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

October 23, 2018

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2018-Oct-23 (PDF)

L039 - Tue 23 Oct 2018 / Mar 23 oct 2018

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 23 October 2018 Mardi 23 octobre 2018

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Employment standards

Employment standards

Health care funding

Taxation

Minimum wage

Taxation

Taxation

Employment standards

Taxation

Hospital funding

Fiscal accountability

Assistive devices

Public safety

Healthy schools

Fiscal accountability

Automobile insurance

Government’s agenda

Visitor

Member’s birthday

Child Abuse Prevention Month

Long-service awards

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

FoodShare Toronto

Habitat for Humanity Halton-Mississauga

Municipal elections

Peterborough Cares

Community support agencies

Employment standards

ABB Burlington

Minimum wage

Whitby Youth Council

Polish community

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on General Government

Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills

Introduction of Bills

Making Ontario Open for Business Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 pour un Ontario ouvert aux affaires

Visitors

Petitions

Employment standards

Public transit

Employment standards

Public transit

Employment standards

Northern health services

Employment standards

School facilities

Employment standards

Injured workers

Orders of the Day

Access to Natural Gas Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur l’accès au gaz naturel

Adjournment Debate

Violence against women

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Hon. Todd Smith: I move that, pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 34,

An Act to repeal the Green Energy Act, 2009 and to amend the Electricity Act, 1998, the Environmental Protection Act, the Planning Act and various other statutes, 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 the vote on second reading may not be deferred pursuant to standing order 28(h); and

That at such time the bill shall be ordered referred to the Standing Committee on Social Policy; and

That the Standing Committee on Social Policy be authorized to meet on Monday, October 29, 2018, and Tuesday, October 30, 2018, from 3 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 34:

—That the deadline for requests to appear be 2 p.m. on Thursday, October 25, 2018; 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 5 p.m. on Thursday, October 25, 2018; 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 12 p.m. on Friday, October 26, 2018; and

—That each witness will receive up to 10 minutes for their presentation followed by 10 minutes divided equally amongst the recognized parties for questioning; and

That the deadline for filing written submissions be 6 p.m. on Tuesday, October 30, 2018; and

That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be 12 p.m. on Monday, November 5, 2018; and

That the Standing Committee on Social Policy shall be authorized to meet on Monday, November 12, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and from 2 p.m. to 8 p.m. for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

That on Monday, November 12, 2018, 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 Tuesday, November 13, 2018. 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 Social Policy, 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, in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to 10 minutes.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Mr. Smith, Bay of Quinte, has moved government notice of motion number 13—

Interjection: Dispense.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Dispense.

Would the minister care to lead off the debate?

Hon. Todd Smith: No.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Further debate?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, Mr. Speaker, it’s not with great pleasure that we’re yet again debating a time allocation motion. I’d like to divide my comments into two parts. I have other members of the caucus who want to speak to it. I want to talk a little bit about the bill, but I also want to talk about the time allocation motion at hand.

First of all, just a couple of things on the bill: As I got a chance to say the other day on a two-minute response to one of the government member’s debates, I think we can all agree, New Democrats and Conservatives, that on the Green Energy Act the government could have done a much better job. The difference is that the government puts forward the idea that the reason the electricity prices went up was just because of green energy, and that’s not what the problem was. That’s not what caused electricity prices to soar.

What caused them to soar is that in the green energy development, and also with natural gas development and others, they negotiated contracts with the private sector that far exceeded what we pay public utilities for electricity.

At the time of these contracts being signed, we paid between six and 10 cents per kilowatt hour in the public system to generate electricity, depending on the mode. The government signed contracts for as much as 85 cents per kilowatt hour with the private sector to build solar, wind and other projects. Clearly, that was far in excess of what we were paying within the public utility, at that time OPG Ontario Hydro. So we ended up in this mess because the government was in a hurry to create lots of green energy at a time that demand was going down for electricity in Ontario.

Let me just put it into some context. At the time of the decision to go green energy, Ontario could produce around 25,000 megawatts; we had a demand of about 18,000 to 20,000 megawatts, depending on the day. There was a time in Ontario when it was thought that we were going to run short of electricity and run out of capacity because of the growth in the economy, but with everything that happened around free trade, around NAFTA, around technologies improving, around energy efficiency and everything else, the demand went down.

As a result, we were generating more power than we needed within our public utilities system, and the Liberals decided that they were going to create almost 10,000 megawatts of new power, most of it green, in private sector contracts that ended up costing us far more than what we would have paid if we would have done just strict public utility contracts that made sense to Ontario and made sense to your hydro bill. As a result, the price went up. It wasn’t because it was green energy; it was because they were private sector developments where we paid in excess of what it was worth.

The worst

part is that once we generated that new 10,000 megawatts, we were then contracted to buy it even if we didn’t need it. So here we have nuclear plants, we have falling water, we have all kinds of mechanisms for generation within the OPG system, and we had to idle our plants because there was no need, in order to buy the energy from private developers that we had no need for. We got the double whammy: We lost the advantage of the six to 10 cents per kilowatt hour generation that the public utility was generating and we had to buy the new contracts that were as much as 85 cents per kilowatt.

You wonder why your hydro bill went through the roof. It’s because the Liberals decided to be in a hurry to develop what was a good idea around green energy but did it in such a way that, quite frankly, just busted the bank. We didn’t need all of that hydro to start with, and if you were going to add to the system, you had to find a way to add to the system in a way that made sense.

Now let me give you an example. In my old riding of Timmins–James Bay, there are a number of solar projects that were built that got anywhere from 85 cents to 30-some-odd cents per kilowatt hour. Now, those are, you know, great opportunities for the people who are building them at that price.

But at the same time, up in the town of Hearst, we had a consortium of local entrepreneurs, Claude Villeneuve being one of them, who said, “Listen, there’s all of this wood waste”—the old Lecours sawmill that’s still in operation, and the old one, all of their wood chips, all of the old XL wood chips, everything when it comes to wood chips at the Levesque plywood plant, all of those places. There is a huge stockpile of chips and sawdust that has been put into dumps that is leaching into the ground that eventually becomes a problem.

What they were purporting was, “Why don’t we mine that wood waste and then co-generate?” Make electricity and make steam, sell the steam to the municipality, sell the steam to the plywood plant in order to offset some of the cost of this new project, and then sell the excess power into the grid, developing electricity that we may need but really fulfilling a local demand that had to be dealt with, otherwise known as the wood chips.

The government said no because they had taken up all of the capacity. When we went to the IESO, the IESO said, “No, we cannot put this project online,” because whatever capacity is left within the transmission system we’ve now taken up by way of the Mattagami River basin project. We doubled the generation on that particular project, and all of the private developing that happened when it came to new power damns and green energy, projects such as—not so much wind where I am but solar.

So there would have been an opportunity here to allow municipalities an opportunity to get into the green energy business, generate some revenue for themselves—because they’re harder and harder pressed all the time in order to be able to pay their bills—and deal with an environmental concern that had to do with the wood waste.

In other situations, you might have municipalities like Smooth Rock Falls, which was in my old riding—Tembec shut down their kraft plant there. There was a power generating station on the river that was there. They could have bought that and they could have used it to generate electricity in order to offset the loss of revenue they had when the mill shut down. That was about a million dollars a year they could have got, and they were used to getting about $800,000 a year in taxes from the old Tembec plant.

But no, they were never given the opportunity because the government was so intent on developing green energy for all kinds of reasons, everything from helping their well-connected friends get these contracts to the ideological, “Let’s do green energy.” They lost sight of what it meant to municipalities, what it meant to residents and what it meant to our hydro bills.

So that’s the problem, and the difficulty we have with this legislation is—I don’t have a problem insofar that you’re trying to give municipalities back their authority to do their own planning when it comes to deciding should there or should there not be a particular project developed in their community. I think there’s a really good argument to be made in some cases that that should be the case. I think the province can’t absolve its responsibility in being able to go forward on a project of significant public interest, but certainly the municipality has to have some kind of ability to have a say.

But what this legislation doesn’t do—it does nothing to stop, for example, a gas-fired plant from being built in your backyard. It does nothing when it comes to other types of energy projects that could be developed in your backyard, because all this bill does is it says no to green energy and is silent on everything else. So I think there’s a problem with that particular approach. If you believe that the municipalities should have a role, well, then give them that role, but don’t give them half of the role, because that’s essentially what you’re doing with this legislation.

On the question of the time allocation motion, I just have to say—and everybody has heard me say this before, and I’m not going to belabour the point for much more than about five or 10 minutes—that the government is utilizing time allocation when, quite frankly, they don’t need to. This is the thing that I find really—especially on this bill, because now the government has put forward a time allocation motion that will allow the bill to have full time at third reading.

The only thing they’re time allocating is getting it out of second reading, which they can do themselves—I’m not going to tell them how to do it; they understand what the rules are—and they’re time allocating the committee time.

And so first of all, you’ve got the government, in this particular case, moving a time allocation motion that is a time allocation motion on only part of the process, which tells me that either the government doesn’t have enough bills to put before the House to keep us going—because there’s only one other bill on the order paper, if memory serves me correctly, right? Once this thing is off the order paper, there’s just a natural gas bill that’s left to be debated.

The government doesn’t have legislation to bring into the House, so in order to slow things down a bit and give themselves a chance to be able to bring more legislation into the House, they’re extending the amount of time for debate at third reading on this particular bill. That’s one possible theory.

It might be a combination of another part, which is that this is a bill that the Tories, rightfully so, feel proud about. The Conservatives in the last election ran around saying, “We’re going to get rid of green energy.” That’s their right. That’s what they ran on, they got elected and they can get rid of green energy. They will pay a price for this down the road, but that’s a whole other story. Maybe the government wants that bill to stay in the House a little bit longer so more Hansards can be sent out by way of members of the government saying, “Promise made, promise kept. We’re getting rid of green energy. We’re the big fighters” type of thing. It’s a little bit of overkill.

What that tells me is the government is either incompetent at managing its business through the House by not having other bills to call, or it’s a question of whether the government is utilizing the House for political reasons and political gain. Both of those things are troubling in one way or another.

Now, I’m not going to pretend that any political party or individual member doesn’t have political gain coming into this place. This is what this place is all about. But at least call it for what it is. The government is using this as an opportunity for them to do those other things that I referred to.

The last point I want to speak to—and I’ll just very quickly go through this—is the whole idea of what the government has done on the cancellation of cap-and-trade and the green energy project. We’re the only jurisdiction in the world, as far as I know, that is running the opposite way when it comes to dealing with climate change. Governments are either doing nothing or they’re trying to do something. Europe has established a carbon market.

They have a system that is far superior to what Ontario had, proposed under the Liberals—because I’ll agree with the government: The Liberal cap-and-trade program had to be changed. There was no question about that. There were parts of that cap-and-trade program that made no sense.

A carbon market should, as much as possible, leave the money within your local economy so that you can use it for the best good in your own jurisdiction. In other words, the money made from cap-and-trade that we charged polluters could have been used to better effect to reduce our carbon emissions by providing incentives for the private sector and for individuals to do things to reduce overutilizing carbon products.

The government, in this case, is running completely the other way. They have scrapped cap-and-trade. They’re now going to scrap the Green Energy Act. The only project you’re going to be able to approve is going to be the old-style gas-fired or nuclear or whatever it might be. And in the end, in doing all of this, they’re putting Ontario in a position where it doesn’t have a carbon plan. It doesn’t have a plan to reduce emissions.

They’re opposed to the carbon tax, as we are—because as New Democrats, we never thought a carbon tax is a good idea either. But you’ve got to do something. It’s not as if climate change is not something we shouldn’t be concerned about. Ontario produces emissions that add to the carbon being put in our atmosphere. Can Ontario solve the problem of North America on its own? Absolutely not. But we have to be a part of the solution. What this government is saying is, “Never mind. We don’t want to be part of the solution.”

Here’s the great irony, Mr. Speaker: China—you know, like Mr. Trump says, “China”? Well, China has now, as of yesterday, opened their own carbon market. Yes, China. China is doing more to deal with greenhouse gases than the province of Ontario. That’s really shocking when you think about it. They opened up their carbon market yesterday. They are planning to have it up and running by February of this upcoming year. The effect of that is they are going to be reducing the amount of carbon over a period of time significantly within China, especially under electrical generation, because they use a lot of coal in China, as you know.

So, they have chosen what? They’ve chosen a cap-and-trade system. What they have done is they have said, “Okay, the larger polluters are going to pay to invest in the technology to reduce carbon emissions, and not the average consumer by way of a carbon tax.” I agree with the Conservative government: A carbon tax where you charge everybody sounds fairer as an idea, but what does that really do when it comes to helping us with reducing carbon emissions in the atmosphere?

You’ve got China, who is trying to do something with reducing their emissions. You’ve got Europe that are doing things in order to deal with their emissions. You’ve got India and Pakistan trying to do things that deal with their emissions. The only jurisdictions in the world that are running the other way are Donald Trump and Mr. Ford. Well, that isn’t very good company. If I’m going to align myself with anybody, I don’t want to align myself with Mr. Trump. Trump seems to think—especially, the American industry is far more polluting than Ontario; they’re a much larger economy by quite a bit. They’ve decided that this is not an issue anymore. Well, the reality is it is an issue.

I was saying to the House the other day—and my good friend from Nickel Belt will know this—when I was a boy, the Apollo astronauts used to go to Sudbury in order to mimic walking on the moon, because it was the one place in the world that you could go to that looked like the moon. It was completely without trees. It was devoid of vegetation. Most of the rocks were black. I remember as a kid driving through Sudbury on our way to visit family and friends, and it was just a moonscape. I guess I would have been about 10, 12 years old, and every time we’d go to Sudbury, we’d see if we could find a LEM or a spacesuit somewhere, because it was the closest thing you could see to the moon.

Well, the NDP at that time—it would have been under Donald MacDonald, I imagine, who was the leader at the time and maybe Stephen Lewis a bit later—started really pushing the Conservative governments in order to respond to the crisis that had developed in Sudbury. As a result, they decided by way of regulation through new legislation to limit the emissions that went out of the stacks at Inco and Falconbridge.

Go to Sudbury today. It’s not like going to the moon; it’s like going to Sudbury. Sudbury has come back to a great degree when it comes to the vegetation in and around the city. The acid rain that we used to have in the lakes downstream from where the emission was—the acid rain has gone down in those areas significantly, especially east of Sudbury, North Bay, into Quebec. Because, as we know, those emissions go up into the air, they travel a little bit further, it gets into clouds, it falls back into the ground, goes into our water system and you end up with acid rain.

Well, as a result of initiatives by this Legislature, we went a long way to cleaning up emissions in this province, not only in Sudbury, but in towns like Hamilton and Thunder Bay and places like Sault Ste. Marie and Timmins. The Timmins smelter refinery that was closed under the Liberal government was the cleanest smelter refinery we had in Canada—in North America, actually—because we built it with technology under those new regulations.

We now have—for the first time, I think, in Ontario’s history—a government that’s trying to turn the clock back and then saying, “You know what? We’re not going to do this because we say this is a tax grab.” Well, it’s not a tax grab. Cap-and-trade was about making the polluters pay and utilizing the money from the polluters to invest in our economy in order to green our economy, both by allowing industry to invest in new technologies, having the funds necessary to do that and, at the same time, allowing individuals to do things in order to reduce their emissions.

This government is turning the clock back and I think that is a shame, because all you’re doing is you’re kicking the problem of climate change down the road to our grandchildren. Our grandchildren and their grandchildren are the ones who are going to have to pay for the decisions that are being made in this House today. That’s not a legacy that I think, as a legislator, as a parent, as a grandparent, I would want to pass on to my grandchildren.

I just say, when I hear the rhetoric on the other side, across the aisle saying, “Oh, this is all about making sure that the taxpayer is saved into the future and we take the debt off our grandchildren,” what you’re doing is you might be minimally taking some debt off grandchildren. At the end of the day, it’s going to cost us more money, but that’s a whole other thing. That’s for another debate. What you’re doing is passing the liability and the problems of climate change on to future generations, and I think that is very short-sighted.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I know other members would like to speak.

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

Mr. Joel Harden: Thank you to the member for Timmins for those articulate words on which to begin.

It’s an honour, actually, to rise to speak to this issue because I come from a place—the Ottawa area, Algonquin territory—where there have been a lot of environmental leaders. I feel a great responsibility, as someone who comes from that place, to offer my two cents.

I really like the fact that the member from Timmins ended on a note of thinking about this act of ripping up the Green Energy Act as something we need to take pause in doing not just from the perspective of being legislators, but from the perspective of being grandparents and parents, because while I know my friends on the opposite side are very, very cautious and vigilant about minimizing expenditures of government, what they are poised to do without a serious action plan to build renewable energy in this province is to pass on a massive climate debt to people 10, 20 and 30 years down the road.

So while I will understand, as the member from Timmins also said, the government’s reservation with the previous cap-and-trade regime, what I don’t like, as my friend the member from Sudbury often likes to say, is a scrap-and-evade regime. We don’t need that. You don’t get rid of something wholesale without proposing something meaningful first.

I’ve noticed this is a bit of a trend with my friends in government. I’ve noticed it with the sex ed curriculum. I’ve noticed it in this case. The government wants to demonstrate conviction, wants to show its voters and, presumably, the province that it’s moving forward with sincerity. The city of Toronto electoral boundaries, for example: that’s another case. But it’s dangerous to be moving radically and quickly without proposing an opposite plan first.

In the case of renewable energy, in the case of climate change, we’ve just all been given—as citizens of this planet, not just citizens of this province—a 12-year deadline by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The most esteemed body of international scientists has just told the world that we have 12 years to take serious measures to bring greenhouse gas emissions into check, and if we don’t take that seriously, there are enormous consequences.

Speaker, I want to cite from a report given by the Toronto Environmental Alliance to the city of Toronto in 2012. They were describing what would happen to the city of Toronto’s climate if action wasn’t taken to reduce climate change. What they said was that by 2050, the city of Toronto can expect extreme rain, of up to a maximum of 166 millimetres daily, almost three times as much as we see now on a very rainy day today. And we’ll get extreme heat temperatures—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): The member should be aware, if he is not, that you will not be reading from your BlackBerry, your tablet or your iPhone.

Mr. Joel Harden: Speaker, I apologize. The discrimination against the electrical world will hopefully one day end in this space. I’ll resort back to my paper world.

What I was talking about is the fact that Toronto will experience extreme rain and that by 2050, average temperatures could reach as high as 44 degrees Celsius—if you factor in humidity, 50 degrees Celsius, which is great weather, Speaker, if you’re a lizard. But it’s not great weather if you’re a regular person.

I want to say also, as the critic for seniors and pensions, that there are disproportionate impacts in our society on the elderly when we massively increase temperatures. We’ve seen this recently in heat waves, where it’s disproportionately elderly living alone who suffer first. And they’re suffering right now. But this Margaret Atwood-like apocalyptic vision is not irrational; it’s rational. And we—we—as a planet, and as legislators in this province, have been put on a 12-year deadline.

My question to the government—and I’m a member of the social policy committee, so I look forward, when we get there, to hearing from other folks. I intend to be inviting a lot of folks from where I’m from to edify us with their perspectives on how we meet that 12-year deadline.

What are the choices we can make to build renewable energy in this province?

Because you know what, Speaker? I spent a lot of time in the union movement as a researcher, as a local activist, and I had an opportunity to work for the Canadian Labour Congress. I got to travel the country and some of my favourite conversations and projects I worked on were with energy workers—energy workers in the oil sands, energy workers in northern Ontario, energy workers all over the prairies—and what the member from Timmins mentioned about the transformation of Sudbury, given changes that we had made, is absolutely true across the country.

It is absolutely the case that we don’t have to pick between a good economy or a progressive approach to the environment. We can have both, but—and this is an important “but”—government isn’t about making sure that the private sector is enabled to make the changes from which we all can benefit. That can’t be the sole focus of our strategy, which was the Liberal plan: to create a voluntary renewable energy plan at a high feed-in cost. Government should be about making decisions that hold us all accountable.

What do I mean? Well, in the Netherlands, you’re not going to be able to buy a fossil fuel car after 2025. It will not be on the market because the people in the Netherlands have read the climate science and they’ve realized—

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Shame.

Mr. Joel Harden: Unfortunately, my friend from Niagara West has not. Congratulations, by the way. I hear you’re about to be married.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Thank you.

Mr. Joel Harden: But as my friend from Niagara West has perhaps not yet realized, one’s freedom has to be circumcised—circumscribed, excuse me.

Interjections: Whoa.

Mr. Joel Harden: Whoa. Excuse me: circumscribed. One’s freedom has to be circumscribed—

Interjection: That’s going in Hansard, Speaker.

Mr. Joel Harden: That’s going to go down for the ages.

Our freedoms have to be checked by our collective well-being. It’s why we can’t store nuclear waste in our basements. It’s why we can’t drive whatever speed we want. It’s why we can’t do ill will to our neighbours.

In the Netherlands, they have made the enlightened choice to phase fossil fuel-powered cars out of the market. If we had a serious approach to our transportation industry, we would be giving people, on a large scale through public transit, a choice to avail themselves of options to get around their cities, to get around to their places of work at a low cost. We would be enabling ways in which people can take their kids to hockey, people can get to work on time, drop their kids off at school, without constantly driving up the climate debt that we will be passing on to future generations. But we’re not doing that.

What the Liberals did is they created a voluntary regime that entrepreneurs could buy into that was extremely expensive, and unfortunately, in many parts of our province, the story that has been told to people is that renewable energy was the cause of their massive hydro bill increases. So for many people, unfortunately, they draw a connection between renewable energy and high utility costs. But if we made a decision as a society to provide renewable energy collectively, which is what happens in countries like Germany, which is what happens in countries like Norway and Sweden, we could solarize hospital rooms and school roofs.

It’s funny, in the summertime—kids are prophetic—I was walking around with my son and it was a blazing day. As a parent, I wanted to make sure he had enough sunscreen on him, because he is translucently skinned like me and I’m always worried about our kids’ health. My son, Emery, looked up to me as we were walking up to where my partner works, at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario. He saw the building and said, “Dad, have you ever thought about how much energy we’re wasting?” I said, “What do you mean, Emery?

By the fact that lights are left on or cars are idling in the parking lot?” He said, “No, it’s so bright outside and there’s nothing catching the sun on the roof.” Seven years old, and he understands that so much of our province, so much of our country, particularly Alberta, exists in a sunbelt.

If you look south of our border to the much-maligned United States, they actually have, in many jurisdictions, including the state of Texas, the highest degree of collective innovation of renewable energy. And here we are in Ontario talking about scrapping a renewable energy strategy, which had its flaws, and replacing it with nothing—nothing. That is the biggest concern I have when I see this initiative rolling forward.

As I mentioned, I’m very lucky at home to live in a community with environmental leaders. One of those leaders is the Ottawa Renewable Energy Co-operative. The Ottawa Renewable Energy Co-operative is a group of citizens that has collectively pooled their assets to build renewable energy. They have $17 million worth of projects that have been built and that are generating energy for all kinds of different folks, like area First Nations and businesses. They have done so by pooling their assets together, expecting a reasonable rate of return, and building renewable energy at a local scale.

They have recently told me, Speaker, that the FIT and microFIT programs—while useful to get some projects started up; which will be repealed if the government is successful—are not necessary anymore. Those subsidies to build renewable energy at the local level, according to the Ottawa Renewable Energy Co-operative, are not necessary anymore. They aren’t necessary anymore because in 2015, the latest research—three years old—shows us that the cost of capitalizing renewable energy projects now is one sixth of what it cost in 2005. Over the course of a decade the costs of building renewable energy have dramatically dropped. What does that tell me?

That tells me that construction trade workers and skilled trades workers who are looking for work—we could put this province to work massively in retrofitting our community housing stock, our hospitals and schools by solarizing these institutions. It could be a complete benefit and a massive step forward if we did it in a collective way, to put Ontarians back to work, to conserve energy being used in our buildings, which is a growing source of greenhouse gas emission increases. We have an opportunity to do that and it doesn’t require what my friends are criticizing in the Green Energy Act.

So if my friends want to get rid of the Liberal cap-and-trade regime, don’t replace it with a scrap-and-evade regime. Replace it with targets. Any project, any endeavour, is never met without prioritizing one’s goals and setting targets. What is the plan?

Before I end, Speaker, I want to mention a few things, because often in this House, I pick up the name as the person who wants the highest gas prices in the world. Am I correct?

M me France Gélinas: The universe.

Mr. Joel Harden: The universe; I’m forgetting the planets.

I just want to make something clear so my friends and I can speak a similar language. The World Bank keeps an index of carbon strategies worldwide. Ontario ranked in the bottom 32nd of those strategies with the cap-and-trade regime at the residential rate of 13 cents a tonne carbon price. It was pitifully low and you didn’t like it, okay; but it was pitifully low.

Sweden, as a country, has a carbon tax price of $139 a tonne. It is one of the most successful economies in the world. It has one of the greatest degrees of equality in the world. It has universal post-secondary education and child care, well-funded hospitals, and it has a significant carbon tax. Why? Because it has recognized that it has to transition from being a fossil-fuel-based economy to something else. The garbage that’s processed in Stockholm, in Sweden, is actually used as an energy-generation source, so much so that other countries are actually emptying their landfills to Sweden so it can continue its energy generation. They’re leading, at a high carbon price.

In a previous life, I was a researcher. I worked for the Canadian Labour Congress, as I already mentioned. I produced a document called the alternative federal budget because, as I said earlier, I don’t just like to just criticize things I don’t like; I like to also show what we could do.

So with other researchers, some of the most leading economists across the country in the non-governmental world, we produced a document, year upon year. The energy part of that document documented that if we wanted to build sufficient revenues to make sure we could build a green economy here in Canada—like they’ve done in Sweden, like they’ve done elsewhere—we needed to think about an appropriate price. That appropriate price, in that document, was $30 starting in 2018, increasing by $10 a year until 2030. My friends have often said, “The cost of this is what it will cost in 2030.

Therefore, it’s going to drive up gas prices by 34 cents.” But they’re taking the end cost and not the initial cost.

I understand what you’re doing, because you’re trying to play to people’s pocketbook concerns. But if you’re going to criticize advocates of carbon pricing, do it fairly. Don’t just do it on the year-end thing.

They have just done it again to the federal Liberals. Their carbon price—pitifully low, $10 a tonne—

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: “Pitifully low”?

Mr. Joel Harden: Pitifully low, by any measure.

They’ve criticized it not in its year of implementation, but in its last year of cost. I’m being honest—in its last year of cost.

The Conservatives who raised me—my grandparents Walter and Erma Davison—told my brother and I, when we were very young, “Never let housing be more than 20% of your budget.” These were discussions around the supper table for my brother and I when we were eight and 12. They taught us the necessity to manage our money appropriately. What they would not recognize in this government is an approach that says, “Let’s completely get rid of the budget that we had, replace it with nothing and rebate the revenues of the cap-and-trade regime back to consumers directly. Let’s give them each an average of 264 bucks.

Aren’t we fantastic?” But you know what, Speaker? If you look at major innovations Canada has made—and medicare is at the top of that list for me—we never got there by taking collective revenues and rebating them individually back to people, because we know that doesn’t have the effect that we need.

Starting in Saskatchewan, starting at the work of women’s co-operatives in rural Saskatchewan, people realized that if they pooled their monies together, they could attract doctors and nurses to their community. If they looked after each other and they made sure everybody was safe and everybody was healthy, reasonably speaking, they would be more prosperous as a province. That was the Saskatchewan model celebrated under Tommy Douglas and people who were there when it happened, lesser-known people who live in my riding—Eleanor Sutherland. That was a progressive step forward from the fend-for-yourself health care model that existed there beforehand.

If we want to transplant that to renewable energy, I think what’s incumbent upon my friends in government—if you don’t like the private sector-led, high buy-in price regime—fair—replace it with something better. Replace it with something better that will put the manufacturing sector in this province back to work, because people urgently need decent jobs. There are parts of our manufacturing sector in Ontario that have been hemorrhaged. As they often say in government, 300,000 jobs lost in 15 years of manufacturing—high-value-added jobs.

So replace it with something—and don’t replace it with something that Samsung likes or various individual boutique lobby industries want; replace it with something that puts our utilities at a local level back to work.

They’re saying in Ottawa—Hydro Ottawa and other hydro authorities—“Let’s get away from the big-box approach to energy generation, parking all of our interests with nuclear”—64% of our grid is now powered by nuclear. “Let’s start making sure there’s more independence at a local level. Let’s give local municipal electrical authorities the opportunity to partner with co-operatives to build renewable energy at a local level.” Energy independence, Speaker: Let’s do that. Let’s take a lead from OREC and other innovators who have shown us how to create decent jobs, rely less on fossil fuels and produce the kind of planet that we want, not at some point down the road but right now.

I think that’s the enlightened approach to politics. The arrogant approach to politics is to think that if we just sweep something completely out of the way and rebate the proceeds back to consumers, the people will be satiated. But you know what, Speaker? The planet is not satiated. My city, the city of Ottawa, is not used to tornadoes, and we had three touch ground this summer. There will be more. Our friends across the river in Gatineau—many of those houses cannot get housing insurance anymore because of constant flooding.

There is a cost to kicking the can down the road, my friends. There is a cost, a financial cost. If we don’t bear that collectively as a society now, we are telling our children and their children that it’s up to them. I want to be part of an all-party consensus on climate change. I’m proud, in this place, that there was an all-party consensus to phase out coal. It was the best decision made under the previous Liberal government. But that was something every party in this House agreed to.

Let’s agree to real targets on renewable energy here, let’s empower innovators at a local level, let’s create thousands of good-paying jobs in doing so, and let’s make sure we can leave a legacy on renewable energy that we can all be proud of.

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

Mr. Mike Harris: I’m truly honoured to rise here this morning and speak in favour of the Green Energy Repeal Act, 2018.

I take immense pride in the fact that I am a member of a government that keeps its promises to the people of Ontario. Each Progressive Conservative candidate in this year’s election promised relief for Ontarians—all Ontarians, not just well-connected insiders. We promised hard-working individuals, families and small businesses an accountable and trustworthy government that would listen and return affordability by putting money back into people’s pockets.

Interjection.

Mr. Mike Harris: Thanks, Gilles, I appreciate that. I think that’s—oh, no, it was Mr. Yarde. There you go.

Now in government, we are keeping that promise. The Green Energy Repeal Act will allow the government to ensure that only value-for-money energy contracts, which actually adhere to basic supply-and-demand principles, will move forward, and that renewable projects receive proper local consultation and support from affected communities. Imagine this: a government driven by the needs of rate and taxpayers, and not by ideological conviction and those special interests.

With Bill 34, our government is delivering on its promise to repeal the Green Energy Act, 2009. Our members, alongside the vast majority of the people of Ontario, all agree that the original Green Energy Act of 2009 led to the disastrous feed-in tariff program, caused skyrocketing electricity rates for families and took away power from municipalities to stop expensive and unneeded energy projects in their communities.

The proposed legislation to repeal the Green Energy Act would give the government the authority to make regulations to stop approvals for wasteful renewable energy projects where the need for electricity has not been demonstrated. This would put the brakes on additional projects that would add costs to electricity bills that the people of Ontario simply cannot afford. After years of skyrocketing electricity rates, hydro bills will finally start coming down. The days of sweetheart deals for energy insiders and unpopular projects forced on local municipalities are over.

What was the ultimate effect of the Liberals’ Green Energy Act? Generally, it was 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 do nothing more than gouge families, businesses and ratepayers, all while generating energy that we don’t even need. Manufacturing workers, small businesses, single mothers, struggling seniors and families—all of Ontario—everyone watched their hydro bills triple.

This was felt right across our great province. According to the Ontario Energy Board and the independent energy system operator, wind and solar projects added $3.75 billion—that’s billion with a “B”—in costs to electricity bills just in the last year alone. Wind and solar represent just 11% of the total generation in Ontario but reflect 30% of global adjustment costs that are borne by electricity customers. Again, in 2017, 26% of electricity generated from wind and solar was curtailed or wasted. This is electricity that Ontarians paid for but didn’t need or use.

For example, the province dumped a total of 7.6 terawatt hours of clean electricity in 2016, an amount equal to powering more than 760,000 homes, to a value in excess of $1 billion. This represents a 58% increase in the amount of clean electricity that Ontario dumped in 2015, which was 4.8 terawatt hours.

In the Auditor General’s 2015 annual report, she concluded that ratepayers forked out $37 billion more than necessary from 2006 to 2014—that’s a staggering number—and would have spent an additional $133 billion by 2032 due to global adjustment electricity fees on hydro bills. The Green Energy Act was the main reason for these higher rates. She argued that hydro customers will pay a total of $9.2 billion more for wind and solar projects under the Liberals’ 20-year guaranteed price program for renewable energy than they would have paid under the previous program.

As a result, Ontario’s guaranteed prices for wind power generators are double that of the US average while the province’s solar power rates are three and a half times higher.

The rising costs diminished Ontario’s economic competitiveness compared to American and other Canadian jurisdictions. As a result, high electricity prices are responsible for approximately 75,000 job losses in the manufacturing sector from 2008 to 2015. We felt that impact in Waterloo region.

When I knocked on thousands of doors in the recent election, no other issue caused more anger and resentment than hydro pricing. My Kitchener–Conestoga constituents saw decisions made in downtown Toronto that raised rates year after year despite individuals, families and businesses feeling the pain.

Last week, I listened to the member for Kenora–Rainy River discuss idle mills and lost mining opportunities in northwestern Ontario as similar operations in Manitoba were moving forward. Moreover, the member from Markham–Stouffville shared that the Green Energy Act meant multi-generational farming families being evicted from their lands. It’s a shame, Mr. Speaker.

Like many of my colleagues from southwestern Ontario, I have a long list of local factories that have closed and businesses that have relocated out of our province over the last 15 years. In these and most other cases, operations were forced to move to more competitive jurisdictions south of the border or overseas because of rising costs, whether due to escalating hydro prices or the mounting regulatory burden of doing business in this province.

All in all, Waterloo region has lost nearly 12,000 manufacturing jobs in the last decade, including long-standing operations such as BFGoodrich’s Kitchener tire plant, MTD Products Canada’s Kitchener plant and Budd Canada. The harmful socio-economic impacts associated with such job losses cannot be overstated.

As I mentioned, such negative consequences associated with such losses were among those issues most discussed at the door by constituents during my election campaign. I spoke to those who felt the brunt end of the manufacturing downturn, and what they told me echoes what our government is saying here in support of Bill 34 today. They told me that the government of the day, the Liberal government, did not speak for them because that government’s deficit in transparency was translating into a rapid erosion of opportunity in primary sectors of our local economy.

What lack of transparency am I speaking of, Mr. Speaker? It was clear for a long time, well before the previous government officially left office, that their policy was not a policy for the people. In fact, it was the exact opposite. In this case, for those implementing the previous government’s green energy program, it wouldn’t even take extensive consultations to discern that the green energy contracts being signed amidst its implementation, in comparison even to alternative approaches that existed under their framework, were bad for business in Ontario and bound to negatively impact the pocketbooks of all Ontarians.

To illustrate this point further, let me refer back to a news

article by Brian Hill and Carolyn Jarvis of Global News. I can’t believe I’m actually about to quote Global News here. This was released May 30, 2018. This

article is very telling of the negligence displayed by the previous government as it pertained to listening to sound policy input. For example, in this article, it is noted that “Global News obtained more than 4,000 pages of internal emails, ministerial briefings and other documents created by the OPA between January 2009 and August 2010—the months leading up to and after the FIT and microFIT programs were launched.

“The documents suggest ... that the government’s own experts, those employed to design and implement the province’s energy policies, were advising the government that technologies such as solar power needed to be developed ‘gradually’ to prevent a ‘potential flood’ of renewable-energy contracts from overwhelming the province’s electricity system and sending hydro bills skyrocketing.”

Clearly, the previous government did not listen to their own experts. Instead, they were wilfully blind at the expense of—who else?—the people of Ontario. In summarizing that article, “the lead engineer responsible for designing and implementing a key component of the plan—the FIT and microFIT programs that saw billions of dollars in green-energy contracts awarded to solar and wind companies....”

Continuing its

summary, the

article highlights, “Despite these concerns, the government pushed ahead with its green energy ‘agenda,’ against the better wisdom of its own policy advisers and to the detriment of Ontario electricity customers.”

This example of the Liberal government’s negligence speaks clearly to the choice that voters faced during the last election: a government that is for the people—i.e., our current government—versus a government that is for insiders, i.e., the previous Liberal government. And we all saw how that turned out: seven seats. I think they spoke pretty loud and clear.

One might ask, what about the current opposition? Who do they speak for? The answer, I’m sorry to say, is essentially that the opposition party’s track record speaks for itself. The opposition walked hand in hand with the Liberal government. Amidst the green energy debacle of the previous government’s tenure, including the signing of bad energy contracts and the escalation of hydro prices, PC MPPs were sounding the alarm and standing up against the bad Liberal energy policy. Where were the NDP? Did they stand with us? No.

We saw time and time again over the last several years that the NDP joined forces with the McGuinty-Wynne Liberals to prop up and support their government and their decisions at every turn.

However, thankfully for Ontarians, the Liberal-NDP party with the taxpayers’ money is over. Our Premier promised that help is on the way and we are here today keeping that promise. I’m proud to be in this government and to be speaking on Bill 34 because this government and this legislation puts people first. It doesn’t bend the knee to special interests and it doesn’t further the needs of a few Liberal insiders. Rather, it puts money back into people’s pockets, Ontario ratepayers, and makes Ontario open for business again.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation abolishes the worst elements of the Green Energy Act that hurt Ontario individuals, businesses and families while maintaining provisions that predated the 2009 legislation related to energy efficiency and conservation standards. It is all about giving people the information they need to make decisions to help lower their energy costs. Again, imagine, Mr. Speaker, an energy policy that puts the people of this province first.

This bill will make that a reality. This legislation includes provisions and amendments which ensure energy and water efficiency standards, customer access to energy data, energy and water reporting and benchmarking, and broader public service energy reporting. These common-sense measures we are retaining predate the Green Energy Act.

Let us be clear: The new measures introduced in that 2009 act, the measures that trampled on local communities and drove up hydro rates, are gone. Instead, the proposed legislation makes amendments to the Planning Act and the Environmental Protection Act which enable local communities and lower rates. These include restoring municipal planning authority related to the placement of renewable energy generating facilities and restricting appeals on municipal refusals and non-decisions, and enhancing the government’s authority to make regulations prohibiting the issuance of renewable energy approvals where the need for electricity has not been demonstrated.

All in all, we made a promise to lower the cost of living for hard-working Ontarians by reducing hydro costs.

When it comes to putting more money in the pockets of Ontarians, we’re just getting started. After years of skyrocketing electricity rates, Ontario’s hydro bills will finally start to come down. We have been following through on our commitment to lowering hydro prices by 12% and, in doing so, putting ratepayers and taxpayers first from day one of this government. This includes swift action to remove the previous Hydro One CEO and board and establishing a new leadership team at Hydro One that will consider Ontario’s electricity customers in all of its planning.

We next cancelled 758 wasteful energy contracts that will result in $790 million in savings for Ontario electricity customers—above all, nixing the White Pines Wind Project. The latter is a disastrous example of a previous government that shoved wind and solar farms into the backyards of communities that did not want them. Our government’s new policy direction is working to clean up the Liberal hydro mess while making sure that our electricity system is working for the people and putting more money back into people’s pockets.

We’ve been cleaning up quite a few messes and giving quite a few dollars back to the taxpayers of this province. Our government, so far, on natural gas is saving Ontario families about $80 a year and small businesses roughly $285 a year. Why? Because as of October 1, natural gas bills will no longer include the cap-and-trade carbon tax. Moving forward, we have introduced legislation to expand natural gas, which, if passed, could save the average residential customer in Ontario who switched from electric heat, propane or oil to natural gas between $800 and $2,500 a year. That’s a big number, Mr. Speaker.

Eliminating the cap-and-trade carbon tax will save the average family $260 a year, it has reduced gas prices by four cents or five cents a litre, and it’s the first step toward reducing gas prices by 10 cents per litre.

On top of that, Ontario is freezing the number of driver fees that were set to increase on September 1, 2018. The cancellation of the Drive Clean program will save Ontario taxpayers upwards of $40 million annually.

Also, above and beyond what businesses will save by lower hydro, natural gas, fuel prices and vehicle fees, by eliminating the unfunded liability of the WSIB, we’ll be able to save the average employer roughly 30% on their WSIB premiums, starting this January. This will help employers save money, increase investment and create more jobs, resulting in a $1.45-billion—again, billion, with a “B”—injection into the Ontario economy.

At the same time, this government is making record investments in long-term care and mental health, increased social assistance funding and much-needed funds for life-saving equipment for front-line responders. The Green Energy Repeal Act will finally bring much-needed relief for Ontario individuals, families, small businesses and communities.

Before I touch one final time on how this will do this for the people of Ontario, let’s consider once more all the ways in which the Liberal government’s system was broken. It’s shocking to reflect on the realities of the energy supply in this province. The previous Liberal government spent billions on the expansion of wind and solar energy supply. And today, where does that leave us? In response to that question, Mr.

Speaker, I find one stat particularly telling: the fact that wind and solar represent just 11% of the total generation of Ontario energy but reflect 30% of the global adjustment costs that are borne by electricity consumers. Let that sink in for a minute: 11% of generation but it’s costing us 30% on our hydro bills.

As a former business owner, the global adjustment cost and regulatory cost of my hydro bill when I was running my business in Waterloo made up almost 50% of my hydro bill. You can’t sustain business like that. It’s impossible.

Under the previous government, ratepayers were excessively burdened, with no real return in sight. In fact, to say that the return on investment for ratepayers has been poor is a drastic understatement. In 2017, 26% of electricity generated from wind and solar was curtailed or wasted. That electricity is electricity that Ontarians paid for. We didn’t even use it. Twenty-six per cent: That is more than a quarter of the supply generated that we just literally let go down the tubes. In other words, the energy contracts being signed under the Liberal government were not being signed for the people, so why were they being signed off on? The short answer is insiders and corporate coffers.

Our government, thankfully, is taking a different approach—an approach that begins with listening to the people and one which requires careful and decisive execution on the part of the government. Our mandate includes lowering hydro bills by 12% and allowing for local communities to save on future renewable energy projects.

The key measures enacted in Bill 34 to enable us to fulfill our mandate are simple in concept. To cite perhaps the most simple and important example: providing the government with the ability to renegotiate irrational wind and solar contracts. Yes, it is a simple enough concept, but one also that the previous government would never have thought of or dared to execute.

This is because such a measure, as with all of the rest of the necessary reforms to be undertaken in the repealing of the Green Energy Act, 2009, requires a government that possesses the will to act in the name of the people, and our government does that; a government that is determined to develop policies representing the interest of the majority of Ontarians. In Bill 34, the Green Energy Repeal Act, 2018, I believe that we have accomplished this. We are making our electricity system work for the people once again.

In closing, I’d just like to say that Minister McNaughton captured the spirit of our government’s policy well when he stated: “Well-connected energy insiders made fortunes putting up wind farms and solar panels that gouge hydro consumers in order to generate electricity that Ontario doesn’t need. Today we are proud to say that the party with taxpayers’ money is over.” Promise made, promise kept.

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: It’s always a pleasure to stand in my place and talk on behalf of the good people of Algoma–Manitoulin this morning. I want to say good morning to Laurann Van Volkenburg. Good morning, Laurann. As you can see, my colleague the member from Nickel Belt is right in front of me and she’s waving hi as well. I want to say thank you for your nice words and listening in last week while we were both debating in the House.

Speaker, we’re talking about time allocation once again here this morning. Our two previous speakers that we had in the House—the member from Ottawa Centre had that opportunity to bring some of his issues forward, to talk about how it was going to be affecting him in his particular area of this province, about the engagement that he’s had with his stakeholders, with his community members, with his family, with his neighbours. That’s a good thing.

I listened to the member from Kitchener–Conestoga, and he talked about some of the points that he wanted to raise. I don’t agree with most of them, but he had that opportunity to come in. That’s a good thing, you would think, right? We’re having a discussion. We’re talking about issues. We’re hearing the other side and the other views. Well, guess what? Here we are, once again, another bill is in this House on time allocation and that opportunity, that privilege for each and every one of the members in this House is going to be taken away, because everything has to rush, everything has to get through.

My friend the Minister of Transportation used to refer to it as the guillotine. He would just drop that hammer in the House and say, “How dare you do that? You’re taking away our democratic right.” And that’s true, because I’ve got a lot of things that I would like to discuss, but unfortunately, I won’t be able to because the time that we have on this is very short.

I would have liked to have had the opportunity to raise the issues that I have in my riding across some of the engagement as a critic for northern development and mines, and how this bill will negatively impact individuals, businesses, small mom-and-pop shops, neighbours, corporations, employees. We won’t have that because now we’re stuck talking about time allocation on this particular bill.

The member brought up a couple of good points, and we’re going to agree on one thing: The green act, the implementation of it, the ideas—I will always stand in my place and say, “Do we need green initiatives? Yes, we do.”

The idea of bringing in new ways of generating power, greener ways to getting away from our dependency on fossil fuels, is a good initiative. We have to do this. The rest of the world is doing it. We have to move towards it. How the Liberal government brought it in was wrong. How they provided those opportunities to the private sector—which I hear this government saying it, but would they have done it in a different way? Would they have done the same thing? I don’t know.

You look at some of the decisions that this government has done in regard to the green energy repeal and—let’s just look at what they’ve done. They’ve ripped up all these contracts. They have eliminated all these contracts that are there. They’re saying that’s going to save dollars for taxpayers. Well, I’m going to wait to see that because, at the end of the day, those contracts are going to be challenged, and that’s not going to come free. That’s going to be a cost.

It begs to ask the question—this government, at one time, made a decision to sell off the 407. That was under a different government, a different leadership. But I look at this government, and what is going to be your 407? What is going to be your 407? That’s something you guys are going to have to think about, really, and make that decision in regard to when you’re going to be faced with making that decision and justifying it within your own means.

Now the other thing that I just want to talk about is, again, when we look at other energy sources, green energy sources, I wanted to have the opportunity to talk about the Thunder Bay Generating Station, one that was removed from coal and that went to biomass. Great idea, right? Well, no, there’s a time limit that is going to be put on this biomass facility up in Thunder Bay. Where is one of the biggest sectors that we have the potential to grow through the mining sector and opportunities? The development—oh, my God—of the Ring of Fire, possibly, is in western northern Ontario. And we are shutting down these plants.

For NOMA and even AMO, it was one of the areas where these communities got together, came to the discussion and said, “Hey, when that east-west transmission line comes in, we’re ready to go. Let’s make the investments. We need that power. If we’re going to grow in these sectors in these areas, we’re ready to go.”

There’s another company that is up there. It’s called BioPower. They’re in Atikokan. They’re providing 40% of their product to OPG; 20% of it is going to domestic markets and 40% of their product is also going to other markets. Great initiatives. We’re using our fibers. We’re using the winds that are there. Green initiatives—good stuff, right? Well, no, because if we shut down that plant, the OPG plant that is up in Thunder Bay, it’s going to make it very difficult for BioPower, to make it sustainable for them to continue.

Again, when we look at some of the decisions that this government is making, when they say, “This is part of our policy. This is what we’re doing. What the Liberals brought in is bad, bad, bad, bad”—wait a second. There is a white elephant here in the room which you have adopted as your own policy, and that’s the Fair Hydro Plan. You’ve adopted that. That’s the worst thing that you guys could have done, but you have adopted that. I don’t hear you talking about that one too much. You talk a lot about reducing prices. I hear the slogan “for the people.” Well, wait a second.

I look at these pages who are here at the front, and I often look at who is here in our galleries. Let’s start making decisions for our children. Let’s start making decisions for our future.

If you want plans, we have plans. You’re always suggesting that we’re negative and we’re fearmongering. Well, here are a couple of good ideas. If you want to eliminate something on energy prices, look at the time of use. Start reducing and removing it. It doesn’t help, it doesn’t do anything, and it’s certainly going to help individuals, as far as determining what they want to do. Equalize the delivery charges across this province. I don’t know; those are ideas. You’re not listening to them, so I’m going to keep telling them. I’m just going to keep bringing them up.

But the biggest boondoggle that you guys have done is accepted and made it part of your DNA, as the sitting government, by adopting what we all know now, what we all knew then, which the Auditor General in this House brought forward a long time ago, and the Minister of Finance—it baffles my mind that he sits there and he goes, “Oh, my God. Look at what happened here.” Everybody knew it was going on.

Wake up, you guys. It’s time that we get to work and start doing the things that we really need to do—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Thank you.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): The time being such as it is, we are now going to recess until question period at 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: I’d like to welcome my aunt Ivana Pivnicki and cousin Katie Carson to the Legislature for the first time.

Miss Monique Taylor: It gives me great pleasure to welcome one of my great friends, Attila Lorinc, to the House today. With him are some guests visiting from Budapest. We have his cousin Reka Lorincz and her husband, Balazs Jalcek. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Donna Skelly: I would like to introduce one of my assistants from my constituency of Flamborough–Glanbrook, Ryan Puviraj.

Ms. Jill Andrew: I would like to introduce and welcome Mr. Nick DeSanctis and the fabulous students from De La Salle College.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s my pleasure to introduce to the Legislature this morning Mr. Jim Hogan. Jim is the president and CEO of Entegrus energy, which represents not only Chatham-Kent and St. Thomas but Strathroy as well. Welcome, Jim.

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Good morning, everyone. It’s my pleasure to welcome, from Nishnawbe Aski Nation, Deputy Grand Chief Derek Fox, Theresa Ruth, and also Jocelyn Cheechoo.

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: It’s an honour for me this morning to rise and welcome the consul general of Hungary, Dr. Valér Palkovits; the deputy minister to the Prime Minister of Hungary, Mr. Balász Orbán; and the president of the Canadian Hungarian Heritage Council, Mr. Sandor Balla.

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: I want to introduce you to my new legislative assistant, Mauricio Suchowlansky. Welcome to our team, and welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. David Piccini: I’d like to welcome several important stakeholders to the gallery today: Terrance Oakey, Walter Pamic, Phil Besseling, Tim Henhoeffer, Gordon Sproule, Michael Gallardo, Lynda Murphy, Krisha Rushewicz, Patrick McManus, Giovanni Cautillo, Rick Martins, Pierre Dufresne, Bob Schickedanz, Chuck McShane, Suzanne Mammel, Joe Vaccaro, Stephen Hamilton, Frank Notte, Susan Gubasta, Sean Reid and John Meinen. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m absolutely pleased to share a welcome for two amazing teachers from the riding of Huron–Bruce who are participating in the teachers’ forum here this week: Tracy McLennan and Laura Cressman.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I have the great privilege of introducing today in the Legislature a constituent from my riding of Niagara West, Phil Besseling, as well as a former candidate of ours from Niagara Falls, Chuck McShane. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to introduce John Meinen, who is here from Stratford today. He’s one of my constituents. It’s good to see you, John.

M me France Gélinas: I don’t see them yet, but there are members from the Trudell Medical group, along with ProResp, who are here today. They invite everybody to join them in 228 for lunch from noon till 2 p.m.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Are there any more members who wish to introduce guests?

As Speaker, I’d like to call attention to the fact that we have a delegation from the Parliament of Ghana with us today: their business committee. Welcome to the Ontario Legislature. We’re delighted to have you here.

It is now time for oral questions.

Oral Questions

Employment standards

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Just quickly before I start, I want to congratulate everyone who participated in the municipal elections across the province yesterday, and to congratulate those who were victorious and thank those who put their names forward.

My question is to the Deputy Premier: Later today, the Minister of Labour will be making an announcement with the Minister of Economic Development, and we know that this government has been holding backroom meetings concerning Ontario’s Employment Standards Act and their plans to take away some basic job benefits from everyday people. Can the Deputy Premier tell us what this government plans to take away?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Government House leader.

Hon. Todd Smith: I, too, would like to congratulate everyone that participated in the municipal elections across the province last night. It’s very humbling when you win an election, and everybody who puts their name on a ballot should be given credit for doing that and putting their name out there. Congratulations to everyone.

Mr. Speaker, to the member opposite: The people of Ontario gave us a very, very strong mandate on June 7 to make some difference in the province of Ontario, to make sure that we opened Ontario up for business. I can tell you that the Minister of Economic Development, the Minister of Labour and the other ministers who are making that announcement today have done province-wide consultations, meeting with employers, employees and other stakeholders, to ensure that we get this right.

The NDP can defend the status quo, which was driving jobs out of Ontario. I can tell you that Premier Ford and the Ontario PC government will be bringing good-paying jobs back to Ontario.

Interjections.

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

Restart the clock. Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, currently in Ontario, a woman fleeing domestic violence is able to take a few days off of work to help organize her life and support her children without fear of losing her job. The Premier indicated that he’s opposed to that. Will we hear a commitment to protect women hoping to take time away from work after fleeing domestic violence, or is that right a right that this government plans to take away from women fleeing domestic violence?

Hon. Todd Smith: The member opposite is completely wrong in making those assertions. As a matter of fact, the Premier of Ontario is standing up for women across the province. He’s standing up for everyday people in Ontario.

Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, what you’re going to hear today from those ministers is the key to unlocking Ontario’s economic potential. There was a time not so long ago, before the Liberal era of darkness, that Ontario was the economic engine of Canada. We are committed to putting that big sign up at the border saying, “Ontario is open for business.” Today’s announcement by those ministers is going to be the first step in ensuring that Ontario regains its proper place as the engine of Canada’s economy.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Currently in Ontario, a working person can actually take a sick day off without fear of losing their job. The Premier has indicated that he’s opposed to that. Is that a right that the government plans to take away?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Government House leader.

Hon. Todd Smith: Speaker, the member of the official opposition, the leader of the official opposition, continues day after day after day to make false assertions and make it up as she goes along. I can tell you—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to ask the member to withdraw.

Hon. Todd Smith: Happy to withdraw. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The disastrous Liberal policies of the past are being defended by the member opposite. We will not defend those disastrous Liberal policies that have driven good-paying jobs, jobs that had benefits, out of the province. We were given a strong mandate by the people of Ontario on June 7 and it’s our commitment to put Ontario back on track to create good-paying jobs with benefits in the province of Ontario. That’s what we’re going to go do, Mr. Speaker.

Employment standards

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Deputy Premier. But I have to say, I will absolutely stand in this place and defend workers’ rights to earn a decent living, have a decent pay and a right to time off every chance I get, Speaker.

In January, the minimum wage was scheduled to rise by $1 an hour. The Premier has indicated that he’s opposed to that, even though he has no problem handing a $75,000 pay increase to one of his friends. Is the government planning to freeze the pay of workers earning minimum wage, Speaker?

Hon. Christine Elliott: To the Government House leader.

Hon. Todd Smith: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that on June 7, the people of Ontario spoke loud and clear. They handed over the keys to the Premier’s office to Doug Ford to bring in big changes to Ontario’s workplace and our employment.

Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? We are committed to making Ontario open for business, and the NDP continue to defend the harmful policies of the Liberals that drove jobs out of Ontario. In the month after Bill 148 became law, we saw 60,000 jobs leave the province. The only jobs that were being created in Ontario after Bill 148 were part-time jobs. That’s what the NDP are defending here today.

We are going to defend workers. We are going to ensure that they have good-paying jobs with good benefits, better jobs than the part-time jobs that the NDP and the Liberals are standing up for, Mr. Speaker. We’re going to open Ontario for business.

Interjections.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, in August, two months after this government got elected, 80,000 jobs were lost in the province of Ontario.

Working women and men are worried that they’re about to lose their rights on the job: an increase in the minimum wage, the ability to actually take a vacation, and the right to take time off work to help their kids after leaving a situation of domestic violence. The Premier said he planned to take those rights away. Can the Acting Premier explain why working women and men don’t deserve those kinds of rights in a province like Ontario in the year 2018?

Hon. Todd Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the leader of the official opposition for making our points for us this morning. In the month after we became the government of Ontario, 80,000 jobs were lost. Do you know why? It was because of the harmful, disastrous policies of the Liberal government that you supported 97% of the time. You should be ashamed of yourself. Those lost jobs are on your backs, not ours.

We’re going to fix that problem, Mr. Speaker. I can tell that you what the ministers will be announcing today is going to go a long way to ensuring that we get Ontario back on track to make it the economic engine of Canada once again. After consultations from every corner of the province by our Minister of Economic Development and his parliamentary assistants, we’ve had great feedback from employers, employees, stakeholders and working families. We need to get Ontario back on track. We want you to support us.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s becoming more clear whose side this government is on. The worker on minimum wage doesn’t deserve—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The government benches have to come to order. I have to be able to hear the Leader of the Opposition.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The worker on minimum wage in the province of Ontario doesn’t deserve a $1 an hour raise but the Premier’s friends deserve patronage posts with six-figure salaries and $75,000 raises, Speaker.

The protections the Premier is planning to scrap are not luxuries. They are basic necessities that provide people with a dignified, decent quality of life as workers in this province. In fact, they are basic dignities that every working person should have a right to expect.

Does the Deputy Premier truly believe that women who take time away from work to look after their kids after fleeing domestic violence should have to worry about losing their job?

Hon. Todd Smith: Mr. Speaker, I wish the leader of the official opposition would at least wait until the announcement is made later today before she fearmongers, because I can tell you that she is so far off-base. But that’s the character of what we’ve seen so far from the leader of the official opposition.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to ask the member to withdraw.

Hon. Todd Smith: Withdraw.

Speaker, after consultations with employers and employees and all kinds of stakeholders in the agriculture and small business sectors, we’re standing up for the people of Ontario. We are here for the people. The people sent us here to ensure that we get Ontario back on track. People deserve good-paying jobs. All we’ve seen created over the last number of months are part-time jobs, thanks to you enabling the Liberal government for the last 15 years.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. I’m going to remind the members that the debate need not be personal. Make your comments through the Chair.

Interjections.

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

Next question?

Health care funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Minister of Health. Families who have been forced to watch loved ones suffer in hospital hallways while waiting for treatment or who have to scrape their savings together to pay for take-home cancer medication know that every cut to health care makes their lives a little bit harder. But since the election, the Minister of Health has already begun to warn hospitals that they will have to prepare for even more cuts.

People gathered on the lawn at Queen’s Park today have a simple question for the Minister of Health: How does the minister think that cutting health care funding will actually clear crowded hospital hallways?

Hon. Christine Elliott: First of all, I have to say to the leader of the official opposition I disagree with your basic premise. What we’re trying to do is augment health care. We got elected to end hallway health care. That is what we’re working on.

That’s why we made the announcement two weeks ago that we’re putting $90 million more into creating 1,100 new spaces to get us through flu season while we create a health capacity plan, why we’ve created 6,000 long-term-care-bed spaces to try and alleviate the stress that hospitals are feeling because they have people in the hospitals, alternate level of care patients, who don’t have anywhere else to go. We’ve got to work with hospitals and we have to work with long-term-care owners and facilitators to make sure that we can clear that.

We also made an announcement yesterday about consumption and treatment services. We want to make sure that people who have addiction problems are going to be able to get the help they need. That is what we are doing. We are building on our health care system.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: On this side of the House, we believe the people of Ontario should own their health care system, Speaker, not private interests. Look, the minister is correct. They shorted Ontario hospitals by $10 million less than what the Liberals invested in flu surge funding. We know that’s the case.

Families want to know, though, that when a loved one needs to visit the hospital, they won’t be stuck in a hallway, that their parents can find that long-term-care bed that they need and that they can afford the drugs they need when they’re ill. Instead, the Premier is promising $6 billion in cuts, and speaking warmly about the role that the private sector can play in our health care system where everyday people won’t be able to afford to pay their way to the front of the line, although Conservative friends will make a lot of profits off of that and their friends will be able to afford to pay their way.

Will the minister reject those failed schemes of privatization and cuts, and commit to investing in a stronger public health care system for our province?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Once again, I vigorously disagree with the premise of the question. We are building on our health care system. We are working to end hallway medicine. We’ve already taken steps in that direction. We are committing $3.8 billion in order to create a comprehensive and connected mental health and addictions system. We were elected by the people for the people. We want to make sure that the people of Ontario have great-quality health care services across the entire—

Interjections.

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

I’m reluctant to interrupt a member who has the floor, but once the standing ovation starts and the member still has the floor and is still speaking, I cannot hear. That’s why I stood up to interrupt her, just so you know.

Start the clock. Next question.

Taxation

Mrs. Nina Tangri: My question is for the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. The federal government has made it clear that they intend to impose an unwanted, unnecessary and unaffordable carbon tax on the people of Ontario. This intention shows that they have a complete disregard for what impact this carbon tax will have on the hard-working people of Ontario. When speaking with my constituents, it is clear that they are fearful of what this tax will mean to them and their families.

Can the minister explain to the people of Ontario what our government is doing to make their lives more affordable?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member from Mississauga–Streetsville: Thank you for that question. Of course, we await the Prime Minister’s announcement later today. But the member is quite correct. The Financial Accountability Officer, last week, answered the question—$648 per family by 2022. That’s the cost of Justin Trudeau’s tax. This is a cost that Ontario families simply cannot afford to pay. And it’s a cost that our government was elected—unlike the opposition—to ensure didn’t happen.

One of the first things that we did was bring forward Bill 4. That bill has now made its way through committee. That bill will get rid of the previous government’s cap-and-trade program. That will put $260 in the pockets of Ontarians. We’ve already seen a reduction in gas prices. That is the beginning of what will eventually be a 10-cent reduction in gas prices. But this government is—

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

Mrs. Nina Tangri: I thank the minister for his answer and, more importantly, the hard work he and his team are putting toward making life more affordable in Ontario.

I know my constituents are very pleased to finally have a government that is working for them and not simply acting in favour of their own agenda. However, the federal government threatens to impose a job-killing carbon tax in Ontario should we not present a plan that they believe meets their own objective. This threat makes the people of my riding wonder what’s in store for them. They are concerned that the fight we’ve had to rid this province of the cap-and-trade carbon tax was all for nothing.

If the Trudeau carbon tax is imposed on our province, can the minister explain what the implications will be?

Hon. Rod Phillips: We wait to hear the Prime Minister’s comments later today. But what seems to be clear is that, regardless of a plan—we have six provinces, with NDP governments, Liberal governments and Conservative governments. We have provinces that have had plans for a long time and our own plan coming forward. But regardless of a plan, this seems to be a government that is intent on putting a cost on Ontario families and Canadian families—$648 a year by 2022. That’s the equivalent of four hydro bills. Ontarians can’t afford that.

That’s why this government will do everything in its power, along with other governments, to fight the Trudeau carbon tax, to make sure that we don’t go back to the regressive, job-killing approach of the previous government.

Minimum wage

Ms. Rima Berns-McGown: My question is for the Acting Premier. For 13 years under the previous government, the minimum wage was stuck. But the minimum wage had been stagnant since the previous Conservative government froze it in 1995, creating generations of working poor in this province. Increasing the minimum wage is not only the right thing to do but has proven good for the economy.

Why is this government ignoring the mountain of evidence that increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour puts money in the pockets of those who need it most, who in turn can afford to buy goods and services, which then feeds our economy?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Government House leader.

Hon. Todd Smith: To the member opposite: There clearly is not a mountain of evidence. Actually, the mountain of evidence shows that we’re losing jobs because of the increase. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business said it was too much, too fast. That’s why we’re going to put a pause on an increase to the minimum wage.

I have quotes from all the members opposite here―not all of them, but a number of the members opposite who agreed. They said the same thing in this House, that if you are going to increase the minimum wage, it should be done gradually. It should be predictable. It should be sustainable so that we don’t break the backs of small business and cost people their jobs, which is what we’ve seen over the last year that Bill 148 has been in place. I can quote a number of the members over there, but what we’ve seen are lost jobs and lost hours as a result of the increase.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Rima Berns-McGown: Minimum wage workers don’t need a job; they have a job. In fact, as members of this House have heard over and over again, they often have two or even three jobs, and they require those multiple jobs in order to survive.

Instead of $2,000 more in the pockets of low-income workers through the minimum wage increase, the Premier promises less in a tax break that most minimum wage workers won’t even qualify for. Why does this government insist on taking this province backwards? Why does this government not think that 1.7 million workers deserve a raise?

Hon. Todd Smith: Again to the member opposite: What we want to create in Ontario is an Ontario that creates good-paying jobs. What we’ve seen under the Liberals, supported by the NDP, is a huge increase in part-time jobs. The member opposite says that people are working one, two and three part-time jobs at minimum wage. We want those people to have one good job with good pay and good benefits.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that our government, in the 120 days that we’ve been government, has started to create the environment for real, positive, good-paying jobs. We’ve ended the cap-and-trade scheme. We’ve lowered electricity rates. Today, we’re going to be creating an environment to bring good-paying manufacturing jobs back to Ontario, where they belong.

Taxation

Ms. Natalia Kusendova: Mr. Speaker, good morning. My question is for the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. The Liberal cap-and-trade carbon tax has hurt Ontario families and made life unaffordable. The people of Ontario need a government that listens to their concerns. Ontarians look forward to a time when they no longer have to worry about how long they can make their gas tanks last or if they’ll be able to put food on the table.

The minister introduced legislation to remove this crippling cap-and-trade carbon tax. Can the minister update all taxpayers on how they will benefit from the elimination of Ontario’s crippling cap-and-trade carbon tax?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Thank you to the member from Mississauga Centre for her question. Our government was elected on a commitment to make life more affordable for Ontario families. An important part of that commitment was eliminating the regressive, job-killing cap-and-trade carbon tax of the Liberal government. As the member notes, we have made another step through that process, through the committee process, to seeing the passing of Bill 4, which will eliminate that tax. We have already seen, however, a 4.6-cent reduction in the price of gasoline and a 5.7-cent reduction in the price of diesel fuel.

This is just the beginning of putting more money in people’s pockets, making sure that Ontarians get the benefits of what they earn, and making sure that this kind of tax doesn’t impose on Ontario families.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Natalia Kusendova: I thank the minister for the answer. The people of this province have been held back for too long and deserve to have money put back into their pockets. With the continuous commentary from the federal government admitting that their carbon tax could lead to job losses, residents of my riding have raised their concerns about the unclear direction of the federal government’s position on their own tax. They are unsettled by the possibility that the province rids itself of the carbon tax to simply have another one forced upon them.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister assure us that actions are in place to do everything that can be done to avoid yet another regressive and job-killing tax to be imposed on hard-working Ontario families?

Hon. Rod Phillips: I thank the member for her question. Again, we were elected not just to get rid of the cap-and-trade program, but there was another commitment from our Premier. It was a commitment to use all the tools at our disposal to fight the imposition of Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax.

Now we wait to hear the Prime Minister’s announcement. But Mr. Speaker, we know that a majority of provinces oppose the federal plan. We’ve been asking since August to work with the federal government to have a conversation, to talk about a plan, to talk about a way of hitting the targets they want to hit, but to work together and not impose a job-killing tax. What have we heard? We’ve heard crickets.

So we’ll wait to hear what the Prime Minister says this morning, but be assured that this province will use all the tools at its disposal to stand up against the federal government imposing an unconstitutional, job-killing, regressive carbon tax.

Taxation

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. Later today, the Prime Minister will be unveiling the federal plan to impose a new carbon price in Ontario. The Conservative government’s actions on climate so far will increase the deficit by $3 billion. It seems like the net result will be families paying more, no plan to combat climate change and handing control to the government in Ottawa.

Is this the government’s idea of success?

Hon. Rod Phillips: I thank the member from Danforth for his question. Clearly, the opposition understands policy the same way that the Prime Minister understands it. They think it’s good to take money out of the pockets of families. When we talk about $3 billion less out of the pockets of families, that’s what we’re about. We’re about putting money back into people’s pockets. We are about trying to make sure that they can afford the things that they want in their life while we put forward a constructive and balanced climate plan.

If the opposition wants to line up with Justin Trudeau and take as much money as they can get away with to pay for their programs and big government, we’re happy to let them do it. Doug Ford and this government will be fighting for families and fighting climate change.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Members take their seats.

Restart the clock. Supplementary.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Back to the minister—an interesting minister, who supports the expansion of the deficit, but let’s set that aside for the moment.

Premier Ford has become an expert at losing lawsuits—an expert—and the people of Ontario are stuck paying the price, $30 million in this case. He’s increasing the deficit by $3 billion not to have a climate plan. While Ontario families will be paying the same or even more, it’s Ottawa that will now be in control of how that money is spent.

Does the minister believe that he is effectively standing up for Ontario?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Coming from a party that supported the previous government, that has created the tragic financial situation of a $15-billion deficit—it is really hard to take financial advice from a party that has a $7-million hole in their platform.

But Mr. Speaker, we’ll stand in this House all day and talk about putting money back into families’ pockets. That’s because we’re confident that the plan that we will bring forward, a plan that will balance the economy and the environment, will reduce greenhouse gases and will prepare Ontario for climate change, but will not punish Ontario families the way the NDP and the member opposite want to.

Employment standards

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Deputy Premier, is $15 an hour—barely a living wage for the people of Toronto and the people in my riding of Scarborough–Guildwood—too much to ask? Are two paid leave days, if you or your child is sick, too much to ask? Is counting on compensation when your shift is cancelled too much to ask? Is equal pay for equal work too much to ask?

What is your explanation to women who are fleeing violence or domestic abuse, who may use these protections to better their situation and to protect themselves and their children? If you had two paid sick days a year and the government was taking them away, how would you feel?

Hon. Christine Elliott: To the government House leader.

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks to the member opposite for the question this morning. What I would advise the member opposite to do is to wait until we announce our changes.

I know that the Premier, the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities have been working for the last four months to put together a comprehensive plan on how we can right the wrongs that were created by the member opposite and the Liberal government over the last 15 years: wrongs that have cost Ontario 300,000 manufacturing jobs, wrongs that have cost people on minimum wage hours at their jobs, wrongs that have actually cost people on minimum wage their jobs entirely.

What we are going to be unveiling today is a plan on how we can open Ontario for business so that everyone in Ontario can thrive and so that we can bring back a future for our kids and our grandkids.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Supplementary.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: Mr. Speaker, our kids and our grandkids need a government that takes their job seriously and grows Ontario’s economy, not takes it backwards. I want the member opposite to know that since 2003, Ontario’s economy has grown by $338 billion. This economy that you have inherited is a robust economy. In fact, this economy has regained all the jobs that were lost since the Great Recession—almost 800,000 jobs, in fact.

But what exactly are you repealing today? We know a person’s income is a key determinant of health. It’s one of the social determinants of health. Your government is cutting: cutting social assistance rates, cancelling basic income, cutting wages and slashing employment protections that workers need. These people need government to provide—

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

Government House leader?

Hon. Todd Smith: Oh, boy. Speaker, to the member opposite: She seems to think that everything is just fine in Ontario, but I can tell you that the people of Ontario strongly disagreed with that member and the policies of the government that she represented for the past 15 years in this province, a government that drove 300,000 manufacturing jobs out of the province, a Liberal government that gave up on manufacturing.

We believe that we can bring those jobs back to Ontario. We believe that we can create the environment again for good-paying jobs in Ontario, where people don’t have to go from job to job on minimum wage, where people can support their families with a real living wage, a living wage that includes benefits, that eliminates the debt and the deficit that this member and that government created over the last 15 years. We can do better. We’re going to unlock Ontario’s potential.

Taxation

Mr. Kaleed Rasheed: My question is for the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. Every day, members of the opposition rise in this House with concerns on how the people of Ontario will provide for their families. We have heard countless arguments from all parties that lead to the same conclusion: The people of Ontario need life to be more affordable. Our government believes that the people of Ontario deserve to have an affordable province to live in. They should not have to worry about ineffective taxes and rising costs. They should not have to worry about jobs being pushed out of this province because business is cheaper elsewhere.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister share with us what steps have been taken to make life more affordable for the people of Ontario?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Thank you to the member from Mississauga East–Cooksville for that question. To be fair, all of the parties in this Legislature advocated for affordability, but unlike the opposition, our party is taking real action to put money into family pockets. We know what life in Ontario looks like under a carbon tax or under cap-and-trade. It’s about families with less money. The Auditor General spoke about the regressive nature of this tax, that low- and middle-income families get hit the most because, of course, they spend the highest percentage of their income on energy and heating.

We know that businesses have been leaving this province in part because of high energy costs and cap-and-trade, and a carbon tax will just put them further.

Our government remains committed to making sure that this is a good place to have a business, this is a good place to raise a family, that we put more money in families’ pockets and that we support our job creators. We do that by standing in opposition to cap-and-trade, and we do that by standing in opposition to Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Kaleed Rasheed: I thank the minister for the answer. In our efforts, we have one clear goal in mind: Under the leadership of our Premier, we intend to make life in Ontario more affordable.

The concern of affordability is not the only issue we hear in this House. In numerous instances, we have also heard concern about how our province is being impacted by climate change. The threat is real. This province faces the true possibility of the effects of climate change. Increased forest fires and storms that cause floods and loss of power are just some examples.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister share us with his plans to address these concerns and improve our environment for future generations?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Thank you to the member for the question. Climate change, as I’ve said and as the Premier says, does represent a serious threat. It’s a threat to our way of life. It is a threat to our land, our water and our locally grown food, and let me be clear: The government is very committed to fighting it.

We are currently getting information, getting consultations. I’d encourage anyone who is interested to go to www.ontario.ca/climatechange to provide us with that feedback. We need a plan for climate change that will both prepare Ontarians and make sure that we reduce greenhouse gases, but we need one that doesn’t punish Ontario families. We need a plan that is sensible and that Ontarians can buy into, not like the previous cap-and-trade program, not like Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax, but a balanced plan that balances our economy and our environment, and is good for Ontario, good for its environment and good for Ontario families.

Hospital funding

Mr. Jeff Burch: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. I recently met with staff in the Hotel Dieu Shaver, a health and rehabilitation centre in my riding. For over a decade they’ve been fighting for a planning grant to expand the facility with 65 additional beds. Hotel Dieu Shaver was successful when the province announced a $500,000 planning grant this past May. The Hotel Dieu Shaver has been in the dark on the status of this grant since the new government took office, and they need to know whether or not they can expect the money so they can begin planning for years to come.

Can the minister provide the people of Niagara with an update as to the status of the Hotel Dieu Shaver planning grant?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you very much for the question. As I’m sure the member can appreciate, there was a period of time before the election and shortly after the election when things were frozen. Nothing was able to happen. We are working right now with people on the capital side within the Ministry of Health. I’ve received a number of inquiries from a number of members. We are working very hard on getting that information to people so that they can continue with their planning and continue with their operations.

I’ll be able to speak to you more specifically about the hospital within your riding, but I can assure all members that we are working on that with expediency as much as possible to get people the answers that they need.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Burch: Rehabilitation services like those offered at the Shaver are the solution to many problems that plague our health care system. Rehabilitation can optimize a patient’s ability to live independently at home, keep patients out of long-term care, reduce their lengths of stay in our hospitals and increase the quality of life for patients. Expanding investment into rehabilitation centres like the Shaver provides a multi-faceted policy solution that fits into this government’s stated goals and objectives.

So will the minister review this file and complete the final steps in order to ensure that health care and patient needs are prioritized in Niagara by following through with this much-needed grant?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I can certainly assure you that I will be looking into this situation, and I do agree with you that rehabilitation services form an essential part of recovery for many people in Ontario. Occupational therapy, speech therapy, physiotherapy—all of these services are essential, but, of course, there’s only so much one can do with the situation that we inherited, quite frankly, where very little was done over 15 years and we’ve got a bit of a difficult situation with hallway health care, with no real action on mental health and addictions, with no real action on rehabilitation services.

So there’s a lot of work to be done, but absolutely, yes, I will look into your situation with respect to the Shaver and get back to you.

Fiscal accountability

Ms. Lindsey Park: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Our Minister of Health just talked about the situation we inherited. Yesterday, the Select Committee on Financial Transparency heard from the three commissioners of the Independent Financial Commission of Inquiry. It was sobering to hear them review the findings of their report. They expressed shock, they expressed frustration and they expressed concern for the future of our province. As we continue to learn more about the previous Liberal government’s practices, it’s clear that accountability and trust were nowhere to be seen.

Could the minister please inform the House and my constituents in Durham of some of the key aspects of the commissioners’ testimony yesterday?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Thank you to the member from Durham for the question. We thank Gordon Campbell, Dr. Al Rosen and Michael Horgan for their important work preparing the commission’s report. They worked tirelessly to provide the people of Ontario a true accounting of the government’s books, and what they found has concerned us all. The $15-billion deficit that was stashed off the government’s books puts our future in jeopardy. Former BC Premier Campbell put it best yesterday when he said, “You can’t build a future off of deficits.”

As the Select Committee on Financial Transparency continues to learn the extent of the Liberal waste and scandal, one message is clear: We need to take action. Restoring accountability and trust through the select committee is exactly the right place to start.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Lindsey Park: It’s alarming to hear the evidence that the Liberals improperly mortgaged the future of our children and our grandchildren—and there’s more. The select committee has heard how the Liberals shut out the Auditor General, how they ignored the warnings of senior public servants and how they took steps to compromise the future prosperity of our province. And what do Ontarians have to show for it? Well, a massive deficit and skyrocketing debt. What a reward.

Could the minister please shed some light on what exactly the Liberals accomplished by trading the future of our province in exchange for short-term political gain?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: What the Liberals accomplished is trading away our future. Yesterday, the committee heard, “We’re in a worse situation now than we were in 2008.” Speaker, the Liberals have left us a worse financial footing than we had during the last recession. For 15 years, the Liberals’ tax-and-spend policies dug us into a financial hole. Former BC Premier Campbell gave the committee some advice yesterday. He said, “You can’t get out of the hole until you stop digging.” Referring to the Liberals, he said, “They used a backhoe in 2017.”

Well, Speaker, it’s time to stop digging. It’s time to clean up this mess. It’s time to restore accountability and trust and put Ontario back on track as the economic engine of Canada.

Assistive devices

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. The Assistive Devices Program helps people with long-term physical disabilities pay for customized equipment like wheelchairs. To access the program, the client must have an evaluation done by either an occupational therapist or a physiotherapist. Typically, right after the evaluation the device provider orders equipment, and as soon as it arrives provides it to the client.

Typically, the turnaround with the Ministry of Health is six weeks before the provider of the equipment gets the funds. Currently, it’s six months. A lot of the providers who are providing this equipment are at risk of going out of business. Instead of being open for business, in this case you’re actually closing the businesses that provide essential services to our people. What is the purpose of the lag, Minister?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you very much for the question. I am certainly aware of the issue. Of course, we want to make sure that the appropriate analysis is done to make sure that the equipment is required. If there is a longer period than what is usual, then it’s something that we are looking into and we’re going to try to reduce that time lag both for the person who needs the service as well as the person who is providing it to make sure they get paid for it.

There is work to be done. It is something that we’re aware of in the ministry, and we’re trying to lessen that time lag.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. John Vanthof: I’d like to thank the minister for that answer. But one of the store owners in my riding got this response from the minister when he asked a question—they are saying it’s the store owner’s fault because they are pre-supplying, so they should just wait for approval. And the service management in this program says, “It doesn’t make financial sense to pre-supply chairs and equipment. What if a client gets a new wheelchair from a supplier right away, and then in four weeks the client dies?”

My mother is in a wheelchair and I can pay for it, but there are millions of people or thousands of people in this province who can’t. So do you agree with that statement? “Who cares as long as the client doesn’t die in four weeks?” They need those chairs right away. The ministry used to be able to do it in six weeks. Why can’t the government for the people do it in six weeks? Why does it take six months?

Hon. Christine Elliott: As I indicated in an earlier answer, we got elected by the people for the people, so patient safety and patient needs are of utmost concern to us. We want to make sure that people are going to get the drugs that they need, the treatment they need and the equipment they need in a timely manner. That applies to whatever stage they are in their life. They deserve and expect to have that treatment, and we are going to deliver it to them.

Can we delay the time lag? Yes. Will people get the equipment, though? Absolutely yes, they will.

Public safety

Ms. Donna Skelly: My question today is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Residents in my riding of Flamborough–Glanbrook continue to raise concerns regarding the province’s ability to keep our communities and streets safe while convicted terrorists are waiting in foreign prisons to return to this province. The Trudeau government has failed to act.

The safety of the public is and has always been one of our government’s top priorities. Ontarians who choose to participate in acts of violence against their country and their province do not deserve to return and be welcomed with open arms.

Minister, could you please update the members of this Legislature on what our government for the people is doing to ensure that convicted terrorists are punished for their reprehensible crimes?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: I want to thank the member from Flamborough–Glanbrook for that question. I also want to wish her a happy birthday today.

I want, again, to thank and commend the member from Peterborough–Kawartha for his action and dedication to this file and for having taken the necessary steps to ensure that the Terrorist Activities Sanctions Act could be brought before the Legislature yesterday afternoon.

Those who have chosen to leave this great province to take up arms with terrorist organizations and commit barbaric acts of violence against our men and women in uniform—civilians and our allies need to know that we will not be welcoming them with open arms. The men and women of our armed forces and the great people of this province deserve to know that our government is listening and taking action.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Donna Skelly: Back to the minister: The people of this province need to know that our government is listening and is working hard to enhance and restore public safety.

The federal government is sitting on their hands while terrorists sit in foreign jails waiting to return to our province. The Trudeau government has failed to act and has failed to take this issue with the urgency it requires.

We have had numerous people approach our government wanting to know whether a convicted terrorist can walk freely in our communities without any real consequences.

To the minister: Could you please explain to the members of this Legislature the message our government for the people is sending to those terrorists who wish to return to Ontario?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: The Trudeau government has had numerous chances to address this issue but has continuously failed to do so. That’s why our government for the people is taking the necessary steps to address this issue and ensure that convicted terrorists understand that we are not going to welcome them back to this province with open arms.

These convicted terrorists need to be charged for their barbaric acts upon their return to this province. No matter where in the world the act was committed, that is not what Canada, that is not what this province is all about. Once convicted, these terrorists do not deserve access to the privileges the great people of this province are entitled to.

Since Justin Trudeau doesn’t seem to take this issue seriously, our government is taking real action to send a message that there are serious consequences for having committed indefensible—

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

Healthy schools

Ms. Marit Stiles: My question is to the Minister of Education. The Ontario Physical and Health Education Association is a non-profit organization that provides training and resources to support health and wellness initiatives in Ontario schools. Since 1921, the association has supported healthier, safer school communities by providing important learning resources for parents and teachers. Sadly, as of last week, Ophea will no longer receive funding from the provincial government—another addition to this government’s growing list of education cuts.

Will the minister please explain why her government is so intent on keeping up-to-date health and wellness information out of the hands of our students?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I just want to refresh the memory of the MPPs that were maybe not here in the last session. The fact of the matter is, that particular organization fought Ryan’s Law. I just thought I’d share that with everyone, just to put things in perspective.

The fact of the matter is, we’re making sure that we’re making investments that are making a difference for the learning environment in the classroom. As we move forward, we’re going to be looking at every line item to make sure that we are absolutely informing and supporting the best learning environment possible in this province.

We look forward to having organizations like Ophea participate in the consultation that we have going on, because I love to speak about this organization that we have created in terms of creating a forum for people to exercise their voice. All the collective voices coming together through our comprehensive consultation are going to make a difference for years to come.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Marit Stiles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Education is talking about the consultation that they gave people four hours’ notice to participate in. Yes, comprehensive. Yes, great communication over there.

Mr. Speaker, through you again to the Minister of Education: Just last week we also revealed that this government had quietly—without saying a word to parents; without saying a word to school boards—cut the parent engagement grants that so many of our schools, especially our low-income schools, depend upon.

This week, the government ended 16 years of support for Ophea. The latest cut means there will be fewer training opportunities for teachers, less availability of teaching resources, and a decrease in research and evidence-sharing, all of which have been proven to be critical in student safety, development and well-being.

Mr. Speaker, this government is slashing and cutting programs in our education system without letting anybody even know about it. When will this minister stop playing the blame game and start—

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

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I welcome every opportunity to stand up and talk about the consultation we have going on and reinforce the fact that the PC government of Ontario is standing up for teachers, standing up for parents, and most importantly, thinking about our students to make sure they’re on the best path to success.

Speaker, I have to share with you that when we kicked off our latest phase of telephone town halls, do you know what was most important? No matter what the information is that is coming from across the aisle—which is wrong, as a matter of fact, most of the time—I have to tell you that people are starting off by saying thank you: “Thank you for giving us an opportunity to exercise our voice.” We’re committed to listening to every single individual and organization that wishes to have its voice heard. We are on the right track, and I look forward to sharing the results—

Interjections.