renew and reset the focus of the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund, we’re making sure that we’re making strategic investments in businesses small and large, Mr. Speaker, focused on product diversification, new products and, most importantly, creating jobs.

That’s why we were pleased to announce a $50,000 grant to secure a trademark in purchasing equipment for the manufacturing facility located in Batchewana First Nation. Black Fox Fishing has got a great idea. They make an ice fishing rod holder that automatically sets the hook when a fish bites. Ice fishing season is soon over but I can’t wait to try it next year and I can’t wait to stand up with that manufacturer and the three new jobs that they’ve created and celebrate good products made in northern Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Donna Skelly: It is clear that opening Ontario for business is at the heart of our plan to make Ontario the economic powerhouse of this nation. That means creating good-paying jobs, but it also means protecting them right across Ontario, especially in the north. I’m proud that our government is injecting new life into northern Ontario’s economy, and I’d like to thank the minister for his unwavering commitment to protecting good-paying jobs in northern communities.

Everyone in this House knows what a major employer the steel industry is in this province. It provides families with the means to put food on their table. Can the minister please tell the members of this House how our government is standing up for the hard-working men and women in the steel industry, including those in Sault Ste. Marie?

Hon. Greg Rickford: It makes me proud to say that Ontario is only as good as northern Ontario is strong. We provide a lot of important resources that over the course of time have made Ontario the economic engine of this country. We hope to get back to that place and one of the ways that we’re going to do it is to support large manufacturers in northern Ontario. Case in point: Sault Ste. Marie. They’ve got a great member of provincial Parliament, a strong advocate. He knew that the largest private sector employer in that city needed help. We were there for them. Not only were we protecting jobs, we were creating jobs and protecting pensioners.

Algoma Steel employs 3,000 people, and there’s good news: Algoma Steel has hired more than 240 new people this year, in the first half, and they’re going to be hiring even more this year.

Mr. Speaker, we stand up for large employers in northern Ontario because we know a strong northern Ontario—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. Next question.

Special investigations unit

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Solicitor General. The Toronto Star reported that the special investigations unit, which conducts investigations into circumstances involving police and civilians that resulted in serious injury, sexual assault or death, is bracing for significant cuts to its budget. In a note they sent to employees, SIU is expecting a 30% cut to their budget. Speaker, will