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

November 21, 2018

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2018-Nov-21 (PDF)

L052 - Wed 21 Nov 2018 / Mer 21 nov 2018

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 21 November 2018 Mercredi 21 novembre 2018

Orders of the Day

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

Restoring Trust, Transparency and Accountability Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 visant à rétablir la confiance, la transparence et la responsabilité

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Police independence

Ontario Power Generation

Ethical standards

Economic development

Employment standards

Economic development

School facilities

School bus safety

Small business

Education funding

Taxation

University and College funding

Skilled trades

Rent regulation

Natural gas / Gaz naturel

Environmental protection

Correction of record

Correction of record

Visitor

Deferred Votes

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

Notice of dissatisfaction

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Harry Leslie Smith

Order of Ottawa recipients

Sylvie Hauth

Research and innovation

Home care

Laurier Brantford YMCA

Ken Antaya and Ron McDermott

International trade

Public transit

Introduction of Bills

Ministry of Community and Social Services Amendment Act (Social Assistance Research Commission), 2018 / Loi de 2018 modifiant la

Loi sur le ministère des Services sociaux et communautaires (Commission de recherche sur l’aide sociale)

Eating Disorders Awareness Week Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur la Semaine de la sensibilisation aux troubles de l’alimentation

Protecting Vulnerable Road Users Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur la protection des usagers de la route vulnérables

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Ontario Gazette

Holodomor

Holodomor

Holodomor

Petitions

Employment standards

Veterans memorial

Social assistance

Independent officers of the Legislature

Public safety

Curriculum

Public safety

Northern health services

Public safety

Royal assent / Sanction royale

Opposition Day

Cancer treatment

Adjournment Debate

Tenant protection

Gender identity

Environmental protection

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 20, 2018, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 47,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000, the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and the Ontario College of Trades and Apprenticeship Act, 2009 and make complementary amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 47, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2000 sur les normes d’emploi, la Loi de 1995 sur les relations de travail et la Loi de 2009 sur l’Ordre des métiers de l’Ontario et l’apprentissage et apportant des modifications complémentaires à d’autres lois.

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

Mr. John Fraser: I’ll be sharing my time with the member from Don Valley East.

It’s a pleasure to have an opportunity to say a few words about Bill 47 here on third reading. I want to basically hit three points with regard to Bill 47.

First is the freezing of the minimum wage at $14 an hour. We know that affordability is a challenge in this province, and we know that you can’t raise a family on a $14-an-hour minimum wage here in Toronto or most other places. The purpose in elevating the minimum wage was to play a bit of catch-up. Arguably, people could say that $15 was not enough. But the reality is, it simply was a reflection of the fact that we need to make sure that people can do the kinds of things for their families and themselves that most of us take for granted. Some of those things are very simple.

So I think the government’s freezing of the minimum wage was the wrong thing to do. We know that minimum wage earners won’t ever be able to catch up.

We also know that the government’s argument that the minimum wage is killing jobs just doesn’t hold water, that year-over-year increases in jobs in Ontario—in the last year, it has been 85,000 new jobs, most of those full-time. We know there is some movement towards full-time jobs in the economy. That’s a good thing; that’s a good thing for people. People need stability in their income.

I believe very strongly that the government’s approach to minimum wage was wrong. It was unfair, and it’s not going to lead to greater economic growth. It’s very clear right now that the government is trying to say that it’s destroying jobs when, in fact, it’s creating jobs.

The second thing is the elimination of two paid sick days. I think all of us here don’t have a limit on our paid sick days. I don’t think we do. So I think it’s a bit rich for us to say that people can’t have two—it’s 2018, for crying out loud. It’s 2018. We’re talking about the most vulnerable workers. The reason that we set a floor, that we create labour law, is so that people can have things like weekends, right? How did we get a weekend? Because we created the law—

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Thank the labour movement.

Mr. John Fraser: There we go. And I will, 100%.

How do we get maximum standards for hours of work? How do we get standards for working conditions? How do we get standards for worker safety? That’s why we set those things. We set minimum standards because we know that sometimes there’s a power imbalance between employers and employees, and we must set a minimum standard. Two paid sick days is a minimum standard. It’s a minimum standard in the 21st century.

To me, it’s unbelievable that a group of people who have unlimited sick days would say to the rest of Ontarians, to the most vulnerable workers in this province, “No, you can’t have that, but we’re going to have what we’re going to have.” And then stand up four or five times in question period to say, “We feel really good about freezing your wages and eliminating your two paid sick days, and I’ve got as many as I need.” I think it’s pretty rich.

The third thing is the whole idea of being able to change someone’s shift with almost no notice. We know that people have costs for things like child care, we know that people have costs for things like transportation, and that it’s unfair that the employer would, at very short notice, say to people, “Well, I’m going to decrease your income, but your costs are going to remain the same.”

Speaker, there are many more things I know my colleague from Don Valley East is going to speak about. Bill 47 is wrong. The government should not have moved to repeal Bill 148. It’s wrong. It’s bad for Ontario workers, and it’s bad for Ontario families. I urge all members of this House to vote against it.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate?

Mr. Michael Coteau: I’d like to thank my colleague, John Fraser, the member for Ottawa South and our leader here in the Legislature for the Ontario Liberal Party. This bill that we’re debating here today is, I believe, a bill that does not support the vast majority of people here in this province.

Many of our families in this Legislature came here a generation, two generations or three generations ago. I know many of those families have an immigrant past, and many people who did come to Ontario, who chose Ontario to reside in, came because it was a place where there was fairness. We knew it was a place where if you wanted to pursue an education and you worked hard, you could get an education and you could move from one economic class to the next with ease, if you worked hard.

We knew it was a place where if you wanted to start a family and raise a family, you could go and save some money, send the kids to school and get a down payment for a home, purchase a home and start a family. We knew it was a place, and it still is, where if you were ill, you could go into the doctor’s office and to the hospital and get services.

But something has changed in the last maybe 20 years in this province, and it’s about the opportunity that people have, the ability to work hard and to move from one socio-economic class to another here in this province of Ontario. We know this is a phenomenon that’s happening internationally, where there’s a concentration of wealth in the 1%. In fact, over the last decade, that separation and that increase of the 1% has increased by 42%.

We know now, internationally—and Canada is not immune to this—that around the world, 1% of the population of this entire planet controls half of the wealth. I’m going to say that one more time, because it’s a startling fact: 1% of the entire population of the planet controls over half of the wealth of this planet. Canada, over the last few decades, has been moving towards this trend as well.

We’re not here, as Ontario Liberals, to say that this should be an attack on business. This is not an attack on business. This is about creating an environment where people have the opportunity to provide for themselves.

When we went out there and we consulted Ontarians, including businesses, figuring out what would better position Ontarians for success—meaning, how would we build a better economy here in Ontario, and how would we reposition this great province to take on the challenges of hyper-globalization over the next few decades?

The last time I spoke on this bill, I talked about the third industrial revolution that’s taking place internationally with the reforms that are taking place in energy, that are taking place in manufacturing through automation. We’re seeing changes in the way people communicate. A change is taking place. That’s why we need to make sure that people have an opportunity to position themselves for success, to take on the challenges of this new economy that’s coming forward.

I think it’s going backwards to remove two sick days that we put in place. We know that if you are sick, it’s better that you stay home than come in to the workplace and get everyone else sick. It doesn’t really work out. Economists will tell you this; professors who study this type of stuff—and the labour—will tell you this. Professionals will tell you that if you’re sick, you should not be in the workplace.

But we also know that if you are going to miss work—we put in place a two-day sick leave where you got paid, and you can still receive some benefits, and you could take care of the bills. It’s getting tough out there. I know that in all of our communities—I represent the Don Mills community, where there is poverty, but in all of our communities across this great province, there are issues around poverty.

When I said that something is changing in this province—the fact is that if you work hard and you cannot save enough money to take care of your future, that’s a problem. If you work hard, full-time, in this province and you don’t have enough money to pay for your children to go to a field trip or an extracurricular event, that’s a problem in Ontario. It rips away at the fabric of what makes this place such a great destination for newcomers but also for third, fourth and fifth generations, sometimes hundreds of generations. I know that we have our Indigenous families here in Ontario as well.

You could be here for one generation, or it could be thousands of years as well, but we still are all part of this great province, and if we work hard, we should be able to reap the benefits of that hard work. But something has changed.

In the city of Toronto, which is my city, we know that the average rent is around $2,500 for a one-bedroom. I brought this up last time, and some member said, “Well, you can find a place for $1,500.” That’s true, but the average rent in this city is $2,500. If you work for minimum wage here in the province of Ontario today, you get roughly around $24,000 or $25,000. It just doesn’t add up anymore. It just does not add up.

It is our responsibility that if there is one segment of society that seems to be increasing their wealth year after year after year—these are our business owners. They have a responsibility, being in this province, being owners of these great businesses, being industrialists, people who can actually, with one decision, change the landscape—

Interjection.

Mr. Michael Coteau: One of the members here is telling me that I should go sit over with the NDP. This is not an NDP issue; this is about decency. This is about decency. This is about making sure that if you work hard in this province, you’re rewarded for your hard work. Imagine going to work for 40 hours and not being able to pay the bills. That’s what’s happening in this city as wealth increases.

Let’s remember that our economy has grown drastically over the last 10 years. There is more wealth in this city and in this province than ever before. General revenues in government have increased. They’ve almost doubled in the last 15 years; in fact, they have. So things are happening here. We’ve seen the development of new industries here in the province of Ontario. There is wealth coming into this province, and anyone who tells you that this city and this province are not doing well is actually misleading you, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

Mr. Michael Coteau: I said “anyone,” not necessarily you, John, but anyone. It doesn’t have to be a member in this Legislature. But if anyone tells you out in the public that we’re not doing well as a province, it’s misleading, because we are doing exceptionally well, and we’ve done well with most job creation.

But my point is this: When there is money coming into this province, when there is an economic divide that’s taking place that’s increasing year after year after year—internationally, like I said, a 42% increase in the last decade and 1% of the population controlling half of the wealth—that’s a problem. If anyone out there says that that’s not an issue, they are misleading you as well, Mr. Speaker.

I think that we need to make sure, at the end of the day, that we as MPPs do what we can to ensure that the economy here in Ontario is set up for success for everyone, not just a few. You know, smart business leaders will say the same thing, because if the majority of people don’t have the opportunity to get out there, work hard, and have their hard work paid off, it actually affects not only them in their home; it affects the local businesses around them, but it also affects big business. It’s just common sense.

So, for the Conservative Party here in Ontario to rip away from the resources of people who work hard and actually lower that minimum wage that was scheduled to come in place January 1, and instead give a tax break to the richest Ontarians in the amount of $275 million—it tells me something very simple, Mr. Speaker: That when they say they’re here for the people, it’s only a certain group of people that they’re here for.

Mr. Jeff Burch: A very small group.

Mr. Michael Coteau: A very small group of people here in Ontario.

And I don’t want to be the politician who is in this House trying to divide people up, because I think we need our businesses. We need our business leaders. But what we also need, Mr. Speaker, is we need to work together to ensure that people who work hard in this province have the opportunity to have their hard work pay off. What the Conservative government here in this province has done is actually the opposite of that.

Again, if two sick days is too much for that party to stomach, then they do not have the interest of the people of Ontario at hand. Because if two days is too much, then they are not here for the people of the province.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate? There being no further debate, pursuant to the order of the House dated November 12, 2018, I am now required to put the question.

Mr. Smith, Bay of Quinte, has moved third reading of Bill 47,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000, the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and the Ontario College of Trades and Apprenticeship Act, 2009 and make complementary amendments to other Acts.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

I heard a no.

All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote being required, it will be deferred until after question period today.

Third reading vote deferred.

Restoring Trust, Transparency and Accountability Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 visant à rétablir la confiance, la transparence et la responsabilité

Mr. Fedeli moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 57,

An Act to enact, amend and repeal various statutes / Projet de loi 57, Loi édictant, modifiant et abrogeant diverses lois.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Mr. Fedeli?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: I am here to speak about A Plan for the People. This is the fall economic statement that we tabled here in the Legislature last Thursday. I’m looking forward, as I’m sure everybody in the House is, to the next hour of riveting activity here.

I’ll parse this out in several packages, but I do want to talk for an hour about the 2018 economic outlook and fiscal review, the fall economic statement. We refer to it as FES—F-E-S. In it will be details of the province’s economic outlook and fiscal plan. This will be the Ontario strategy for making Ontario open for business, and it will include the government’s plan for respecting consumers and families.

Speaker, if I can highlight it, it breaks out into three different segments. One is restoring trust, transparency and accountability, long missing in this Legislature. It will be a new fiscal blueprint for the province that puts the taxpayer at the centre of government decision-making. It is a new approach for public finances that will serve three important objectives that will restore fiscal balance: It will reduce our debt burden and it will strengthen accountability and transparency.

The government will reinvent the way government operates and delivers services to the people to ensure value for money and outcomes. These are the important components of restoring trust, transparency, and accountability.

The second of the three plans is making Ontario open for business. Our government for the people is creating an open-for-business environment that will bring prosperity back to Ontario. The government for the people is committed to once again making Ontario a premier destination for job creation, for investment, for entrepreneurship and for growth. The province is cutting red tape. I’ll talk a lot about that, Speaker, in the hour. We’re cutting red tape and we’re lowering costs for businesses, helping key sectors like mining and forestry and regions like my beloved northern Ontario grow and create more jobs. Speaker, that is our second one: making Ontario open for business.

The third and final component of our plan for the people is respecting consumers and families. The government is putting more money in people’s pockets by introducing, as I’ll discuss in great detail, our LIFT program—Low-income Individuals and Families Tax Credit.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Lift everyone up.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: We are going to, indeed, as the Treasury Board president said, lift everyone up. In fact, as you’ll see, it’s 1.1 million people in the province of Ontario.

We’re making life more affordable through cancelling the cap-and-trade carbon tax and doing—every kind of tax increase that was planned has been cancelled, including fishing licences and driver’s fees, as we’ll talk about.

The government is keeping our promise to end hallway health care by adding new long-term beds all across Ontario. I’ll talk in detail about that.

We’re increasing the housing supply.

We’re ensuring that law-abiding individuals and families are protected from drug, gun and gang-related violence.

That is really the plan.

I’ll get into many more details, Speaker, but in a nutshell, in brief, we have saved the people of Ontario, through finding efficiencies, $3.2 billion in expenses to date. We just got elected on June 7. Our government was formed on June 29. In these very few months, we have saved the people of Ontario, through expense savings of $3.2 billion, and we did two things. We returned $2.7 billion in tax relief right back into the pockets of Ontario individuals, families and businesses. That leaves $500 million to deduct from the Liberal legacy of a $15-billion deficit that they left the people of Ontario.

In the 11 weeks since we did our review, we have shaved $500 million off of that Liberal legacy and returned $2.7 billion into the pockets of people.

We will develop a debt-reduction strategy. We’ll set appropriate targets in an appropriate timeline to reduce our deficit, our debt, and what we call our net debt-to-GDP—the amount of debt we have compared to the growth in the province of Ontario—which is beyond what the Liberals called that “red line that should never be crossed” that they crossed. We’re going to be bringing it back down. Then we will be doing an ongoing review of programs. This will continue and it will ensure that these various reviews provide absolute benefits to the people of the province of Ontario. That is it in a nutshell.

Now, when we talk about restoring trust, transparency and accountability, I’m going to take a run through the numbers, because it is so very, very important that the people of Ontario and the new members in the Legislature fully understand the breadth and depth of the Liberal numbers and the deficit they left. So if you just think about net debt for a second—actually, I’ll get to that in a moment. What I’ll talk about is what we inherited.

The Liberals claimed last year to have balanced the budget. In fact, they said they had a $600-million surplus and patted themselves on the back. Well, the Auditor General would not sign off on that. In fact, in the Legislature, she termed their accounting and their numbers to be “bogus.” In fact, she had about five or six different descriptions for the Liberal words.

But if you can imagine—this is the Auditor General. The province of Ontario as a corporation, for instance: Could you imagine a publicly traded company having their auditor go out in front of a camera and say, “I’m sorry, this company’s numbers are bogus”? Well, you can imagine what would happen and who would be the next call that would be made if it was a company listed on the stock exchange. But here, the people of Ontario are the shareholders. We own this. We own this debt. We own this deficit. It falls to us to fix this Liberal disaster.

When they said they had a $600-million surplus, it was bogus, according to the Auditor General. The true number that has been identified through the Independent Financial Commission of Inquiry is a $3.7-billion deficit that the Liberals had in 2017. They never did reach balance, as they claimed they did. They never did. We always knew they were ginning up the numbers by using one-time revenue to get their revenue numbers higher.

We’re talking about things like the sale of their General Motors shares, the sale of Hydro One, the sale of the building across the street—the OPG, Ontario Power Generation building—or the sale of the LCBO warehouse. We are talking about not even hundreds of millions of dollars, Speaker; we are talking about billions of dollars.

In fact, last year alone, if you look at the revenue chart from the day the Liberals took office, the revenue has increased in the province of Ontario from the growth in some businesses. Except, the last chunk of years was all based on one-time revenue, either equalization payments from the federal government—because we became a have-not province under the Liberal government—or it was from the sale of assets, one-time sale of assets. Last year, it was almost $6 billion.

Now, you think about our budget of around $148 billion, $150 billion—$6 billion of that was just from the sale of one-time assets. It’s not going to happen this year. There’s nothing left to sell. It was like burning the furniture to heat your house. Eventually, the furniture runs out and you have nothing left to heat the house with. That’s exactly what they did year after year after year and, in order to feed that addiction, it had to get bigger and bigger and bigger. So last year there was over $6 billion in one-time sales.

Even with that, even with putting $6 billion that was never going to happen again—I couldn’t imagine what they would have tried to do this year, what they would have ended up doing—they still had a deficit of $3.7 billion, when they said they had balanced.

But then they had to fess up—a little bit anyway—and they kind of did an, “Aw, shucks. Next year, we aren’t going to be balanced. We’re going to have a deficit of $6.7 billion.” That actually was only a half-truth. That almost $7 billion is a little bit shy of what the financial commission of inquiry proved is actually a $15-billion deficit—a $15-billion hole that was left. This is not just in new programs.

I know some of the opponents to the plan for the people would say, “You’ve concocted a $15-billion deficit only to bring it down in the fall economic statement because, well, the Liberals said they had a $6.7-billion deficit. You’re going to cancel all those programs so, therefore, you’ve got to take that $7 billion away. You’re going to look like heroes on your fall economic statement. You’re going to save $7 billion.” That just tells me they don’t understand simple math here.

That $6.7 billion was not in new programs; that was a structural deficit. Those are to pay doctors, teachers and front-line workers. That’s what that is. If you look in their own budget and read it carefully, you will see that that $6.7 billion was repeating, almost entirely, for the next four years, but their new programs that they announced didn’t actually kick in until the end of year three and year four. That $6.7 million was to pay the bills. That’s to pay the bills that are coming in every day. That’s what we call a structural deficit. That’s just operating expenses. For the most part, it wasn’t for anything new.

So you add to that the change in the economy which—their number of revenue is higher than the economists’ number, so you have to add about another $1.5 billion on to that deficit because that revenue is not going to show up.

I used to quote the page number, page 144 or something along that line, in the budget every day when I stood up as finance critic and said, “You’ve got a line in here that’s $1.4 billion in efficiencies that you’re going to find,” but they never lifted a finger to find even one efficiency, not one penny in efficiencies. So how can you book $1.4 billion in efficiencies? That had to come out.

Then there was the difference between what they put for pensions and reality, and what they put for the Fair Hydro Plan and what was first exposed by us, then the Auditor General, then the Financial Accountability Officer, who said, “Hang on a second. You are taking all the bills of this Fair Hydro Plan away from the government’s books and hiding it over on the Ontario Power Generation’s books. You can’t do that. That’s real money. That’s the taxpayers’ money. You have to show that on the province’s books.” So that’s $5 billion.

There’s about $300 million that we’re adjusting back in the reserve. We’re putting that back in. They were using some of the reserve money to balance their budget out. That’s $15 billion. That’s how we get to $15 billion.

The Auditor General, a couple of months ago now, signed off on the books, the $3.7-billion deficit, for the first time in three years. Now could you imagine, again, if you were a public company and your own auditor would not fully sign off on your books? That happened three years ago, and it happened two years ago—she gave what’s called a “qualified opinion.” This year we had a clean opinion, the first time in Ontario’s last three years that we were able to have a clean opinion.

She gave a qualified opinion for the first time in Ontario’s history, which was unprecedented. Then all of a sudden, the second year—now, you’re talking about being unprecedented. How do you get two in a row? They were in line not just for a qualified opinion, but the auditor told them, “If you do not properly account for that hydro mess that you got us into, we will give you an adverse opinion.” That’s as black a mark—or as red a mark, I guess, in accounting terms—as you could ever possibly have.

So we have come in, and we have accepted these numbers from the financial commission of inquiry. We have accepted the Auditor General’s understanding of the pension and the hydro mess.

One thing that the auditor told us was stunning, and I think we’re learning it through the select committee, where we’re investigating these improprieties, I’m going to suggest. Speaker, the Auditor General told us that the Liberal government knew that taking the debt on this hydro and putting it across the street on somebody else’s books not only was wrong, but it would cost $4 billion more to do that, because the interest rates that they pay on these massive numbers of billions of dollars that they were borrowing is far higher than our interest rate that the province pays.

Even though the Liberal government knew that this was going to hurt families, by spending $4 billion just to move it across the street so that it didn’t show up on their books—that’s how egregious they were. That tells us the true breadth and depth that the Liberal government went to, to try to appear that they were balancing their budget.

I congratulate all members of the select committee, who are digging deep and shining a light on what the Liberal government did. They’re shining a light right now. We’re hearing things coming out of that committee, where the Liberal government knew that they could, instead of spending that $4 billion—do you know how many knee replacements you can do, how many hip replacements you can do? They knew they were giving all of that up just to be able to try to artificially balance the budget.

So that sets the stage for the $15-billion fiasco, the $15 billion that we have inherited as a deficit.

I look at the young people who are here today, and I think about the debt that you are inheriting, and it saddens me. Back in 1990, the net debt per person was $3,733. It grew to, today, the net debt per person—even when the recession came, the net debt per person was $13,163. From there, we’ve had 10 years of growth worldwide, 10 great years that we could have taken advantage of and brought that net debt per person back down. Instead, our debt rose to $338 billion today. It will rise to $347 billion in our book when we’re finished the year.

Our net debt per person—the young people I’m looking at in the gallery right now, Speaker, each owe—I don’t know if you know this. You owe $24,231 right now. You owe that money right now, in debt. That’s your share of debt. That is really unfortunate, that you have accumulated that debt. So we will talk to you about our plan.

Speaker, when you think about where we were when the Liberal government took over—we can go back to the days when the NDP took over. Do you know that our entire debt in Ontario was under $40 billion, back when the NDP took over? They very quickly added $60 billion. They added 150%—they grew our debt by. That is exactly what happened. You can imagine, Speaker, the shock to the system, to know that you go from under $40 billion to over $100 billion in debt. Well, the Liberal government took it from there. They showed them the amateurs that they are.

They showed them that you can take $170 billion in debt back in the recession—actually, when they took over it was about $140 billion in debt—but in the recession it was $170 billion in debt. It was the wake-up call. We should have stopped right then. Instead, today, the Liberals showed the NDP that they were amateurs in adding to debt. The Liberals added almost $200 billion in debt.

The interest on debt alone is almost $900—just the interest—for every woman, man, and child in Ontario. In fact, in the 20 minutes that I have been speaking, we have already spent almost $500,000 in interest. That’s what it is. It’s $1.4 million every hour. That’s the cheque we write. We can’t write the cheques fast enough just to pay the interest. That’s the issue that we have.

I know the NDP like to laugh about debt and how much it hurts families. I know they understand that and they love to laugh at that. But the issue with that is that this is exactly what’s hurting the people of Ontario, and we have a plan to get out of this mess.

Speaker, we have outlined the savings we’ve had already: $3.2 billion in savings have been achieved in the few short weeks we’ve been here. This includes not one job loss. This includes no changes to front-line service and not one tax increase. That is exactly what’s happened so far—absolutely.

Speaker, when you think about $3.2 billion in only a few short weeks—and what did we do? We turned $2.7 billion of that money back into the pockets of the people of Ontario. That is how we’re turning Ontario around. That is our plan for the people of Ontario.

That’s a rough outline of what we’ve done to date. Now I want to talk about what we’ve done, and what we will be doing, to make Ontario open for business, because this is going to be the key to turning the province of Ontario around.

I was born in the city of North Bay. I grew up in northern Ontario. At a very young age, 16, I was able to open my first business. Just after I turned 20, I opened my first corporation. We did business all over the world, Speaker. These were the days when Ontario was the economic engine of Canada and, quite frankly, my beloved northern Ontario was the fuel for that economic engine. That’s the Ontario that we grew up in. Those were the days when you could open a business, make a life for yourself, hire employees, do well in Ontario, and make sure everybody who worked with you did well. Speaker, those days left us in the darkness of the Liberals.

Ontario’s economic growth has been slower than the rest of Canada for the past 15 years under the Liberal government. Ontario’s position as Canada’s economic engine has been continually eroding. Our government’s goal is to make Ontario the premier economic destination for jobs, investment and entrepreneurship. We’re committed to creating the right environment to making Ontario open for business again.

Speaker, I look, like everybody else does, at some of the things that are happening south of the border. You can talk about it all you want. At the end of the day, on the business aspect—maybe how they get there is a bit different, but the results on the business side are speaking for themselves. I’m looking at a chart here on our corporate tax competitiveness. At one time, we here in Canada, and especially here in Ontario, had a big advantage over American manufacturers, over US manufacturers, because we had a lower tax rate.

We had a robust energy sector, and lately, Speaker—I’ll use our business expression: They’ve been eating our lunch. They dropped their corporate tax rate so immensely that it put a chill on Ontario businesses that we need to turn around.

One of the things that they also did is, they accelerated their capital cost depreciation. That’s a technical term, but what that means is, when you go out and buy a piece of equipment, you can write it off almost in-year. This is what happens. You’re able to write that equipment off, so you’re incentivized to open your business in the States, because we don’t have that in Canada. We don’t have that in Ontario. So we wrote to the federal government in the middle of September and said, “When you come out with your fall economic statement, please consider allowing in-year depreciation of capital costs. We’ve got to mirror what they’re doing in the States.”

Yesterday, our Premier, Doug Ford, stood and said to the Prime Minister and to finance minister Bill Morneau: “Tomorrow”—which is now today—“when you come out with your fall economic statement, please do something about accelerating the capital cost allowance.” This is huge. This is the day where this has to happen—all in, today, Speaker. This is so tremendously important. If they’re not going to match tax competitiveness, then they at least need to give the people of Canada and allow the people of Ontario that room to be able to thrive in our manufacturing sector.

When you look at our package of what we want to do—and I’ll talk a little bit more about it in a moment—we need to become competitive in our taxes. That’s why our Premier, Doug Ford, has said that in our plan for the people we will be lowering corporate taxes from 11.5% to 10.5%. That’s coming, Speaker. We will be lowering hydro rates by 12%. That’s coming, Speaker. And we need to make Ontario open for business by cutting red tape. That is one advantage that we can have.

The single biggest thing that we have done for families and for businesses is cancelling the cap-and-trade carbon tax. That saves businesses $880 million in 2019. I can tell you, as a small business person, a lifelong entrepreneur, it’s access to capital. The moment we, as business people, have 10 cents in our hand, we invest it back in our business. I can tell you that, Speaker, as somebody who has been in business all my life, the moment that you have capital—because we fight for capital all the time; we fight to get that money—we reinvest it in our business. We hire more people. That’s what the business community does. That’s what we do.

Look at one of the things that we’ve done: We cut the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board premiums, saving employers $1.45 billion in 2019. That is the kind of incentive that businesses need. You can see the chill in Ontario is being lifted. You can see it. You can feel it. When we hold round tables throughout the province, whether it’s in Cornwall or Kenora, you know. You feel the difference in the business community.

I did a speech at the Canadian Club on Friday. There were 500-plus people there—a sold-out crowd. You can feel it. You can feel it through the applause. You can just see the heads nodding as we talked about, “Here’s how we’re going to turn Ontario around. Here’s how we’re going to create jobs. Here’s how we’re going to put people back to work.”

You can just feel the difference already. The people in Ontario understand. We’re back. We’re coming back. We’re open for business. Our Premier is putting the signs up at the borders to proudly proclaim, “Open for Business,” because Ontario is open for business. We are going to continue.

When I talk about red tape—it’s interesting. I was in Sarnia a few weeks ago. I’m going to tell my snake story today. I don’t know if everybody has heard the snake story. The snake story is a good one. I was in Sarnia a few weeks ago and there was a person who purchased—

Interjection.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: I realize that you’re not interested in knowing how business is going to help grow the province. I can understand that.

So let me talk about this, Speaker. There’s a family that purchased a large piece of property—

Miss Monique Taylor: There are enough snakes around here.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Do you want to repeat that?

Interjections.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Do you want to repeat it again?

Miss Monique Taylor: Would you like to finish your story?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Am I permitted to?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Stop the clock, please. Look, we have respectful debate going on here, and I expect respect from all members in here. When I don’t get respect, then I will certainly stand and I’ll make a general statement first, but you don’t want me centring you out. So let’s go back. Let’s keep debate respectful.

I’ll turn it back now to the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Thank you, Speaker.

The family bought a large tract of land and sold a piece of it to, actually, the casino that was built in Sarnia. The property around the casino they planned to develop—whether it’s hotels or a $100-million development; whatever the project is, I won’t give the details—but it’s been five years now. For five years they were not able to proceed. Why? Because 21 Butler’s garter snakes were found on the site. These Butler’s garter snakes—I could tell you a hundred stories about the Blanding’s turtles in North Bay that have held up developments.

I could tell you all of those stories, but I’ll settle in on the snake story, because for five years now, this megaproject has been stalled. It will not proceed because of these 21 Butler’s garter snakes. The family has spent five years and $30,000 per snake—$630,000 the family has been forced to spend on snake studies. This is the kind of thing that we need to stop in Ontario. We need to be able to work.

I can tell you another story. In North Bay, there’s a developer building a subdivision. There’s a road that goes through and the Blanding’s turtle is there. They were asked to spend several hundreds of thousands of dollars on a culverts system, which they’ve done, an underpass for the turtle. Before the election, they were looking to now have the underpass culverts system illuminated.

This is the kind of red tape that we need to cut in the province of Ontario. We have 331,000 statutes in Ontario. We have 380,000 pieces of red tape in Ontario. When former Premier Gordon Campbell was here to do the great work he did on the financial commission of inquiry, we talked about red tape. He said, “You know, in BC, we have 200,000 pieces of red tape.” Think about it: They have half the red tape that we do in Ontario. I’ll tell you, BC looks like a pretty safe and pretty nice place to live, and with half of our red tape.

We intend, we have announced, that we will cut red tape by 25% by the year 2022. This will make Ontario open for business. This will lower costs and lower administrative costs, and will lower the administrative burden on businesses. We will continue to protect Ontario’s interests through international and interprovincial trade agreements. We’re also going to be promoting growth in our forestry sector. Under the Liberals, we saw 80% of the lumber mills close in northern Ontario. Most will never reopen: They’re dismantled; they’re gone. We lost tens of thousands of jobs throughout Ontario’s north.

I’ll give you another red-tape story. Frank Dottori, one of the founders of Tembec—a very glorious northern Ontario and Quebec company; they still have mills throughout the north—retired from there. He says he bumped his head and opened another mill on his own. He talks about red tape. He came to the all-party committee; I can’t recall if it was in northwestern Ontario or in Sudbury. He travelled to our committee. He joined Jamie Lim, who is the president of the Ontario Forest Industries Association. They both talked to us about the red tape, and they talked to us again about the turtle.

We all want to see the turtles protected—there’s no hesitation to comment on that, Speaker—but it’s how it is being done. Right now, logging roads are shut down, completely shut down, for some weeks every year to allow the turtles to cross. There has to be a better way, because what happens is, everybody’s laid off. There are thousands of people. So you don’t have a trucker; loggers can’t go in and log; there’s no way to get the material out; and there is no way to get the material to the mills to make paper or to make pulp or to make wood. Everything basically comes to a standstill for a period of time. This is red tape. This is what happens.

This is what happens when you dream up things like the Far North Act, that cuts off half of northern Ontario from logging and from mining, or from exploring. This is what happens when you have a Species at Risk Act that imposes this kind of micro-attention on a road, that shuts down employment for thousands of people.

We have to protect the species—there’s no hesitation to say that, Speaker—but it has got to be in an opportunity to protect the tens of thousands of jobs in northern Ontario as well. There has to be some sensibility brought to this.

This government will continue to create a pro-business environment that has been missing for so many years—more than a decade, Speaker. We will review the effectiveness of all of our business support systems, however; that will be something that you will see. But we will continue to attract further investment by enhancing confidence and competitiveness in our capital markets and in our business community.

When you are a young person looking for a job, or if you are a manufacturer looking for an employee, there is a disconnect; they don’t line up. They don’t line up at all. Dr. Miner wrote a great book some years ago called People Without Jobs, Jobs Without People, because we have unemployment and because we have manufacturers thirsting for employees and that can’t find them.

I’ll give you a couple of examples. I’ll go back to Tembec again. Tembec, that popular company that I talked about, is actually now called Rayonier. They were bought, so I’ll refer to them by their new name, Rayonier. I met with the president here in Toronto about three weeks ago, and he said, “Vic, I need your help.”

Témiscaming, Quebec, is about a 45-minute drive from North Bay. North Bay is very close to the Quebec border. He said, “In Témiscaming, we need today—right now, today—35 skilled trades workers, and we can’t find one. We cannot find a single employee, a labourer, to take these jobs.” It’s a great-paying job; they just cannot find skilled labourers.

He said, “In our paper plant in Kapuskasing, the plant in Cochrane, the plant in Hearst, we need 50 people immediately. We need 50 employees; we cannot find one.”

Two weeks ago, the last time I was home, I was very pleased to present Northern Ontario Heritage Fund grants to some tourism groups, one of the arts groups and a couple of our manufacturers. It was interesting: The media was interviewing the tourism group and they talked about the bicycle trails that we’re going to be building and how it’s going to help in our tourism. And the Capitol Centre, as it’s called, was talking about how this will enhance their arts programs. Then the manufacturer got up—I think it was about a $438,000 grant to buy some new equipment—and he said, “This is great.

We need this new equipment. We’re going to put people to work. But,” he said, “I can’t find the people.” He said, “This is our biggest single problem.” Here he is with a manufacturing plant in North Bay and he cannot find the skilled workers.

So I started talking with our mining community. I recall a story—it was some time ago now—where one of the mining companies needed welders. They went to Tunisia and brought 12 welders home because they could not find a welder. It’s so apparent that there is a mismatch from what we’re teaching our kids and the jobs that are required. It’s backwards, Speaker. It’s absolutely wrong, what’s happening.

We find out, of course, that a big part of the problem in our skilled trades is the fact that the apprentice ratios were completely reversed as well, absolutely reversed. Think about a physician in a hospital doing rounds with about six, seven or eight doctors in training with them—residents. That’s one doctor to a handful of residents. In the trades sector, it’s been reversed for far too long, where you need three or four journeymen, as they’re called, for one apprentice. What kind of math is that? This is backwards.

This is one of these Conservative things that I’ve just been railing on for years, that that makes no sense. When sitting on that side, we stood up and talked about how it made no sense. It made no sense when I ran in 2011, it made no sense when I ran in 2014, and it still makes no sense. There is evidence of that, that it makes no sense, in 2018, so we are dissolving the College of Trades, Speaker.

We are going to ensure that the right supports are there to maintain a strong and highly skilled workforce in Ontario. I look forward to working with the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities in training the students that we need today for those jobs that are already here and are not being filled.

Our mayor in the city of North Bay, Al McDonald, likes to talk about, very frequently, the statistics that our local employment group puts out monthly. Some 420 jobs in North Bay have gone unfilled again this month. There are, again, people without jobs, because we have high unemployment, and jobs without people, because they are being trained in the wrong fields. We’ve got to make that match, and that is exactly what’s going to be happening.

Employment growth happens very differently in the province of Ontario. From 2003 to 2017, employment in the GTA is up by almost 650,000. In central Ontario, it’s up about 205,000. In eastern Ontario, it’s up about 85,000. In the southwest, it just about flatlined; it barely moved up at all. In 14 years, Speaker, the employment growth in the southwest hasn’t moved. But sadly, in northern Ontario, it’s down almost 25,000. That’s what is happening in the north. It’s very different.

So when you are in a building in Toronto and all you can see around you—just go out on University Avenue, right out here, and look up and do a 360. It’s cranes everywhere. I like to bring cabinet ministers to North Bay to talk. We have round tables. I had Minister Caroline Mulroney there recently, as well as others. I think MPP Ross Romano was up quite recently. I always say to them, “Let’s meet in my office to start with. We’ll just meet down there. It’s central. It’s on Main Street.” I do it for a purpose, Speaker.

I say, “Come to my office,” not because it’s just the central place and we can meet up there instead of meeting at Syl’s kitchen diner, that Ross and I met at, or Burger World, one of my favourite breakfast places, or the gas station in Callander—I like to have my breakfast there as well.

I say, “Let’s meet at my office,” instead because when they look at my office and they look on either side of my office, there are five—this is on Main Street—boarded-up buildings on either side of me, on Main Street. If you look across the street, it’s boarded-up as well. We’re in there. We moved in there to try to bring some attention to the area. We’re hoping to have one of our health facilities open in one of those boarded-up places in a few short months, Speaker. I hope to make that announcement soon. We’re trying to do this.

Speaker, I bring them there, because I want them, especially the cabinet ministers and the MPPs who have not seen the north, to know. Looking around here, in the bubble of Toronto, and seeing cranes everywhere and people fighting because—everybody has a job, 650,000 new. In the north, where I live, it’s very, very different. It’s a very different Ontario, a very different province of Ontario.

Because of that, Speaker, we are going to put supports in place to support northern Ontario. I talked about it earlier. I made reference to the Far North Act. This was a bill brought in before I was elected in 2011. I was mayor of North Bay, and I remember shaking my head, thinking, “Wow.” The Far North Act, it was called—no consultation with First Nations, no consultation with municipalities and mayors, such as myself at the time. It was just arbitrary. It was ideology, Liberal ideology: “We’re going to cut off northern Ontario.

We don’t want anybody touching anything in the north.” I don’t know how they thought they were going to get the wood to build these desks or the ore to make steel. I don’t know what they thought they were doing, but they just cut off half of northern Ontario.

Think about this for a second. I’ll talk about the Ring of Fire in a moment. The Ring of Fire, if it was not discovered when it was, would never be discovered. We are talking about cutting off exploration. North Bay is the world headquarters for exploration, so you can imagine what it did to our economy. When we make exploration products, when we have mining and engineering firms—two of the best in the world are in North Bay, with hundreds of employees each. We have 12 mining and manufacturing companies that build exploration products.

So when you’ve got a Liberal government that cut off exploration in the north, cut off logging industry in half the north—our fall economic statement includes reviewing the Far North Act. We’re going to open that up and begin to understand what we can do to bring back the glory days in northern Ontario. That’s one of the first pieces.

We will establish a special mining working group to be able to kick-start—when the Liberals took office, Ontario was the number one mining jurisdiction in the world. Today, we’ve fallen—I think the number is 28th today. It changes annually, and I haven’t been involved in that. Quite frankly, it’s so upsetting to look it up. We have fallen way down. We’re no longer number one. We’re not number 10. We’re not even considered. This is why we will put in this special mining working group.

To help the municipalities and the First Nations, we will introduce revenue sharing for forestry, mining and aggregates from the province of Ontario. What that means—I think about Sudbury, where the mine is on one end of town and the smelter is on the other. The trucks get loaded up, they roar down and they rip up the streets. They put the ore in the smelter—the nickel, in Sudbury’s case. The province gets all the money, and Sudbury’s municipality gets all the bills. There’s never anything fair about that. So it will be resource revenue sharing.

With respect to the Ring of Fire, we will be addressing the delays of the Ring of Fire. It’s been 10 years. I was at the announcement, and I remember one of the Liberal ministers coming to North Bay and talking about the Ring of Fire. “Really, this Ring of Fire”—it was fascinating. It was more than 10 years ago now.

The next year they’re back, and they’re saying, “We’ll be hauling ore out of there. We’ll be mining by 2016.” Of course, here we are, more than 10 years later, and there’s not one inch of a road or a rail built there, not one inch; not one bit of ore has come up out of the ground, other than the core samples.

I’ve been there five times now. The first time I visited the Ring of Fire was August 2011, and it was so vibrant. It was bustling.

The Ring of Fire is a mining find in Ontario’s Far North. There is a proven $60 billion worth of ore in the ground. It’s predominantly chromite, which is needed, along with nickel and iron ore, to make steel. It’s in the ground. It was discovered.

I remember flying in on the helicopter. You take an airplane, then you take a float plane, then you take a helicopter. It’s quite an ordeal to get there. I remember coming in with the helicopter, and my face was beaming because I see all these blue and white tents that are there and they’re made in my riding. They’re made in Rutherglen, a little town on the way to Mattawa. It was fascinating. I thought, “Oh wow, look at this. Already there’s this economic activity for my riding.” It was a tent city. That’s all you can live in there.

As the helicopter got closer to landing, I’m looking and I see these massive piles of drill rods, and I beamed even more, because we have 12 manufacturers in our riding that make drill rods, one in Powassan and a bunch in North Bay. I thought, “Wow, this is fascinating.” Cliffs Natural Resources had spent $700 million exploring the Ring of Fire, drilling the test holes, delineating, as they call it, the ore body. They knew exactly where the ore was, down to about almost two miles. Some $700 million they spent.

When I got there, there were 250 men and women working. There was a kitchen; they were flipping pancakes for breakfast; there were people coming and going on their shifts; they were drilling. It was just a hotbed of activity—250 men and women. Fast-forward to my last trip there, five years later: six people there. The tents are flying apart; they’ve torn apart. The wind has torn them apart. They’ve got a few people there. I think it was like that when you were there.

Mr. Ross Romano: That camp is gone.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: You’re right; it literally blew away. MPP Ross Romano has been there more recently.

Here we are with only a half dozen people, because even though Cliffs had spent $700 million and Noront spent about $200 million, there’s no road, there’s no rail and there’s no way.

We want to see that economic activity. We want to share that wealth. We want the jobs. The First Nations want the jobs. We will look at the Ring of Fire. We will address the delays, and we will put our plan in.

The last piece, Speaker, in the last seven minutes that I have, is really about respecting consumers and families. This is where it brings us to our signature program, called LIFT, Low-Income Individuals and Families Tax Credit. This is the most generous Ontario personal income tax cut for low-income workers in an entire generation: 1.1 million taxpayers will find relief in the province of Ontario and one in six taxpayers will receive relief of about $450 on average. Most will receive $850. Families will receive $1,700. When combined with the existing tax relief, about 90% of all Ontario tax filers with taxable incomes below $30,000 will pay no Ontario personal income tax.

I see the clock has run out. I had so much more to cover, especially the quotes from all of the various organizations who support our fall economic statement. I will leave those for another day, Speaker, when we wrap this up.

But I do want to say that the job will be great, and the task is very daunting, but we will bring our plan for the people.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): To the minister: You will have time remaining, the next time this bill is brought forward. The next time this bill is brought forward, there will be time remaining, plus there will be time for questions and comments.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): But at this time, it is now 10:15, and this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to introduce Matthew Perry, my legislative assistant, and also Phil and Amanda Metzloff. Amanda Metzloff received a new set of lungs here in Toronto in September and she’s just doing really well.

Mr. Jeff Burch: I’d like to welcome members of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, specifically Mark Train, executive vice-president; from St. Catharines, President Ryan Madill and Vice-President Mike Vail; from Welland, Vice-President Joel Myers and Trustee Kyle Lehan; and from Niagara Falls, President Todd Brunning and Vice-President Justin Canestraro.

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: J’aimerais, moi aussi, accueillir des pompiers de la ville d’Ottawa : John Sobey, Peter Kennedy, Malcolm Todd and, from Chalk River, Mark Lalonde. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: I have the pleasure of introducing two guests today. One the member for Ottawa–Vanier has already mentioned is Mr. John Sobey of the Ottawa Professional Fire Fighters Association, who is from my riding.

And then also a very special guest today: I have my aunt, Cheryl Larocque, visiting the Legislature for the first time. My aunt hosts Thanksgiving every year for my family and is one of the most wonderful hosts you will ever see in the entire world. It’s wonderful to have you here.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It’s my pleasure to welcome two guests to the Legislature today: Indulis Kulnieks and Gunars Rundans. Gunars is a fellow member at Royal Canadian Legion Branch 10. Welcome to the Legislature.

Hon. Jeff Yurek: I’d like to introduce two guys from my riding who tell me they’re the best professional fire fighters in the building today, Daryl Smith and Warren Scott. Welcome to the Legislature.

Ms. Judith Monteith-Farrell: I’d like to introduce my legislative assistant, Tim Krizner, and his partner, Bruce Mayers, who are visiting Queen’s Park today.

Hon. Rod Phillips: With respect to the Minister of Transportation, I’d like to introduce the two who told me they’re the best fire fighters in Ontario, Dan Bonnar and Clive Deonarine, from the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association in Ajax. Welcome.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: They’re all professional fire fighters, and they are the best. They reside in all of our ridings, but I’d like to welcome Peter Osterberg, who has come all the way from Timmins.

Ms. Jane McKenna: I’m fairly thrilled today that I’ve got the Burlington Professional Firefighters Association, IAFF 1552: the president, Dan VanderLelie, and the secretary, Paul Cunningham. I’m thrilled that you’re here.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s my pleasure to welcome Brett Gibson and Chris Hicknell from the Waterloo Professional Fire Fighters Association today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: It’s a pleasure to introduce the following members from Ontario Pork who are here at Queen’s Park today: Eric Schwindt, John de Bruyn, Doug Ahrens, Chris Cossitt, Eric Hartemink, Mike Mitchell, Oliver Haan, Arno Schober, Teresa Van Raay and, on staff, Ken Ovington, Stefan Larrass and Tom McLaren. We want to invite everyone here to recognize them and also invite you to 228 at noon today for a reception.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’d like to welcome friends from back home with the Windsor Professional Firefighters Association: Wayne Currie, Kris Matton and Keith “Tracker” Traquair.

Also, I have two guests here, Samantha Rowe and her mum, Avery Mae Bedasse. It’s Avery Mae’s first time in Canada, from Jamaica. It was her first-ever flight on an airplane. We want to welcome her to Queen’s Park here today.

Hon. Christine Elliott: I’d like to welcome three members from the Central York firefighters’ association: Andre Bourrie, Kevin Saxton and Steve Buckingham. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Suze Morrison: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature today Deb Singh, Maria Olaya, Cynamin Maxwell and Laura Salamanca, who are all here from the Toronto Rape Crisis Centre. Thank you, and welcome.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to introduce, from my riding, firefighter Mr. McDonald from the Sarnia Professional Firefighters Association, in the east gallery today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Kevin Yarde: I’d like to welcome the Ontario professional firefighters here as well: Paul Lecompte and Kane Demers, president and vice-president of the Brampton Professional Fire Fighters Association.

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’d like to welcome all of the Toronto firefighters who are here. I had the opportunity to meet with a couple this morning. It’s great that you guys are here.

I’d also like to introduce a constituent of mine, Andy St. John, who is a second-year student at the University of Toronto, Scarborough campus—a journalism student. He was grilling me this morning. Welcome, Andy.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I’m pleased to welcome Robert Brandon, Michael Tucker, William Banting and Ray Kline from the Whitby Professional Firefighters Association. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: I’d also like to welcome the Toronto Professional Firefighters’ Association, particularly John Blair, who is a constituent and a community leader.

Mr. Stephen Crawford: I’m pleased to introduce three members of the senior leadership team at FirstOntario Credit Union: Kelly McGiffin, Eric de Roos and Kelly Harris. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

I’d also like to introduce Phil Cartwright, who’s vice-president of the Oakville firefighters’ association. Welcome.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I’d like to welcome Colin Hunter, the president of the Guelph Professional Firefighters Association, and all of the firefighters who are visiting today.

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: I have the pleasure of hosting five friends from Ottawa in the members’ gallery today: John Sobey, who’s the vice-president and incoming president of the Ottawa Professional Fire Fighters Association, Local 162; Malcolm Todd; Peter Kennedy, the current president: Mark Lalonde, who is from the Jock River area; and also Ann Bryan, who is the district VP from eastern Ontario. I look forward to meeting with them later today. Thank you, and welcome.

Mrs. Daisy Wai: I’m pleased to welcome Mr. Jeff Voisin, secretary and treasurer of the Richmond Hill Professional Fire Fighters Association, Local 1957. They are holding a reception later today at 5:30 in the legislative dining room. I encourage all members to attend. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

M me France Gélinas: I’d like to welcome Kris Vopel from the Sudbury Professional Fire Fighters Association. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Jill Dunlop: It’s a pleasure to host firefighters from my riding of Simcoe North. I have Leona McAusland and Ian Nicholson with the Orillia Professional Fire Fighters Association and Doug Ward with the Midland Fire Department.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: I just wanted to welcome the members from the Barrie Professional Firefighters Association, most particularly Stephen Pomeroy.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I’d like to welcome Jeffrey McIntyre from Cornwall Fire Services. We had a great meetng this morning.

Mr. Stan Cho: I just want to quickly welcome the students from St. Edward Catholic School in the great riding of Willowdale.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): This is the last one. The member for Windsor–Tecumseh.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Just in case anyone else was missed and all the members in the gallery, welcome back to Queen’s Park.

Oral Questions

Police independence

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My first question is for the Premier. This is a question for the Premier about his leadership and his standards for his hand-picked senior staff. According to reports, Dean French, the Premier’s hand-picked chief of staff, ordered senior political aides to direct police to raid cannabis stores the day marijuana became legal with the goal of getting “people in handcuffs” on the noon-hour news. Can the Premier confirm these reports?

Hon. Doug Ford: Well, first of all, through you, Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome all the firefighters down here. We’ve been putting out fires for the mess—there’s been a fire for 15 years down here that we’ve been having to put out.

I also want to acknowledge—I believe they’re young army cadets. I apologize if you aren’t, but I want to welcome our good young army cadets up there. Thank you for your service.

Through you, Mr. Speaker: Since day one, our priority has been to protect communities and children, combating illegal black-market and organized crime. We were very clear: Illegal dispensaries have no place in Ontario, and operators would face stiff penalties and be shut down. Ministers, MPPs and staff at every level agree these places need to be shut down.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier knows or he should know that his office is supposed to stay clear of the day-to-day police operations. Instead, it seems that Dean French, the Premier’s chief of staff, not only attempted to direct day-to-day police operations, but was actually demanding that police make arrests in order to get the story the government wanted on the noon-hour news.

Has the Premier even spoken to his chief of staff about this incident?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: As I was saying earlier, ministers, MPPs and staff at every single level—we need to shut down these illegal dispensaries. Again, we need to shut down the illegal pot shops. Our expectation is that police will and always will enforce the law. Today, 91% of illegal dispensaries are shut down in the four largest areas: Peel, York, Ottawa and Toronto. Notice I never mentioned Hamilton. I will never apologize for protecting the people of this province.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. Government House leader, come to order. Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, come to order. Member for Mississauga–Malton, come to order.

Start the clock. Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This is fundamentally about the Premier’s understanding of the necessity of having a separation between the police and the government. The role of the police is to serve and protect the people of this province, and the Premier’s role is to let them do their job. In a democratic society, the government does not demand that police make arrests to generate noon-hour news hits.

The buck stops with the Premier on this issue. Does he think the actions of Dean French, his hand-picked chief of staff, are acceptable?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: Our job is to make laws. The police’s job is to enforce the laws, and I support the police. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition and the NDP, we support our police. They’re doing a magnificent job.

Again, 91% of illegal dispensaries have been shut down in the four largest cities in Ontario. We’re proud of them. We need to shut down every single illegal dispensary in this province. We need to protect our children, we need to protect our communities, and that’s what we’re going to do.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. The member for Essex, come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Start the clock. Next question.

Ontario Power Generation

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier, but it’s disturbing that the Premier doesn’t think that the police know how to do their own job without having the government interfere in the process.

This is not the only concerning story emerging from the Premier’s office this week. As the Premier knows, Alykhan Velshi will be collecting a $500,000 severance after a single day on the job thanks to an intervention by the Premier’s chief of staff, Dean French.

Yesterday, the Premier said that he hadn’t even spoken to his chief of staff about this. When will he?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: I’d love the Leader of the Opposition to actually come up with something substantial, like saving taxpayers money, lowering taxes or lowering hydro rates. But if you’ve noticed how it works every single day, it’s just personal attacks. They must not be happy people over there.

I can tell you OPG is responsible for their own staffing issues—and maybe they should be looking over at their staffing issues.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: We have an opposition day motion today urging the government to pay for take-home cancer drugs for people who need them. Perhaps that’s substantive enough for the government to support us in that effort.

What we are seeing, though, disturbingly, is a pattern here, and it’s problematic. The Premier’s hand-picked chief of staff runs roughshod over all of the rules, the Ontario people get stuck with the bill—in this case, it’s a half-a-million-dollar bill—and the Premier denies that anything has even happened and refuses to even ask his staff what is going on. That is not leadership.

Has the Premier spoken to his chief of staff about his role in firing Alykhan Velshi and generating this half-a-million-dollar waste of public money?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: I just wish the Leader of the Opposition, who’s so focused on OPG—why don’t you start focusing on reducing hydro rates, putting money back into the taxpayers’ pocket, reducing taxes, stimulating the economy and creating jobs? The Leader of the Opposition knows one thing, and that’s attack, attack.

OPG is responsible for their own staffing issues and that’s the way it’s going to be.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the Premier and his hand-picked chief of staff seem to think that “government” means that they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, and stick the people of Ontario with the bill; that’s what they think government is all about—and it’s mostly a bill due to the Premier’s own vendettas against people who he doesn’t like. The people of Ontario should not be stuck with a $500,000 bill because the Premier doesn’t like someone, and the police of this province should never, ever be told to make arrests in order to generate a photo-op for the government.

The Premier cannot pretend that this simply isn’t happening. Has he spoken to his chief of staff and, if so, what did he say?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I believe there was a statement made in that question that imputed motive. I’m going to ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Withdraw, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Premier?

Hon. Doug Ford: Again, through you, Mr. Speaker: I think the police in this province know pretty clearly who supports them and who doesn’t support them. The police know that we’re up there holding signs saying, “We love the police”; they’re holding signs that say, “‘Bleep’ the police.” That, again, is unacceptable.

We will support our police. We have confidence in our police because the police are doing their job.

Ethical standards

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. But I have to say that, thankfully, the police in this province know not to let a government lead them down the Ipperwash path again—a Conservative government.

This is also a question about the Premier’s standards for cabinet ministers. According to multiple reports, a female staffer working for the then-opposition Conservatives came forward with a complaint of sexual misconduct concerning the Minister of Finance.

Yesterday, the Premier said that an independent investigation into these allegations has already been conducted. The question is, can the Premier tell us now who conducted this investigation?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker and for the 20th time: There was a third-party investigation, and there is zero evidence. It was just a bunch of nonsense. I support my minister 1,000%.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier has stated that he has zero tolerance for sexual misconduct and that he will always act decisively to deal with it. Yet over the last month, he has prevented key facts from coming forward to the public when dealing with these issues.

If an independent investigation has happened, the government should be able to tell us who conducted it and what they found. What were the results? Will he provide some evidence that an independent investigation actually did occur?

It’s not a matter of, “I say so, so just trust me.” It’s a matter of, “I say so, and here’s the evidence.” That’s how people build trust, Speaker. Or is this just another time that the Premier is asking people to simply accept his word without any evidence?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: You know something? Throwing stones in a glass house doesn’t work in this arena here. Why doesn’t the Leader of the Opposition look into her two MPPs who are under investigation for treating their employees like a piece of dirt?

They’re under investigation, her two MPPs. I’d like the Leader of the Opposition to answer about her own house—not about this house; about her own house.

Economic development

Mr. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: My question is to the Minister of Finance. One of the core commitments of our government is to create and protect good jobs here in Ontario. However, the previous Liberal government pursued policies that made life harder and less affordable for Ontario families and businesses.

For 15 years, Ontario’s businesses struggled to keep up with Liberal taxes and regulation, and many paid the price. It was time for change.

Our government is committed to sending a message to the world that Ontario is open for business. Could the minister please inform the House about how he plans to increase competitiveness for businesses in Ontario and Canada?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Thank you to the member from Brampton South. Back in September, we wrote to the federal government to ask them to take bold action in their fall economic statement today to support businesses in Ontario and across Canada.

Yesterday, Premier Ford asked the federal government to include 100% in-year accelerated capital cost depreciation in their fall statement. It’s a very technical measure, but a measure like this would encourage new and immediate investment in Ontario industries. We look forward to working with the federal government to strengthen Ontario’s competitiveness in the global economy.

Last week, our fall economic statement cleared the path for us to do exactly this. We will continue to work to ensure Ontario reclaims its place as the economic engine of Canada.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: It is reassuring to hear that our government stands firm in our commitment to lowering taxes to support employers so they can create, invest and grow jobs here in Ontario.

The time for bold action is now. Recent US tax reform and policy decisions provide the US with a competitive advantage over Ontario and Canada. We must continue to work to create an environment in which Ontario businesses can thrive. The people of Ontario are counting on us to do everything we can to ensure the strength of our economy for generations to come.

Could the minister further explain how we will strengthen Ontario’s competitiveness and ensure the world knows that Ontario is open for business?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: In our fall economic statement, we also include provisions for tax measures to strengthen Ontario’s economy. This could include paralleling any federal government response today to our written request to accelerate capital cost depreciation of new assets. We’re ready to work with the federal government to address the competitiveness challenges posed by the US tax reform. The risk of inaction is simply too great to stand idly by. We hope the federal government listens to Premier Ford’s request of yesterday and shares our concerns.

We must take action to improve our competitiveness before we see further erosion on investment, jobs and growth opportunities in Ontario. In doing so, Speaker, the world will know that Ontario is open for business.

Employment standards

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Last evening, this Legislature was filled with everyday working people looking for some pretty basic benefits on the job. The Premier might not think that a paid sick day matters, and we know he’s never had to live on the minimum wage, but for the people who make this province work, it’s a big deal.

As the Premier scales back people’s rights, what does he have to say to them?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: When I criss-crossed this province, the number one issue next to hydro was Bill 148. When I talked to the most needy people in society, they told me that they got laid off because of Bill 148. Tens of thousands of people lost their jobs under Bill 148. It discouraged companies from all over the world to come to Ontario and open a business. It was the worst job-killing bill. It was the worst bill for people, the most vulnerable people in society, to get a hand up. They want a job. We’re getting rid of Bill 148.

We’re going to open business here in Ontario. We’re going to create jobs, lower taxes, lower hydro rates—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. When the standing ovation is so loud that I can’t hear the person who has the floor, I have to interrupt the person who has the floor.

Interjection: Did Dean order that?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Start the clock. Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the Premier can yell as loud as he wants, but he’s been pretty crystal clear on what his priorities are. Last week, he passed a tax cut for himself and some of the wealthiest people in this province. But working people are going to lose paid sick days and lose basic protections on the job. And if you’re earning the minimum wage, you are going to lose nearly $2,000 a year in wages because of the choices and priorities of this Premier.

How does this Premier justify that, Speaker?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: There are two items in the fall economic statement, Speaker. First of all, what the Leader of the Opposition was referring to is the tax credits. Had they read it closely, they would realize this tax credit goes to seniors, those with disabilities and those who claim Ontario’s expense tax credit. They are the ones who suffered the most under the Liberal tax increases.

In this fall economic statement, 150,000 filers with allowable Ontario medical expenses would have paid $320 more in personal income tax. With our decision, these filers will pay $35 million less in personal income tax. That’s who is benefiting, those in addition to the 1.1 million low-income earners in Ontario who—

Interjections.

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

Next question. Start the clock.

Economic development

Mr. Doug Downey: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. Just this morning, we wrapped up Bill 47, our government’s first step toward making Ontario open for business. Over the course of this debate, we heard members of the opposition refer to businesses as bottom-feeders. We heard special interests say that small business owners shouldn’t be in business if they can’t handle more regulation, higher costs and higher taxes. But recent studies have shown that this approach has cost Ontario 56,000 jobs and taken $23 billion out of Ontario’s economy.

Speaker, can the minister inform the House what the government’s next steps will be, beyond Bill 47?

Hon. Todd Smith: I’d like to thank our deputy whip for a great question this morning. You know, the debate on Bill 47 told us a lot about how the opposition feels about businesses in the province of Ontario. Yesterday, between the heckles and their speeches, it became clear that members of the official opposition think that businesses shouldn’t make money. They refer to them as vindictive and bottom-feeders, Mr. Speaker. It’s unacceptable.

That’s not this government’s policy. This government knows the best way to ensure that there are good jobs in Ontario is to make sure there are competitive businesses in Ontario.

After question period, we’re going to vote on Bill 47. I hope there are members over there who believe that we should wind down the Ontario College of Trades. I hope there are members over there who believe we should create a competitive environment for businesses in Ontario. We want to make Ontario open for business, Mr. Speaker, and we hope they’ll support us in doing that.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Doug Downey: I’d like to thank the minister for his very thoughtful answer. Yesterday, the minister said that our government understood both the ambitions and the aspirations that small business owners had for their futures. I know that small business owners in my riding of Barrie–Springwater–Oro-Medonte had a hard time adjusting to the attack that the old, tired Bill 148 unleashed on them. Some responded by scaling back business hours and raising prices, but some just outright had to close their doors. Some who had been in business for years ended up closing their doors entirely and will not reopen.

I know Ontario can do better, and I know the minister does too. Can the minister tell the House how the government is going to build on the success of Bill 47?

Hon. Todd Smith: Boy, that’s another great question from our member from the Barrie area, Mr. Speaker.

Later today, I’m actually going to be heading to New Brunswick as my first stop to try and open more markets for Ontario’s businesses. Then, tomorrow night and Friday, I’ll be in Montreal. I’ll be joining my colleagues from the other provinces and territories so that we can break down trade barriers across the country, so that Ontario’s businesses can have trade from Nanaimo to New Glasgow and so that we can break down those interprovincial walls that exist.

It’s going to take more than opening up more access to the market, though. We have to get off the backs of our small businesses and medium-sized businesses. That means we have to get rid of the overregulation, Mr. Speaker: 380,000 pieces of regulation in this province, compared to half that in British Columbia, which is a pretty good place to live. We have to make some big-time cuts to red tape so that business owners can continue to feel the relief.

I can tell you, after the election, Mr. Speaker, there was a sigh of relief from the business community when that party lost the election and we won—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. The House will come to order.

Start the clock. Next question.

School facilities

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Premier. Masonville Public School, Tweedsmuir Public School, Kettle Creek Public School: These are just a few of the schools in the London area that are currently awaiting funding for additions and renovations that were promised by the previous Liberal government, but that funding has not flowed.

Matt Reid, the chair of the Thames Valley District School Board, said, “These previously approved and announced projects need to move forward and it should not be held up because of politics. These communities have been waiting for far too long in order to have permanent additions and a local school in their community. We can’t be playing politics with our kids.”

Speaker, why is this government playing politics with London-area students and families by preventing much-needed school funding from flowing?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you very much for the question. Our government is committed to ensuring that our students have access to safe learning environments. In fact, to correct this situation, to tell you what is actually happening: The money for these projects has been allocated. There is no pause or delay in the approval process for these capital projects.

The Ministry of Education has been working closely and collaboratively with the school boards to get these projects built. Ministry officials and the minister’s staff continue to be in frequent contact with the school board to build these schools with the speed, the quality and the value that taxpayers expect.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Speaker, the $67.4 million that was promised for London and area school projects has yet to be released. Staff from the Thames Valley District School Board have been in regular contact with the Ministry of Education, but all they are getting is the runaround. They have gotten no timelines on when, or even if, these projects will move ahead. In addition to schools, Speaker, much-needed child care and family centres are also on the line in London, Belmont, St. Thomas, Rodney, Dorchester, Woodstock and Ingersoll.

Children and families in the London area need answers. Will the $67.4 million that was promised for London and area school projects be coming? Yes or no?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Yes. As I indicated previously, the school board is working with the ministry to make sure that these projects come forward. There is no political interference whatsoever here. This has been allocated; it is happening. The board is working with the Ministry of Education to make sure, as I said before, that our students have access to safe learning environments and that these projects are going to be continuing as they are supposed to be, with the necessary speed and careful consideration, and to make sure that taxpayers receive the value that they expect from these projects. It is happening.

School bus safety

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne: I have a question about student safety today, to the Minister of Transportation. For decades, Ministers of Transportation, including me, relied on a report from Transport Canada from 1984 that concluded that school buses, because of the design of the seats and so on, were safer without seat belts for children riding on them. Through the media, specifically through CBC, we’ve now learned that a 2010 Transport Canada study concluded that three-point seat belts would save lives. That report was not circulated publicly, as far as we know, Mr. Speaker.

I assume that the minister has seen these reports in the media. My question to him is whether he has requested the 2010 Transport Canada report and whether he has seen that report. If so, would he share his own conclusions on the need for increased school bus safety with the people of Ontario and the children in school buses?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Thank you very much for that question from the member opposite. I’m pleased to field my first question on transportation in the House as minister.

I appreciate the concern brought forward. My ministry and I are looking at the report in regard to seat belts. I in fact will be speaking to Transport Minister Marc Garneau in the next few days, and that’s an issue that I’ll be raising with him. I think the federal government has a role to play in ensuring that. If they want to go down that route of regulating seat belts in school buses, we can work in partnership with the federal government in seeing how that could come to fruition. But I appreciate the question.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne: I appreciate that the minister is going to speak with Minister Garneau. Of course, the federal government has already said they are going to review those regulations, and I think that’s a good thing. The reality is that there have been over 6,000 documented injuries and 16 deaths since 1999 on school buses. I think it’s fair to say that all of us who have been transportation ministers in the country, had we had the advantage of knowing about that report, would have moved in this direction much more quickly.

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I’m asking the minister whether he would provide national leadership by supporting mandatory seat belt legislation in Ontario school buses. This is the largest province, and you can lead the way. I’m actually going to offer you an opportunity: Next week we’ll be debating Bill 56, which is my private member’s bill that would make three-point seat belts mandatory on all school buses. Can we count on your support?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: It’s kind of surreal that I’m now being asked questions from the former Premier of the province, who had 15 years while in office to make these changes necessary and didn’t do it. If it was a priority for her then, it would have been done. It’s unfortunate that they didn’t do it.

What I will promise this House is that I’ll work with the member opposite on this issue to review it to ensure that we will take action, if necessary, going forward. But again, we need the partnership and the direction from the federal government, and we’re willing to have that conversation with them. Going forward, I hope we can do the benefit because the focus of this government is the people of Ontario, and it’s the safety of our kids throughout the province that we want to ensure, and we’ll continue to work towards that.

Small business

Mr. Parm Gill: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Our government is committed to making Ontario open for business. In the short time our government has been in office, we have already done so much to mark the end of the Liberal tax-and-spend policy approach. Small businesses suffered for 15 long years under the previous Liberal government, and all of Ontario paid the price. That is why we scrapped the cap-and-trade carbon tax and have introduced legislation that, if passed, would repeal the most damaging aspects of Bill 148.

Ontario’s small businesses provide good jobs, support our economy and are the foundations of our communities. Could the minister please explain the steps our government is taking in the fall economic statement to further support small businesses in Ontario?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Thank you to the member from Milton for the question. We are taking action to stop the damaging policies the previous Liberal government was prepared to put in place. Unfortunately, the previous Liberal government took a page out of the federal government’s playbook. The federal government introduced a measure to remove the small business corporate income tax rate on the amount of passive income earned by a corporation. In 2018, the Ontario Liberal government decided to join in on this assault on small business.

In our fall economic statement, we announced that we are not proceeding with this proposal. Instead, we will provide support to small business that has been missing for 15 long years.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Parm Gill: Back to the minister: Our small businesses were handed challenge after challenge by the previous Liberal government. High electricity rates, punishing taxes and the restrictive measures of Bill 148 are just some of the things businesses had to overcome. Unfortunately, many of them simply could not succeed. The odds were stacked against them.

As businesses closed up shop and fled the province, it was clear help was needed. But to the relief of small business owners and employees across this province, Ontario is finally open for business. Could the minister please describe the significance of our decision to not proceed with the Liberals’ proposal to phase out access to the small business deduction based on the passive income a corporation earns?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: The Liberals’ 2018 budget continued their assault on small business by eliminating the lower tax rate. This measure would have increased taxes on Ontario’s small businesses by about $160 million annually by 2020 and 2021. Speaker, that is absolutely unacceptable.

Premier Ford has made it very clear that individuals, families and businesses in Ontario pay enough taxes already. We will not be imposing any new taxes on the hard-working people of the province of Ontario. After 15 years of Liberal waste, mismanagement and scandals, Ontario families and businesses can finally breathe a sigh of relief. We have made a commitment to make Ontario open for business.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Members take their seats. Order. The House will come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for York Centre, come to order.

Start the clock. Next question.

Education funding

Ms. Marit Stiles: My question is for the Premier. While school capital projects grind to a halt in the London area and other education programs are left in limbo, parents, students and teachers across Ontario are on edge, waiting to see what cuts are coming for their local schools.

With the release of a new funding formula consultation, the government is now focusing exclusively on finding efficiencies in our already-strained education system. People are right to be worried.

Will the Premier tell anxious families exactly what cuts the government has planned for schools across this province? Will it be more cuts from school repairs, special needs assistance or after-school programs?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Well, thank you very much for the question but, Mr. Speaker, through you, what I can tell the member is what people are actually worried about and concerned about is the $15-billion deficit that we inherited from the previous Liberal government. People are very, very concerned about that, because we know that we are spending $1 billion a month on interest to pay that debt. We’ve got to get that deficit under control, and that’s what we’re working on.

We are making sure, first of all, that our number one priority in education is making sure that each child has a safe and meaningful education in a building that is appropriate for them. That is what we are concerned with. But in order to be able to do that—and it’s no secret—we’ve indicated that we’re taking a look at each and every program in each and every ministry to make sure that we can find those efficiencies, because that $15-billion deficit isn’t just going to disappear. We’ve got to work hard on that and—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Marit Stiles: That was a slightly different response than when the member from London West asked specifically about the Thames Valley schools with the repairs that are being stopped. Absolutely, Minister.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the Premier again: I actually think that people are more worried, families are more worried about the fact that their kids are going to be sitting with their hats and mitts on again in classes this winter. How are they supposed to learn?

When the Conservatives cut $100 million in school repair funding this summer, school boards were left scrambling and projects had to be cancelled. Years and years of neglect by Conservative and Liberal governments have led us to a $16-billion—you want to talk billions—repair backlog for our schools. Now this government is looking for more places to cut and is taking things from bad to worse.

How many school projects, and in what communities, will have to be cancelled while this government decides how much deeper to cut?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Well, it’s hard to know where to start here, Mr. Speaker. First of all, to go back to the situation with the Thames Valley District School Board, as I indicated in the previous answer to the question from the member from London West, that work is continuing. Those projects have been approved. The boards of education and the Ministry of Education are working together to keep those projects moving.

With respect to your suggestion about cuts, that’s not happening. What we are looking for is efficiencies in the way that those services are being delivered. There’s a big difference between those two issues. We want to make sure that every child has a safe and comfortable learning environment. That’s our number one priority. That is what we are focusing on and that is what we’re working on very hard to deliver as we also address that $15-billion debt that is worrying people and that is stifling the government’s responsibility to continue to deliver those services.

But first and foremost—

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

Next question.

Taxation

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: My question is for the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. This week, Ontarians were able to enjoy some of the lowest gas prices in over a year. The residents of my riding of Markham–Thornhill are able to have some peace of mind, knowing that our government is putting every effort toward making life more affordable for them and ensuring we are keeping our promises. This drop marked the beginning of many more savings this government plans to provide and is just a small part of what Ontarians can expect.

Last week, the Minister of Finance introduced the fall economic statement. He highlighted some of the important steps our government has made. Can the minister update for this Legislature what his ministry has done to keep our promise of relief to the residents of Ontario?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member for Markham–Thornhill—and thank you for that question—he’s quite correct. The Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board led a discussion last week which indicated that $3.2 billion worth of savings had already been found by our government. Swift action by our government has already returned $2.7 billion and identified significant tax relief.

Our government was elected to put money back into people’s pockets. One of the ways we did that was by eliminating the cap-and-trade carbon tax that was taking money from Ontario families. By the passage of that act, we will return $260 a year to an average family. As the member mentioned, those savings are already being felt at the pumps: just this morning, at the Costco on Kingston Road, 98.6 cents a litre.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: I thank the minister for his answer. He’s had a large role to play in providing relief to the people of Ontario, and his hard work is clearly paying off.

There is, however, one thing that runs the risk of allowing this relief to be taken away from our province. The Prime Minister has made it clear he plans to impose his own carbon tax on this province: a tax that will make gas prices higher, a tax that will raise the cost to heat our homes, a tax that will increase the cost of almost everything, and, let’s be clear, a tax that Ontarians can’t afford.

Can the minister tell us what we can expect should the federal carbon tax be imposed on this province?

Hon. Rod Phillips: By 2022, people in Canada, Ontario families, can expect $648. That’s the cost of the Trudeau carbon tax. And, Mr. Speaker, the federal Minister of the Environment says they’re not done; they are putting in place the framework. But $648: That’s what the FAO said.

Our Premier is assembling a coalition of provinces—there are now six of them—that oppose the federal carbon tax, that oppose what is going on in Ottawa. We will do everything in our power to make sure that there is transparency about the carbon tax. The finance minister spoke about measures so people can see on the gas pump what the cost per litre is, what the cost is on their natural gas bill. We will make sure Ontarians know what it’s costing and we will use everything in our power to stop the Trudeau carbon tax.

University and College funding

Mr. Chris Glover: My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Last night, the government rejected Ryerson University’s plan for a new law school. This is now the sixth cancellation universities have seen from this government—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I apologize to the member. I can’t hear his question. I would ask the House to come to order—both sides of the House to come to order.

I apologize again. I’ll give you extra time.

Mr. Chris Glover: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for that. I couldn’t hear myself.

My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Last night, the government rejected Ryerson University’s plan for a new law school. This is now the sixth cancellation universities have seen from this government. Ryerson was closing a gap by offering innovative programming with a focus on social justice and mandatory work placements. The law school has passed multiple approvals since 2015 and was going to offer access to law school at a lower price.

Why did the minister reject these plans in the last stage of approval?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. The people of Ontario gave this government a mandate to restore respect for taxpayers, and part of that process is making sure that government services and programs are efficient and effective.

My ministry reviewed the submission by Ryerson University to create a new Juris Doctor program at their university. My ministry considers many factors in making a recommendation, factors like whether the program duplicates other programs, whether there is labour market demand, whether there is student demand, the proposed tuition rates, and the program’s alignment with the institution’s strategic mandate agreement.

My ministry and I came to the same conclusion: that at this time, it was not in the interest of the people of Ontario to approve the proposal. However, I am absolutely committed to working with Ryerson University—

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

Supplementary.

Mr. Chris Glover: So many Ontarians have been priced out of access to our legal system. They can’t afford to hire lawyers, and those who want to be lawyers can’t afford to go to law school. Ryerson proposed an innovative law school with a focus on access to the justice system for all people in our province. The proposal emphasized the lower tuition fees—still ridiculously high, but at $20,000, half of the amount of some of our other law schools in the province.

This would have been a welcome addition to Ontario’s post-secondary sector, but instead, the government is scrapping the project without revealing the cost of the cancellation. This was the same story that was spun about the cancelled campuses in Brampton, Milton and Markham. Millions of dollars had already gone into these projects, which have now been wasted.

Can the minister tell the House today how much public money has been wasted on cancelling yet another university project that was well on its way to fruition?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: We promised the people of Ontario to restore accountability and trust in government, and that includes making decisions that may be difficult, but are ultimately in the interests of the people of Ontario. We have come to the decision that, at this time, we will not be supporting a Juris Doctor program at Ryerson.

I must say that I am surprised by the NDP’s inability to respect the taxpayer. They continue to demonstrate that the people of Ontario cannot trust them to govern in an effective and efficient manner that puts the interests of the people first. Unlike the Liberals who promised everything and the NDP who will say yes to anything, we are focused on respecting taxpayers and ensuring that the services and programs that our government supports are efficient and effective.

Skilled trades

Ms. Jill Dunlop: My question is also to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Minister, last week, Bill 47 was before the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs. Presenters talked about the changes proposed by the government that would reform the apprenticeship and skilled trades system in Ontario. The proposed changes in the legislation, if passed, would wind down the Ontario College of Trades, standardize the journeyperson-to-apprentice ratios, and place a moratorium on classifications and reclassifications in Ontario.

I have heard from many skilled trade businesses in Simcoe North how excited they are about these changes. Can the minister tell us what job creators told the committee and why we know that the legislation, if passed, will create better jobs for Ontario?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you to the member for that question. Speaker, employers impressed upon the committee the need to pass Bill 47 in order to create good-quality jobs for the people of Ontario and to address the skills gap.

Sean Reid from the Progressive Contractors Association said, “All of the data, from BuildForce Canada and other think tanks that are studying this issue, shows that we have a massive shortage of labour in our province right now and it is only getting worse.” Mr. Reid went on to say, “I’ve talked to many members. In one case, one fellow had 35 resumés of people he was ready to employ, but he could not even hire one of them because of the ratios.”

Speaker, employers clearly emphasize that Bill 47 is on the right track to create good-quality jobs and will help fulfill our promise to the people of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Jill Dunlop: It is great to hear that job creators in Ontario are responding so positively to the proposed changes to the skilled trades and apprenticeship system in Ontario.

I also know that both employers and organized labour have been quoted saying the Ontario College of Trades was not operating effectively. Even the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers’ executive chairman said the college was “unable to achieve its mandate.” Meanwhile, LIUNA says the college created “enormous amounts of red tape” and “confusion.”

Speaker, it is clear from the committee and the public comments of stakeholders that the College of Trades was an impediment to the apprenticeship system in Ontario.

Can the minister tell us more about why the passage of the Making Ontario Open for Business Act is an important step in this government’s keeping its promise to create better skilled trade jobs and make Ontario open for business?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Speaker, employers said loud and clear during committee that Bill 47 will create jobs in the skilled trades. Patrick McManus of the Ontario Skilled Trades Alliance said, “This is a very critical change for the skilled trades. The opportunity for employment is actually going to significantly grow.” He went on to say that he estimates the changes will create tens of thousands of well-paying, high-quality jobs.

Meanwhile, Jamie Adam, president of Pioneer Craftsmen, said:

“With the aging workforce in Ontario, we need to act now if we want to start to close that skills gap. Thankfully, Bill 47 is a huge step in the right direction.

“Pioneer Craftsmen, my company, currently has four apprentices. This legislation will allow us to hire immediately two additional apprentices. They are going to then receive the additional skills, training and support that they need to become highly skilled tradespeople.”

Speaker, Bill 47 will create good-quality jobs, and I encourage the opposition to support making Ontario—

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

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Next question.

Rent regulation

Ms. Suze Morrison: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. This government is reopening a loophole that scraps rent control protections for tenants in new rental units, even though the Premier said during the campaign, “When it comes to rent control, we’re going to maintain the status quo.”

Can the minister explain this reversal and tell us why this government thinks that landlords should have the power to double or triple their tenants’ rent at any time?

Hon. Steve Clark: Speaker, with all due respect to the member opposite, we are upholding our commitment to tenants across this province. We made that commitment during the campaign. We made it in the fall economic statement.

Speaker, we have a housing supply shortage, especially in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area. We cannot accept the status quo that, over the last 15 years, the previous government brought no ideas to the table to increase housing supply.

We’re going to work with stakeholders. We’re going to listen to people when they have suggestions, unlike the previous government. The only way to create an atmosphere for new purpose-built rental housing in this province is to do exactly what our government did in the fall economic statement.

With good public policy we’re going to move forward, but we are going to make sure—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Once again, I had to interrupt the member who had the floor because I couldn’t hear because of the standing ovation.

Start the clock. Supplementary.

Ms. Suze Morrison: With all respect to the minister, when the last Conservative government scrapped rent control, it did not create new affordable housing. Scrapping rent control didn’t work then and it’s not going to work now. It will only make renting more expensive and more stressful for tenants.

Instead of letting landlords reach into tenants’ pockets whenever they want, the government should be investing in new affordable housing that will help families get a leg up in life. Why is this minister cutting $100 million from affordable housing programs this year alone?

Hon. Steve Clark: Again, with all due respect to the member opposite, we’re cancelling the Development Charges Rebate Program, which would only benefit 13 municipalities. By moving forward and lifting that exemption for new units, we’re going to create housing in 444 municipalities, not 13.

Speaker, I’ve said to this member before, and I’m going to say to all members of the House, we want to work across party lines. Our Housing Supply Action Plan has an opportunity for all voices to come together, to have those good suggestions on how we can increase speed, on how we can have a better mix, on how we can reduce costs, on how we can listen to both landlords and tenants and, most importantly, how we can look at innovative ways to increase the housing supply. That’s what our Housing Supply Action Plan will do.

Again, I challenge this member and every member of the opposition to participate in a positive way to increase housing—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. The House will come to order.

Start the clock. Next question.

Natural gas / Gaz naturel

M lle Amanda Simard: My question is for the Minister of Infrastructure.

Sous la gouvernance du gouvernement précédent, nos étudiants, familles, entreprises et aînés avaient de la difficulté à faire les fins de mois. Les journées raccourcissent, les nuits s’allongent, la neige couvre les rues. C’est clair que l’hiver s’en vient en Ontario.

Winter in years prior was especially difficult because energy poverty was the reality for so many as Ontario’s hydro rates, the highest in North American over the years, forced people to choose between eating and heating and severely hindered Ontario’s rural economy.

Bill 32, the Access to Natural Gas Act, proposes to reach 78 communities and give the great people of our province an affordable home heating option. Can the minister please update the House on the status of the bill?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: Thank you for the question. I would also like to thank the members on the Standing Committee on General Government, particularly my parliamentary assistant, the member from King–Vaughan, for all of his hard work on Bill 32.

Mr. Speaker, the member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell is correct. Skyrocketing hydro bills, stemming from the former Liberal government, was the primary contributor to increasingly unaffordable living costs in Ontario. I am so pleased to stand here as Minister of Infrastructure in the government for the people, led by our Premier, to put more money back in people’s pockets.

We understand that the people are struggling to heat their homes. Unlike the Liberals, we are properly addressing affordability costs in Ontario. Rather than trying to ban natural gas in Ontario, our government will reach rural, remote, northern and First Nations communities, make life affordable and open Ontario for business.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

M lle Amanda Simard: I thank the minister for his bold leadership.

Je sais que je parle pour mes commettants et les résidents de partout en Ontario lorsque je dis que nous avons hâte d’ouvrir la prospérité pour des douzaines de communautés rurales éloignées et non servies.

Estimates suggest that residential customers and families can save between $800 and $2,500 per year just by switching from electric heat, propane or oil to natural gas. That’s big savings for the people in rural and northern communities.

En éliminant le système de la taxe sur le carbone, les familles épargneront 80 $ par année, et pour les entreprises environ 285 $.

Ontario’s agri-food sector is also one of the world’s most diverse, supporting 1.2 million jobs. That’s one in eight Ontario workers.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell the House how constituents and affected groups are reacting to our government’s natural gas policy?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: What a great question. Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. The response we have received back from numerous individuals has been uplifting, to say the least, and I would like to take the opportunity to highlight a few examples.

For instance, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce had this to say about our proposed legislation: “Bill 32 will allow rural and northern communities to realize their potential and become economic drivers for Ontario.... Bill 32 sends a clear signal that Ontario is open for business.” Inspiring words, to say the least, Mr. Speaker.

Further encouraging commentary we have heard about this legislation comes from the town of South Bruce. They stated that what they like about our government’s proposal, compared to the previous government’s, is that “this is much broader, so we are going to see gas expansion to many more communities than under” the previous, Kathleen “Wynne government.”

Mr. Speaker, I greatly look forward to this bill being brought back for third reading, and hopefully it will receive unanimous support from all parties here—

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

Next question.

Environmental protection

Mr. Ian Arthur: My question is to the Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker. There are reports today that the Ontario government plans to copy Australia’s climate change policy. Australia’s policy reverses the polluter-pay principle and instead forces taxpayers to pay polluters. What’s worse is that since this policy was implemented, Australia’s emissions have gone up.

Did the Premier have the Environmental Commissioner fired because he did not want his climate change policy to be subjected to independent scrutiny?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of the Environment.

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member: I do thank him for the question. We were elected on a clear promise to reduce costs, to get rid of the cap-and-trade program and to fight the carbon tax, but also to bring forward a balanced plan for the environment, and that’s what we’ll do. In looking to that balanced plan, we are looking, yes, around the world. We’re looking at programs like the reverse auction in Australia.

Mr. Speaker, I don’t know why the member takes such offence at the idea of a program that, for instance, promotes trees being planted and promotes low-cost solutions to reducing carbon. Why is it only the high-cost solutions to reducing carbon?

We’ll bring forward a pragmatic plan. We’ll bring forward a responsible plan. We’ll bring forward a plan that does not, however, have the highest carbon tax in history—$150 a tonne—which is what one of their members suggested.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Ian Arthur: That’s not a plan. That’s a path to disaster, and it will be done on the backs of taxpayers.

In September, the Environmental Commissioner released a report that warned of the impacts of scrapping Ontario’s climate change plan without providing a replacement. In the response, the minister wrote back to the Environmental Commissioner: “I want to respectfully advise that any suggestion” saying “we should pursue policies that betray commitments we made to the people” will not be taken.

In retrospect—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Mr. Ian Arthur: I can wait.

In retrospect, these comments can be viewed as a warning and perhaps even a threat against an independent officer of the Legislature.

Is the Premier firing the Environmental Commissioner because he wants an environmental lapdog, not a watchdog?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, under the proposals that the member is misrepresenting, Ontario will still—

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

Hon. Rod Phillips: Withdrawn.

Under the proposals that are being so characterized by the member, Ontario will still be the o