 Seeing none, it's time for question period. The Leader of Her Majesty's Royal Opposition. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy. Last Thursday, the Financial Accountability Officer revealed what we've known all along. The sale of Hydra One was a bad deal for Ontario. Not only did he raise concerns about future revenue, but he also showed that this deal could bring in as little as $1.4 billion for infrastructure, not the $4 billion this government promised. It's because of this flawed planning that we now have 185 municipalities pleading with the government not to proceed with this deal. It's no wonder the Minister of Energy himself opposed the sale of Hydra One when he was the Mayor of Ottawa. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy has said that the Auditor General didn't understand the electricity files. Mr. Speaker, does he now share the same opinion about the financial accountability on it? Mr. Speaker, the Financial Accountability Officer confirmed that our plan to broaden ownership of Hydra One is on track to realizing the $5 billion to pay down death and the $4 billion towards our 10-year plan to invest $130 billion in much-needed infrastructure. He did express concern about longer-term impacts, but he makes it very clear that he did not assess the economic benefits, but just the company as it stands today. And his long-term concerns are more than mitigated, Speaker, by taking into account the extensive economic impacts of 110,000 new jobs per year from our infrastructure investments. The conference board says for every $100 million invested in infrastructure, $114 million is produced in real GDP. We're proceeding, Mr. Speaker. This is good for Ontarians. Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Energy, I just wish the Minister of Energy could listen to himself when he was the Mayor of Ottawa. Mr. Speaker, it's not just that this sale may only bring in a fraction of what was promised, but the negative long-term consequences that are going to last for Ontario. The FAO revealed that the province will lose out on Hydra One's yearly revenue as as much as $700 million a year. Now, frankly, Mr. Speaker, that $700 million is almost as much as you're cutting for doctors for patient care. That $700 million won't go down to paying down the debt in a province that has the largest debt in Canada. Mr. Speaker, will the Minister come clean and admit this deal is not in the best interest of the province of Ontario? Mr. Speaker, across Canada, rural, suburban and urban municipalities face a $120 billion deficit in infrastructure, and Ontario's 10-year $130 billion infrastructure plan addresses this for Ontarians. Our $4 billion of infrastructure funding from Hydra One will not count from new debt, tax revenue and service cuts. It is a smart fiscal management. The alternative, according to the Financial Accountability Officer, is to pay for new infrastructure with more borrow. Thank you. Final supplementary. Mr. Speaker, again to the Minister of Energy, Mr. Speaker, this government is mortgaging our future for one-time gain. The Auditor General has warned the Premier that this debt is already crowding out services on Terence Relayon. Our debt and deficit are out of control, and now without the profits of Hydra One, the problem will only get worse. Mr. Speaker, the debt is crowding out services like health care and education. No wonder you're doing the cuts right now to the doctors and patient care. Will the Minister of Energy tell us, where the government plans to cut now to make up for this loss $700 million? I will remind members that when I'm standing and when I sit down, thank you. Mr. Speaker, I addressed that very question in answering the previous questions, Mr. Speaker. But I'd also like to remind the leader that during the 2014 election, his party campaigned on a platform of, and I quote, opening both Hydra One and OPG to investment, including the sale of... Members from Dufferin Calendon come to order. ...that later be followed by a public offering of shares to both institutional and retail investors. Just what we're doing, Mr. Speaker. In case the member from Dufferin Calendon didn't hear me the first time, this is now the second time. Mr. Speaker, please come to order. Finish. Selling part of these two provincial assets. This is quoting them, Mr. Speaker. Selling part of these two provincial assets will free up... Excuse me. The member from Leeds-Grenville come to order, and the member from the PN Carleton knows better. And it's to stop. Please. In quoting that party, Mr. Speaker, selling part of these two provincial assets will free up money to pay down debt, and customer prices would continue to be regulated by the Ontario Energy Board. This PC Energy Policy White Paper is the latest and only policy on energy. Thank you. That party has released... Thank you. New question. The Leader of the Opposition and just a reminder to all people, third person to the Chair. Finish, please. Mr. Speaker. To the Minister of Energy, the Minister is ignoring the facts. As CHCH's Randy Wrath tweeted on Friday, when overwhelming evidence proves your plan flawed, it's not weakness to change the plan, it's leadership. We all agree Ontario needs better infrastructure, but the Hydro-1 fire sale isn't the way to go about it. Frankly, your 10-year plan on infrastructure doesn't change one cent pre- and post-sale. Last week the Financial Accountability Officer told us that this sale will have a negative impact on Ontario's finances. It is time the Minister showed the same leadership he showed when he was mayor of Ottawa. He stood up against the sale of Hydro-1. Mr. Speaker, will the Minister stick to his principles, stand up for the citizens of Ottawa and go to your Premier and say this is a bad deal for Ontario and a bad deal for Ottawa? Minister. As I said in my previous questions, Mr. Speaker, this is a good deal for Ontarians. Creates 110,000 jobs per year for 10 years and meets the infrastructure deficit that we have. He wants to talk about fiscal responsibility. First of all, the third party wants to raise taxes to pay for infrastructure. The PC party wanted to fire 100,000 people to pay for infrastructure. We have a responsible path forward, Mr. Speaker. The people of Ontario expect the government to manage the province's finances responsibly. And the $4 billion that we're going to receive from Hydro-1, Mr. Speaker, is not coming from taxes, it's not coming from cutting services, it's not coming from new debt. It's a strong financial fiscal management, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, back to the Minister of Energy. I'm shocked that the Minister of Energy refuses to show leadership in the face of insurmountable evidence that the Salon of Hydro-1 is a bad deal for Ontario. As the stars Martin Reg Cohen asked on the weekend, I quote, what about the obscene salaries planned for Hydro-1's new executives? Minister of Tourism and Sport. He called the $4 million package to the CEO, I quote, unconscionable. He notes the compensation is several times more than his predecessor thought, and at least double that that his counterpart at OPG gets. And while the Liberals hand out multi-million dollar paychecks to Hydro-1 executives, the FAO projects the province would realize a permanent financial deterioration from this sale. Mr. Speaker, can the Minister explain why the Liberal government is ignoring the financial accountability officer's report while they're lining the pockets of Hydro-1's new executives? Thank you. Minister. Mr. Speaker, the financial accountability officer confirmed that our plan to broaden ownership of Hydro-1 is on track to realizing the $5 billion pay down debt and the $4 billion towards our 10-year plan to invest $130 billion in much needed infrastructure. He expressed some concern about the out years, Mr. Speaker, concerning what might happen in the out years. He does not, and he did not, and he admitted not taking into account the economic development, the jobs that would be realized coming from these investments in infrastructure, Mr. Speaker. The member from Renfrew, Nipissing, Pembroke, come to order. The member from Beaches East York, second time. Very on. Mr. Speaker, the member for Renfrew, Pembroke, Nipissing, shouted across the floor that it's speculation. Mr. Speaker, it's the Conference Board of Canada that says for every $100 million invested in infrastructure, $114 million is produced in real GDP. This is good for the province of Ontario, Mr. Speaker. Final supplementary. Mr. Speaker, again for the Minister, you may not want to listen to the 185 million municipalities. You may not want to listen to the numerous MPPs and ministers in the Liberal government who are on the record against this. You may not want to listen to former Premier Dalton McGuinty who's against us. But maybe today you'll listen to the Toronto Star. I have another quote from Thomas Walcombe, who said in his column, he said the Premier's, I quote, absurd Hydro-1 fire sale fits into a pattern of dubious Liberal schemes ranging from the gas plant debacles to the orange air ambulance scandal. He continued, once again the Liberals are deliberately creating a monster they are unable to control. It fits right in line with what the FAO had to say last week. He said the province's fiscal position will deteriorate and there will be a revenue shortfall. This fire sale is a bad deal for Ontario. Can the Minister of Energy tell the House why he is going through with this despite the fact that every fact and all evidence say this is a bad deal for Ontario? Thank you. Minister? The strongest advocates for more infrastructure investment is the rural communities and we're delivering to that rural community. Ontario as the largest single shareholder of Hydro-1 will continue to be a major beneficiary of the company's performance. In addition, it now receives billions for new investment in infrastructure, without increasing borrowing, raising taxes or cutting public services. A better managed Hydro-1 will generate a host of benefits and allow the province's share to grow in value over time as the company grows. As I said, Mr. Speaker, $110,000 per year from our infrastructure program is going to generate economic development, it's going to generate revenue and it's going to more than deal with the concerns of the report that just came out, Mr. Speaker, concerning the out years. Thank you. The only issue of concern about the out years and that is done with economic development. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Do you see it, please? Do you see it, please? Thank you. New question. The leader of the third party. Thank you very much, Speaker. My question is for the acting Premier. When the Premier formed her privatisation panel, she promised that its decisions would be independently verified. The Financial Accountability Officer finally provided Ontarians with the first independent analysis of the sell-off of Hydro-1. And his report says, if the sale continues, our province will be in worse financial shape. The FAO says that the sell-off will increase Ontario's debt over the next decade. So the government do the responsible thing, acknowledge the FAO's red flags, cut our losses and stop the sell-off of Hydro-1. Thank you. Thank you. Well, thank you, Speaker. I welcome the question and I think it's important that every member of the legislature takes the time to actually read the report from the FAO. It's an important piece and I'm afraid that some members of this legislature are actually misrepresenting what, in fact ... Withdraw, please. Draw. Are not fully understanding or reflecting what the FAO report says. Let me just read on page 9, Speaker. This report does not seek to assess the merits of the decision to sell Hydro-1. It does not seek to forecast the impact of the partial sale of Hydro-1 on electricity rates. It does not assess the prospects for performance improvements on Hydro-1 that might result from the partial sale. So, Speaker, I think we better stick to the facts and I think the people of this province deserve that we all stick to the facts. Thank you. Supplementary. According to the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, sky-high liberal Hydro rates are the number one challenge, the number one challenge facing Ontario's business competitiveness. The FAO's report shows that Ontario businesses will continue to pay a stir charge on their bills to cover liberal mismanagement of the Hydro file, $600 million a year via the debt retirement charge until at least 2018-19, Speaker. Will this government do the right thing, cut our losses, Speaker, stop the sell-off of Hydro-1 and address the sky-high Hydro rates that Ontario's businesses are trying to deal with? Thank you. Speaker, we do acknowledge that Hydro rates are an issue for business and that's why we've taken certain steps to reduce the upward pressure on those Hydro rates. But I want to remind the leader of the third party once again, the financial accountability officer very, very clearly states that this report does not forecast the impact of the partial sale of Hydro-1 on electricity rates in Ontario. So I understand the speculation, but they cannot rely on the FAO's report to make those assertions. Thank you. Final supplementary. Ontario's financial accountability officer says that this is a bad deal and that it will cost the people of Ontario for a long time. The FAO was clear that the economic benefit of infrastructure investments occurs regardless of how they're financed, Speaker. I think the Minister of Energy should listen up to that fact. He was also clear that the province will be losing nearly half a billion dollars a year in net revenue. That is money that could be going towards infrastructure, for example. Instead, the government will now need to find that money elsewhere, Speaker. The FAO discredited all of the Premier's claims regarding this sell-off. Will the government do the responsible thing? Will the government manage the FAO's red flags and put a stop to any further sell-off of Hydro-1? Question. Thank you. What the financial accountability officer did, and he did a very fine job, and we thank him for the report, is to quantify the fiscal impact for one part of this deal, Speaker. One part of this deal. What he did not look at, and what he very clearly states he did not look at, is the other side, which is the benefit that we will all receive from making those investments, Speaker. So it's about increasing productivity in this province. It's about getting people home from work more quickly, Speaker. It's about making those critical infrastructure investments and putting people to work. So we are moving forward, Speaker, because we believe that we need to double down on infrastructure spending—$130 billion over the next 10 years. That money has to come from somewhere, Speaker. And broadening the ownership of Hydro-1 is one way we'll get the revenue to do that. Thank you. New question. The leader of the third party. What's the acting premier, Speaker? The FAO said selling off Hydro-1 is the worst way, Speaker. The worst way is to represent, however, a tiny fraction of funds that this government claims to need for infrastructure. The government has lots of options to fund those projects, Speaker. The FAO suggested they could simply borrow the money, and the province would, in fact, be better off in the long run. New Democrats have suggested the government could raise corporate taxes, run percentage points, and they would raise even more money than they needed for infrastructure, Speaker. Why is this Liberal government choosing to sell off Hydro-1 when it is the only option that's guaranteed to lose Ontario money? Thank you. There are people who watch what happens in this Chamber will know that no matter what's the problem, the solution from the third party is to raise corporate income taxes, Speaker. We have heard that money being spent for many, many, many different initiatives, and now today we're hearing about doing that for infrastructure. So it's unfortunate that there is no, they've read out of ideas when it comes to making investments. The only idea is to raise corporate income taxes, solution to everything. So, Speaker, we actually, on this side of the House, the engagement of the government side with the member from Hamilton, East Tony Creek is not helpful. Carry on. So we are absolutely committed to investing in infrastructure that does cost money. I'm sure. We're looking at a range of ways to pay for it, one of which is broadening the ownership of Hydro-1, Speaker, is creating jobs and building important infrastructure. Thank you. Speaker, all Ontarians support building and renewing our infrastructure. That's not up for debate whatsoever, but the sell-off of Hydro-1 isn't about funding infrastructure. Speaker, it never has been. The sell-off could net just 1% of the Liberals infrastructure promises in new cash, Speaker. By plowing ahead, the Liberals are waving goodbye to nearly half a billion dollars each and every year in lost revenues. These are revenues that could actually be used to invest in infrastructure, Speaker. My question is simple. If this deal isn't about infrastructure, then exactly what really is it about? Thank you. It's absolutely about infrastructure, and I think it's maybe an important thing to actually walk through some of the numbers that we're talking about here. We remain on track, and the Financial Accountability Officer actually confirms that we are on track to realize our estimate of generating about $9 billion through this IPO, Speaker. We've already received, and into the Trillium Trust, a special dividend of $1 billion, and we will also benefit from $2.2 billion in deferred taxes, Speaker. The final share price of $20.50 is at the high end of the initial share price range of $19 to $21. And, Speaker, we are on track to proceed in a careful, staged manner to maximize the value for Ontarians and to be able to make the investments in infrastructure that the leader of the third party says she wants, but doesn't have a plan to pay for. Thank you. Final supplementary. Speaker, the Liberals are trying to put some quick cash on a balance sheet to try to hide 12 years of scandal and waste. The FAO benefit from the sell-off of Hydro One, but it looks like some well-connected Liberal friends and insiders surely will, Speaker. The people of Ontario deserve to hear it from their government directly, if, as the FAO says, the people of Ontario aren't benefiting from this deal. Just exactly who is benefiting, Speaker. Thank you. Thank you, Speaker. Well, Speaker, I smell a conspiracy theory. I'm not quite sure where she's going with that, but I tell you the people who will benefit from this are the people of this province, the people right across this province who are demanding of their government, both provincial, federal and municipal, Speaker, to make the necessary investments in infrastructure. If the leader of the third party thinks that we are doing just fine when it comes to our infrastructure, well, I disagree, and the people of this province disagree. We've been thoughtful about this, Speaker. We have looked at this very, very carefully, and the result is, Speaker, we'll be able to accelerate investments in infrastructure, and that's what the people of this province elected us to do. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My questions for the Acting Premier today. The financial accountability officer raised six key questions in his report last week that he couldn't answer because the government deemed the information to be a cabinet document. That means code for, we've got something here we don't want the public to know about. In spite of the documents that the ministry withheld, the financial watchdog was still able to prove that this isn't just a bad deal. This is a terrible deal for the people of Ontario. When your finance minister was asked if he would provide the documents, he was quick to say that the Financial Accountability Officer Act doesn't let him do that. The FAO told us, though, that there were ways that the ministry could have gotten him the information without jeopardizing anything. So, Speaker, why is it acceptable to the Acting Premier that ministers of the Crown only act in a transparent manner when they find it convenient to do so? Good question. Well, Speaker, I think that the Financial Accountability Officer might have some thoughts on how his report is being described in this legislature. What he did do is he looked very carefully at the number, Speaker, and he did determine that, that, Speaker, that when he looked at his one, one part of this, the ongoing revenue law, that was not news to government, Speaker, it should not be news to anyone here. We always knew that, of course, when we sold a portion of the Hydro One, there would be less revenues, but the benefits outweigh the loss in revenues, and that's what this is all about. It is why we were doing it, we did, that's why we're doing this, Speaker. In the end, people will have a different kind of asset that will retain the control of Hydro One. Speaker will be able to make, have that public interest at heart, plus we will have the infrastructure that we need. Supplementary. Clearly, the Act and Premier needs to hire a new translator, because that's not what the FAO said at all. The FAO said that this was going to worsen the government's fiscal position long term. It's good to know, though, that after 12 years, this government can still play that old shell game. They'll move things around, but they're not getting the money that they say that they're going to get not new money from this sale. When the Financial Accountability Officer needs records from the government to do his job, they say it's the Act that holds them back. When they want to try and spike a critical report in the press before it can overshadow the beginning of the Hydro One fire sale IPO announcement on Thursday afternoon, they forget that the Act is even there and suddenly documents are appearing at their friends in the media. Acting Premier, since your ministries have already violated the Act, will you get them to do the right thing and release the cabinet documents that the Financial Accountability Officer needs to do his job properly? Thank you, Speaker. Well, thank you, Speaker. And I'm sure the member opposite would actually like to hear directly from the Financial Accountability Officer that he was in fact happy with the level of cooperation from our government. Here's a quote from July 19, Speaker. He says, I've been happy with the ongoing willingness of finance and energy to work with this on this file. Speaker, let's not forget what this is all about. It's about investing in infrastructure, $130 billion. That is 110,000 jobs, Speaker. It is rebuilding the infrastructure, badly. The member from Renfrew Nipissing, Pam Brooke, is warned. The member from Leeds, Grenville, second time. Carry on. Highways, schools, hospitals and transit will be able to do that now, not 10 or 20 years from now, Speaker. Experts have said we're not spending enough. Five percent of our GDP should be spent on infrastructure, Speaker. We have to remember that not making investments has a cost to. Thank you. We have looked at the whole picture, Speaker. Two new questions, the member from Kichir Waterloo. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Acting Premier. Last week's FAO report showed that once this government sells off 60% of Hydro-1, Ontarians will lose up to $500 million a year every year in the long run. This is money that could have been spent on education, on health care, on poverty reduction. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, for Ontarians, that money is as good as gone, while a number of the Premier's friends and Liberals insiders stand to line their pockets. Will the Acting Premier finally concede that the sell-off of Hydro-1 is a bad decision for Ontario's families and businesses? Well, Speaker, you know, I think the member opposite acknowledges that we do need to invest in infrastructure. I'm going to assume that you do believe that she does believe we need to spend in infrastructure. The question that remains is, how quickly can we do it and how are we going to pay for it, Speaker? So we did. We are looking at our assets. The people of Ontario own a number of assets, Speaker. We have to make sure we're getting the best value for those assets. One of those assets is Hydro-1. So we very carefully looked at how can we make sure the public interest is protected and at the same time unlock some of the cash available in Hydro-1 so we can add other assets to our portfolio. We need other assets now, Speaker. We're going to invest in those assets and we're going to do that and we are by broadening the ownership of Hydro-1. Thank you, supplementary. Mr. Speaker, the Financial Accountability Officer did some economic modeling that this government has a responsibility to listen to. What we are hearing today is that you do not trust the FAO and that you're not listening to him. And he mentioned that in his press conference. The FAO's report also showed that privatizing Hydro-1 will cause Ontario's debt to rise. Under this Premier's leadership, Ontario now has the most debt of any sub-national government in the world. More debt means less money invested in the priorities of Ontarians and now the FAO has confirmed that the province's net debt will be even higher, leaving a significant burden on future generations and less money for health care, for education and yes, even infrastructure. It is always Ontario's families that end up paying the price for this government's short-sighted and reckless actions. Will the acting Premier make the responsible decision and stop the sale of Hydro-1? Thank you. Speaker, we are proceeding because we need that infrastructure and we need it now, Speaker. You know, when we did embark on this, we did look very, very closely at it. We did acknowledge, Speaker, that there would be revenue from Hydro-1 that we would not be receiving in the future. We've gone into this with open eyes. We are getting the ability to build badly needed infrastructure, Speaker. That's what this is all about and we will continue with that work. Thank you. Any questions to members from Davenport? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Transportation who I had the great pleasure of hosting this past summer and my writing of Davenport for a transit town hall. And one of the issues raised was traffic gridlock. Speaker, today Canada's Eco-Fiscal Commission is issuing its report and recommendations on how to address traffic gridlock. The report titled, We Can't Get There From Here, Why Pricing Congestion is Critical to Beating It, outlines four key recommendations for governments of all levels. One of the specific suggestions in the report is that our government should build new high-occupancy toll lane capacity on provincially-owned 400-series highways. The Eco-Fiscal Commission believes that this could be a practical approach for reducing congestion in and around the GTHA. Mr. Speaker, I know that previous budgets have mentioned the possibility of implementing HOT lanes. Can the Minister please provide members of this House an update on what our government is doing to move forward on this file? Thank you. Minister of Transportation. Thank you very much, Speaker. I want to begin by thanking the member of Davenport, not only for the question today, but for the wonderful job that she does representing her community. Our government knows, Speaker, how important it is to manage congestion, connect people to jobs, and build communities. And our government continues to make record investments in transit and transportation infrastructure. While investing in transit is an important part of our plan, we are also studying what other tools we can use to help alleviate congestion. And that's why, Speaker, we are bringing forward a strategy for developing high-occupancy toll lanes in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton area. Both in the 2014 and 2015 Ontario budgets, we included the commitment to dedicate net revenue gains from high-occupancy toll lanes when they become available. And we have looked at other jurisdictions and observed their success when using HOT lanes to reduce daily commute times in the environmental impacts of car emissions. I can just supplement you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I want to thank the minister for his response, and I know that my constituents in Davenport, traffic, transportation, and commuting are all very important. I know that many living in my riding of Davenport are very interested as well to know more about what our government is doing to implement HOT lanes on provincial highways. In fact, over the summer, I heard from many in my community about the success of the HOT lanes we established for the Pan and Parapan American Games. While many were skeptical about the use of these HOT lanes, they proved very successful for those traveling through the GTHA during one of the busiest summers we've seen on Ontario's road network. Mr. Speaker, can the minister please tell members of this House more about when we can expect to see HOT lanes rolling out on Ontario's highways? Thank you, minister. Thanks very much, Speaker. Again, I thank that member for her question. This past summer, we saw 235 kilometers of temporary HOT lanes established on GTHA roadways for the Pan Am, Parapan Am Games as part of our games route network. Of course, Speaker, the Pan and Parapan Am Games were extremely successful and we're proud that our transportation plan made sure that all athletes got to their competitions on time and kept the region moving. Now we're taking the information that we received to inform future transit and transportation planning, including, Speaker, how to implement HOT lanes. We know that there is a lot of public interest in how HOT lanes could be implemented on Ontario's highways and we want to make sure that we get it right. This is why we will carefully consider location as well as how HOT lanes will help manage traffic congestion. While the exact locations of future HOT lanes are still under study, we do hope to be able to provide an update on our implementation plan by the end of the year. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much, Speaker. My question is for the minister of energy. Speaker, families all across Ontario will face impossible choices this winter due to the government's irresponsible hydro policies. Ratepayers are choosing between paying their hydro bills or lining up at the local food bank. This is because as of yesterday, they are paying 17.5 cents a kilowatt hour for on peak electricity. That's over four times more than it was when this government came to power. The primary reason for these devastating increases is the exorbitant contracts they have signed under their failed Green Energy Act. If the government continues to sign these contracts, they are going to increase hydro poverty even more. Speaker, will the minister finally address the reality of skyrocketing hydro rates and stop signing these unaffordable contracts? Mr. Speaker, thank you. Mr. Speaker, as the member knows that our 2013 long-term energy plan projected rate increases over a 20-year period and that the increases announced several weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, are below those projections. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the member knows we are continuing to mitigate rates through a new Ontario electricity support program that will reduce rates for modest income families by $360 per year, Mr. Speaker. In addition, the debt retirement charge imposed by the Conservatives is being removed from bills starting in nine weeks, saving homeowners $70 per year, Mr. Speaker. These are in addition to existing programs, the Ontario Energy and Property Tax Credit, Mr. Speaker, which will give seniors up to $1,131 per year if they qualify. The low-income energy assistance program continues in addition to the new energy, Mr. Speaker. We're taking significant steps to mitigate rates, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Speaker, again to the minister. The minister knows that this shell game of programs is just a drop in the bucket compared to the problems the Liberals have created for energy rate pairs all across the province. The increases that came into effect yesterday means that the average rate pair will pay over $120 more per year, with more of that still coming down the pipe over the next half decade. These increases are going to hurt rural and suburban Ontarians even more because those rate pairs are more likely to live in a detached dwelling. Speaker, the minister knows that energy poverty is deepening in this province because of his policies. How can the minister justify continuing to go down such a dangerous path when he knows of the misery it will create? Or does he simply not care about the people of Ontario? Mr. Speaker, we continue to create programs to mitigate rate increases, Mr. Speaker. We continue to communicate that to the public, Mr. Speaker, so that they could get some relief from electricity prices. But I wonder how many times the member from Pembroke, Renfrew Nipissing, Mr. Speaker, has actually put in his household that there is a credit of up to $1131 for seniors, that we have an OESP, which will take $360 per year off modest income families, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to know why he doesn't sell programs that make sense for consumers in this province, Mr. Speaker, instead of standing up here and grandstanding and exaggerating the increase by two and a half times is what it actually is. No question, the member from Renfrew Nipissing. Thank you, Speaker. My question is to the acting Premier. Acting Premier, this week, education workers, students, and Ontario families are once again facing growing uncertainty. Over the summer, the Minister of Education assured parents that their kids would return to a routine fall semester. The education minister failed to get the job done. In September, education workers withdrew select services, and in October, extracurricular activities were put on hold. The education minister failed to get the job done. After months of botched attempts to reach a negotiated settlement, will the acting Premier finally assure families that schools will return to normal in November? Thank you, Mr. Premier. Well, Speaker, I can assure the member opposite and all Ontario is that our top priority has always been to protect the gain that we have made in one of the world's finest education systems, Speaker. We very much want to ensure that students and teachers have a great year, a school year with full programming available. We want students in their classrooms and teachers in the classrooms right across the province. So, Speaker, we have been engaged in discussions with Ethvo, with QP, with OSSTF education support workers. The minister is not here today because she is engaged in that bargaining that has been very, very intense over the last several days, Speaker. At this time, bargaining is continuing. We do look forward to providing an update later today, Speaker. Thank you. Supplementary. Thank you, Speaker. Back to the acting Premier. The reality is that under the leadership of the Minister of Education, Ontario has undergone labour unrest, not experienced since the Harris era. Acting Premier, let's be clear. Teachers want to teach, education workers want to do their jobs effectively, and they all deserve to be respected while doing so. Students want to learn. Parents want quality education for their children. The failings of this Minister of Education are impacting an entire generation of students. Our kids are paying the price for the minister's failure. Will the acting Premier show her government is ready to end the chaos in our schools by firing the Minister of Education? Thank you, Premier. Well, Speaker, I think credit where credit is due, Speaker. And I'm sure the member opposite would acknowledge that these have been very difficult negotiations because we are in a very difficult fiscal situation. But nonetheless, this Minister of Education has led successful negotiations and has achieved contracts with OECDA, with Ontario English Catholic Teacher, with Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation Teacher, with AEFO, the Francophone School Speaker. We've had significant staff, and I think the member opposite. New question? The member from Kingston in the Islands. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Speaker, I know this government has worked tirelessly to achieve the goal of making Ontario smoke-free, and I know firsthand that we have come a long way towards making that goal a reality. Smoking prevalence has decreased from 24.5% in 2017.4% in 2014, representing 408,257 fewer smokers. However, the use of tobacco products remains the leading cause of preventable disease and death in Ontario. More than 2 million Ontarians will still smoke, and thousands of youth still take up smoking every year. So while we have made great strides in reducing the number of Ontarians who take up smoking, Mr. Speaker, through you, I'm very interested in finding out how we are going to further reduce the prevalence of smoking among Ontarians. Thank you, Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I'd like to begin by thanking the member from the Kingston and the Islands for the question. She's absolutely right. We need to continue to drive down smoking rates in Ontario, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak to some of our initiatives. To accomplish the goal of reducing smoking in Ontario, my ministry has invested over $340 million since 2007-2008 for tobacco prevention, protection and cessation. We have listed smoking cessation drugs on the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary and expanded access to nicotine replacement therapies for those undergoing addictions treatment. And while it is true that we have the second lowest smoking rate in Canada, as I said earlier, there is still more work to be done. That is why, Speaker, effective this January, our government banned tobacco sales on university and college campuses, prohibited smoking on playgrounds, sport fields and restaurant bars, and, Mr. Speaker, moving to prohibit the sale of all playlists. Thank you, supplementary. Mr. Speaker, I commend the minister for all her hard work and dedication to this issue and for sharing this great news. But I do wish to touch upon the last point the minister made about kids taking up smoking or other bad habits. Research shows that a person who starts smoking younger, the more difficult it will be to quit later in life, and many start to smoke in their teenage years. In 2011, smokers continued to report that, on average, they smoked their first whole cigarette at the age of 16 and started smoking regularly at 18 years of age. Electronic cigarettes or vaping have been identified as emerging trends in Ontario. As a mother, I was concerned to see very young teenagers using these products, and I wonder if e-cigarettes are dangerous for our children and youth. Question? Will the minister fill us in on how the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care is addressing these concerns of e-cigarettes? Minister? Mr. Speaker, and I'd like to once again thank the member for her question and thank or take this opportunity to thank her for all of her work on the e-cigarette file that she has done so far, especially taking responsible and cautious approach to protecting Ontarians, especially our youth, from any potential harms by regulating the sale and use of e-cigarettes. Specifically, Mr. Speaker, we propose to ban the sale and supply of e-cigarettes to anyone under the age of 19 and prohibit the use of e-cigarettes in certain places where the smoking of tobacco is prohibited. To be clear, Mr. Speaker, our approach does not ban e-cigarettes or vaping, but what it does do is to regulate e-cigarettes and vaping. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for the member from Kitchener, Thomas Stover? Yeah, thanks, Speaker. Speaker, while the Premier and Minister play hot potato on the... On two, please. Yeah. To the acting Premier. Thank you. While the Premier and the Minister play hot potato on the need for receipts for their scratch, you scratch my back, I'll scratch your back, pay out to teachers' unions, people of Ontario see their game for a distraction. It is. Speaker, if they wanted receipts, they would have written it into the agreement right where the government commits to the payout, but it's not there. How do you think? Will the acting Premier tell us where in the memorandum of settlement is the direction for the union to show receipts? Thank you. Thank you, Premier. Speaker, let's just understand that the member opposite is talking about a process that is successful, Speaker, that has been successful. Students have remained in the classroom and members opposite might not think that's an accomplishment, but having students in the classroom is successful, Speaker. Better than the heirs. And it is in line with the net zero framework, which is very, very challenging indeed, Speaker. We've been able to accomplish this without making cuts to the classroom. So we did provide support to both our education partners, teachers' unions and school board, Speaker. The funds do not come out of the classroom. They come out of other changes to the contract, Speaker. The money has not flowed. Unions will be required to provide account and to show crossover incurred, and we will make it. Answer. That's public speaking. Thank you, supplementary. Yeah, don't forget the success to the Liberal Party. Speaker, there is no requirement for receipts and there never will be. The memorandum is clear. The crown shall pay to the OSTF $1 million. No receipts ever mentioned. The receipt ruse is a red herring taken straight from the Liberal scandal distraction playbook. Given that there are no required receipts and given government handed over millions to teachers' unions, just one year after those unions spent millions on elections to prop up the Liberals, the people of Ontario are concerned over the potential misappropriation of taxpayers' money. It's disgusting. Will the acting Premier direct her caucus to vote in support of our call to bring in the provincial auditor to get to the bottom of this mess? Simple question. The member opposite wants a simple answer. He's getting one. The answer is yes. We are supportive of having the Auditor General look at this. No question to the member from Oshawa? Thank you, Speaker. My question is to the acting Premier. The Trans-Pacific Partnership will have a profound impact on Ontario families, businesses and industries. Unfortunately, those families, businesses and industries can't prepare for what that impact will be because the details of the agreement are still under lock and key. The Ontario Auto Mayor's Caucus, which includes Oshawa's Mayor John Henry, has called for the release of the TPP in its entirety, to help determine the impact of the agreement. Will the Premier stand with Ontario's auto mayors and Ontario's auto communities and call for public disclosure of the TPP? Thank you, Deputy Premier. Speaker, I think we all acknowledge Ontario's auto sector is absolutely key to our economic growth. It's kind of remarkable to think that it contributes $16 billion to our economy, Speaker. It supports over 100,000 direct jobs, hundreds of thousands of indirect jobs, Speaker. And these are very important jobs, a very important foundation to our economy. Throughout the TPP negotiations, we called on the federal government to conduct open and transparent discussions. Recently, we've learned that some sectors of the auto industry may benefit from the TPP, like Toyota and Honda, who are key assemblers in Ontario. Yet, while the proposed TPP promises new market opportunities for Ontario firms, we are concerned that new weaker rules for vehicles and auto parts may negatively affect the industry's ability to direct and retain investments. So, Speaker, we're also concerned about the proposed tariff reduction schedule, so we're looking forward to learning more, Speaker. Supplementary. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, and to answer the comment they're made by the Acting Premier about their conversations with the federal government regarding open and transparent discussions, during the federal election, Justin Trudeau was offered a private briefing on the details of the TPP. And through a spokesperson, he declined this invitation because he wanted to, and I quote, to release the text of the agreement for Canadians to see, end quote. Canadians deserve to know what the secret deal will mean for them. They deserve to see the details. Will the Acting Premier call on Mr. Trudeau to stand by his promise and release the text of the TPP for Canadians to see? Well, Speaker, I know we all look forward to the swearing in of the new government, Speaker. I think we all are optimistic that we'll see a refreshing change in Ottawa, certainly in terms of relationship with the provincial government. The briefing that the leader of the Liberal Party did not take in was the same briefing that the leader of the NDP did not participate in, Speaker. So I am very optimistic that there will be a refreshing change blowing across this country, Speaker. Thank you. Any question? The member from the Mississauga streetsville. Well, thank you, Speaker. This question is for the Attorney General. Minister, governments at all levels need to try to and want to consult widely and encourage public comment on legislation and other public issues. To assist people and organizations to bring their best ideas forward on an ongoing basis, this legislature recently passed the Protection of Public Participation Act. Concerned people and organizations with valuable input to offer need to know that when they present their ideas in public participation settings, they can do so securely and without fear of harassment. The members of our province's legal community agree and have supported the bill. Would the minister tell the House what type of difference the Protection of Public Participation Act will make to ensure equal access to justice in Ontario, especially for concerned people with strong feelings or good ideas on projects and proposals within Ontario? Thank you, Attorney General. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, let me thank the member from the Mississauga streetsville for his very important question and very important idea for all Ontarians in that proper access to justice need to be maintained. By protecting citizen against strategic legislation, our government is standing up for the value the people of Ontario cherish. This law will allow courts to quickly identify and deal with strategic lawsuits, minimizing the emotional and financial strain on defendants as well as the waste of court resources. By protecting citizen against strategic litigation, our government is protecting the right of Ontario residents to speak out on matters that are important to us. I am very pleased to say that Bill 52 passed third reading, meaning that after Royal Assent, the people of Ontario will be protected against meritless strategic lawsuits. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Attorney General. Please help the ministry. Minister, we need a balance between the two poles of interveners unjustly making false allegations against proponents and organizations aiming to do something and of companies with deep pockets using civil litigation to intimidate public participants and cause people with legitimate concerns or ideas to shun the public participation process. To be specific, residents of a community with concerns about a project or of a proponent should not fear a process server ringing their doorbell at night to serve a statement of claim on a frivolous and vexatious lawsuit. Intimidation by lawsuit is still all too common today. We heard from some of the blameless victims in the Bill's committee hearings about the loss in the turmoil that such suits have caused in their lives. Minister, please tell the House how the Act rebalances the justice system and stops meritless lawsuits while allowing legitimate defamation, libel and slander actions to proceed. Here, the proposed legal test for identifying strategic lawsuits is carefully balanced to ensure that lawsuits about expression that seriously armed repetition, business or personal interests or others can continue. This bill will not allow anyone a license to slander. This bill will even the plain feel but will not guarantee that expression will always win over reputation. We have worked hard to develop a proposal that balance the interests of defendants and plaintiffs in defamation suits. The test would identify strategic lawsuits is carefully balanced to ensure that lawsuits about communications that seriously armed repetition, business or personal interests of others can continue. Answer. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Any questions? A member from North Central. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Associate Minister of Finance. The Premier has said she would cancel the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan if the Liberals were elected. Well, they were. For years, the Premier said her preference would be an enhancement. Of the Canada Pension Plan to help people with their retirement. She knows the new Prime Minister agrees with her but the Premier still refuses to put the ORPP on hold. Now the Premier has directed her government to issue a request for proposals. Tender call for the ORPP investment strategy when it won't be needed. Yeah, why do that? The Premier is still spending taxpayer money on this pension plan. Mr. Speaker, will the government question this bait and switch melodrama stop spending taxpayer money for the ORPP payroll? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I want to thank the member opposite for her question. Mr. Speaker, this government ran on a plan to boost retirement security for the people of Ontario. And that is what we intend to do, Speaker. We know that two-thirds of Ontario workers have no pension plan. In fact, when you look at younger workers, Speaker, that drops to one in four young workers who have a pension plan. So Mr. Speaker, absolutely, we have a new government in Ottawa and that means that we have a government that is willing to cooperate with Ontario on the priorities that we see that are important for the people of Ontario. Mr. Speaker, we know that Prime Minister Trudeau is not able to enhance CPP alone. He will need the cooperation of the provinces and the territories in order to do so. We are absolutely willing to be part of that conversation, Mr. Speaker, but in order to ensure that we have adequate security for the people of Ontario when they retire, we're moving forward. Thank you. Supplementary? Again to the Associate Minister, Ontarians want to know if the Premier wants both her new ORPP as well as a bigger CPP. Ontario and their employers need to know how much more government is going to take from them by raising payroll taxes and reducing their take-home pay. This is a frightening question. I don't know if I want to hear the answer. Mr. Speaker, can the Associate Minister tell us is the Premier now thinking of keeping her job-killing ORPP payroll tax on top of an enhanced CPP? Mr. Speaker, our Premier has been very, very clear that we are moving forward with the implementation of the ORPP. We know that Ontarians deserve a secure retirement future when they retire. We've communicated to business and advised them of the implementation schedule and the rollout schedule which will happen gradually. Mr. Speaker, January 2017 we will enroll the largest corporations moving to medium size and then finally in 2019 with small businesses. We will phase in contribution rates gradually over time as well. Mr. Speaker, two-thirds of Ontario workers have no pension plan. We've committed in legislation to enroll these corporations in a phased and gradual way and also ensuring that this has done arms length from government so that the members of the plan will benefit from the plan when we implement it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The member for Morgan West. Thank you, Speaker. My question is to the acting Premier. At last week's launch of the Gender Wage Gap Consultation many of those in attendance raised concerns about the Liberal government's lack of enforcement of existing pay equity laws. In particular, the government has failed to live up to its own pay equity obligations for public sector workers in developmental services, in childcare, and in home care. Given that pay equity is a critical component of closing the Gender Wage Gap, how can Ontario employers be expected to take the wage gap seriously when the government is refusing to fund pay equity for some of the lowest paid women workers in Ontario? Mr. Speaker, continue. Minister responsible for women's issues. Minister responsible for women's issues. Thank you, Speaker. And I want to thank the member opposite for the question, and for joining us at the very important announcement last week about closing the wage gap in Ontario. And while we know there's more to do, Speaker, we know that Ontario's Pay Equity Act continues to be recognized in Canada and internationally as one of the most progressive pay equity standards in the world. It was the first province to recognize equal pay day were committed to building on those milestones and to make progress for women in the workplace. And in my mandate letter, the Premier asked me to support the work of the Minister of Labor in developing a wage gap strategy that will ensure Ontario continues to close the gap. I think we heard some very good advice at the launch last week from people across the sector. And as the member opposite knows, the government has appointed a steering committee to lead the development of a wage gap strategy. Answer. And consultations are underway now and our report will be forthcoming. Draft reports this fall final report. Thank you. Supplementary. Thank you, Speaker. Speaker, there are several things the government can do now to narrow the gap without waiting for recommendations from the Gender Wage Gap Steering Committee. One of these is to apply a gender lens to budget decisions to look at the impact of tax credits and other budget measures on women. Will the acting Premier commit to applying a gender lens to the 2016 budget, especially with regard to the budget impact on women who experience the widest wage gaps? That is racialized women, indigenous women and women with disabilities. Thank you, Speaker. And again, thanks to the member for the question. Though the question of the gender lens came up at the session last week, the member will call. I spoke to that. And that is also in my mandate letter speaker to address. And our women's director works across government ministries to ensure that gender considerations are integrated in all aspects of policymaking. There's work in the OPS through the diversity office and they play a key role. And the new Gender Wage Gap Steering Committee is consulting to understand better how the wage gap affects women and workforces. But Speaker, I do want to say this government's taken a number of measures to address the wage gap, whether that's raising minimum wage, full day kindergarten, supporting programs to help women in the trade and government information technology. We have a micro lending program speaker for women who want to start businesses. And we're the only we're the only province in Canada to introduce complier selling legislation for TSI. TSI. Thank you. Member from here on Bruce on a point of order. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. According to the order papers, I have submitted a question to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care and it's overdue and I was just wondering when he could tell me when my answer or response to be expected. Yes, that is a point of order. And I would ask the host leader if there is an answer it is overdue and if the host leader if there is an answer pending. Mr. Speaker, we will make sure that that answer gets in time for it. Thank you. The member from Renfrew-Nepeson can work on a point of order. Yes, thank you, Speaker on a point of order. I would like to welcome the family of Paige Julia Cooper from Woodby Oshawa here this morning. We have her mother Tara Cooper, her father Greg Cooper, her brother Nigel Cooper and her grandparents Jane and Clifford Cooper and Linda and Robert Mitchell all here to see Paige Julia here this morning. Thank you. Point of order the member from the team Carrington. I know all members in this house will be excited to wish happy birthday to the member from Niagara West Glenbrook. He doesn't look a day old or 58. I don't know about how correct a record on that in that I beg to inform the house that pursuant to standing order 98c a change has been made in the order of precedence on the ballot list to draw off from October the 5th 2015 for private members of public business such that Madame Gilneau assumes ballot item number three and Ms. Fife assumes ballot item number 20. We have a deferred vote on the motion of second reading of bill 85 an act to strengthen and improve government by amending or repealing various acts calling the members this will be a five minute bill between them two. All members please take their seats. All members please take their seats. On May 14th 2015 Madame will your move second reading of bill 85 all those in favor please rise one at a time be recognized by the clerk. Madame the earth Madame the Earth Mr. Natch即 Mr. Bradley Mr. Bradley Mr. Shirell Mr. Shirelli Ms Matthew Ms Matthews Mr Maskets Mr. Hoskins Ms.. Macch helper Ms.. Mcch 이건 Ms Macchar industrial Mr.. Quinter Mr.. Quinter Mr.. Kohl Mr.. Dakar Mr.. Dakar Mr.. Johnson Mr. Postman Mr.. bl Christina Mr.. Bol auf Mr. Kalos Mr.. Dewing Mr.. Dylan Mr.. Or saddle Mr.. Matty Mr.訂閱 Mr.. Anti Mr.. Mечение Mr.. Chan Mr.. Maurier Mr.. Pat to Mr.. Kote Mr.. Zimmer What.. Heml along Mr.. Baba Mr. Rinaldi. Mr. Rinaldi. Ms. BraNeal. Ms. BraNeal. Mr. Tebow. Mr. Tebow. Mr. Hillier. Ms. Hillier. Mr. Arnor. Ms. Arnor. Mr. Hardenmen. Mr. Hardenmen. Ms. McClelland. Ms. McClelland. Mr. Wilson. Ms. Willson. Ms. Jones. Ms. Jones. Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown. Ms. Clark. Mr. Clark. Mr. Fidelli. Mr. Fidelli. Ms. Yakubusky. Ms. Scott. Ms. Scott. Ms. Thompson. Ms. Thompson. All those opposed, please rise. We are on time to be recognized by the clerk. Three, the nays are zero. The ayes being 93, the nays being zero. I declare the motion carried. Second reading of the bill. Shall the bill be ordered for thorough reading? Attorney General? Yes, refer the bill to the standing committee on regulation and private bills. There are no further deferred votes. That stands recess until 1 p.m. this afternoon.