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

August 2, 2018

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2018-Aug-02 (PDF)

L014 - Thu 2 Aug 2018 / Jeu 2 aoû 2018

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 2 August 2018 Jeudi 2 août 2018

Orders of the Day

Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 annulant le programme de plafonnement et d’échange

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Municipal government

Municipal government

Municipal elections

Municipal government

Municipal government

Taxation

Municipal elections

Social assistance

Taxation

Municipal elections

Mental health services

Municipal government

Public safety

Municipal government

Firefighting in northern Ontario

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Social assistance

Lakeshore Mardi Gras

Road safety

Mike Boughton

Caribana

Social assistance

Tom Wilson

Greenbelt

Government’s record

Special Olympics

Petitions

Municipal government

Social assistance

Municipal elections

Municipal elections

Indigenous affairs

Long-term care

Municipal elections

Municipal elections

Wearing of poppies

Affaires autochtones

Long-term care

Municipal elections

Visitors

Private Members’ Public Business

Municipal elections

PTSD Awareness Day Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur la Journée de sensibilisation à l’état de stress post-traumatique

Garrett’s Legacy Act (Requirements for Movable Soccer Goals), 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur le legs de Garrett (exigences relatives aux buts de soccer mobiles)

Municipal elections

PTSD Awareness Day Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur la Journée de sensibilisation à l’état de stress post-traumatique

Garrett’s Legacy Act (Requirements for Movable Soccer Goals), 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur le legs de Garrett (exigences relatives aux buts de soccer mobiles)

Municipal elections

Orders of the Day

Better Local Government Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur l’amélioration des administrations locales

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 annulant le programme de plafonnement et d’échange

Resuming the debate adjourned on August 1, 2018, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 4,

An Act respecting the preparation of a climate change plan, providing for the wind down of the cap and trade program and repealing the Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act, 2016 / Projet de loi 4, Loi concernant l’élaboration d’un plan sur le changement climatique, prévoyant la liquidation du programme de plafonnement et d’échange et abrogeant la Loi de 2016 sur l’atténuation du changement climatique et une économie sobre en carbone.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): When the House last debated Bill 4, it’s my understanding that the member for Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound still had some time on the clock.

Mr. Bill Walker: It’s a pleasure to finish my discussion on Bill 4,

An Act respecting the preparation of a climate change plan, providing for the wind down of the cap and trade program and repealing the Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act, 2016.

Mr. Speaker, just a few short weeks ago, our government was given a clear mandate to put people first and make life more affordable for Ontario families. Equally clear was our commitment to scrap the cap-and-trade carbon tax that was imposed by the previous Liberal government. Promise made, promise kept. That’s why it is an honour to stand here today and announce that, as one of our earliest acts, we have gone down that path.

If passed, this legislation will officially remove the cap-and-trade carbon tax from Ontario’s books. In doing so, we hope to fulfill our promise to the people of Ontario. Ontario’s carbon tax era is over. A cap-and-trade carbon tax increased the price of everything. That’s why we know that the winding down of the cap-and-trade carbon tax will benefit all Ontarians.

The conclusion of the cap-and-trade is a key step towards fulfilling the government’s commitment to reduce gas prices by 10 cents per litre, but the benefits don’t stop there: cheaper gas prices, lower energy bills and money in people’s pockets. Eliminating the cap-and-trade carbon tax will save the average family $260 per year.

In addition to saving families money, the elimination of the cap-and-trade carbon tax will remove a cost burden from Ontario businesses, allowing them to grow, create jobs and compete in other jurisdictions. It is anticipated that through the cancellation of cap-and-trade and reducing the fuel tax, Ontario will create an estimated 14,000 jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks and the member from Ajax. He has only been a cabinet minister for three and a half or four weeks on the job, and getting up to speed with the work that they have been doing, and yet he brought this legislation in to show people that we were true to our word and we were going to take action.

The orderly and transparent wind-down of the cap-and-trade carbon tax will benefit all Ontarians while offering some support for eligible registered participants in the previous program.

We are ensuring that no additional cap-and-trade carbon tax costs will be imposed on suppliers to avoid passing these costs down to consumers. Again, that will allow them more money in their pockets and the ability to choose where they spend their money.

If passed, the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act will repeal the cap-and-trade legislation, extinguish allowances, protect taxpayers from further costs, and set a regulation-making authority for a compensation framework. Our government looks forward to moving past the previous government’s obsession with raising taxes, and instead focusing on an environmental plan that works.

While we understand the challenges that climate change presents, we do not believe that the solution is found in a regressive tax. That is why our plan for the people made it clear that we will deliver real action on providing clean air and water, a focus on conservation and reducing emissions, while cleaning up litter, garbage and waste.

If passed, the legislation we’re tabling would help us put in place a better plan for addressing real environmental goals, including fighting climate change. It is our commitment to put in place a more effective plan, a made-in-Ontario solution to address the environmental challenges we face while respecting the taxpayers of Ontario and, in my case, the great people of Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday—or Madam Speaker, sorry. I didn’t see the change happen. I didn’t see you take the chair, perhaps I should say, Madam Speaker—just to put a little levity in our morning when we’re talking about such a serious issue.

Madam Speaker, when I spoke yesterday, I talked a fair bit about a couple of things, one being our commitment to nuclear, the low-cost, stable, emissions-free, baseload generation of our nuclear plants, and that we are fully supportive of Pickering, Darlington and, in my backyard, Bruce. That’s in the riding of the honourable member Lisa Thompson from Huron–Bruce and the Minister of Education.

We stand here knowing that, in the case of nuclear, our grid is 98% carbon-free. A big reason for that is the Candu technology—Canadian technology—in our resilient nuclear fleet. We want to make sure that we continue to go down that path. I encourage all of the members, both the opposition and the independents—especially our friend the member from Guelph, the independent Green. I often want to take the opportunity, when he’s here debating with us, to ensure that someone who is so passionate about the environment will actually support what we’re trying to do, that we’re actually going to do real change for the environment.

One of the biggest concerns we’ve had, and one we debated here for months and months and months on the old legislation, was that there was actually nothing that the Liberal government would guarantee that was actually going to limit or reduce pollution. What they were allowing was for people to continue to pay to pollute. I can’t understand that, for all the people that suggest that they’re so environmentally concerned, that they would actually accept legislation that would allow people to continue to pay to pollute. But there was nothing with reductions coming down or emissions actually reducing.

We wanted to do that. We tried to amend that through the bills, and in the past Parliament, we did not get there. So I’m truly pleased that we were able to get to this point.

I mentioned yesterday that they talked a fair bit—particularly the NDP, the official opposition—about California. They seemed to be really keen on California. We were going to spend billions and billions and billions of dollars, send that to California, which was going to prop up their economy, make them doubly competitive against our businesses here in Ontario. I can’t fathom, for the life of me, why anyone would actually think sending billions of dollars to California was something that was good for Ontarians, and particularly the people that they represent in their respective ridings.

I’m hopeful that as we introduce this legislation, rather than some of the things that we’ve been hearing and the derogatory remarks by many people and the ability to try to stir things up, we can actually settle that down, we can actually work collaboratively for the benefit of all Ontarians. Regardless of what riding or what party we belong to, I think we always have to make sure that we’re looking at what the opportunity is to be able to help our environment, to help the people of Ontario.

By doing this, taking those costs out—the cost of gasoline. Ten cents per litre is going to come back, which is going to allow a lot of people, particularly those in a riding like Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound—we don’t have public transit except in the city of Owen Sound. Everywhere else, you have to drive. So that gas tax decrease is going to actually have a huge impact, a positive impact. That will allow people to have money to spend where they choose, which will build the economy up and create more jobs in our own ridings.

I think we want to ensure that we’re doing that. That $260—to be able to put it back in the pockets of people is absolutely critical. That’s going to help, again, drive the economy. I think we’ve been talking in here a fair bit about people, and the best way to give people that sense of self is to actually have a good-paying job, to able to support their families and their loved ones. By tackling this piece of legislation, ensuring that we’re doing it in a pragmatic, practical sense, so there’s going to be more money in the pockets of everyday Ontarians, that’s actually going to help drive our economy. That’s actually going to create more jobs—14,000 more jobs as a result.

I again applaud the minister for his efforts that are going to ensure that there are more jobs, that we’re actually more competitive. Our businesses are going to be more competitive. I think I talked yesterday about the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters association, which was very concerned that our biggest trading partner in the south doesn’t have a carbon tax. That allows them to be way more competitive than we are here in Ontario. So we, again, have to stand firm to make sure that there isn’t a regressive tax that puts the cost of goods and services in our province higher than those of our competitors and makes it very, very challenging.

I want to just quote the minister, because I think it’s worth quoting again: “Ontario’s carbon tax era is over.” Cancelling the cap-and-trade carbon tax is “the right thing to do, it’s a good thing to do, and it’s one more example of promises made; promises kept.” That is from Rod Phillips, Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. Again, he’s bringing out a piece of legislation that’s practical. It’s going to have targets. It’s going to make sure that it’s actually changing the curve of emissions.

It’s not just going to pretend and feel good and get highlights in the newspaper and across the media, saying, “We’re environmentalists and we’re standing for this.” We’re truly going to put action in place that will provide clean air and water, with a focus on conservation and reducing emissions, because at the end of the day, if we’re not reducing emissions, we’re not changing the environment; we’re not changing the health of Ontarians; we’re not changing what people continue to say they want to do.

So I hope and I encourage all members of this House who have been elected democratically in their own ridings to come to the table, to work with us on this legislation. It’s always good. We were on that side not too long ago, and we know that there’s a job to be done by the opposition. I know many of my friends across the aisle; they are the type of people who want to work with us. So I open our arms to them. I say: Join with us. Come to the table with good thoughts and solutions. Come with positive thoughts.

Come with the ability to say, “How can we work with you to make sure that we do truly protect the environment and improve what’s going to happen, particularly for our kids and grandkids?”

Always when I’m speaking here, I look reverently at all of our pages and the great work they’ve done. Thank you for coming back and sharing some of your summer with us. When I got elected, the whole reason I got elected was the next generation. I don’t have grandchildren yet. I have two sons, Zach and Ben. Zach just turned 24 yesterday, so happy belated birthday to my son Zach. I have a ton of nieces and nephews and other family members. It’s all about you. It’s all about the future.

The environment absolutely has to be critical, but we have to do that in balance with a thriving economy so we have the ability to pay for all those goods and services and front-line programs that we all deserve.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Questions and comments?

Mr. Joel Harden: I want to thank the member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, and the minister, for his comments. I actually want to try to begin this morning on a collegial note. I want to speak to my friends on the other side of the aisle in language that I think they can identify with. I want to try to put a cost on climate change for you, because you don’t have to listen to socialists like me to get it; you’ve mentioned that you get it. I’m glad to hear that.

The insurers of this country are estimating that the cost of floods, forest fires and other extreme weather events right now runs at $1 billion. That’s up from $400 million six years ago. What we know right now is that other countries—including the United States, headed by a President with whom I have very little in common—actually have seen some pretty seismic changes in their economy.

Do you know, Madam Speaker, that over half the energy jobs in the United States are renewable energy jobs? The energy sector: Over half the jobs in the United States are renewable energy jobs. Germany, a country I spoke about last afternoon in this House: Half of its energy is coming from renewable energy. We see cities like Copenhagen that are generating 10% to 20% of their country’s electricity on their own through renewable energy strategies.

This province is abundantly rich in natural resources. What we are not abundantly rich in, Madam Speaker, to be honest, is urgency with respect to climate change.

The cap-and-trade plan brought forward under the previous government had flaws. I don’t think anybody on this side of the aisle would disagree with that. But what is deeply troubling for me is the notion that we will get rid of cap-and-trade without having a substantial plan in place. So I welcome seeing the plan that our friends are going to be bringing forward, but it had better have ambitious targets to deal with the numbers that I see that I think are incontrovertible: the fact that we need to hit 1.5 degrees of total global warming if we want to have a planet to live on.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Robin Martin: I’m pleased to rise today to respond to my friend and also the comments across. I think this is a very important bill for Ontario’s future. As our Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks has said, we believe that climate change is important to address, and we plan to have a plan to address that. That’s what the member is asking for. We realize that it’s important to address these issues, but this plan was not addressing these issues. It was not actually doing anything to protect the environment. It’s costing Ontario a lot of money. It’s going to cost us in competitiveness.

That’s why we don’t think we should be proceeding with the current cap-and-trade plan, and that’s why we’ve brought forward this bill for an orderly wind-down of that.

Our objective is to have that orderly wind-down and to protect taxpayers from the cost. So I think the plan is a sound plan to do that. We’re heading in the right direction. It’s a matter of balancing priorities. We’re looking forward to working on an environmental plan, as my friend said, hopefully with the input of a lot of people in this House, because I’m sure there are a lot of good ideas here. But we want to have a plan that is not just a tax grab, that is not just taking money out of the pockets of Ontarians and sending it to other jurisdictions, making our businesses less competitive. That is not a plan that will help Ontario in any way.

We realize that some members feel that there is something urgent that needs to be addressed urgently, but we must make sure that we are doing things that actually address the problem as opposed to things that are just for headlines.

The member opposite mentioned Copenhagen, which gets 20% of its electricity from renewable energy, but I would point out that Copenhagen is on an island in the middle of the ocean. It’s much easier when you’re on an island in the middle of the ocean to rely—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Thank you.

Questions and comments?

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: People in London are reeling from the short-sighted cancellation of cap-and-trade. On this issue, we need to distinguish between words and actions. I’d like to focus on the actions, not the slogans, of this Conservative government. Each action in isolation might not be noticeable, but together they form a disturbing and troubling pattern.

In my riding of London, our social housing was built in the 1960s and 1970s. The heating, cooling and lighting are in dire need of replacement and would have seen upgrades until this government came into power. The Conservative government barrelled in, cancelling cap-and-trade. As a result, funding for the Social Housing Apartment Improvement Program and GreenON Social Housing program were gone. Over $8 million for vital upgrades in London is now lost.

Last week, I told this House that London’s family shelters are at 219% capacity, but this government is content to point fingers at the federal government and single out refugees instead of dealing with the problem by opening provincially and federally owned properties.

As if that weren’t enough, now Ontarians on social assistance will see a 50% cut from their scheduled increase.

My constituents are asking: Why is this government targeting the most vulnerable in Ontario?

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Questions and comments?

Ms. Donna Skelly: The cap-and-trade program that was put forward by the previous government really does nothing to impact climate change. Climate change is real. Our government has recognized that. What is does is it is an onerous tax on the lives of hard-working Ontarians right across this province.

I was very honoured, after being elected, to accept the position of parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. Our mandate is to foster a strong, innovative economy that can provide jobs, opportunities and prosperity for all Ontarians. This includes delivering programs, services and tools to help businesses innovate and compete in today’s fast-changing global economy. It also means finding innovative ways to cut red tape and to improve regulations to better support business.

The cancellation of cap-and-trade is a critical component of carrying out our mandate. The end of cap-and-trade means the average Ontario household will now save about $260 a year on energy and fuel costs and indirect costs on increased goods and services. It will also remove a cost from Ontario businesses, a burden. That will allow them to compete around the world, to grow and to create jobs.

The Liberal government’s expensive cap-and-trade tax made Ontario simply unaffordable and uncompetitive. It added 4.3 cents per litre to the cost of gasoline for Ontario families, and it increased the cost of heating a home. It lined government coffers with $1.9 billion a year that was wasted on political self-interest and scandal. The orderly winding down of the cap-and-trade is a key step towards fulfilling this government’s commitment to making Ontario open for business once again.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): I return to the member for Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound.

Mr. Bill Walker: Thank you to all the speakers.

To the member from Ottawa Centre, a self-described socialist, I think that’s just wonderful, but I like to hear that collegial thought, and I want to thank his colleague from Algoma–Manitoulin, because he stood up in the House the other day and again tried to foster that thought that we can work here together. I’m really, really thinking we’re having some impact here, because yesterday when I was speaking, the member from Timmins actually started off by saying “Promise made, promise kept.” So I think we’re actually moving the meter, Madam Speaker; I think we’re actually doing that.

What I am hopeful with this is that we’re actually going to get more of that collegiality, we’re going to get people working together collaboratively so that we have true change. If I can get that member from the Green Party to say “Promise made, promise kept,” I know we’re really going to be going there.

The member from Ottawa Centre talked about renewable energy. What I want to ask him is, nuclear is actually baseload power. It’s stable, well-paying jobs. It’s low-cost, emissions-free, baseload generation, as opposed to intermittent energy that’s going to cost us $133 billion over the next 20 years, for 5% of the grid at the best of times. So I want to ensure that what he is talking about—that we are actually looking at it from a pragmatic, reality baseload.

The member from Eglinton–Lawrence talked about the plan for climate change as very important. It was one of our first pieces of legislation. I think that just goes to show, again, that we want it to be realistic and pragmatic, not a regressive tax and not feel-good slogans.

To the member from London North Centre, I think all I’m going to say is thanks for your opinion. I want to ask you to ask the people in your riding, why are you so intent on sending billions of dollars to California when that money could be going to the social housing you suggest you’re so concerned about?

And to the member from Flamborough–Glanbrook, she referenced a regressive, onerous tax. I want to congratulate her on becoming the PA to the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. You and Minister Wilson are going to do a great job because I know you are inherently wanting to make our province better. You’re going to make it competitive for our businesses and all of the people. That’s where the money comes from to pay for our programs and services.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Further debate?

Mr. Michael Mantha: Good morning, Speaker. It’s always wonderful waking up, coming in for 9 a.m. in the morning and seeing you in the chair. It’s going to become a routine.

Seeing my friend from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound across the way, it looks like we’re going to be scheduled regularly together inside the House, so I’ll be hearing a lot from him. He’s going to be hearing a lot from me.

Speaker, it’s always a great privilege and honour to stand on behalf of the good people of Algoma–Manitoulin when I take my seat. As a matter of fact, this morning I’m pretty sure that Mrs. Trepanier out of Gore Bay—Mrs. Trepanier, good morning—is joining us, and also Marlene Turner out of Manitouwadge. Good morning, Marlene. These are two individuals who have been watching and helping me since I’ve been elected. As you can tell, I have a French accent. Sometimes my pronunciation isn’t the best, and they are always there to help me out.

I always enjoy, when I meet up with them at constituency clinics or when I go have tea with them, just to sit down and talk, because I value their views. They are respected individuals from their communities and they certainly bring many of the issues to me when we do sit down.

Speaker, what can I say? The Cap and Trade Cancellation Act is probably one of the worst things this government is going to do or has done. You know what? It’s going to be taking us backwards and there’s no doubt about it.

Conservatives shamelessly confused people during the election, deliberately mixing up the federal carbon tax with the cap-and-trade program we share with Quebec and California. What is truly shameful is that the Conservatives didn’t want to explain what the cap-and-trade program was, what it was doing and how it was working. They knowingly omitted to explain that people wouldn’t be paying tax on carbon when actually all our big polluters were in a common market with Quebec and California, and the more they polluted, the more they paid through allowances.

You know what, Speaker? All that money they paid was going to help us transition to a greener economy. That was going to help us retrofit our homes, our schools and our businesses. That was going to help us invest in greener alternatives for energy, transportation and much, much more.

But this Conservative government is refusing to protect the environment for Ontarians today and for future generations. This is nothing but the act of climate change deniers. I call that CCD. That’s going to be a theme throughout my comments that I have on this bill this morning. That’s shameful. If this Conservative government thinks cap-and-trade is not the way to go and that it is too costly to Ontarians, what are they proposing to replace it? Nothing—they propose nothing to protect the environment. That’s CCD.

Nothing in this bill aims at reducing greenhouse gas emissions or fighting climate change. They just don’t think it’s important to preserve the planet we live on. They even got rid of the mention of the words “climate change” in the name of the Ministry of the Environment. Now, that’s CCD.

Words matter, and this Conservative government clearly had no intention of working to preserve a healthy planet for our children. The cancellation of cap-and-trade will only help the rich—and the rich will get richer—like every single decision this government is making.

Do you know what’s funny, Mr. Speaker? Nobody in Quebec or California is talking about cancelling their cap-and-trade. That’s because cap-and-trade is not bad for the economy; it’s good for the economy. Quebec’s economy is booming and it is still considered one of the most proactive jurisdictions in North America regarding the environment. California’s economy is booming, as well. Even better, California met its greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets early. That is pretty darn good.

Meanwhile, our new Premier is ripping up contracts and undermining investor confidence in doing business in the biggest province in this country. And who knows how much we will end up paying in compensation for the breach of those contracts—the instability that it’s sending, the signal that it’s giving to a lot of businesses that are looking at Ontario and coming to invest here? That’s going to be a lot of money. Does gas plant 2.0 come to mind, or does Ford plan 2.0 come to mind? These are some of the things that we’re going to be paying for for a very, very, very long time.

This province is big and has very different perspectives as to where we should be heading. This government is literally going against the wishes of 60% of the population, and I brought that up in some of my comments earlier this week. New Democrats, Liberals and the Greens were all in favour of continuing with the cap-and-trade program. It was not a perfect system, as my colleague brought up earlier, and there were some flaws in it, but we had something to work with.

We had proposed modifications to the cap-and-trade program. New Democrats recognized that northern and rural communities as well as lower-income people were going to end up paying more—yes, more, because we are definitely impacted at a greater cost throughout northern Ontario. So it was only fair to redistribute 25% of the cap-and-trade revenues to them directly, to mitigate those impacts so that they could use it in their economies, so that they could move towards greener sustainable options that were there, so that they could invest in their homes. That was part of our plan.

Now this government is offering nothing—zero—to the millions of people in this province who wanted to see Ontario be a leader in the fight against climate change. A true government for the people wouldn’t look for quick, cheap wins that will end up costing Ontarians way more in the long run. This government has decided to go down a path of ideology and backroom deals.

An NDP government would absolutely do the opposite of what this Conservative government is doing right now.

Conservatives claim that they are all about creating and protecting jobs. I’ll get to that a little bit later, in regard to creating and protecting jobs, because they are hurting and they are cancelling jobs in my riding of Algoma–Manitoulin. This government hasn’t created or protected any jobs so far—quite to the contrary.

Again, in my riding, the cancellation of the cap-and-trade program and the cancellation of the Green Ontario Fund has created a climate of uncertainty. I talked about this earlier this week: What about a small contractor? He has roughly about 12 to 15 employees. Dubois Construction, in Elliot Lake: They did all the training that was required. They went through all the processes. They sent their employees in order to get the proper certification. They invested. They paid into the rooms. They paid the bills. They did the mileage. They did what was expected of them.

They went out, they inspected homes and they took the time to listen to some of the investments that needed to be done in many of the communities, particularly in Elliot Lake and the surrounding area. What happens to them?

What happens to the individuals that have ordered the windows, ordered the doors, ordered the shingles, ordered the insulation? Who’s stuck with that bill? Because the contractor is ready to do the work, but the individuals that looked at the program in order to secure that, in order for them to participate, in order for them to become greener to take their footprint off of the environment—they won’t be able to recoup any of these losses.

I’ve approached the minister on a couple of occasions. The minister has indicated that no final decision has been done other than the cancellation of the program. Those individuals that are in queue to getting that service—and again, one of the bigger challenges that we have in northern Ontario is the availability of these individuals to do that work. There’s no time, because we have very few individuals that are certified to do the work. So are you going to be extending it for those that applied, rightfully so, by the deadlines and put themselves in the process?

Because we have limited access to the individuals to deliver these services, will you give them a grace period to make sure that they can participate in this program and recoup some of the benefits that they had?

In Wawa and Sioux Lookout, they were looking at a wood pilot project where they were going to be introducing new heating sources for their homes; 30 applicants in Wawa applied for this program. Again, those are jobs that we’re putting at stake, because they were looking at new ways, new manufacturers—a small business was going to develop an opportunity for eight to 12 jobs.

It doesn’t sound like much, but if you live in northern Ontario, those are many clusters. That’s something that I hope this government is listening to, that clusters create more jobs. A cluster identifies a need, creates eight to 10 jobs, but from those eight or 10 jobs, there are four or five more, two or three more. At the end of the day, you’re looking at 25 jobs that are dependent on a cluster that was initiated.

That’s what was happening in Wawa, because construction on new woodstoves was going to happen, supplies were going to happen, salesmen were going to be out there. Those are all at risk now. Those are all gone. In the stroke of a pen, they’re wiped out. Those 30 people—again, that doesn’t sound like much to this government, but to me, it’s a lot. Those are 30 families who are looking to invest into their homes, and that option is taken away from them.

Again, I’ve approached the minister. I asked him: “Are you going to be extending that period?” Because we have limited contractors that can perform that work based on the program that was there before, because it comes at a cost. Those individuals also invested into their employees and their businesses in order to provide those services. I guess that’s the cost of business under this Conservative government. I don’t know; it’s shameful.

Wikwemikong First Nation on Manitoulin Island were part of this wood-heating program. They were looking at several jobs. They were actually going to look at investing into an industrial pelletization plant, where they were not only going to supply their community but an entire region. They were looking big-scale. If this Conservative government is about jobs, that’s 30 to 40 jobs, if not more, plus salesmen, plus travel. It’s a cluster and it moves on. More jobs are created when you create jobs. But in the stroke of a pen, you’ve eliminated those options. They’re gone. You’ve taken them away. I don’t know.

I would look closely at the decisions that you’re making, because taking away jobs is what you’re doing. People are hurting.

Again, Wikwemikong was looking at large-scale. They were looking not only—and I touched on this already—at just Manitoulin Island, which is, by the way, the largest freshwater island in the world. I have many environmentally knowledgeable individuals who are there. There are individuals who are extremely crafty, who are looking as far as changing the channel, taking their footprint off of the environment, being responsible.

I have to say that Chief Duke Peltier is one of those community leaders who is putting his foot forward on behalf of his community, encouraging people to participate in this. But those options have now been taken away, with the stroke of a pen.

The Premier continues to be blind to the innovative and creative communities that were benefitting from the green Ontario program. Every job that we are losing or not creating in northern Ontario is a missed opportunity for the revitalization and growth of northern Ontario. People in northern Ontario are creative and ambitious, and I refuse to see this government taking away those opportunities. A government for the people should care a lot more about what’s going on in the other three quarters of this province.

When you look at northern Ontario, it’s vast, and there are lots of opportunities and resources that are there. People are not going to accept anything less than what they are rightfully entitled to.

Speaker, I would like to touch on hydro now, because that’s another topic that we think this government is failing on.

Hydro: We’re in a crisis. People are hurting. It’s nice that this government has actually acknowledged that we’re under a crisis right now in this province. But really, a 12% reduction is your answer to handling this crisis? Compare that to what we had in our plan. We put it out there. It’s 30%—

Mr. Stephen Lecce: What does it cost?

Mr. Michael Mantha: What is your cost going to be on the 12%? How many jobs are going to be lost?

They are continuing with a boondoggle plan that came from the Liberal Party—a boondoggle plan. Now it’s no longer their plan; it’s the Ford plan. It’s their plan. They’re the ones who are putting these finances on the credit card. Your kids, my kids, the pages who are here, my grandchildren, their grandchildren—all of them are going to be paying for this boondoggle plan. They can’t blame the Liberals anymore because this is their plan.

It’s quite disappointing to see that this government has no intention of helping people get more affordable electricity. We had a very comprehensive plan—we put it out there—that would fix issues. We let people look at it and get a sense of it. We actually had a plan. We actually had a platform, which was put out there—not just ideas, quotes and rants. We had something that was put out there, dealing with the issues, being honest with Ontarians that there is no quick fix on fixing our hydro issues—none. It was going to take a lot of hard work and rolling up our sleeves.

However, you should be telling the truth to Ontarians and admit that firing the CEO is not going to save Ontarians any money. Cancelling energy projects is not going to save any money on your hydro. Getting rid of the cap-and-trade program is not going to save any money on your hydro.

I’m going to continue hearing from people in my riding. Winter is going to come, hydro bills are going to go up and people are going to be hurting. People are going to be asking, “What’s going on? I thought something was going to happen.”

It’s inevitable that business is going to hurt, because when we drop down, and it’s going to get cold pretty soon—I know we’re still here in summer, and hopefully we’re going to have a summer. I don’t know. I actually enjoy being here, so if you guys want to keep me here, I am here. I don’t mind being here. I like working.

Applause.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Yes, let’s do this.

But it’s difficult. I hear some of the messaging that comes from the government: “We’ve done this; we’ve done that.” You look at certain things where promises were made. Well, what about the promise in regard to the guaranteed income supplement? What about the promise of funding for our schools? What about the promise about making sure that there are investments being done in the schools? There are a lot of broken promises there.

However, again, on hydro prices, I just want to finish off because it’s amazing how time flies. We had a plan put forward. I still believe, Speaker, that if we were to tackle the issues in regard to time of use—regardless of when you cook your bread, do your laundry or bake your foods during the day, it should be equal.

When you look at putting a flat rate on delivery charges, regardless of where you live in this province—we all live in this one province. Whether in northern Ontario, eastern Ontario or southern Ontario, you’re in Ontario. A flat rate would really bring down the costs for a lot of Ontarians, particularly in northern Ontario. That’s our plan; you can use it. You can use our plan. It’s actually going to help Ontarians. Part of that plan is a change for the better. It is going to help people in this province. Use it; take it. Take the entire platform. If you don’t have it, I’ll bring it to you.

Interjection.

Mr. Michael Mantha: It is a good plan.

I’m just going to wrap it up. I wish I had more time. This bill is actually going to hurt Ontarians. It is going to hurt northern Ontarians particularly, and I always come with a lens from a northern perspective. Things are tough for us in northern Ontario but the one thing I can always count on is northern Ontarians are resilient. We won’t give up. We will be heard in this Legislature, and we will not accept anything less than what we’re rightfully entitled to.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Belinda Karahalios: The member from Ottawa Centre talks about the costs of natural disasters.

The member from Algoma–Manitoulin says what we are doing is shameful. You know what’s shameful? The belief that punishing families and businesses with an additional tax, with a regressive tax, is going to fix the environment. How? Please tell me how imposing a tax is going to change weather patterns because I would love to know. And what dollar amount is enough? How much do you want to impose? What dollar value will make a difference?

You say we’re doing nothing. I’ll tell you what we’re doing: We’re listening carefully to the people we represent. We are supporting our businesses by not adding an unnecessary tax which takes away from their ability to invest in green technologies.

We respect people to do what they need to do with their money. We’re putting money back in people’s pockets.

You talk about creating more jobs. You want to create more jobs? Let’s create an environment where businesses can flourish. That is going to happen; do you know why? Because of this government, and because of changes that we’re going to make because we listened. Ontario is open for business, and this cap-and-trade is gone.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Questions and comments?

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Speaker, it’s indeed a pleasure to stand in the House this morning, and to recognize you, as I believe you are the first woman from southwestern Ontario to become the First Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole House. Congratulations.

I have listened intently to the member from Algoma–Manitoulin and the member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound.

And I’ve heard the Conservative caucus give me a headache again with that “promise made, promise kept.” I don’t know if you remember the cola wars back in the 1970s and 1980s, where Pepsi and Coke went at each other, and then Seven-Up came up and said, “We’re the uncola.” So every time the poorest of the poor people in Ontario hear you guys and ladies say, “Promise made, promise kept,” they get stabbed in the heart again because of the promise broken, not kept, about the basic income project, about cutting back a 3% wage increase to the poorest of the poor down to 1.5%.

The poorest of the poor have been stabbed in the heart by you people.

It’s the same with Toronto and the number of seats on Toronto city council. Not one of the people over there, not one of them, campaigned and was upfront with the people in Toronto and said, “By the way, when we get in, we’re going to cut your municipal representation in half”—not a promise kept, because it was never a promise made. It was campaign by stealth, and yet you like to stand up and say, “Promise made, promise kept.”

There are people across this province who no longer believe you. They know that there are going to be more broken promises coming, because you have stabbed in the heart the poorest of the poor in this province, people who looked up to you and thought you were going to do right by them when you promised you weren’t going to take away their income. You turned around and did it. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Questions and comments?

Ms. Christine Hogarth: I just want to talk to the member opposite, the member from Algoma–Manitoulin, and talk about our government. It was elected on a simple promise: to be for the people. The member opposite is saying we are not doing anything for the people. What we’re doing is we are listening to the people. We are listening to the people that we all represent.

You speak about northern Ontario. I’m surprised that—the member is so concerned about people with low income. Some of our lower-income people are from northern Ontario, and they’re going to save $260 with our plan, so I’m surprised. They have the highest heating bills across this province in northern Ontario. Wawa, Elliot Lake, Thunder Bay—they’re all high heating bills. We need to get that under control, and we’re going to do that by having savings for our people. That’s $260 in savings for everyone.

The member opposite talked about jobs. Well, we’re the government that’s going to create jobs. You’re talking about the loss of jobs—30 jobs in Wawa. Well, because of our government being open for business, we are going to be able to create new jobs. We’re going to create an environment where business will be welcome, business will stay open. If you’ve noticed, over the last couple of years businesses are closing because of high hydro rates. With our plan, we’re going to lower those hydro rates so that businesses will flourish and create jobs, good-paying jobs, in northern Ontario.

You say northern Ontarians are resilient. Yes, they are, and they will find jobs. They will find jobs to create, and they will flourish in their own communities.

I respect the people from the north. I was born and raised in the north. I understand what they go through. I understand jobs are hard to come by. But I tell you, I agree with the member opposite. They are resilient. They will create jobs. They will find a great living. This government will help them. We will make sure that they have lower hydro rates so they don’t have to choose between buying food and heating their homes.

That’s probably about all I need to say about it.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Questions and comments?

Mr. Jamie West: The first comment that I want to make has to do with a comment that a couple of members have made, but most recently the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore: the “open for business,” which we hear again and again. I think it’s an excellent idea to be open for business and flourish business, but at the same time there seems to be a theme with this government where they stop things without a plan in place.

When you look at the physical and health education curriculum, for example, they refer to it as 2014, but we know it’s 20 years old. What they’re saying is, “We’ll rip that out and we’ll start from scratch,” instead of continuing and having continuous improvement.

When it comes to climate change, the plan is to scrap what we have and start from the beginning again. That isn’t a business plan. That isn’t open for business. There’s not a business in this province that would invest in anything that had no business plan. You need a plan to move forward and continuously improve.

Earlier, my colleague from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound was talking about the money that’s going to be saved on it, $260 a year. Any money is excellent, but it’s actually 70 cents a day. We all spend more than that on a coffee. It’s not a ton.

What concerns me more is the conversation: “Why would we ask people to pay to pollute? Why would we ask for rebates to pollute less?” That’s Economics 101, Madam Speaker. What you want to do when you pay to pollute is you disincentivize people to pollute, and they find ways to control it. When you give incentives to people through rebates, what they do is they move towards greener energy.

My own family has an example of this, where my son—if you think I’m a big guy, you should meet my son—went shopping for a car. He started looking at F-150s. Then he looked at the price of gas, travel and insurance, and ultimately, he bought a Prius. What tipped him towards the Prius was that there was a rebate that made it more affordable and in his scope. So now you have somebody who’s driving a more energy-efficient car, and it’s affordable, and it’s better for the environment.

That’s what “open for business” is. That’s what economics is about. And that’s what the government needs to understand.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Back to the member for Algoma–Manitoulin.

Mr. Michael Mantha: I want to thank the members from Cambridge, Windsor–Tecumseh, Etobicoke–Lakeshore and Sudbury. Your comments were bang on. I enjoyed hearing the debate. That lifts up my spirits somewhat, that people are engaged and we’re listening to each other. You might not like what we’re saying, and that’s fine, but we’re listening. We’re engaging in a discussion, and that’s fair.

You will notice often, from my seat, I don’t heckle; I listen. And we should be doing more of that, listening—

Interjection.

Mr. Michael Mantha: My friend, you’re going to have to pay a little bit more attention.

Anyway, what I so want to tell this government is that in this province, these 76 seats—a Conservative government was elected by 40% of the province. I hear often this government saying, “We are doing what people sent us here to do.” But there are 60% of the people left in this province that feel this government isn’t speaking for them. That’s a fact. Listen to your notes. When you are standing and you’re saying, “We are doing what we are supposed to do, with the people that elected us,” you’re not. This is a big province, and there’s a lot of diversity in this province.

Listen to the opposition. Use that information. I invite you to look at our platform. Use some of that information; I welcome you. We can hand it over to you. There are good ideas that are in there.

I will continue listening to some of the things that you bring forward. I’m not going to agree with all of it. Of course not; my job is to oppose you. I respect and look up at that eagle, just as you should look be looking up at that owl. Remember that.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): I’d like to recognize a guest in the gallery. We have Rev. Cheri DiNovo, who was the member of provincial Parliament for Parkdale–High Park in the 38th, 39th, 40th and 41st Parliaments. Welcome back.

Further debate?

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: Il me fait plaisir de participer au débat ce matin sur l’élimination du régime de plafonnement et d’échange, le projet de loi 4.

I view my role in this Parliament, as a member of the opposition, as trying to help the government produce the best legislative product that is possible. Personally, I am convinced that a cap-and-trade program was a good idea, but I know you’re committed to eliminating it. My suggestion today is to do it in an orderly fashion.

I have five recommendations for this government to improve the bill. I won’t be using my time to discuss whether cap-and-trade should be abolished—I know you’re committed to it—but how it should be done.

We know that Ontario now has the lowest unemployment rate in 20 years. It is the best-performing economy in the G7. Some of its cities, like Toronto, and Ottawa as well—where I come from—are surpassing many of the US cities in terms of tech industries. It has been a place that topped other jurisdictions in terms of foreign investment.

Let’s keep it this way.

To do that, we have to remove, as much as possible, uncertainty and prevent chaos. Predictability is a key ingredient to a stable economic climate, and I think it is the obligation of this government to, as much as possible, prevent and minimize uncertainty, particularly at a crucial time like this time, where we have uncertainty because of the trade disputes and the imposition of tariffs, which could wreak havoc in Ontario.

The government wants to implement its platform. Fair enough—but it must do so responsibly. It must respect the rule of law, respect investors, and respect the people who have relied on existing laws to make investments in programs to upgrade their homes. That was a little bit of what my friend and colleague from Algoma–Manitoulin talked about, the impact that this has had.

My five suggestions for the government:

(1) Lay out and present your climate change plan right now, or at least before September 1. September 1 is the deadline that the federal government has imposed. You should be clear to investors and to Ontarians about what is the climate change plan of the province of Ontario now, so do it now.

(2) Use the funds generated by the latest auction, which was held in May, before the election, for the legal purposes for which they were obtained.

(3) Amend the provisions of the act to be more transparent about how you will limit compensation. Don’t do it in a regulation, or at least publish your regulation now. Be honest with the investors about exactly how you want to limit compensation.

(4) Obey the Environmental Bill of Rights.

(5) Extend the deadline on the GreenON contracts. Too many people relied on this and made good-faith investments. They need to be protected for a few more months, so that at least they don’t lose money.

Let me explain a little bit why I believe that these five measures would actually ensure an orderly transition.

(1) First is the necessity of a climate change plan. We’ve been discussing for the last two days how much climate change is the challenge of our generation. It’s all of our responsibility. We know that the cost of doing nothing on climate change is far greater than the cost of doing something. Doing nothing means incurring greater expenses when extreme weather affects the people of our province and our economy: floods, fire, excessive heat, intense storms.

The human costs of climate change are also extreme. People have to flee their homes. Many predict that there will be a lot of environmental migrants, people whose communities will be submerged and who will have to relocate. It is certainly our moral duty to confront climate change, but it’s also our economic duty to do so.

When President Trump decided that he was backing out of the Paris accord, that did not change the commitment of many of the governors. Why? Because we know that the economy of the future will aim to be carbon neutral. To be competitive internationally, our economy needs to take on and be technologically savvy, but also have low carbon emissions. Because in the future—it’s already starting—many companies, many provinces, many countries, states in the US, and certainly countries in Europe will want to buy a product with low carbon emissions. That will be valued as a product.

The point of GreenON and the point of the investments was to lead us progressively to greening the economy, to a low-carbon economy, to progressively incentivize all corporations to move in that direction. I caution the government in abandoning this support for a greening of the economy. Do it for moral reasons, but do it for economic reasons. We want Ontario to continue to be productive and to be competitive on the international scale by having the right incentives to have that type of investment and contributing in the new type of economy, where we will all be in 10 years.

I know that the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks indicated that he’s not a climate change denier. I believe him, since, like many of the others, he signed the People’s Guarantee, the previous Conservative plan that supported a carbon tax.

Here we are today: If the plan is not cap-and-trade, if it’s not a carbon tax, what is it? When you talk about targets, we have no information about the process to get to the target. We have no information about the enforcement of these targets. I think Ontarians need to know and businesses need to know exactly what will be the plan. The bill in front of us says that there’s an obligation to put forward a plan. It doesn’t give a time frame and it does not give some reality to that plan.

(2) Use the money that was collected in the last auction for the purpose for which it was collected.

Section 11 of the bill in front of us proposes to move the money from the May auction before the election to a cap-and-trade wind-down account and pay the cost of the wind-down: the limited compensation that is offered. I urge the minister to reconsider. By law, the money from the May auction should be distributed for GreenON initiatives and fund school investments, social housing investments and the hospital green initiatives. It’s just wrong to distort this money and repurpose it. In my view, this money was held in trust for the GreenON initiatives, which included support for the energy conservation initiatives of schools, hospitals and social housing.

(3) Section 8 of the bill provides for a similar mechanism as we have seen in the cancellation of the White Pines project: that is, a formula for compensation that excludes certain heads of damages and then further reserves the right to the government to limit its liability or the compensation by regulation. Further, the government is trying to immunize themselves from any lawsuit. This obviously will be litigated.

Fundamentally, I think that’s my point here. It leaves investors with a bad taste in their mouth. The government is using its legislative power to limit the money to which they would be normally entitled. Corporations who participated in good faith in a cap-and-trade program and made an investment based on the law of the time should not be later prejudiced by a change of government. This is scary for the rule of law, but it’s also scary for the business climate of this province because it raises the issue: What other contracts and what other changes will affect businesses? When is the government going to next limit the compensation to which they are entitled?

My suggestion here is that the government publish right now the regulation that they intend to implement so that people know what the limit is on compensation that the government is envisaging. Tell businesses right now. If they want to invest in Ontario, they need certainty. I think it’s just fair for the government to be up front about the way it wants to conduct business.

(4) Obey the Environmental Bill of Rights. The government did not post a regulation that cancelled the allowance under the cap-and-trade on July 3. It does not deny that the regulation had an impact on environmental policy, so it should have been published on the Environmental Registry. Rather, it responded to the Environmental Commissioner in the following way. It said that it did not have to consult in accordance with the Environmental Bill of Rights because “the election was a process of public participation equivalent to the Environmental Bill of Rights.”

That’s not correct. The Environmental Registry allows people to comment specifically on a proposal like the cancellation of the allowances. For a government that wants to listen to the people and wants to consult, I think it’s really difficult to accept the way in which they interpreted the Environmental Bill of Rights. Again, we need clarity. Either you believe in the Environmental Bill of Rights or you don’t. If you do, then you cannot put forth an

interpretation that guts it of any meaning. If we follow your meaning, the one that you put forward there, that means that anything that’s in the platform—for example, the commitment to the Ring of Fire. All that this promise would mean is that there would not be any publication under the Environmental Bill of Rights of the implementation of the Ring of Fire.

That’s wrong. The Environmental Bill of Rights is part of the legislative armature of this province and it should be respected. I would like to have confirmation on the part of the government that they are committed to upholding the Environmental Bill of Rights and will continue to do so and not gut it of its meaning.

(5) Like my colleague from Algoma–Manitoulin, I urge the government to extend the deadline on the GreenON contracts. Many people in my riding and throughout Ontario are cut short. They have made contracts to buy new windows or to install a new furnace. We have installers who want to do the work, but they just can’t do it within the deadlines. All these people are being cut short for no reason. Installers hired extra help to do these contracts. Now it cannot be done in time, and it’s all cancelled. I beg the minister to extend the deadline by a few months. The money is there in the account.

Don’t let these poor folks who relied on the existing laws to make investments now be cut short. That’s just unfair. That doesn’t make sense.

I want to say, madame la Présidente, that I continue to think that environmental protection is really important for Ontarians. It’s the challenge of our day, and we need to continue to support that.

In my view, the government also has an obligation to be clear about its next plan. It’s good for all of us if we know what the future looks like. It’s good for investors and it’s good for Ontarians to know what’s ahead of them. That’s what I urge the government to do.

My five suggestions that I’m presenting today aim to make a better legislative product. I think the purpose of being in the opposition is not only to be a naysayer, but it’s to help the government take their responsibility and rise to the challenge. You on the other side don’t have to just be yes-men and yes-women. You have to take your responsibility seriously and ask good questions. We all have the ability here to critically assess what is in front of us and make suggestions for improvement. We should not diminish the ability and the importance of debate and deliberation for a better product.

My suggestions here are that we carefully evaluate this bill, not only for what it seeks to do, which is to respond to the platform of the Conservatives, but for its long-term impact.

I’ll repeat my five suggestions:

First, be clear about what exactly the climate change plan is. If you’re going to put targets, what is the process to achieve these targets? What will the enforcement be for these targets? Be clear, as well, as to the necessity and what the impact is on the greening of our economy—how important it is not only to support climate change, not only to protect the environment, but also to position Ontario’s businesses competitively in the world.

Second, I think the proceeds of the May auction ought to be regulated and ought to be used for the purpose for which they were claimed. They were in trust for green initiatives. They should not be repurposed to pay for the wind-down of cap-and-trade. I understand that this will create havoc on the other side. But I ask for a response to this: Why not continue with the way in which—in my view, it was held in trust—for the purposes for which it was collected?

Third, I urge the government to be transparent about the way it wants to limit compensation. I think it’s important for all businesses and the business climate in Ontario to have that.

Fourth, I think the Environmental Bill of Rights is important for all Ontarians, and we need clarity: Either you believe in it or you don’t. If you don’t, and if part of your unspoken platform is to get rid of the Environmental Bill of Rights, then say it right now. If not, then I think you have to obey not only the spirit but the provisions of the Environmental Bill of Rights all the time and not gut it of its

interpretation.

And finally, as we’ve said around this House, don’t have these poor people who made good-faith investments lose their money because there has been a change of government.

On this note, merci beaucoup, madame la Présidente.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Seeing the time on the clock, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1010 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Today the Speaker is going to lead off the introduction of visitors. With us in the gallery is one of my constituents, who is also a former member of this Legislature and cabinet minister in Mike Harris’s government. John Snobelen is here. Welcome.

We also have a former member of provincial Parliament for Parkdale–High Park in the 38th, 39th, 40th and 41st Parliaments. Cheri DiNovo is here.

Mr. Wayne Gates: I’d like to introduce Thomas Mete and his friend Allan Buri, who are both former pages who have given up a day here to come back to Queen’s Park to see us all as MPPs. I’d like to welcome them to Queen’s Park. Let’s give them a nice round of applause for being here.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Speaker, I’d like to introduce you to Matthew Ray, who is my new executive assistant.

Ms. Marit Stiles: I’d like to introduce some friends from British Columbia who are visiting us today: Erik Kaye, a long-time member of the federal NDP executive; Nancy Singh; and Ravi Kaye. Thank you very much for being here.

Ms. Donna Skelly: I’m proud to introduce my sister-in-law, Katie Veschakit—she works in the US embassy in Ottawa in the protocol department—and her friend Bow.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I would like to congratulate somebody from the assembly who I want to shout out to, and that is Katch Koch, one of our Clerks, who is going to be retiring here tomorrow. On behalf of all the members, I just want to thank him for all the work he has done as a Clerk and pour l’association parlementaire.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Indeed.

Introduction of visitors?

Mr. Randy Hillier: I’d like to welcome and introduce to the House today Michael McSweeney and Martha Murray from the cement association.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I’d like to welcome John Parent from my riding of Windsor–Tecumseh. He is up here because his stepdaughter, Tamsyn King, has volunteered to come back and help us this week. John, welcome back to Queen’s Park, and, Tamsyn, thank you for volunteering to help us out this week, as well.

Mr. Michael Coteau: I’d like to take this opportunity to introduce Chris Moise. As a former school board trustee, I’d like to welcome him to the Legislature on behalf of all of us here.

Miss Christina Maria Mitas: I’d like to introduce my partner, Patrick Power, who is here and was a great sport throughout the election.

Ms. Jessica Bell: I want to introduce the hundreds of people who are with us today in the galleries and outside. They are here to let Doug Ford know that people do not agree with the undemocratic plan to rip up Toronto—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member will take her seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I have to caution the member it’s not appropriate to make a political statement while you’re introducing guests, first of all, and we refer to our colleagues in the House, even across the aisle, not by their first name but by their parliamentary title or by their riding name. I’ve made that clear on a number of occasions and I’ll say it again and again if need be.

Mr. Will Bouma: I would like to introduce my campaign co-chair, Larry Brock, his wife, Angela, and their daughters Jenny and Emma, who are joining us today from Brantford–Brant.

Ms. Jill Andrew: I would like to introduce Chana Weinstein, one of my campaign volunteers, and the students from Seneca College’s government relations program. I would also like to introduce city councillor, ward 27, Kristyn Wong-Tam, a municipal candidate for ward 22.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I would like to introduce Becky Coles, a Newstalk 1010 producer, who is here at Queen’s Park today. I would also like to recognize the government relations class from Seneca College, Laila, Connor, Alexia, Chana, Robina, Julian and Rita, to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: I’m delighted to welcome one of my constituents here today, Jo-Anne Polak. Jo-Anne has a long history of public service, including in the Bill Davis government and the Brian Mulroney government. We’re delighted to have her here today.

Mr. Faisal Hassan: I would like to welcome to Queen’s Park Chiara Padovani, who is running for ward 11; Jennifer Hollett, who is also a candidate for city councillor; and also Bruno Dobrusin. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. John Fraser: I’m doubling up, but I would be remiss if I did not recognize the presence of Michael McSweeney, another lifelong resident of Ottawa South. Welcome again to the Legislature.

Ms. Christine Hogarth: I would like to introduce and welcome a constituent from my riding, Mr. Jason Pearson, who is the father of one of our pages who came back, Sullivan—welcome back, Sullivan—and his extremely proud grandmother, Jeanett, who is here from South Carolina to cheer her grandson on. Welcome.

Ms. Suze Morrison: I’d like to recognize a number of folks who are here in the gallery from my riding including some folks who worked on my campaign: Jeff Slater, Tyler Johnson, Nadine Tkatchevskaia—sorry, Nadine, I can never pronounce your name—Brian Chang, Shay Sanders and Lester Brown. Thank you for coming.

Mr. Stephen Lecce: I want to recognize Connor Fisher from the great riding of King–Vaughan, who is here with some students from Seneca College, from the government relations program. Welcome to the people’s House.

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu: I would like to introduce my constituency assistant and one of the important members in my campaign team: Sukhdeep Bhinder. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. Chris Glover: I’d like to recognize four constituents from my area: Carolyn Johnson, Bob Kennedy, Shelley McBride and Sylvie Gradey. Thank you very much for coming, and welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I have the great honour of being able to introduce Ishmael Van Der Rassel, who is here today and who is an active member of the OPCYA and I know has campaigned on a lot of different campaigns here on this side of the House.

Ms. Marit Stiles: I’d also like to welcome some members of my campaign and volunteers from my riding: Molly Kraft, Rory Ditchburn and Krista Mihevc; and also long-time NDP and Steelworkers director of research Charles Campbell. Thank you so much for being here.

Hon. Greg Rickford: I’d like to introduce and welcome one of my former colleagues from the House of Commons: Susan Truppe. She’s joining our team, I understand, and we’re very pleased to have her.

Mr. Michael Coteau: I’d like to introduce Mary Hynes, who is a constituent in Don Valley East. She’s sitting in the west gallery today. Welcome, Mary.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I would also draw attention to the fact that we are visited by a former member of this House, who represented Toronto Centre–Rosedale in the 37th and 38th Parliament and the riding of Toronto Centre in the 39th Parliament. In the Speaker’s gallery: Mr. George Smitherman, who is here with us today. Welcome.

Oral Questions

Municipal government

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, I want to welcome the people from across Toronto who’ve come here today to oppose the Premier’s plot to silence this city. Thank you for being here.

My question is for the Premier. When people in Toronto need help to fix their housing, create safer streets, protect local parks and support development that makes our city livable for everyone, people turn to their city councillor. Why is this Premier making it harder for citizens to access their councillors, harder for the people of Toronto to have their voices heard?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the member for Toronto–Danforth: We ran on reducing the size and cost of government. We ran on streamlining government.

The NDP ran on increasing government. I don’t know of anyone out there who wants 20 extra politicians versus $25 million. I know that the NDP wants more politicians. They want Toronto to still run dysfunctionally. What we want is, we want smaller government. We want to decrease the size of government. We want to lower hydro rates.

We have a great announcement today. We have a great announcement on the carbon tax. We are getting rid of the carbon tax. We’re challenging the carbon tax in court. That’s taking care of people. That’s reducing the burden of taxation on the backs of people and small businesses.

Interjections.

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

I’m going to remind, again, all members to make their comments through the Chair.

Start the clock. Supplementary.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Again to the Premier: The Premier is making it harder for ordinary Torontonians to influence their government, to have an impact at city hall. As a former deputy mayor of Toronto, I can tell you that the Premier’s plot will not streamline decision-making; it will steamroll the residents of Toronto, who deserve to have their voices heard.

This is a plot the Premier never campaigned on—not one day; not one sentence. He never consulted anyone on this, and he has now no mandate to impose his will on the city of Toronto. Why is the Premier undermining democracy to silence the voices of the people of Toronto?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the member for Toronto–Danforth: We consulted with thousands of people in Toronto. The ironic thing is, did anyone in the chamber get consulted about increasing more politicians? I never got consulted; neither did anyone else. They want to ram down more politicians. They want to increase the size of government. They want to increase taxes. We’re going to lower taxes and lower hydro rates. We’re going to get rid of the carbon tax, and we’re going to streamline government to put more money back into the taxpayer’s pocket instead of the government’s pocket.

I know that the member for Toronto–Danforth loves big government and loves wasting money. We don’t believe in that. We believe in reducing the size and cost of government, putting money back into the people’s pockets instead of a bunch of politicians who could—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member will take his seat.

Supplementary.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Again to the Premier: It was the Premier’s brother who started the consultation on this change in ward sizes. He did start the consultation. The size of Toronto city council is a decision that belongs to the people of Toronto, not to this Premier. Strong local representation is how citizens have a real say in how this city grows, how our neighbourhoods develop and how we make this vibrant city more livable and more affordable for everyone. But this Premier is ripping up Toronto’s wards and showing he couldn’t care less how it hurts the people of this city.

Why is the Premier abusing the powers of his office and taking control of city hall away from the people of Toronto?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: I know the member from Toronto–Danforth wants to protect a bunch of downtown politicians. They create their little fiefdom—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Member for Toronto–Danforth, come to order.

Hon. Doug Ford: —to protect all his political cronies. They increase taxes.

My friend, we aren’t going to protect your political cronies. We aren’t going to protect more politicians. We’re going to make sure that we take that $25 million and put it into priorities that people want. People don’t want more politicians. We have 25 MPs and 25 MPPs. Why shouldn’t we have 25 councillors?

Municipal government

Ms. Marit Stiles: Mr. Speaker, through you, my question is to the Premier. Respect for the rights of voters is something that unites Ontarians, no matter which party you support. We believe in local democracy, and we care deeply about protecting the right of all voters to decide how we are governed. But this Premier is bullying his way into municipal elections, ripping up Toronto wards and denying people the voice that they deserve. Why is this Premier showing nothing but contempt for the people of Toronto?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the member: My friend, it’s not ironic that everyone who is opposed are a bunch of downtown politicians, and everyone who is in favour, Mr. Speaker—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The opposition will come to order.

Hon. Doug Ford: —everyone who is in favour—there are 17 brave, brave people who actually stood up, 17 councillors who said, “City hall is dysfunctional. Nothing gets done under 47 councillors.” They want to streamline the government. They’ve been down there for years. Even the members who are for big government—I’ve talked to them; I worked with them for four years. Every one of them has told me personally that it’s the most dysfunctional political arena in Canada. Nothing gets done but wasting money and increasing taxes.

We’re going to focus on reducing taxes. We’re going to make sure we get rid of the carbon tax—

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

Interjections.

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

Restart the clock. Supplementary.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Supersized wards and fewer councillors mean less opportunity for residents to meet with their city councillor and to shape the decisions that this city makes. Imposing an August 14 deadline on Toronto’s school boards to change trustee boundaries is another outrageous intrusion on the independence of locally elected school boards.

The Premier’s assault on local democracy has absolutely nothing to do with helping people. It’s all about helping the Premier take control of city hall through the back door. Why did the Premier never have the courage to look people in the eye and tell them exactly what he was going to do?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the member from Davenport: The member for Davenport has never been down to city hall. She’s never been on council. The member from Davenport has never sat through 10 hours of debate about one issue, about getting Mrs. Jones’s cat out of the tree, and then they all vote together.

I’ve been down there for years watching how dysfunctional this government is. People of Toronto want to streamline it.

Now, do you know what’s amazing, Mr. Speaker? What was amazing was when I read the poll. The poll in the Toronto Star—I repeat, the poll in the Toronto Star—showed 68% of the people are in favour of reducing the size and cost of government.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. The government side will please come to order. The opposition side will please come to order. Start the clock.

Final supplementary?

Ms. Marit Stiles: I would gather I think I’ve probably spent more time down at city hall than the Premier has. The Premier is trying to silence the people of Toronto and make it harder for people to get action on their priorities, from affordable housing, to public transit, to development. He’s making it harder for residents to access our local councillors.

He’s trying to take control of city hall and put power in his own hands. Worst of all, he’s trying to punish the people of Toronto, who have voted against him over and over and over again.

When did this Premier decide to bully the people of Toronto instead of respecting democracy like a real leader would?

Hon. Doug Ford: Member from Davenport, I can tell you, if we went into Davenport—and I’ll go into Davenport; as a matter of fact, I might even go tomorrow. We’ll door-knock and I’ll ask the people: “Your MPP wants bigger government. Do you want more transit with the $25 million, do you want more housing, or do you want 22 overpaid politicians from downtown?” It’s very simple. They will be very clear. They want less politicians. They want more transit. They want more housing. But guess what? They wouldn’t be able to get it, because no decision ever gets made down at city hall with 47 politicians.

Interjections.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Somebody give Doug a hug.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Essex will come to order.

Start the clock.

Municipal elections

Ms. Doly Begum: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

The minister should be ashamed of himself, he should be ashamed of his government and he should be ashamed of his Conservative Party. The vindictive actions taken by Premier Ford towards the voters of Toronto are astonishing.

Will the minister apologize to the people of Toronto for throwing their election into chaos in a callous attempt to interfere in this city’s elections?

Hon. Steve Clark: I want to thank the member for Scarborough Southwest for the question. During the campaign, we received a very strong message from Ontarians. They wanted us to respect taxpayers’ dollars. On June 7, with all due respect, it was clear that they wanted a government that got things done. That’s exactly what we’re doing.

The Better Local Government Act would reduce the number of Toronto city councillors to 25. We all know, and I’m sure that the member opposite knows, the critical, important services that municipal councils provide across the province. But we have to have those services provided in the most effective and the most efficient manner.

I know the NDP will always stand up for bigger government, but what the Better Local Government Act will do for this city and that council, it will make it streamlined. It will make better decisions—

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

Ms. Doly Begum: Speaker, through you, I would like to remind the minister that no one on that side of the House campaigned on a promise to interfere in local elections. This government has no mandate to throw Toronto municipal elections into chaos. These anti-democratic actions will leave my community of Scarborough worse off. Our representation on council will be cut nearly in half in Scarborough—this after years of fighting for a strong Scarborough voice at the table.

Will the minister apologize to Scarborough voters for throwing their representation into chaos in order to settle old political scores?

Hon. Steve Clark: Speaker, again through you to the member: We made it very clear during the election that our government was for a smaller government that put the interests of taxpayers first. It doesn’t matter what level of government you serve at, whether it’s the municipal, provincial or federal government; we all have one boss: the taxpayer.

It should be very clear to this member and members of the opposition that we ran on a platform for smaller government, one that respected the taxpayer at all costs. The Better Local Government Act is going to allow, on October 22, the people of Toronto to vote for a streamlined council that will be ready to make quick decisions in the best interests of the people of Toronto. That’s what the bill will do and that’s what the bill is going to do, if passed.

Municipal government

Mr. Stephen Lecce: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Under the Premier’s leadership, our Progressive Conservative government is taking decisive action to deliver on our mandate: lower taxes, better jobs and, yes, Mr. Speaker, the restoration of trust back in government.

Today we will debate a motion brought forward by the Leader of the Opposition, a motion that only underscores how out of touch the NDP is with residents across the GTA who demand government to be on their side and accountable and that they do more with less. The NDP leader will have to explain why she is prepared to put the jobs of politicians over the interests of working people. Once again, the NDP is putting their own self-interest ahead of the public interest. This is not leadership; this is an abdication of leadership.

Mr. Speaker, since the member will not fight for her constituents, will the minister tell this House why and what this government is doing to advance the priorities of working people?

Hon. Steve Clark: Speaker, through you, I’d like to thank the member for King–Vaughan for the question. After 15 years of Liberal mismanagement, there are serious issues facing our province, but clearly the Leader of the Opposition doesn’t care about any of these issues; she only cares about keeping government big.

During the campaign, our party made a commitment to the people of Ontario. We committed to putting more money into their pockets by scrapping the carbon tax, by reducing gas prices and giving real tax relief to families. We committed to cleaning up the hydro mess and lowering hydro bills. We campaigned on restoring accountability and trust in government and doing a line-by-line audit to put an end to the culture of waste, scandal and mismanagement that plagued the previous government for 15 years. These are the things that will make life better for the people not just of Ontario but the people of Hamilton.

Listen, Speaker: not spending $25 million on more politicians. That’s—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Stephen Lecce: Back to the minister: Thank you to the minister for focusing on the priorities of working people in this province. In 14 short sitting days in this House, our government and this Premier have taken decisive action to improve the lives of all Ontarians: immediate action to lower taxes, to reduce hydro rates, to bring an end to the York U strike, and efforts to help create the conditions for private sector growth. This is service to the people, quite the contrast from the NDP, who are more focused on protecting jobs for their politicians over the pocketbooks of working people.

Speaker, through you, can the minister explain how the Better Local Government Act will create the conditions for better jobs, hope and opportunity in every region of this province?

Hon. Steve Clark: Speaker, again through you to the member from King–Vaughan: First I want to congratulate you on your recent appointment as parliamentary assistant to the Premier.

Our priority, Speaker, is very clear: to reduce the size and cost of government. We’re going to ensure that Toronto council can act on those important issues like transit and like housing. Those are the issues that real people are so very concerned about.

But day after day, Speaker, the NDP stand up for bigger government, and it will only make life harder and more expensive. I can’t wait to hear what the Leader of the Opposition has to say to explain to Ontarians this afternoon why her party put saving politicians’ jobs ahead of saving taxpayers $25 million by giving them better local—

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

Municipal government

Mr. Faisal Hassan: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. There are over 100,000 people in my riding, covering two city wards, ward 11 and ward 12. But this government is cutting our city council representation in half. That means fewer voices from my community at the decision-making table, and poorer services for our residents.

Will the government explain how my constituents will be better served by less representation and poorer services?

Hon. Steve Clark: Speaker, through you to the member for York South–Weston: I want to thank you for the question. I disagree with the premise of the question. I believe very strongly that the Better Local Government Act will provide some clarity for voters in the city of Toronto.

Again, what we’re doing with this bill is taking the provincial and federal electoral districts and applying them to the Toronto council. I think it’s very clear. You have 25 federal MPs representing a constituency, you have 25 MPPs with that same constituency, and now, under this bill, if passed, it will provide 25 councillors.

It will provide a more streamlined government that will be able to make those important decisions that, quite frankly, the people of York South–Weston would want their council to make. They don’t want their council mired in dysfunction. They don’t want those decisions to take days and days and days to make.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Faisal Hassan: Mr. Speaker, through you: The people of York South–Weston and Scarborough aren’t going to see more service, but the Premier’s big developer friends might. Fewer checks and balances and busier councillors would mean less scrutiny over developer plans. We know the Premier promised big developers easy access to the greenbelt, so what has he and this government promised big developers about doing business in the city of Toronto?

Hon. Steve Clark: Again to the member: I’m very concerned with the tone of the question.

Speaker, I believe there is no one who has a better pulse on what goes on in this city or the province than Premier Doug Ford. He spoke, and our party spoke, to thousands of people in this city and across this province. He made it very clear during the election that not only are we for more accountability and trust in government, but the fact that smaller government—government that’s more effective and more efficient—is top of mind with this government. That’s the essence of what we’re trying to do with the Better Local Government Act.

Interjections.

Hon. Steve Clark: The members opposite can continue to howl on the opposition benches about wanting bigger government. They’re always going to stand up for more politicians. We’re always going to stand up for respect for the taxpayer. That’s the difference.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Essex will come to order.

Next question.

Taxation

Mrs. Amy Fee: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. For years, the people of Ontario have been seeking a new course. We have heard the voices of those who cannot afford another tax and simply cannot extend themselves any further.

Our government was elected on a clear mandate to put the people first and make life more affordable for Ontario families. That included our plan to bring an end to the Liberal cap-and-trade carbon tax.

We have already introduced legislation to this effect, but my constituents in Kitchener South–Hespeler are concerned that the federal government is just going to replace this cap-and-trade with another Trudeau tax. Will the Minister of the Environment advise us what the government is doing to ensure that the tax we are fighting so hard to get rid of will not be replaced with another one?

Hon. Rod Phillips: I’d like to thank the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler for her question.

As the House knows, we began the debate on Bill 4 in this Legislature, the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, which will finally put an end to the cap-and-trade here in Ontario. We did not do that to see it replaced by a federal Liberal tax.

This morning, I was pleased to join my colleague, the Attorney General, to announce the next steps the government is taking: taking to the courts to stop the federal government. Today we announced we’ll be taking the feds to court to challenge their carbon tax. It will be a great day for Ontario when we win that court challenge, and we will win that court challenge.

We promised that we would make use of every tool in our toolkit to make sure that we stopped a federal tax—

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

Supplementary?

Mrs. Amy Fee: Back to the minister: I would like to thank you for your response, and I completely support what you are doing to respect our taxpayers.

We understand that carbon taxes are not effective and that the people of Ontario understand that carbon taxes will not be revenue neutral. Today, with uncertainty in the global economy and turmoil in our trade relationships, the people and businesses of Ontario simply cannot afford another job-killing tax.

Now it seems that Prime Minister Trudeau is admitting it. After closed-door meetings with businesses, they’re softening their tone. No doubt, they heard the same things that we are hearing from average Canadians every day: A carbon tax is simply unaffordable.

Minister, will you continue to fight for those who cannot afford the cost of a Trudeau carbon tax?

Hon. Rod Phillips: I thank the member for her supplementary question.

As the member noted yesterday, the federal Liberals started their climb-down on carbon tax after meetings with business, where those businesses were clear that they could not compete globally with a carbon tax hanging over their heads.

In effect, the Trudeau Liberals are now acknowledging that they are inviting economic catastrophe with their carbon tax. The federal government is now acknowledging that their carbon tax is bad for jobs and bad for business. If the Prime Minister is willing to make deals with business on the carbon tax, it’s time for him to do the right thing and scrap his carbon tax for all of the people.

Mr. Speaker, our message to the Prime Minister is clear: It’s never too late to do the right thing. Cancel your carbon tax.

Municipal elections

Mr. Kevin Yarde: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Cancelling the direct election of Peel regional chairs saves no money, but appointing regional chairs allows insiders to continue holding on to power. Appointments hinder diverse views from sitting at the decision-making table. For my highly diverse constituents of Brampton North, the impact will be crushing. This decision takes away the voting power and vibrant voice of the Brampton community.

Will this government apologize to the people of Brampton for its complete disrespect?

Hon. Steve Clark: Speaker, through you, thank you to the member for the question.

As the member knows, the Better Local Government Act, in addition to some of the Toronto council changes, also presses the pause button on those four regions that include Peel, York, Muskoka and Niagara and puts those four municipalities, those four regions, back to what they did in terms of selection of a chair in 2014. It’s in response to the 2016 bill that the previous government put forward without any consultation.

I think I made myself very clear that it’s just pressing pause on those four regions. We are, in the interim, going to take a closer look at some of the components of regional government. We’re going to start at the upcoming Association of Municipalities of Ontario conference. I’ll talk more about it in the supplement.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Kevin Yarde: Unilateral decision-making is undemocratic and a misuse of power. Community voices matter, and community voices must be heard. However, with this government’s completely self-serving decisions, they were not.

My question is, will this government give community members an opportunity to chime in on city politics or will this government continue to silence their voices and speak on their behalf?

Hon. Steve Clark: Again, Speaker, I want to thank the honourable member for the question. One of the things that I think he needs to realize—and some of his colleagues—is that every politician at every level in every region needs to remember that we only have one boss: the taxpayer. That’s one of the things we heard very strongly during the election.

As I said, we’re putting a pause on those four regions, but in response to the member’s comment about consultation, we are going to begin consultation on regional government, on things that have worked and maybe things that haven’t worked. We’re going to do it very informally at the upcoming Association of Municipalities of Ontario conference in Ottawa. The conference is from August 19 to 22 at the Shaw Centre. I invite the member to encourage his members of municipalities to reach out to the office. We’re engaging with many municipalities. Our cabinet and our caucus will be there looking to begin that informal conversation. I’ll have more—

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

Next question.

Social assistance

Mr. John Fraser: Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Two days ago, your Minister of Community and Social Services cancelled the Basic Income Pilot. Yesterday, your minister conceded breaking a promise and said that it was a “tough decision.” Respectfully, Premier, the only people this decision is tough on are the people who had the rug pulled out from underneath them, people like Jodi from Hamilton, a single mom with three kids, or Andrew Shaver in Thunder Bay, who voted for you. Premier, they believed you. Premier, you made a promise to the people—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I have to ask the member to address his comments through the Chair. Please put the question.

Mr. John Fraser: Premier, can you stand in this House and explain to the people why you—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): No, no, no. The member for Ottawa South needs to put his question through the Chair.

Mr. John Fraser: Sorry. Premier, through the Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Premier?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Thank you very much to the member, and thank you, Mr. Premier, for allowing me to address this. We did not break a promise. That fake news that was in the news today totally mischaracterizes what we’re doing.

Let me tell you what we’ve done. We have said we are going to put a 1.5% across-the-board increase on Ontario Works and Ontario disability supports. We said we are going to wind down the basic income research project. I would like to inform the member that that project, if it were to proceed, would be $17 billion and would require a 6% increase in the HST, making life far more unaffordable for Ontario families.

What we have said is that we are going to hit the pause button for one year. The best social assistance program, as even the head of the Wellesley Institute agreed on CBC Ontario Today, is a job, and this government is working to ensure that there are more jobs for more Ontario families.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Once again, I feel compelled to remind members that when you’re speaking in the House, you make your comments through the Chair. It would help if you would look at the Chair.

Supplementary.

Mr. John Fraser: I will make that promise to you, Speaker, and I will really try not to break it.

It would be very nice to hear from the Premier. People are devastated by this: single moms who have gone back to school, families with young children, and senior citizens. You’ve taken their hope, Premier; you’ve taken their dignity.

Premier, there are many people who are upset about this. One of those people is Hugh Segal, a former Conservative senator and principal secretary to Premier Bill Davis. He called it “horrific.” He said, “I am embarrassed” to be “a Progressive Conservative.”

Premier, do you have the courage to stand in this House—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): No. You have to phrase the question to the Chair, not to the Premier.

Mr. John Fraser: Through you, Speaker: Premier—

Interjection: Could the Premier.

Mr. John Fraser: Could the Premier—thank you very much—have the courage to stand in this House and tell the people why he broke his promise?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Again, I thank the honourable member for his question.

What he’s really asking for is a 6% increase in the HST, and that makes life more unaffordable for the people of this province. The system, everyone agrees, including those who rely upon it, isn’t working.

We are going to continue to help those in need, but we need to do that in a sustainable way for all of us and that is meaningful and helpful to them. We have made a commitment that we will have a long, lengthy, compassionate runway in order to transition people. They will continue to receive their payments from now into the next few months, and we will start to transition them. But let me be perfectly clear, and listen to what I say: I will not, and I never will, abandon the people of this province.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Don Valley East will come to order.

The reason we ask you to make your remarks through the Chair is because it to some degree depersonalizes the debate and keeps it focused on actual public policy as opposed to a personal disagreement. Once again, I would ask the members to make their comments through the Chair.

Next question.

Taxation

M me Amanda Simard: Ma question s’adresse à la procureure générale.

Pendant la campagne électorale, le premier ministre et notre équipe PC avons promis à la population de l’Ontario d’utiliser toutes les ressources à notre disposition pour lutter contre le projet du gouvernement fédéral d’imposer une taxe sur le carbone aux gens, aux familles et aux entreprises de notre province.

Conformément à cette promesse, notre premier ministre et Scott Moe, le premier ministre de la Saskatchewan, ont annoncé il y a deux semaines que l’Ontario appuierait la Saskatchewan dans sa contestation à sa Cour d’appel.

La ministre pourrait-elle partager avec les députés ici présents toute autre mesure que le gouvernement de l’Ontario compte prendre pour contester la taxe sur le carbone imposée à notre province par le gouvernement libéral de Justin Trudeau?

L’hon. Caroline Mulroney: Merci à la députée de Glengarry–Prescott–Russell pour sa question.

Le gouvernement de l’Ontario s’est vu confier par notre population le mandat clair de s’opposer à la taxe fédérale sur le carbone. Comme la députée l’a souligné, nous nous sommes engagés à utiliser toutes les ressources à notre disposition pour y parvenir. C’est pourquoi le ministre de l’Environnement, de la Protection de la nature et des Parcs et moi-même étions fiers d’annoncer ce matin que notre gouvernement contestera lui aussi devant la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario la taxe fédérale sur le carbone. Monsieur le Président, nous avons toute confiance que nous allons gagner.

Nous avons écouté les Ontariens et les Ontariennes qui ne peuvent simplement pas se permettre de payer plus d’impôts, et prenons les mesures juridiques nécessaires pour défendre les intérêts des contribuables ontariens.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

M me Amanda Simard: Je remercie la ministre d’avoir partagé cette bonne nouvelle.

Je sais que mes électeurs, et tous les Ontariens, seront ravis d’apprendre que leur gouvernement défend leurs intérêts et travaille fort pour mettre plus d’argent dans leurs poches.

La ministre peut-elle nous fournir des renseignements supplémentaires quant aux raisons pour lesquelles notre gouvernement procède devant la Cour d’appel à une contestation, et en quoi ça consiste?

L’hon. Caroline Mulroney: Je suis heureuse de fournir à la députée plus de renseignements.

Notre gouvernement demandera à la Cour d’appel de déterminer si la

Loi sur la tarification de la pollution causée par les gaz à effet de serre, du gouvernement fédéral, viole en tout ou en

partie la Constitution. La position de l’Ontario est que cette loi impose une taxe anticonstitutionnelle. C’est pourquoi notre gouvernement travaille fort et emploie toutes les ressources à sa disposition pour contester la taxe fédérale sur le carbone.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say we announced today that we’re taking the feds to court and challenging their carbon tax. I can tell you that it will be a great day in Ontario when we win that case, and we will win that case.

Municipal elections

Mr. Wayne Gates: Mr. Speaker, through the Chair, my question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The people of the Niagara region want to have a say in who will represent them for the next four years. The government would have known that, if they had bothered to consult anyone before they decided they know what’s best for Niagara. Well, I have news for this government. Only the people of Niagara know what’s best for Niagara, not a government that keeps cooking up secret backroom deals.

When exactly and with whom did the government consult on their decision to cancel the Niagara regional chair election?

Hon. Steve Clark: Again, Speaker, through you to the honourable member, we consulted with tens of thousands of people during the election, and we made it very clear—

Hon. John Yakabuski: Crystal clear.

Hon. Steve Clark: —crystal clear that one of the things we would do is reduce the size and cost of government. As I said, the Liberals imposed a piece of legislation on us in 2016 that affected those four regions. All we’re doing in this proposed bill is pressing the pause button in terms of the member’s region in Niagara and also Muskoka, Peel and York.

We’re going to have a conversation at the upcoming convention. I say to the honourable member opposite and his colleagues who are sitting on either side of him, if you have feedback on what you feel has worked in regional government, what you feel may not have worked as well, we can have this conversation, along with our municipal partners, at the upcoming AMO conference. I look forward —

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

If this side of the House is having trouble hearing one of the ministers, I would suggest they diminish the volume of their heckling.

Supplementary?

Mr. Wayne Gates: Back to the minister: I want to be clear, I’m not from downtown Toronto. The anti-democratic action of this government is disrespectful to the people of Niagara. We deserve to have our say on who is going to represent us. We will not go unheard.

Will this government allow municipalities in the Niagara region to pose a referendum question to their constituents regarding the future election or appointment of their regional chair?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Niagara West will come to order.

Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing: response.

Hon. Steve Clark: Thank you, Speaker. Through you to the member: I think we just came through a referendum where it was very clear that Ontarians embraced our words of trying to reduce the size and cost of government. Again, I think it serves taxpayers very well, where we’re providing a level of government, whether it be federal, provincial or municipal, in the most effective and most efficient manner.

Again, I want to refer to the bill, Speaker, the Better Local Government Act. All it does is press the pause button on those four regions and allows them to select their regional chair the same way they did in 2014.

Moving forward, if the bill is passed, we’re going to have that dialogue at the upcoming AMO conference in a couple of weeks in Ottawa. We want very dearly to talk about what has worked in regional government and perhaps what hasn’t worked. We want to try to figure out the best, effective and efficient way to operate. I invite the member and his—

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

Next question?

Mental health services

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

Post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, according to the Anxiety and Depression Association of America, is a serious, potentially debilitating condition that can occur in people who have experienced or witnessed a traumatic incident. PTSD can seriously affect all aspects of a sufferer’s life, including their job and career, and can often lead to other mental health issues, such as anxiety, depression, substance abuse and risk of suicide.

PTSD has become a global health issue and the prevalence of it is gaining awareness. In Canada, between 1.1% to 3.5% of the general population is thought to have PTSD. In 2016, Ontario amended the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 to presume that PTSD is a workplace injury among first responders if it arises out of and in the course of the worker’s employment.

Mr. Speaker, through you, I ask the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care what initiatives her ministry is taking to address PTSD.

Hon. Christine Elliott: I want to start by thanking the great member from Brantford–Brant for this very important and timely question. PTSD is a significant risk to the health and well-being of people who regularly face or are affected by traumatic situations. My ministry will work closely with the Ministry of Labour to ensure Ontario’s first responders have access to the care and services that they need. Research shows that first responders are at least twice as likely as the general population to suffer from this disorder.

We have been very clear on this issue throughout the election campaign and now as a government. We will support Ontario’s public health system by adding $3.8 billion in new support for mental health and addictions and housing. Developing and implementing a thorough, comprehensive and connected mental health strategy once and for all is a priority for us. As we all know, mental health is health.

With important increases to mental health funding, families especially with children and youth with mental health issues—

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

Supplementary.

Mr. Will Bouma: Supplemental back to the minister: On Tuesday of this week, I tabled my first private member’s bill, entitled PTSD Awareness Day Act, 2018. June 27 was first officially recognized as PTSD Awareness Day in the United States in 2010. Since then, many organizations have followed suit. However, despite Canada—in particular, Ontario—having one of the highest rates of PTSD sufferers in the world, approximately one in 10, only the province of Alberta has legislation acknowledging June 27 as PTSD Awareness Day.

This private member’s bill proclaims June 27 as PTSD Awareness Day in Ontario annually. It will raise awareness and help deal with the stigma attached to PTSD and lead to more fulsome conversations about it in the workplace, at home and in society.

Mr. Speaker, through you, can the minister tell this House if she intends to support my legislation this afternoon, later today?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I do applaud the member for bringing forward this issue and bringing forward his private member’s bill later this afternoon. Yes, to answer your question, I absolutely will vote in favour of it.

As Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, I look forward to working with our front-line care workers in mental health, organizations like Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences, CAMH, Children’s Mental Health Ontario and the Canadian Mental Health Association.

This government will supply the front-line workers with the supports and resources they need to serve Ontario’s patients and families, so we can finally move forward with a comprehensive mental health strategy for all Ontarians. As the Premier has said in the past, this Ontario PC government will provide faster access to care by enhancing access to primary care providers, by reducing unnecessary emergency room visits and bringing down wait times. Promise made, promise kept.

Municipal government

Ms. Rima Berns-McGown: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. My riding of Beaches–East York has over 107,000 constituents. Not a single one of them voted to have their municipal representation slashed. There were zero mentions of this plan during the provincial election. My community is extremely diverse, and we deserve to have more than one voice representing us.

Will this government stop bulldozing the people of Toronto and let us finish the election that many have already started?

Hon. Steve Clark: Through you, Speaker, to the member for Beaches–East York: I want to thank you again for the question. However, I think our government and our Premier were very clear during the election that we were going to reduce the size and cost of government. During the campaign, we made a commitment to the people. We made a commitment to the people that we would respect their taxpayers’ dollars, that we would clean up the hydro mess and reduce rates, that we would create good jobs, that we would bring accountability and trust back into government and that we would end hallway health care.

Again, if the NDP, either in question period or today in private members’ business, wants to—

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I say to those of us who are visiting in the members’ gallery or the public gallery, you’re not allowed to participate in the debate. If you continue, we’ll have to ask that you be removed.

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): You’re not allowed to applaud, either. If you continue to persist, we will have to clear the galleries.

Interjections.

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

The minister had the floor. We’ll let the minister finish his response.

Hon. Steve Clark: It’s better for Ontarians not spending $25 million on more municipal politicians.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Rima Berns-McGown: Speaker, it’s simple: The people of Toronto voted to stop the Premier from becoming mayor in the last municipal election, and overwhelmingly voted against him in the last provincial election. Now the Premier is threatening to take away Toronto’s representative democracy. One would expect this behaviour from a spoiled child who takes his ball away after striking out. Democracy—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to caution the member again on the use of intemperate language and personal insults. It doesn’t add anything to the debate, and it causes discord in the House.

I’d ask the member to put her question.

Ms. Rima Berns-McGown: Speaker, democracy isn’t a game, and Toronto has done nothing wrong. Will this government stop treating the people of Toronto like they are spoiled children themselves, and will this government treat them like adults and with respect?

Hon. Steve Clark: Speaker, through you to the member for Beaches–East York: What we’re proposing in the Better Local Government Act is nothing new. For two decades, cutting the size of Toronto council has been discussed. The Premier talked earlier today about the Toronto Star poll. There was another poll that I quoted yesterday from 2014 that found 56% in favour of reducing council then from 44 to 22 seats, but it never got anywhere because councillors always vote to save themselves.

The NDP will have to explain why they’re the champions of big government, instead of supporting the leaner, more effective council that we’re proposing in the bill.

Public safety

Mr. Stan Cho: My question is for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport. The death of any child is tragic, but it’s especially sad when a child is killed by an entirely preventable accident. In May 2017, a 15-year-old boy named Garrett Mills from Napanee, Ontario, was killed when a 200-pound movable soccer goal toppled over and crushed him because it wasn’t secured properly to the ground.

In the last 40 years, there have been more than 50 deaths and hundreds of injuries from these movable soccer goals collapsing on children. Can the minister please explain how the recently reintroduced Garrett’s Legacy Act ensures that movable soccer goals in Ontario are secured safely?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: To the government House leader.

Hon. Todd Smith: I’m really pleased to answer this question. I’m really pleased that the member from Willowdale has introduced Garrett’s Legacy Act into the House to be debated this afternoon. Garrett was a very special young guy. His dad called him an old soul, and his mom and dad, Dave and Gwen Mills, will be joining us this afternoon for the debate.

Garrett wanted to change the world for the better, and Garrett’s Legacy Act does exactly that. Movable soccer nets are becoming more and more prevalent, but they can be dangerous when they’re not properly secured. Garrett’s Legacy Act, which was originally introduced in the last Parliament by me, was reintroduced on Tuesday by the member from Willowdale, and I couldn’t be happier about that.

This bill would establish the requirement for organizations who own these soccer goals to make sure that they’re properly secured, in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. This simple piece of legislation will help protect Ontario children, not just the ones who are playing soccer on our fields, but those who are hanging out in our playing fields with their friends, as Garrett was in this case.

I hope all members will support this very important piece of legislation today.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Stan Cho: Speaker, I’d like to thank the House leader, through you, for his response. I know this is a bill that he has personally championed and worked very hard on over the last year. We’re hoping to get this very important piece of legislation passed very quickly. It’s something that we need to do to take steps to make sure that our children are playing in a safe environment.

Physical activity is incredibly important and parents shouldn’t have to worry about the potential dangers this common piece of equipment can pose on our sports fields, at our community centres and in our parks. Can the minister please explain to the parents of Ontario and to the members of this House how Garrett’s Legacy Act will help protect children from injury and death in our communities?

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks again to the member for Willowdale for picking up the torch on this important piece of legislation.

These movable soccer goals can be a great piece of equipment for multi-use sports fields because they are movable and they can be adapted to suit the field for various different activities. However, these movable soccer goals, as the member talked about—in this case, it weighed 200 pounds. In many cases, they can weigh 400 pounds. They can often fall over with the simple push of a finger or a gust of wind. They’re unstable, and they’re prone to collapsing.

We want to give the parents out there peace of mind that when kids are out playing on the fields, whether they’re on the soccer pitch or, as in Garrett’s case, just hanging out with their girlfriend, they are safe and they’re protected from these things.

Garrett’s Legacy Act would ensure our community organizations are taking this very simple life-saving precaution of anchoring soccer goals, but with minimal burden of added regulation or cost. We hope that all members will support this very, very important piece of legislation in honour of Garrett Mills this afternoon.

Municipal government

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

When it comes to protecting our environment, this Conservative government cried foul against one level of government imposing terms on another. But when it comes to Toronto city council and their own self-governance, this government is perfectly content to impose the will of the Premier on whoever stands in his way.

So, Minister, why the hypocrisy?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I would ask the member to withdraw his unparliamentary remark.

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: Withdrawn.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Response?

Hon. Steve Clark: Through you, Speaker, to the member for Humber River–Black Creek: I want to thank you for the question. We believe in better local government. We’re going to reduce the size of Toronto city hall so that decisions can be made quicker, while services can be delivered more efficiently and more effectively. An oversized council makes it almost impossible to build meaningful consensus and get things done. As a result, infrastructure crumbles, housing backlogs increase and transit isn’t built. An oversized council is not what the city of Toronto needs.

Toronto has 25 federal MPs, they have 25 provincial MPPs, and because of this bill, if passed, they will have 25 Toronto city councillors.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: Back to the minister: The government’s response shows that they have no respect for democracy, and it denigrates elected officials everywhere—even themselves.

Across Canada, virtually every municipality has three, four or five times more councillors than MPs, because they are the front-line representatives for their local communities. But we know that this Conservative government’s unilateral, undemocratic decisio