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

September 13, 2018

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2018-Sept-13 (PDF)

L021 - Thu 13 Sep 2018 / Jeu 13 sep 2018

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 13 September 2018 Jeudi 13 septembre 2018

Notices of reasoned amendments

Orders of the Day

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

House sittings

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

Board of Internal Economy

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Municipal elections

Municipal elections

Municipal elections

International Plowing Match

Public transit

Municipal elections

Automobile insurance

Municipal elections

Northern health services

Municipal elections

Toronto International Film Festival

School facilities

Community safety

Curriculum

Investment regulations

Notice of dissatisfaction

Decorum in chamber

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Municipal elections

Jewish High Holy Days

Sarah Doucette

Events in Mississauga

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Municipal elections

Kleinburg Binder Twine Festival

Government’s record

Skilled trades

ATS Automation Tooling Systems

Petitions

Celiac disease

Wearing of poppies

Curriculum

Social assistance

Injured workers

Affordable housing

Gasoline prices

Celiac disease

Indigenous affairs

Mental health services

Long-term care

Private Members’ Public Business

Fairness in Petroleum Products Pricing Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur l’équité en matière d’établissement du prix des produits pétroliers

Veterans

Fairness in Petroleum Products Pricing Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur l’équité en matière d’établissement du prix des produits pétroliers

Veterans

Orders of the Day

Standing orders

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Notices of reasoned amendments

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I beg to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 71(b), both the member for Hamilton Centre and the member for Guelph have notified the Clerk of their intention to file notice of a reasoned amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill 31,

An Act to amend the City of Toronto Act, 2006, the Municipal Act, 2001, the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 and the Education Act and to revoke two regulations. The order for second reading of Bill 31 may therefore not be called today.

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 September 12, 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): Further debate? I recognize the member for Niagara Centre.

Mr. Jeff Burch: Good morning, Speaker. It’s my pleasure to rise and speak to this bill—which, as you heard yesterday from my colleagues, has been mischaracterized by the government as a tax. There is a carbon tax which, of course, two provinces currently have. We don’t think a carbon tax is the way to go because a carbon tax means it’s the public that pays. On that, we agree with the government.

The alternative is the cap-and-trade system. The cap-and-trade system, simply put, says that those who pollute will pay and the money we raise from those who are polluting will be given to those people who are trying to reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere and into the water.

In the case of an individual, this includes putting in a new furnace, new windows, doors—and as we saw with the cancellation of the green program, the cancellation of contracts that resulted in all kinds of difficulties for small business because of the lack of foresight and lack of planning of this government in cancelling the program. In the case of a small company, it could mean technological advances for the companies that reduce emissions into the atmosphere.

So cap-and-trade is not strictly a tax. It raises money from those people who pollute and transfers the money to those people who are going to reduce emissions. It’s about making polluters pay.

By getting rid of cap-and-trade now, we lose the money that is paid by the polluters in order to have others lessen their emissions.

The context of this is, what is the government’s plan? The fact of the matter is, the government has absolutely no plan. That really is shocking.

There are three options we have to reduce emissions: There is a carbon tax, which I’ve already talked about; there is cap-and-trade, which we are discussing today; and there is regulation of the economy. There is a fourth option, which is to bury your head in the sand and do absolutely nothing, and that, of course, is what this government has decided to do.

It really is incredible when we think that, in 2018, we’ve talked about forest fires burning in Canada and in the United States and across the world. The east coast of the Unites States is getting slammed with a hurricane—$20 billion in damage estimated and three and a half feet of water. There’s definitely something happening with climate change. Everyone knows it. To have a government, one of the largest governments in North America, with absolutely no plan to deal with it is really something that is quite incredible.

To recap: Cap-and-trade is not a carbon tax. With a carbon tax, the public pays; with cap-and-trade, polluters pay.

New Democrats agree that there are parts of the cap-and-trade system that need to be fixed, but cancelling the cap-and-trade system does nothing other than lose the money that is paid by polluters. It is a falsehood to call cap-and-trade a tax. Cancelling cap-and-trade is a plan for the rich that leaves the rest of us, our economy and our environment worse off.

This government failed to foresee the policy intersection with cap-and-trade. They claim it will save money, but they set aside $30 million in legal costs for the constitutional challenge of the federal carbon tax. Who benefits from this? Small businesses across the province that were hired to fulfill retrofitting contracts are left scrambling.

Instead of investing in a long-term climate strategy, this government has chosen to spend valuable taxpayer dollars on lawyers. Look at the decision with Tesla: They decided to hastily cancel electric vehicle rebates that disproportionately impacted Tesla. As we all know, this government lost the court case. The judge remarked: “If the government wants to transition out of the electric car subsidy program, the” transportation “minister must exercise his operational discretion in a lawful manner. He has yet to do so. I therefore quash and set aside the minister’s unlawful exercises of discretion to implement the transition program announced July 11....”

Beyond the $30 million above, there are now costs for defending the lawsuit against Tesla, which includes $125,000 in legal fees for Tesla.

We have Greenpeace. Leading environmental groups have also filed a lawsuit against the Ontario government over the cap-and-trade cancellation. They assert that the government “unlawfully failed” to engage in public consultations. Are we seeing a pattern here? “We’re suing to remind the Premier that winning an election does not give his government carte blanche to ignore the ... rights of Ontarians to be consulted on major changes to the laws and regulations that protect them from climate change.”

This is a disturbing pattern with this government: rash decisions; fire, ready, aim rather than ready, aim, fire with legislation; lawsuits resulting. Who is giving this government legal advice? Better Call Saul?

The cancellation of cap-and-trade was rammed through the Legislature with no consultation, no time in committee and no alternative plan for the environment.

This government has no time for democracy and no interest in consultation. Let’s look at the list: green contracts; Tesla; other cap-and-trade jurisdictions that will bring actions against this government; collective agreements; we saw yesterday the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The government has no interest and no regard for contracts.

Mr. Speaker—Madam Speaker; sorry about that. These are not one-offs. This government is in the habit of ignoring contracts, ignoring collective agreements, ignoring the Constitution. These aren’t the actions of a Conservative government. Conservatives are not for big government bullying businesses, bullying the average person. Conservatives are for smaller government. As Andrew Coyne pointed out recently in an article, these are not the actions of Conservatives; these are not the actions of a Conservative government.

The Conservative government is shirking its responsibilities in one area, and that is to protect the environment for Ontarians today and for future generations. This bill makes no concrete commitments to lowering emissions and fighting climate change. It is taking us backwards, with no solutions. There was no consultation before the government decided unilaterally to rip up contracts and cut programs aimed at reducing Ontario’s emissions. There was no transparency and no accountability. This is the act of climate change deniers.

Why are the Premier and this government catering to the whims of radical special interest groups? Cancelling cap-and-trade is a plan for the rich that leaves the rest of us, our economy and our environment worse off.

According to the government’s technical briefing, families who earn more than $150,000 a year will see an average benefit of $403,

whereas families earning less than $40,000 a year will save only $103 on average. That means wealthy families will see an average annual benefit from cancelling cap-and-trade that is four times greater than families making less than $40,000. This is a clear slap against poor families, struggling families, businesses that have counted on green rebates, and it is the action of a government that doesn’t keep its promises; it’s a government that breaks contracts, that breaks its word.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Questions and comments?

Mr. Vincent Ke: Good morning. We will use every tool at our disposal to protect Ontario families and businesses from the carbon tax. This will include challenging the carbon tax at the Ontario Court of Appeal. We are confident we will be successful.

Just yesterday, the Prime Minister signalled that he knows the carbon tax is the wrong thing to do by walking it back a bit. We are saying to him that it’s not too late to do the right thing: Cancel the carbon tax.

We made a clear promise to the people of Ontario that we would fight the federal government’s carbon tax with every tool at our disposal. Promise made, promise kept.

Carbon taxes have nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with increasing government revenues. A carbon tax will drive up the cost of gas, home heating fuel and everything else you buy.

Provincially, the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, if passed, will once and for all end the job-killing cap-and-trade carbon tax of the previous Liberal government. Federally, we are opposing the Trudeau government’s carbon tax law. Our position is that the act is unconstitutional because it is outside of federal jurisdiction and imposes an unconstitutional tax on Ontarians.

Our message to Ontario families, businesses and workers worried about the carbon tax is—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Thank you. Questions and comments?

M me France Gélinas: Thank you, Speaker, and it’s very nice to see you in the chair this morning.

I was very interested in what my colleague from Niagara Centre had to say. His comments make sense. You have a choice. You can agree that climate change is real and that it’s linked to greenhouse gas emissions and do something about it—and he laid out the possibilities. But what we have right now is a government that has said, “Climate change may be real, but whatever we’re doing, let’s not do that anymore.” That doesn’t work. The member from Niagara Centre put it clearly: There are choices that are out there, and the choice to do nothing is a choice. This is the choice that this government has chosen to make.

They have chosen to take away something. Was it perfect? Absolutely not. Nobody would tell you that cap-and-trade was perfect. But did it pay off? It did. Yesterday I gave an example from my riding: Vale made a $1-billion investment that decreased their greenhouse gas emissions by 120 kilotonnes per year. Was it perfect? No. They’re still emitting greenhouse gases, and they could continue to do better. But they were doing something.

What the Conservative government has put right now is that they leave businesses in limbo; businesses don’t know. You don’t make a $1-billion investment when you don’t know what the future will look like. This is what this Conservative government is all about. Leaving businesses in limbo means that we do nothing; it means that you are a climate change denier. It’s as simple as that.

Thank you to the member from Niagara Centre for pointing it out.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Questions and comments?

Mr. Dave Smith: It’s interesting to hear our NDP opponents talking about cap-and-trade this way. Really, what it comes down to is, this whole system was put in place to raise government revenues. It had nothing to do with being more effective in reducing greenhouse gases.

We look at a lot of different things that have happened—particularly in my riding. I spoke about this in my inaugural speech. Because of cap-and-trade, it was costing one gentleman $30 more per month to come in for his life-sustaining kidney dialysis. It wasn’t something that was discretionary travel. He needed to do that to stay alive, but there were no provisions put in place for it.

There were so many issues, so many problems with what cap-and-trade was doing in this province. It wasn’t a well-thought-out program. We needed to address that.

In Ontario, the Progressive Conservative government under Doug Ford has recognized that taking money from the average person and having no benefit to the province by doing it is not an effective way of generating a strong economy. We’ve taken a very different approach to it. What we have said instead is that the taxpayer needs to have that money in their pocket. We’re looking at saving the average person $260 per year, and they get to choose what they’re going to do with it.

I’m not sure why our NDP opponents would be suggesting that it’s wrong for the average person in Ontario to have more money. I was always under the impression that the NDP were trying to support those who had less, but what they’re really doing is, they’re saying that we should be taking more money out of their pockets. That’s not an effective way of running this province.

We know definitively that cap-and-trade was nothing more than a slush fund. It was there to provide extra money for the government to spend on idealistic things. It was not there to improve the environment.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I recognize the member for London–Fanshawe.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I appreciate the thoughtful debate that the member from Niagara Centre brings to the House when it comes to legislation that the government has presented.

Speaker, I think people are concerned because this government has a pattern of behaviour of not consulting when they present bills. During the campaign they had this idea about cancelling cap-and-trade, so everybody was aware of it, but they didn’t consult with the people it actually affected. Did they consult with businesses on how their sledgehammer legislation was going to affect businesses? Did they consult people who felt the environment needed a cap-and-trade initiative to make sure, going forward, for future generations, we would have a better world for our children? No, they didn’t.

They set up this legislation. They have cancelled contracts, and they don’t want to take the consequences of cancelling those contracts so they put a provision in this bill to eliminate any business coming after them legally. So, they have absolved themselves—they have claimed immunity—after deciding to cancel contracts, and are just washing their hands of any commitment that a legal contract has. That’s just wrong. That doesn’t create an environment for businesses to come here and create jobs. That doesn’t create a stability in our local economy so that businesses know they can invest in Ontario.

This government is truly failing Ontarians and the people when they decide that legislation does not need to be consulted. And that’s not the first time, Speaker.

We’re talking about the Toronto legislation. They decided no consultation and they’re in a legal battle. Their pattern of behaviour is concerning and people are now standing up to this government. Just yesterday in the galleries people were being arrested and taken away because of this legislation they created.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I return to the member from Niagara Centre for a brief comment.

Mr. Jeff Burch: Just to comment on a few of the comments from members from the government: One member mentioned putting money in people’s pockets. Talk to the folks in North Carolina on the east coast of the United States and ask them how much money they’re going to have in their pockets. Talk to the people up north who have been evacuated from towns due to fires and ask them how much money they’re going to have in their pocket. This isn’t an issue of putting one or two dollars in somebody’s pocket. It’s an issue of saving the environment. It’s an issue of addressing climate change so that people have a life, never mind an extra $100 in their pocket.

Secondly, the member talked about this “promise made, promise kept” nonsense. Nobody promised to rip up contracts that have already been signed and made with small businesses. Nobody promised to cut programs that deal with emissions. No one from that side of the House, during the election, promised to act without transparency and accountability. And no one promised to fail to present any kind of alternative to address the environment.

It is absolutely incredible—I’m going to say it again—that one of the largest governments in North America has no environmental plan whatsoever. It’s remarkable. I don’t understand how someone can come to this House, go home, talk to their kids, talk to their grandkids, and tell them that you’re a member of a government that has no plan—in the year 2018—to address the environment. It’s embarrassing. It’s embarrassing for all of us. It’s embarrassing for every member of this House and it’s a disgrace.

I hope that, at some point, members from that side of the House will wake up and develop some kind of a plan so that we can all go home and talk to our families and say, “You know what? I may not be in the government, but at least the government has a plan. I may not agree with it, but at lease they’re doing something for the environment.” This government is doing absolutely nothing.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

We all are aware, I think, that this was an election where people really seemed a lot more engaged. It was my third election, Madam Speaker, and it was really wonderful for me to go to the doors—it was the first election that I found that I went to the doors and the majority of doors knew there was an election, knew when the election was, and knew what our platform was and what are plans were.

One of the things that I heard at the door was, “You have to end this cap-and-trade scheme.” People in Thornhill were quite engaged and quite well aware that even though they want to protect and have clean air and clean water for themselves, for future generations, and they want to fight climate change, they did not see that this was going to do very much. They did not see that the pain of this cap-and-trade scheme was worth the gain.

We made this promise to the people of Ontario that we would scrap what was brought in by the previous Liberal government, and we are working on a plan that we’re planning to present this fall. I think Ontario families were hit very, very hard by the soaring electricity rates due to other schemes that were brought in by the Liberal government.

We just heard from the NDP, the official opposition. I remember discussing, and I think some of the members who were here the previous Parliament remember discussing, that northern Ontario is particularly hard hit. It’s one of the things that I admit, Madam Speaker: I didn’t know a lot about northern Ontario until I came here and understood that they don’t have transit. They lost their train. Their electricity costs are soaring. They don’t have natural gas coming to their homes the way we do in most of the GTA.

The rising electricity costs mean that it’s absolutely impossible for them to heat their homes, which often maybe aren’t new homes that are very well insulated. So what are they doing? They’re going out and cutting down trees. Is there anything more unenvironmental than going out into the forest, cutting down trees and burning them to heat your home because there’s no electricity?

Interjections.

Mrs. Gila Martow: That’s sad.

When I speak to people, they want to see trees being planted in Ontario. They want to see a tree canopy. They don’t want to see people having to go out and cut down trees to heat their homes—absolutely not.

Carbon pricing: We hear in discussion that it’s going to reduce emissions. The studies show that it reduces emissions by such a small amount that there’s really no way to even reach the targets that we were going to set. The Auditor General reported that the joint market with Quebec and California would result in, basically, capital. That means money—our businesses paying money that is going to flow to Ontario and Quebec.

Look, on this side of the House, we’re all committed to using all available resources to challenge the federal government’s plan to impose any kind of carbon tax. We understand that a tax is a tax, no matter what kind of spin you put on it, and that any type of new tax is going to chase jobs out of the province. That’s why we’re planning to challenge, with a court challenge, the federal government’s carbon tax plan.

I really think that Ontarians elected a Conservative government because they were afraid. They are seeing well-paying jobs being developed elsewhere. They are seeing their children graduating university and not finding a job or not finding meaningful employment. They see new taxes piling on, on top of old taxes. They just don’t see a government with a plan to prioritize to ensure that we are looking after what people care about.

We know that more money for businesses and disposable income for households boosts consumption, exports, output, business investment and, yes, even employment. We are kind of on a downward spin, I think, the province of Ontario, in terms of good-paying jobs, in terms of all the challenges for businesses, all the regulations, the electricity, even the traffic congestion. When I visit businesses, they say to me that it’s costing them so much more to run their business because they need more trucks, because the trucks take twice as long to make their deliveries—and I’m sure their suppliers as well.

Well, what could be more unenvironmental than having trucks sitting all day in traffic, burning fuel?

There are a lot of things that we can do just in our communities to fight for better flow of traffic, better use of transit and better transit planning. I really think that’s what the new Ford administration is all about: having a clear plan for the GTA to promote business, improve people’s quality of life, get traffic moving, get business booming and get the job market back to where it should be.

I don’t want to repeat everything that has already been said, but I just want to say that, according to what we’re looking at in terms of having a plan this fall, I’m really looking forward to hearing from my constituents. I think that many of us here in the House enjoy hearing from our constituents about many of their concerns. I’m sitting with the member from Brampton West. I know that they have a lot of the same concerns that we do over here in Thornhill.

We see in York region that the traffic has gotten to the point where to drive within the region takes as long, probably, as driving the same distance in downtown Toronto. Maybe that surprises some of the members from downtown Toronto who don’t come up to the suburbs very often. The Yonge subway has been a dream for 30 years and nothing gets done.

They’re not against paying taxes. What they want is they want to pay for taxes where they see the money going to something concrete, something worthwhile, something improving the environment, something improving people’s lives. They want to see that measure of success that they have not felt from the previous administration.

As many of us were making our way in here today, I think, we’re following the storm, Florence, the hurricane, heading for Myrtle Beach. The member opposite mentioned it. We are concerned about the oceans getting warmer. We are concerned about emissions. We are concerned about maintaining our clean water supply. Canada is so lucky to have a clean water supply.

But just coming up with ideologies and saying that a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade scheme is going to somehow be the magic wand that halts climate change, halts any kind of devastation and any kind of storm—we have to rely on the proper science and not just charge people to pollute, not just have people pay to pollute, but actually come up with plans where we get people to contribute on their own to making the world a much healthier place for all of us to live, to ensure that we have healthy food supplies for future generations.

My father was a meteorologist. He worked for Environment Canada. He would talk quite often about the devastating storms and climate change and global warming, and what politicians can do, specifically when I got involved in politics. One of the things he did complain about is maybe more municipal, but I think we all have a role here to play. Oftentimes buildings are built in places or in a manner without taking into account the wind tunnels that are created, without taking into account the stormwater, and without taking into account the future repairs that are going to have to be made.

In terms of transit planning, we have to do this in a bigger planning effort involving and working with all of our different levels of government and ensuring that we come up with a GTA- and province-wide plan to not just improve the environment but to improve the quality of life, improve our economy, improve our infrastructure, and improve our transit.

I really believe that we got off to a very strong start. I know I’m hearing it from my constituents and you are as well, I’m sure, that they are in awe that we came back to work so quickly, we got to work on so many bills. We repaired a lot of what people thought were damaging plans by the previous administration. We’re ensuring that we have the right plans in place for the entire province of Ontario, for all the people in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Questions and comments? I recognize the member from Mushkegowuk–James Bay.

M. Guy Bourgouin: Merci, madame la Présidente. Sorry, Mike, si je t’ai volé quelque chose, mais c’était plus fort que moi; ça m’achalait d’entendre des conneries.

When I heard my colleague from Thornhill speaking about cutting trees, “It’s such a shame that we’re cutting trees to heat ourselves,” you have to realize, in some communities, that’s the only heat they have. You have to realize, in some communities, when they do it, they have to have a permit to go cut the trees to heat themselves. So we just don’t go and cut any tree. By the way, green trees or fresh trees, they don’t burn. We cut the ones that are dead to heat our homes. It’s not about going out there and cutting all these nice trees. It’s not at all about that.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: You can’t afford your hydro bill.

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: We can’t afford our hydro bill. By the way, we have other sources of heating also. But it’s not about just cutting these green trees. Forests are no different than the field; it regrows. That’s what we do. That’s a way of living up north. We have cabins, we have camps that we have to heat with trees. So we do cut trees; it’s a form of life up north. But we cut the ones that are already dead to heat ourselves, because green trees don’t burn. It’s as simple as that; they don’t. And if you do, you have to wait two to three years to be able to burn them, but you need a permit to do that.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Questions and comments?

Mr. Billy Pang: The prime goal for cap-and-trade is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. When talking about trade, that means that money can buy the right for the emission of carbon dioxide. But where does the money come from? The money comes from the customers—not from the owners, not from the shareholders, nor from the directors of the industry, but the customers. That means it will impact the economy and the lives of the general public. Also, the amount of carbon dioxide won’t be reduced.

As a responsible government, we make responsible policies to develop a plan that is affordable and practical for Ontarians.

When we look at the bill itself, it says: “Under the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, 2018, the government is required to establish targets for reducing the amount of greenhouse gas emissions in Ontario. The Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks is required to prepare a climate change plan and to prepare progress reports in respect of the plan.”

Within this bill, it is mandatory that our government understands the impact of the greenhouse effect. This is not a government that is not concerned about the climate; we are concerned about the climate. Therefore, in this bill, we stated that we are going to develop a plan. But if some plan is not working at all, at that point in time we will cancel it, and we will develop a plan that is workable and affordable for Ontarians.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Questions and comments?

Mr. Michael Mantha: My goodness, I just couldn’t hold myself back this morning. I’m sure Jamie Lim of the OFIA is probably sitting in her office right now—as the members who were in our galleries yesterday—holding back on the verbal vomit that was coming out of the speaker from Thornhill who just spoke.

Listen, she’s a great friend of mine and I do want to offer an olive branch to say: Talk to your Minister of Natural Resources and get a little bit more informed about the sustainable forestry act. It’s a big tool, something that the NDP government had brought in a long time ago, which protects our forests, which gives good practices to individuals—which the government charges permits for—when they go out to get this firewood. Are you looking to use the “notwithstanding” clause to eliminate those permits as well? I’m just saying.

Listen, there were a lot of problems with the cap-and-trade. We have said this time and time again: It was not a perfect system.

She touched on northern Ontario and the issues that we’re looking for and the discussions that we had brought forward. One of those discussions was that we had wanted to put in an amendment in order to put $20 million aside specifically for the challenges that were there from northern Ontario. The government of the day did not accept our amendment. Was it the best thing they could have done? Absolutely not. There are a lot more challenges for northern Ontario as well.

I often get referred to as a radical from northern Ontario. My goodness. My friend, you’ve just given me an opportunity to look at you and say that you must be some kind of tree-hugging radical person, who I’m going to be looking towards for some assistance in the very near future.

Listen, I have the utmost respect for you, but please, please, please have a discussion with the Minister of Natural Resources. It’s something that you absolutely need—you and many of your colleagues.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further questions and comments? I recognize the member from—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Radical social conservative.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): —King–Vaughan. Order.

Mr. Stephen Lecce: That is me. That is me.

Good morning, Madam Speaker. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. The House leader caught me there.

I do want to respond to the members opposite and thank them for their perspective this morning. I think the tone of this House is a bit more in keeping with the traditions of this Legislature.

I do want to speak to the member from Mushkegowuk–James Bay. I hope I did not bastardize that, sir. Close enough? No? It was bad? Okay, I’m sorry. He invoked an analogy of forestry and trees. Obviously, we support the sustainable development of our natural resources, but I must remind the members opposite that money does not grow on trees, contrary to the popular belief of the New Democratic Party. I just want to make clear what this bill does: It ensures cheaper gas prices, it ensures lower hydro bills and it delivers more money in the pockets of working people in this province. There should be political unanimity when it comes to making life more affordable for people in this province.

We campaigned on a mandate to reduce prices and make life affordable. We are putting $260, Madam Speaker, back in the pockets of working people. This is not insignificant. This is an incremental step in helping to realize a commitment we made to the people of this province to deliver economic prosperity.

By repealing this legislation, we are going to help create 14,000 private sector, quality jobs that our young people in the next generation will depend on. This is real progress for the prosperity of our province, and we’re hoping that every single member of this House will stand with us in the pursuit of opportunity and ultimately support our initiatives to make our economy more competitive.

Industry in this province: Having travelled across southern Ontario, I’ve met with many job creators in the GTA over the past months in my capacity at infrastructure. I will tell you that the greatest obstacle to economic prosperity is the imposition of higher taxes, higher regulations and protectionism around the world. We are fighting that every step of the way. I urge the members opposite to join us as we help to grow this economy.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I return to the member from Thornhill for a brief statement.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I enjoy learning from my colleagues across the aisle in the NDP and learning about the challenges of northern Ontario, which is what I was trying to highlight. I think what they enjoy trying to teach us down here in the GTA—those of us who don’t make it to northern Ontario very often and haven’t seen much of northern Ontario—is to understand the challenges. That’s what I was highlighting, that there are those in northern Ontario who have electricity, who have electric heating in their homes, and who have mostly heated their homes with electricity for decades and are unable to do so.

It’s one thing if you choose to get the permits and to cut down dead trees and use them for firewood. There are certainly those of us in the GTA who have real fireplaces. It’s certainly nice on a winter day when it’s snowing to have a real fireplace. But we’re also aware that in Montreal and in Vancouver, they banned wood-burning fireplaces unless they had special inserts put in to reduce the emissions, because they said that the smog created was very close to the smog created by emissions of cars and trucks in the cities.

It obviously was enough of a concern for Montreal and for Vancouver to ban regular wood-burning fireplaces and wood-burning stoves. The inserts are very expensive—$2,000 to $8,000 is what my research on my phone just told me. So, obviously, not too many people did that.

We all understand that there can be power failures, that there can be instances where we’re all very happy that we stockpiled some firewood and that we have fireplaces in our homes, but it comes down to a question of choice. I don’t think that those in northern Ontario with electric heating in their homes want to give up the choice, the ability, to heat their homes with electricity.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and I’m looking forward to hearing more debate.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate? I recognize the member from Mushkegowuk–James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The tree-cutter.

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: Tree-cutting and burning.

Our colleagues across, when speaking about cap-and-trade, refer to it as a “tax, tax, tax.” It’s not all about the tax, tax, tax; it’s about climate change. We understand, on this side, that cap-and-trade had things that had to be tweaked or had issues, but at least it was something. But climate change is real—even more up north.

As you know, Madam Speaker, my riding is in the northern portion of the province, Mushkegowuk–James Bay. Up north, I say, is where we see the effects of climate change the most. So let me tell my colleagues across the real effects it has on my riding and the people who live there.

I’ll speak about the community of Kashechewan of approximately 2,500, living on the James Bay coast at 35 feet of elevation. They are surrounded by a dike that holds the mighty Albany River. In the spring, ice break-up used to be more gradual, letting the water flow more gradually, and the dike would hold the river. Now flooding is an annual event. Now every year families have to be evacuated to other communities. Think about this, being evacuated every year: the stress on the family that they go through, not to mention the cost of the evacuation. But no, it’s a tax, tax, tax.

Last week I went to Kash, as the chief had declared a state of emergency. They closed the elementary school for health and safety reasons. This elementary school is all portable units that were supposed to be temporary for five years, and it’s been 10 years that these portable units are being used.

My first impression of this elementary school, I can tell you, was that it looked more like a war camp than an elementary school. I say that because when we are accustomed to going to schools, we see a playground; we see a traditional building of a school. This wasn’t it. It left a lasting impression on me.

These portables are in such bad condition because of the flooding, the freezing and the thawing that when you walk in, you smell the humidity. You walk and the floors are going like this or like that. There are gaps under the doors because they have to shave the doors because of the building warping and the mould.

I met a young girl; she had tears in her eyes. It was her first day of school. She was starting—first time—elementary school. She had her new running shoes; she had all of her clothes her mother had bought—no different than our kids when they want to go to school. We dress them up. We make sure that they have all new stuff. But her school was closed because it was unsafe.

The floor was so warped and bad that in the winter sometimes they pried the doors open to let the kids out or in. Like I said, they shaved some of the doors so that they can open. In one place, we went to the gym. You could see outside under the door. The gym teacher was telling me that they shovel snow out, and then she puts a yoga mat to stop the snow so that it doesn’t come in. The kids wear their winter clothes to play in the gym. The gym is so bad that they have to put mats around so that the nails and the screws don’t come out.

We also went around and visited houses because of the flooding. People were coming to us: “Come and see my home.” They wanted us to see this, because they wanted to show us the conditions they live in. You can see the mould. You can smell it, first of all, and you walk into the house and in certain rooms you see the mould. Do you know what they do to cover the mould? They paint over it to hide it.

I was also speaking to one of the band council members about the ice roads and the conditions. These ice roads are a lifeline to these communities. It gives them access to other—also, it’s an economic lifeline to these communities. It takes three hours to go to Moosonee and another five to go to Timmins. But because of climate change, now they lose these ice roads earlier and, because it’s warmer now in the winter, these road conditions are bad. You have to know, Mushkegowuk, if you leave Moosonee and you fly there—I invite all the members to take an opportunity to come; it’s like a different place. It’s all muskeg, so you can imagine the roads, they thaw out, and the condition of the roads.

That’s a real effect of climate change on those communities. It’s not just about a “tax, tax, tax.” Other First Nation communities, like Attawapiskat, are also subject to more flooding.

If this government recognizes that climate change exists, then they need to propose a bill before removing one that could be fixed.

Madame la Présidente, je ne sais pas si vous le savez, mais ma circonscription comprend aussi beaucoup d’opérations forestières. Avec ce projet de loi, qui ne s’adresse aucunement au réchauffement de la planète, beaucoup de compagnies forestières sont sujettes à des fermetures de printemps. Aussi, avec leurs opérations, elles sont obligées d’opérer soit le matin ou le soir, et ça c’est aussi pour éviter de créer des feux de forêts. Les opérateurs me disaient qu’ils sont rendus à bûcher dans les swampes. On appelle ça des « swampes », les marécages. Puis ils disent que c’est sec tout partout.

Que dire des feux de forêts? Cette année on a eu 1 312 feux dans la province. Ça représente 2 061 584 hectares brûlés, une perte économique énorme pour la province et pour les compagnies forestières et les communautés qui en dépendent. Et ça, c’est sans compter le coût pour combattre les feux, qui est énorme.

Aujourd’hui : pas de programme de nos collègues pour remplacer la taxe de carbone. Mais, non, la seule chose qu’on entend c’est « taxe, taxe, taxe », la fameuse toune de « taxe, taxe, taxe ». Ils nous disent qu’ils reconnaissent le changement climatique, qu’il existe, mais il n’y a toujours pas de proposition. Comme j’ai dit au début, je reconnais que la taxe de carbone avait des lacunes, mais de n’avoir aucune solution pour la remplacer est irresponsable de la part d’un gouvernement.

Je peux vous avouer, madame la Présidente, que nous avons beaucoup d’appels dans mon comté, à mon bureau de circonscription, concernant les programmes de rénovations. Je peux vous dire aussi qu’avec le petit peu, les quelques 100 $, qu’ils nous proposent—le programme qu’on a perdu pour les rénovations—ça coûte pas mal plus cher quand on est obligé de rénover.

Il faut réaliser que, dans le Nord, il fait froid. Les hivers sont froids. Non, je vais vous dire ça : ils sont « frets »; c’est encore plus que « froids ». Puis les programmes de rénovations—il faut que vous réalisiez que les demeures qui ne sont pas rénovées, à cause du froid, détériorent plus vite.

Pour finir—je vois que je suis après manquer de temps—les Premières Nations ont une belle histoire qui devrait nous porter à réfléchir. Ça va comme suit : Lorsque l’homme blanc aura coupé tous les arbres, tué tous les animaux, mangé tous les poissons et asséché toutes les rivières et les lacs, alors il verra, à la fin, que l’argent ne se mange pas et ne se boit pas.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Questions and comments?

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: Madam Speaker, I rise here today to support Bill 4. This bill will save the average family at least $260 each year in addition to 10 cents on a litre of gas. This will help make life easier and more affordable for Ontario families.

I would like to begin by thanking two residents of Mississauga–Lakeshore, Bill and Muriel Chudiak. When the Liberal government claimed cap-and-trade would cost them $5 a month on natural gas bills, the Chudiaks went to work with the help of the Enbridge Consumers Gas department. The Chudiaks realized and found out “it would cost us double or triple this.” It is difficult with a family on a fixed income.

This was a regressive tax. It forced poor and middle-class Ontarians to pay more for basic necessities. As former Premier Kathleen Wynne admitted, because of her mistake on the energy file, some Ontarians were forced to choose between paying their electric bill and buying food or paying for rent. Combined with skyrocketing hydro rates and the growth of red tape under the previous government, cap-and-trade made Ontario a challenging jurisdiction for businesses, particularly for manufacturing.

In total, cap-and-trade would have cost Ontario families and businesses $2 billion every year, with hundreds of millions sent to California and Quebec. What’s worse, Madam Speaker, is that the Auditor General in November 2016 found that the Liberal government did not study whether this would actually contribute to additional emissions reduction in Quebec or California. In other words, the Auditor General wrote, “these funds may be leaving the Ontario economy for no purpose other than to help the government claim it has met a target.”

Madam Speaker, that’s just not good enough for Ontarians. We need a plan that our families can afford and that ensures Ontario is open for business.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Questions and comments? I recognize the member for Algoma–Manitoulin.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Thank you, Speaker, and good morning to you. You know, it’s always nice getting up when you hear the new members addressing and talking about the issues that matter most to them and their constituents. Keep doing that, my friend from Mushkegowuk–James Bay. I’m looking forward to hearing a lot more comments from you, in regard to how it affects the many communities that you represent from northern Ontario, particularly Kashechewan.

I know of the plight. Both the federal member, Charlie Angus, and yourself were just out there recently. You see some of those images, and it’s gut-wrenching. Roughly about, I would say, four or five years ago, some colleagues and I—the member from Timmins–James Bay then and other members—did a tour of some of these communities: Eabametoong, Attawapiskat. We looked at some of the challenges that these families face.

I remember this one young family who had set up a makeshift house in their parents’ driveway because there were too many people who were living in the home. So they built their own home, a 20-by-20 structure—very proud, very clean, very beautiful. She had two children. Her husband worked at the mine. She was so proud that she had the ability of putting two-inch Styrofoam into her walls. That was the highlight that she wanted to show to us. The unfortunate

part is that she didn’t have enough Styrofoam to put up in her ceilings, and all of the heat that was in the home was escaping.

Those are real challenges. These are the real faces of individuals across this province in Ontario right now. If we’re a part of this cap-and-trade program, we’re going to be able to assist these individuals in order to be meeting their needs, making sure that their kids are properly fed.

Take a walk—you don’t even have to take a walk; look it up on the Internet. Look at the cost of three quarts of milk in Attawapiskat. Look up the cost for a small block of cheese, and you’re going to find out what the real challenge is for real people in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Paul Calandra: Madam Speaker, I think the member’s speech itself highlights why cap-and-trade just isn’t working for the people of Ontario. He highlighted in his earlier question the fact that people in his riding do things differently than we would do here in southern Ontario. That is a reality that cap-and-trade just does not allow us to address. Collecting a universal tax on people across the province—yes, it’s effective at collecting this tax, but it isn’t going to solve the problems that we have in Attawapiskat. Infrastructure improvements will help address some of those problems.

I was a bit late coming in today. It took me two and a half hours to drive 48 kilometres from Stouffville—48 kilometres, two and a half hours. It’s absolutely unacceptable. Why are we in this position today? Because the city of Toronto has been unable to make decisions on subways, which has left the eastern part of my riding without access to a subway, without access to a roadway to get in, so we’re all forced onto the Don Valley Parkway.

The GO train service is overtaxed, so some 3,000 people towards the eastern part of Markham are forced onto the same roadway that the rest of the 1.2 million people in my region are forced onto, because we don’t have a subway connection in York region on Yonge street. We don’t have a subway connection or the rapid transit which was announced 10 years ago along Sheppard Avenue—10 years ago, and $5 billion sitting in an account unused, which has left the entire eastern part of York region without access to public transportation systems that would get us downtown.

So we can do things a bit differently. I know the member will acknowledge this. Protecting the environment will mean different things to different communities. For my community, protecting the environment means getting us to work faster and getting us out of cars. It means bringing our natural heritage under the protection of government, like we did federally with Rouge Park. There are a lot of different things that we can do, and I think collecting a tax, a regressive tax, is the worst thing, because as we have proven, it does not work in making our environment cleaner.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further questions and comments?

M me France Gélinas: It was very interesting to listen to my colleague from Mushkegowuk–James Bay put forward real-life examples from his riding of what climate change means. It means that life is becoming more and more difficult for the people of his riding because of the unsettling winter, where we go from having 12 degrees and pouring rain, and the next day it’s minus 40 and everything is icy. You think that the ice going across the lake is good, but the river thins it out and then your snowmobile or truck goes through the ice. All of this is directly linked to climate change.

We see it in the north. Every single season, we can see the difference. We can now have sweet potatoes in Nickel Belt. We’ve never been able to grow sweet potatoes in Nickel Belt; it’s too cold. Now we do. We see species of animals, birds and plants that we’ve never seen before.

He was telling you of examples from his riding to tell you that climate change is real. It is happening. It is having an impact on people’s lives, and you need a plan. To simply scrap what was there is not enough. You are supposedly a government for the people. What happened to the people of northern Ontario? What happened to the people of Mushkegowuk–James Bay? Aren’t you a government for them also? This is what he’s talking about, that you need to have a plan. You need to look outside of Toronto as to what is going on. Listen to what he has to say. It’s worth listening to.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I return to the member from Mushkegowuk–James Bay for his response.

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: I appreciate all the debate. I hear my colleagues talking about two-hour drives. I do understand, but think about this: breathing mould year-round, having two or three generations living in the same house. We walked into these houses. They had queen beds piled on each other that they pull into the living room and they sleep there, in that house that has mould.

I understand what you’re saying, but there’s a reality up north. That’s why I keep saying that I invite you to come and visit. Come and see how cap-and-trade could help this situation. If cap-and-trade is not good, then what’s your program? You’re saying it’s a tax, tax, tax, but if it’s not cap-and-trade, what is it? Nothing, absolutely nothing. That’s what we haven’t seen.

I can tell you that these people, my constituents, are hurting. It’s taking away their lives’ dignity in some cases. It’s not just about travelling. I understand that we have to look outside of the GTA and Toronto, because northern Ontario is hurting bad. You see the kids asking for a new school. Why is it normal in Ontario that kids can’t have a new school? Because the conditions of that school—it’s unacceptable in Ontario today.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Mr. Lorne Coe: I’m pleased to be able to participate in this morning’s debate on Bill 4, which I support.

Speaker, when the legislation was first introduced in the assembly by my colleague the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, he spoke about two important aspects: first, that this legislation fulfills a promise made to the people of Ontario; and second, that while accepting and understanding the challenges that climate change presents, the solution is not to be found in a regressive tax.

During the election campaign, one question more than any other kept being asked of me: “How are you going to put people first and make life more affordable for my family?” The people of Whitby have made it abundantly clear to me that they do not want an unfair tax that puts the burden on their families and local businesses.

Speaker, the government ran its election campaign on the promise to get rid of cap-and-trade, and this legislation does exactly that.

I’m proud to tell my constituents that Ontario’s carbon tax era is over. The plan to eliminate cap-and-trade will mean cheaper gas prices, lower energy bills and more money in the pockets of hard-working Ontarians. The government’s plan is both responsible and respectful of taxpayers’ money.

The legislation will not only save the average family $260 per year, but the elimination of the cap-and-trade carbon tax will eliminate a costly burden from Ontario businesses as well. You know, Speaker, from your hard work with the local business association in the riding that you represent—and with the Whitby chamber—that this is something they’ve been asking for for a long time. They will be better positioned for growth, job creation and the ability to successfully compete in other jurisdictions.

We’re anticipating that, when enacted, this legislation will lead to the creation of an estimated 14,000 jobs in the province. This is what the people of Whitby can look forward to, and this is what all of Ontario can look forward to: 14,000 new jobs. Ontario is open for business again.

Our government looks forward to moving past the previous government’s obsession with raising taxes, and instead is focusing, as it should, on an environmental plan that actually works. We made it clear that this government will deliver real action on providing clean air and water, reducing emissions, providing better solutions for cleaning up litter, garbage and waste, and providing Ontarians with real action on conservation.

With the passage of Bill 4, our province will be in a far better place for addressing real environmental goals, including, of course, the real battle against climate change.

It’s too easy for those in opposition to our legislation to make an illogical leap and conclude that the government benches are filled with climate change deniers. That is not who we are.

In May 2018, Philip Cross wrote an opinion piece in the Toronto Star on the topic of carbon taxes and emissions. Mr. Cross is a Munk senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. He noted this: When first proposed, a carbon tax had the potential to be an effective way of achieving the long-term goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but the ongoing campaign conducted by advocates has become so politicized by ideology that it is no longer politically tenable. And with rising oil prices, it is no longer practically tenable for Ontarians.

Now, it’s also relevant to note, as Mr. Cross points out, that in order to achieve the goal of curtailing fossil fuels enough to satisfy the Paris climate agreement, our current technology requires carbon taxes so incredibly high that they would be a crippling and practical non-starter.

The government is united in opposing a carbon tax largely because the long-standing suspicion that carbon taxes would simply become another tax grab has been confirmed.

Well, Speaker, the reality of the BC experience was very different indeed. The

article goes on to state that the current BC government has dropped the term “revenue-neutral” completely and now calls the carbon tax a “tool.”

The carbon tax in Ontario would, if left unchecked, be a very expensive reality for Ontario families. A carbon tax added to the higher oil prices makes it far too punitive for the average family already struggling to pay monthly bills. We promised that we would act, and we have.

Mr. Cross states that in jurisdictions where carbon taxes are imposed, governments use the generated revenues to increase government spending and not to curb income taxes. This government has pledged not to do that, and this legislation, when passed, will send that message in a very unequivocal fashion to all residents of Ontario. What’s clear here is that we’re here for you, the taxpayer.

We heard it in every riding. We heard at the door continually what an issue this was. How are you going to put people first—

Mr. Stephen Lecce: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I recognize the deputy House leader on a point of order.

House sittings

Mr. Stephen Lecce: I apologize to the member for my interruption. Madam Speaker, if I may seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding the International Plowing Match.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Mr. Lecce is seeking unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice. Agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Stephen Lecce: I move that when the House adjourns today, it stands adjourned until Wednesday, September 19, at 9 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Mr. Lecce has moved that when the House adjourns today, it stands adjourned until Wednesday, September 19, at 9 a.m.

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

Motion agreed to.

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

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Back to the member from Whitby.

Mr. Lorne Coe: Thank you very much, Speaker. To conclude, I voice my support for Bill 4. It will satisfy our promise to the taxpayers and it will create the groundwork for the implementation of a comprehensive environmental strategy. I thank my colleague the Minister of the Environment for his leadership and dedication to this file. Colleagues: promises made, promises kept.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): It being close to 10:15, this House is now recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

Board of Internal Economy

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I beg to inform the House that, in accordance with

section 87 of the Legislative Assembly Act, the names of the following persons appointed to serve on the Board of Internal Economy have been communicated to me as Chair of the Board of Internal Economy: The Honourable Sylvia Jones, MPP, is appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council from among the members of the executive council, and John Vanthof, MPP, is appointed by the caucus of the official opposition.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Point of order, the member for Timmins.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Mr. Speaker, you are already aware that the leader of the official opposition has registered her intent to file a reasoned amendment on Bill 31.

In addition to that, we currently are in the process of reviewing the bill. I believe there are some real concerns with it vis-à-vis standing orders 23 and 52. I just want to give you a heads-up that I will be presenting these concerns to you on the next sessional day that the House meets.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I appreciate the advance notice. Thank you.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: I’m delighted today to be joined by two family friends, Julie Giffin and Diana Stewart, as well as a very special guest, my mother, Janine Roberts, without whom I would not have made it through the recent election.

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: It’s my pleasure to introduce Rory Taylor. He’s my legislative assistant. He’s from Manotick, which is part of my riding of Carleton. I just want to welcome him to Toronto, and I look forward to having him work with me to help serve the people of Carleton.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I’d like to welcome my friend and long-time adviser Stephen Ahad, as well as my chief of staff, Becky Smit, who are both in the members’ gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park today.

Oral Questions

Municipal elections

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My first question is to the Premier. The question is this: Is former Premier Bill Davis an NDP Toronto city councillor?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Leader of the Opposition: I want to remind the Leader of the Opposition why we’re doing this. We’re doing this because there’s absolute gridlock. The hard-working people in the back of the factories, the hard-working people in the offices, the hard-working construction folks take three hours out of their day to go from their home to work. That’s three hours a day. That’s costing the economy, by the way, billions and billions of dollars. We’re doing this because we have a dysfunctional government and we need to build transit, because Toronto is one of the major engines, along with the 905, keeping this province moving forward.

We’re in a crisis when it comes to housing—an absolute crisis. People can’t even find places to live.

Infrastructure is crumbling underneath our feet. We—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, yesterday the Premier insisted that only NDP Toronto city councillors objected to his scheme to override the Charter of Rights, yet even as he was saying those words, former Premier Bill Davis was denouncing this Premier’s plan. To quote the former PC Premier, that

section 33 “might now be used regularly to assert the dominance of any ... elected politician over the rule of law or the legitimate jurisdiction of our courts of law was never anticipated or agreed to.” Premier Davis was at the table when the charter was drafted. He was the leader of the Premier’s party. Can the Premier explain why he’s right and the former PC Premier is not?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: I could start naming all the constitutional experts across this country who totally disagree. I could throw up former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. I could start naming them all, but I’m not going to. What I’m going to do, my friends: We’re going to focus on turning this province around.

I just wonder what the Leader of the Opposition and all her members were doing when the Liberal government was losing 300,000 jobs, when they were raising hydro rates to be the highest in North America, when they were raising taxes to an unprecedented level. I’ll tell you what the NDP were doing: They were propping them up. They were supporting them. I never saw them protest. They’re protesting to protect their downtown NDP buddies. That’s why they’re protesting.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Premier Davis isn’t the only Conservative coming out against this Premier’s plan to override the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney says he’s not a fan of the “notwithstanding” clause and never has been. Former PC cabinet minister Brad Clark says he has never supported the “notwithstanding” clause or its invocation. Former federal justice minister and federal PC leader Peter Mackay joined the chorus and said that “it was never intended for this purpose.”

The only Conservatives defending the Premier’s decision are the ones who rely on him for their jobs. How can the Premier be so certain that he is right when so many thoughtful Conservatives are telling him that he is utterly and totally wrong?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: Thank you for such kind words, that you agree with some great Conservative leaders.

My friends, we’re going to make sure we get this city going. Again, I just find it amazing how they brought all their buddies down yesterday. They were all jumping around, up and down. Where were these people when people’s hydro was getting cut off? Thousands of families around this province were getting their hydro cut off. I didn’t hear the Leader of the Opposition say a peep. When 300,000 people were losing their jobs, I never heard the Leader of the Opposition say a peep.

When the Leader of the Opposition was threatening to close down the Pickering nuclear facility—4,500 jobs—they would have been out of a job right now if it was up to the NDP. We would be paying two dollars a litre for gas if it was up to the NDP.

Municipal elections

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Premier, but I will say that what wasn’t the case during the election campaign remains not the case today, Speaker.

Notwithstanding that, the Premier has bragged very clearly that he won’t be shy about overriding the charter again if there are issues where he just isn’t getting his way. Can the Premier tell us if there is any circumstance at all in which he wouldn’t override the charter?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Leader of the Opposition: This is in the Constitution,

section 92, subsection 8. If it wasn’t there to be used, it would not be there.

My friends, we’re here to stand up for the people. We have a dysfunctional government in the city of Toronto. We’re here to turn it around.

I can tell you that whoever the mayor is going to be, they’re going to be happy as punch, because they’re going to be able to actually get things done rather than talk about shark-fin soup for two or three days, which they do down there. Rather than talk about a bunch of nonsense, we’re going to be able to build subways, we’re going to be able to get this city moving and we’re going to fix the housing crisis in this city.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier was crystal clear: He’s not going to be shy about overriding our charter rights. The town of Ajax has passed a resolution condemning the Premier’s plan to override the charter because they fear that they could be next. While the member for Nepean insists that Ottawa’s council is safe, the Premier went on the radio, musing that he might be willing to throw that city’s election into chaos, too.

Now that the Premier has shown that he’s ready to do this to Ontarians in the city of Toronto, why should anyone believe that he won’t do it again and again and again?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: Where was the leader of the NDP when the Liberals were raising taxes and hydro rates, making it the most indebted region in the world?

I didn’t see all the lawsuits coming. I did not see any lawsuits coming from their special interest groups—political activists who are getting paid by these special interest groups to come down here and disrupt Queen’s Park.

We live in a democracy. This is going to be the will of the people. We were elected by 2.3 million people to move forward and make changes in this province.

Mr. Speaker, we’re going to get this province going. We’re going to make sure that we lower gas prices, we lower taxes and we put money back into the people’s pocket instead of taking money.

You know one thing, and that’s to raise taxes, to raise gas prices—

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

Interjections.

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

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I would ask—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. The Premier will come to order. The member for Waterloo will come to order. The member for Scarborough Southwest, come to order.

Start the clock. Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I suspect, Speaker, that the Premier missed a heck of a lot of what went on in Ontario because he was probably in Chicago during that time.

Listen, Ontarians need a government that will tackle wait times in hospitals. That’s what Ontarians need—a government that will tackle wait times in hospitals, the state of our classrooms and the communities that have been hit so hard by job loss under this government’s short watch. Instead, we have a Premier who is taking a chainsaw to the Charter of Rights to implement a scheme that he didn’t even campaign on. He has made it clear that nobody’s rights in this province are safe.

Why won’t the Premier step back, admit that this is wrong, scrap this bill and respect the people of Ontario and Canada?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: Again, I want to find out where the NDP was for the last 15 years. They were propping up the Liberals.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Yes, 97%.

Hon. Doug Ford: Ninety-seven per cent of the time, they were in favour of raising hydro rates, raising taxes and losing 300,000 jobs. Where were you, Leader of the Opposition? I’ll tell you where the Leader of the Opposition was. They were side by side with the Liberal government, destroying this province. They were side by side with this government in creating the green energy scam, the carbon tax and the Green Energy Act. That’s what you were focused on. You weren’t focused on creating jobs because ever since we’ve been down here, Leader of the Opposition, through you, Mr. Speaker, not one idea have you ever come up with reducing taxes or creating jobs. You’re too busy—

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

Interjections.

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

Mr. Wayne Gates: You’re creating jobs for lawyers; that’s it.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Niagara Falls, come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas, come to order.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Next question.

Municipal elections

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Deputy Premier. As the candidate for the PC leadership who received the highest number of votes from PC members, how comfortable is she with the plan to override the charter rights that have been denounced by party luminaries like Bill Davis, Peter MacKay and Brian Mulroney?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I defer the question to the Premier.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The opposition will come to order. Member for Essex, come to order. The clock is ticking.

Premier?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I’ll tell you what my great Deputy Premier and Minister of Health is doing: working around the clock fixing the broken health care system that you helped the Liberals prop up; helping reduce the debt; helping create jobs. That’s what we need in Ontario. We need to create good-paying jobs. We need to reduce the taxes, which we’re doing, to a point of 20% for anyone making up towards $80,000. We’re actually putting money back into those folks’ pockets. The people on minimum wage are going to pay a zero per cent tax. They’ll have a tax credit of $800 rather than being taxed to death—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Back to the Deputy Premier: During the last election campaign, the Conservative brain trust put the Deputy Premier front and centre. She was supposed to be a key member of the team speaking for the sort of traditional Progressive Conservative values exemplified by Bill Davis and Brian Mulroney. Now they are speaking out, but she is silent.

A former PC Premier, a former PC Prime Minister, former PC leaders, both federal and provincial, former PC cabinet ministers, federal and provincial—all of these folks are speaking up against a plan that tramples on the charter. Why does the Deputy Premier think they’re wrong and her Premier is right?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: Maybe the Leader of the Opposition should start focusing on saving jobs rather than tweeting nasty tweets last night—the most insulting tweet I’ve every seen; finally had enough common sense to take it down.

But that’s their method. Their method is attack, attack, attack, rather than create jobs, lower taxes, putting money back into people’s pockets instead of lining their own pockets, taking care of all their downtown NDP councillors and taking care of their political activists. That’s what they’re concerned about.

We’re concerned about lowering taxes, lowering gas prices, lowering hydro rates by 12%, putting 10 cents per litre back into the people’s pockets and driving the economy. As I’ve always said, a new day has dawned in Ontario.

International Plowing Match

Mr. Dave Smith: In the spirit of how things are going today, I have a very tough and difficult question for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Interjection: Who wrote it for you?

Mr. Dave Smith: Actually, I wrote it; thank you very much.

Earlier today, we sought unanimous consent in order for the House to not sit Monday, September 17 and Tuesday, September 18, to allow the members of the Legislature to attend the International Plowing Match. Can the minister tell us why attending the 2018 International Plowing Match is so important to the government of Ontario?

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. The 2018 International Plowing Match is the 101st International Plowing Match for the province. This year it will be held in Pain Court, Ontario, and is one of the largest outdoor events of its kind in North America.

This government is committed to supporting rural Ontario. We recognize the tremendous opportunity for economic development and growth in rural Ontario. Our government was elected by the people, for the people, and this includes the people in rural and remote parts of the province.

Ensuring that Ontario is open for business includes ensuring that rural Ontario is open for business. Cutting hydro rates, reducing red tape and regulatory burdens, and scrapping the cap-and-trade carbon tax will all help rural Ontario prosper.

I look forward to hearing from the people at the 2018 International Plowing Match on how we can continue to make changes that work for them.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Dave Smith: Thank you very much, Minister, for that answer. I look forward to attending the 2018 International Plowing Match alongside many of my colleagues in the Legislature. Hopefully, I get the opportunity to relive my childhood and can climb back up on the Cockshutt 20.

Mr. Speaker, back to the minister: What kinds of issues can we expect to hear at the International Plowing Match?

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: I thank the member for the question. As mentioned previously, Ontario is open for business and this includes rural Ontario. The people of Ontario, including our farmers and those in our rural communities, suffered far too long under the previous government where life was unaffordable and families often had to make tough decisions.

This government is committed to working with the people to bring the kinds of changes that work best for them to make life affordable again. Our government is scrapping the cap-and-trade carbon tax, reducing hydro rates, and removing red tape and regulatory burdens that make it harder for business to be competitive.

I believe our farmers produce the best quality food in the world and I’m committed to helping them continue to do so. I’ve had the opportunity to speak with many of our stakeholders and organizations on these issues and look forward to speaking with them further at the 2018 International Plowing Match this year. Thank you all.

We hope everyone in the Legislature goes there to celebrate with our farming community.

Public transit

Ms. Jessica Bell: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Every time the Premier mentioned transit yesterday, he said something false. Toronto’s 45-seat council has a—

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

Ms. Jessica Bell: Withdrawn.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Put your question.

Ms. Jessica Bell: Council has approved many transit projects. They’ve opened up a new subway extension. The Eglinton Crosstown is also on its way.

Bill 5 is not about transit or efficiency. In fact, yesterday, the Premier repeatedly confirmed that the real purpose of Bill 5 is to target progressive Toronto councillors, mentioning several of them by name.

Why does the minister think it’s justifiable to ignore real transit priorities and take away fundamental human rights just so this Premier can disrupt local democracy to settle personal scores?

Hon. John Yakabuski: To the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Steve Clark: Thanks to my colleague and, through you, Speaker, thank you to member for that question. What I can’t understand is why that member continues to stand up for more politicians, continues to stand up for the deadlock and dysfunction that has plagued Toronto council for years. What we’re trying to do, Speaker, is very, very clear. We want to make sure that on October 22, that new council, a streamlined council of 25 that matches the federal and provincial constituencies, is ready to work on making those important decisions, on being able to build transit and fix infrastructure and build affordable housing. I would hope that the member opposite agrees with those principles.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Jessica Bell: I would love to debate transit in this House, but transit is not this Premier’s priority. This Premier has called an emergency session because his real priority is to settle personal scores with Toronto, even if this means disrupting—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Once again, I’m going to ask the members to observe the rule that we do not impute motive.

I would ask the member to put her question.

Ms. Jessica Bell: —even if this means casually invoking the “notwithstanding” clause for the first time in Ontario’s history. Why isn’t this minister helping riders with a plan to fund municipal transit operations instead of helping the Premier take away fundamental human rights?

Hon. Steve Clark: Again, Speaker, through you to the member opposite: The Premier and our government believe in better local government. We believe in respecting taxpayers’ dollars. I reject those comments from that member opposite. I’ll put this Premier’s record and his words on building transit, building affordable housing, fixing infrastructure in this city—anyone who listens to the Premier knows that he loves his city, knows that he wants to be able to work with council on those very important priorities.

I reject that member’s inflammatory words and unparliamentary words. We’re standing up for better local government, and Bill 31 stands up for efficient local government.

Municipal elections

Mr. Roman Baber: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister,

section 33 of the Constitution respects a centuries-old principle—a principle common to all British parliamentary systems, including our own. The principle is parliamentary supremacy. That’s why, when finalizing the charter, our friends from the Prairies insisted on the inclusion of

section 33 in the event that a court exceeds its jurisdiction.

With respect to the court, on Monday the court exceeded its jurisdiction. Speaker, the law is clear: Applications are not designed for findings of fact, and especially not of this magnitude. With respect to the learned judge, finding that a Toronto city councillor cannot effectively represent 110,000 is not just an error of law. It’s an error of law and an error of fact in that the court exceeded its jurisdiction. To do so and strike down our government’s priority is precisely what the drafters of

section 33 had in mind.

Conversely, our government’s—

Interjections.

Mr. Roman Baber: Excuse me. Our government’s—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’d ask the opposition to come to order.

You’ve exceeded your time. Response: Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Steve Clark: Thank you, Speaker. Through you to the member for York Centre: Thank you for the question and thank you for standing up for the principles of democracy.

Let me be clear, Speaker. There is only one reason why we introduced this legislation, and that’s to fix the dysfunction and political gridlock that has paralyzed city hall. It would be irresponsible to just sit back and watch as council spins its wheels for four more years. We can’t afford to let another term go by without those improvements in transit and infrastructure and in affordable housing.

We made a promise to provide better local government for all Ontarians, including Torontonians, and that’s a promise we’re going to keep.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Roman Baber: Back to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing: Our government’s intended use of the clause is entirely lawful since such power is expressly afforded to the government in the charter. To suggest that our action is unlawful is an affront to the Constitution since the Constitution expressly permits it.

Our government campaigned on a clear message: reducing the size of government and making government work better for the people. Toronto is the economic engine of this province and this country. For the people of York Centre in north Toronto, building infrastructure and building subways, subways, subways is a priority. They expect this government to make use of every lawful measure available on these priorities, a measure that is expressly provided for in the charter.

Could the minister kindly explain why it is so important to respond to this week’s court ruling by passing Bill 31?

Hon. Steve Clark: Thank you for the supplementary. The member is right: The NDP is the only voice in Ontario that is calling for more politicians. The Better Local Government Act aligned municipal ward boundaries with the federal and provincial ridings. It gave Toronto 25 MPs, 25 MPPs and 25 city councillors. The system works well in Ottawa. It works well here, with all due respect, at Queen’s Park. A streamlined council is more efficient, but it’s also less expensive. Reducing the size of Toronto council from 47 councillors to 25 members saves at least $25 million over the next four years.

Speaker, our priorities are simple. Here’s what we want to give to Ontarians: affordable, accountable, effective and efficient government. That’s what we’re going to provide.

Automobile insurance

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: My question is for the Minister of Finance. We all have been called back to the Legislature for an emergency sitting, but instead of actually debating issues that the people of Ontario expect us to tackle, this government is taking the unprecedented step of invoking the “notwithstanding” clause to trample on our charter rights.

Does the minister believe that trampling on the charter rights of Torontonians is a more urgent issue than lowering auto insurance rates so that Ontarians aren’t paying $4 billion more in premiums than drivers in the rest of the country?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Steve Clark: Again, through you, Speaker, to the member: Our government’s position is that this legislation is a valid exercise of our provincial jurisdiction over municipalities. We’ve said very clearly throughout the entire campaign that we want to reduce the size and cost of government. We want to have an efficient, accountable and effective government. On October 22—listen, time is of the essence. October 22 is fast approaching. We want to have that fast, efficient and streamlined council ready for that election. With Bill 31, that’s exactly what we’re trying to accomplish.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: Back to the minister: Residents in my riding of Humber River–Black Creek pay sky-high auto insurance rates because the government continues to allow insurers to charge drivers higher premiums based on what neighbourhood they live in. When I go door to door and talk to my constituents about unfair auto insurance premiums, that is at the top of their list of concerns they expect this government to deal with, not unilaterally cutting Toronto city council.

Minister, why is violating Torontonians’ charter rights a higher priority than ending unfair neighbourhood discrimination in the setting of auto insurance premiums?

Hon. Steve Clark: Again to the member, I can’t understand how this member could stand in this place and allow four more years of deadlock and dysfunction at Toronto city council. I can’t understand that.

We made it very, very clear, Speaker—I’m trying to get this in the calmest possible way for the member to understand—that a 25-member council that has the same boundaries as the federal MPs, as the provincial MPPs is going to provide that streamlined council so they can make those important decisions. The Premier and I are on the same page. Our government is on the same page. We want to give them the tools to do that.

October 22 is fast approaching. Why doesn’t the member agree that it’s well within our rights as a provincial jurisdiction to deal with this bill, to have it passed for the municipalities and to actually provide some certainty for Toronto city council?

Municipal elections

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: Ma question est pour la procureure générale. Government has a duty to act responsibly. Has the Attorney General considered that she could lose her appeal of Justice Belobaba, not only on freedom of expression grounds but also on the other violations that were alleged that cannot be obliterated by the “notwithstanding” clause? With the prospect of an unconstitutional city council sitting in Toronto, has she considered that Bill 31’s use of the “notwithstanding” clause in an ill-advised way, in a retroactive way—which she cannot do.

Has she considered that Bill 31 raises other legal uncertainties because it uses the “notwithstanding” clause in the context of democratic rights? Has she considered all the legal challenges that are about to be unleashed against Bill 31?

Does she believe that costly legal battles and legal uncertainty are good for Ontario?

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: I thank the honourable member for her question. We are using the charter, as I said, to uphold the Constitution. The people of Ontario are well within their rights to bring legal challenges to the government. It is my ministry’s job to defend the government in those instances.

I cannot speculate on what future litigation will come, but I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we believe that the Legislature’s decision to reduce the size of Toronto city council and bring voter parity to Toronto is constitutional and does not violate the charter. That is why our government has appealed the ruling and is seeking a stay of the Superior Court decision. We will await the result of the appeal.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Supplementary?

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: Monsieur le Président, when a government—any government—intervenes in an election, no matter what election, it rightfully raises significant concerns. Elsewhere in the world, this leads to questions of whether the government is changing the rules to pick a winner, to eliminate adversaries or to distort voter preferences. That’s why people are concerned and that’s why legal challenges are to be expected.

We know officials that are elected under a cloud of illegitimacy, under a cloud raised by the fact that violations of rights have been found—and the “notwithstanding” clause confirms that, indeed, violations of rights have been found. They will be elected under a cloud of legal doubt, marred by controversies. Does she believe that this is a service to Toronto, to elect people who will be efficient, but who will continue to operate in an illegitimate fashion?

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we are using the legal tools at our disposal to provide the certainty that the people of the city of Toronto need with respect to their election.

Section 33 of the charter confirms the paramountcy of Legislatures to decide matters within their jurisdiction. It is a tool that recognizes the long-standing principle that Canada is a parliamentary democracy.

The purpose of

section 33 is to provide a mechanism so that where there is a disagreement between a judge and a Legislature surrounding the constitutionality of a law, the people get the final say. As with all exercises of parliamentary power, the ramifications of our decision will occur at the ballot box, and that is a principle of parliamentary democracy.

Northern health services

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: My question is for the Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines. Our government for the people made it very clear during the election that we are committed to improving health care systems by increasing investments in critical services across our province, including in rural and remote regions.

I know that the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund is a great tool that our government is using to effect real change in northern regions. Can the minister please provide the members with an update on a new project that is going to improve the lives of northern Ontarians?

Hon. Greg Rickford: I thank the member from Ottawa West–Nepean for his important question. I thank the Premier for his leadership, and the Minister of Health. As the minister responsible for the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund, but perhaps more importantly as a former nurse who has worked extensively in northern Ontario, I have a deep appreciation for the needs, the issues, but more importantly the opportunities that we have to improve access to quality health care services.

That’s why the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund has responded. I’m pleased to announce that we’ll be providing more than $1.5 million in resources for the Nipissing and Parry Sound districts to build a new palliative care facility. This goes to one of our core commitments: to improve health care services across Ontario, but importantly for northern Ontario, at an important and critical time in the lives of people, patients and their families.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: Thank you to the minister for his leadership on this important file. We know that end-of-life care and decisions are an extremely difficult time for individuals and their families. I am proud that the government is taking a leadership role in investing in end-of-life and hospice care through the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund.

Can the minister explain the impacts of this investment on the lives of local residents in the Nipissing area and their families?

Hon. Greg Rickford: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Thank you to the minister and the member from Ottawa West–Nepean. This investment of $1.5 million to help build this new palliative care facility in Nipissing will have a huge impact for the people in the area. Once built, the Nipissing Serenity Hospice will be a home away from home, helping those who need it most, those who are facing the most difficult path of end-of-life care. It will be a caring and supportive environment where friends and families can receive the dignity, compassion and quality of care they deserve in their final days.

Through this investment, our government reaffirms its commitment to building a health care system that works for patients and their families. Our government has committed to improving all the lives of the people in every corner of our great province. That is a promise made by Premier Ford and a promise kept.

Municipal elections

Mr. Chris Glover: My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Yesterday this government introduced a bill that invokes the “notwithstanding” clause. We are spending time and resources on a bill that violates our fundamental charter rights, including the rights of Ontarians to fundamental freedoms, and legal rights including our right to life, liberty and security of the person; our right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure; and our right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

He is suspending our rights, as the Premier freely admits, just so he can settle his score with Mike Layton and Joe Cressy. Speaker, does the minister—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Once again, I’m going to remind all members and ask them not to impute motive in their questions.

Please put your question.

Mr. Chris Glover: Withdrawn, Mr. Speaker.

Does the minister believe that violating the charter rights of Torontonians is a more pressing issue than working on gun violence and poverty in this city?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: I refer the matter to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Hon. Steve Clark: I want to thank my colleague, Speaker, and I also want to thank you for your work in dealing with the tone and some of the unparliamentary language that I’m hearing from the opposition.

Our government has introduced the Efficient Local Government Act and also invoked

section 33 of the charter to ensure that the city of Toronto’s wards and the number of councillors can be aligned to 25 prior to the October 22 election. It’s very important for us to put that forward as a bill at the earliest possible convenience. As you know, the Premier made a commitment to recall this Legislature because time is of the essence. The October 22 election is fast approaching and we need to have this bill on the order paper in order to provide that streamlined council to make those very important decisions.

Again, the member can have inflammatory rhetoric and take potshots at my Premier and our government, but let’s get to the reason that we are here. We’re here to deal with efficient local government.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Chris Glover: Mr. Speaker, I don’t blame the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services for not standing up to defend his government. I hope he has the guts not to stand up to vote to suspend our rights when this bill comes to a vote.

We should be working in this House on issues like affordable housing and child care, and on public transit in the city. We should be working on the fact that Toronto is the child poverty capital of Canada. We need to change that. That’s what we should be working on. We should not be working on a bill—there is no urgency to pass this bill to suspend the rights of the people of this city and of this province.

Minister, will you be supporting this bill?

Hon. Steve Clark: I introduced the bill yesterday, so I am going to be supporting the bill.

Speaker, again, through you to the member: I just want to put this into perspective. Toronto city council is meeting right now. With all due respect to his first question, rather than having a meeting at Toronto city hall to match the $25 million that we’ve put into guns and gangs, or rather than having a discussion about building affordable housing or building transit, again we’re having the same debate at city hall today where we’re going around and around and around arguing about the number of politicians.

There are important decisions that Toronto city council could be making to work with our government on those important issues. Instead, they’re having that circular debate over and over again. It’s unproductive. We’re talking about efficient local government—government that’s accountable to the people, that makes those important decisions that help the residents.

Toronto International Film Festival

Mr. Kaleed Rasheed: My question is for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport. Speaker, as you and many of us in this chamber know, the Toronto International Film Festival is one of the largest public film festivals in the world. It is imperative to film lovers, the film industry and Ontario’s economy. TIFF welcomes stars and film industry personnel from around the world. It also showcases Ontario to global film and television as a great place to invest in.

Can the minister inform the House how TIFF contributes to the cultural fabric of Toronto and Ontario?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Thank you for the question from my colleague from Mississauga East–Cooksville. TIFF is important and it is an economic driver.

Each September, the world comes to Toronto for a celebration of the best in Canadian and international film. TIFF has become one of the most prestigious and respected international film festivals: 10 days when the world comes to our city to be immersed in film, creativity and culture. TIFF strengthens Ontario’s economy, creates jobs and reinforces that Ontario is a leader in film production. Congratulations to the filmmakers, the actors and the writers who have enjoyed success at TIFF this year.

I also want to acknowledge the important role that event sponsors, volunteers and TIFF staff under the leadership of Piers Handling have in TIFF’s success. There is no doubt that TIFF is a cultural, tourist and economic success.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Kaleed Rasheed: I’d like to thank the minister very much for that answer. Being in Toronto during TIFF has certainly opened my eyes to precisely how important this festival is to the city, both as an economic driver and a cultural staple. However, I’m sure there are many asking themselves how the film industry impacts their local economy.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, can the minister let us know what economic impacts the film and television industry has across the province of Ontario?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: The economic impact from the domestic film and television markets on Ontario’s economy has been unbelievably positive. Sudbury alone has seen over 90 films and TV series shot there since 2012, with more investment coming in. Ottawa has seen movies like Batman and Robin, Penthouse North, Sacrifice, and The Blackcoat’s Daughter, which premiered at TIFF in 2015.

In one year, film and television production contributed $3 billion to Ontario’s economy and supported 54,000 jobs. We expect to see this number increase as investment continues to grow and our government makes Ontario’s economy more competitive. Just this week, I toured the Cinespace Kipling studio campus in Etobicoke, the largest of its kind in Canada, with the capacity to host six large TV projects at one time. They are expanding.

Under Premier Ford’s leadership, Ontario—

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

Next question.

School facilities

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: My question is for the Premier. We all have been called back to the Legislature for this emergency sitting, but instead of actually debating issues that the people of Ontario expect us to tackle, this government is taking the unprecedented step of invoking the “notwithstanding” clause to trample on the rights of the people of Toronto. This government has a Toronto obsession. They are ignoring the issues facing northern and rural Ontario.

Does the Premier believe trampling on the charter rights of Torontonians is a more urgent issue than making sure the children of Kashechewan have a safe school to attend?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: I’ll tell you what the Premier is concerned about. The Premier is concerned about creating good-paying jobs, getting this city moving, getting transit moving, stopping the guns and gangs. I’ll tell you, my friends, I find it ironic that the city of Toronto is meeting today, because I personally asked the mayor to call a special meeting for guns and gangs. We handed $25 million over to the police. The mayor refused to call the meeting. But when it comes down to saving all the little politicians down at the city of Toronto, they called a meeting instantly.

They are getting their priorities mixed up. We need to get the city moving again and we will get the city moving again.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: Back to the Premier: The community of Kashechewan ordered their school closed because of the repair backlog. There is chronic water damage. The walls grow hot but the fire alarms don’t work. Children are getting lung infections and pneumonia from the mould. I toured the community, Speaker. I saw it with my own eyes.

What tops the list of concerns of my constituents is making sure their children don’t lose an entire school year because their school is falling apart, not unilaterally cutting Toronto city council.

Premier, why is violating Toronto’s charter rights a higher priority than getting the kids of Kashechewan into a safe school they can learn in?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to my colleague: Maybe if the Liberal government didn’t waste billions and billions of dollars, the schools wouldn’t be in the shape they’re in right now.

That is what our motive is. Our motive is to turn this province around, save the taxpayers money, until we can fix the schools, build new hospitals, and make sure we get the economy going; to stimulate the economy by putting money back into the people’s pockets, unlike the NDP, that wants to raise taxes, waste billions of dollars, increase the carbon tax, $2-a-litre gasoline, the highest hydro rates in North America. All you want to do is tax to death the taxpayers of this great province—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Start the clock. Next question.

Community safety

Mr. Norman Miller: My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Our government was elected with a mandate to improve public safety across our province and to provide the brave men and women of our police services with the tools and resources they need to perform their duties safely and effectively.

Policing infrastructure has been ignored the last 15 years. As a result, a growing number of OPP detachments across Ontario, like the one in Parry Sound, have exceeded their useful life cycle and require replacement due to health and safety concerns.

Could the minister please update the members of this Legislature on how his ministry is addressing the aging community safety infrastructure in this province?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: I’d like to thank the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka for the question.

As you know, during the election campaign we made a promise to all Ontarians that we would improve public safety in this great province and provide Ontario police forces with the tools and resources they require to do their jobs. In effect, I’m very proud to say that that’s exactly what we’re doing.

We made an announcement previously about the $25 million that was going to be advanced to the city of Toronto. I’m proud to report to the members of the Legislature that our government is keeping its promise and showing its leadership. We are going to invest $182 million in replacing aging OPP detachments so that communities can continue to receive modern, cost-efficient and high-quality services throughout the province of Ontario and deliver essential public safety.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Norman Miller: Thank you, Minister, for the response.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of this government, I’m proud that we’re keeping our promise of making community safety a true priority all across this province. Many of the new OPP detachments will be in northern Ontario, an area that was largely ignored by the last government.

Will the minister please explain how these new OPP detachments will improve public safety across northern Ontario?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: I would like to defer that question to the Minister of Energy, northern affairs, mines and Indigenous people.

Hon. Greg Rickford: I want to thank the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka for his advocacy there in Parry Sound. I want to thank the Premier and the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services for their commitment to northern Ontario and the kinds of assets we need to offer modern facilities to Ontario’s finest.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I had one of my finest moments in my political career when I stood shoulder to shoulder with Chief Superintendent David Lucas, Inspector Nathan Schmidt and several members of the OPP in the beautiful town of Fort Frances to announce a new OPP facility. This will offer improved amenities, and address appropriate workplace health and safety issues. It will get rid of obsolete design and technologies and a lack of overall space, and, more importantly, offer a place to engage our communities.

These guys do great work in vast regions of our province. We’re proud of them. We’re proud for this opportunity and for—

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

Next question.

Curriculum

Ms. Jill Andrew: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Education. Children have been back to school for over a week. This government has left teachers with a dangerously outdated 1998 curriculum, which fails to teach kids how to keep themselves safe in today’s society. These are the issues Ontarians expect their government to deal with, but instead, the Premier has called us here to force through this unprecedented, anti-democratic legislation.

Does the Minister of Education believe that violating the rights and freedoms of Toronto voters is more important than finally giving teachers the material they desperately need to keep our children safe?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: To the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Steve Clark: Our position is that we’re well within our legislative rights, as a democracy, as a government that received 2.3 million votes in the June 7 election, to place a mandate before the table.

Yesterday, after the Premier recalled the Legislature, we tabled a very urgent priority for this government, the Efficient Local Government Act. We believe that’s a bill that this Legislature needs to deal with forthwith. There are many, many priorities that this government has in our province, but because there is an October 22 election, there’s a bit of urgency. We need to have this bill go though the legislative process as fast as possible. We need to have a council at city hall that’s not arguing about the amount of politicians, but actually arguing about the important issues that are facing Torontonians. That’s exactly—

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

Ms. Jill Andrew: Back to the Minister of Education, and I hope she can answer her own question this time.

The 1998 curriculum that this government has recklessly forced back into classrooms doesn’t even include the word “consent,” let alone a lesson on it. Our children’s safety is urgent. Our children’s health and well-being is critical. Why does the Minister of Education think it is more urgent to trample on the fundamental rights and freedoms of my constituents than to provide our teachers with a curriculum that, again, will keep the students safe?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Take your seats.

Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Steve Clark: Again, Speaker, the decision on Monday of the justice—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: Why did you guys all come back?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Member for St. Catharines, come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Member for St. Paul’s, come to order. Member for Hamilton Mountain, come to order.

Mr. Paul Miller: Will the real minister please stand up?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Member for Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Member for Waterloo, come to order.

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Steve Clark: Thank you, Speaker. This government has lots of priorities; however, the justice’s decision on Monday has precipitated a recall of the Legislature and the Efficient Local Government Act to be tabled yesterday.

You know, Speaker, I think I understand where the NDP are coming from. Based on what I’ve heard in this Legislature and out in the community, I don’t think they actually want new, affordable housing built in Toronto. I don’t think they want infrastructure to be worked on with our government and Toronto city council. I don’t think they want new transit. You know what, Speaker? I think they should rename themselves the “no development party.”

Investment regulations

Mrs. Belinda Karahalios: Mr. Speaker, it’s an honour to be able to stand here and speak.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. Today, the Ontario Securities Commission published proposed amendments to investment regulations that would ban embedded commissions in the sale of certain investment vehicles. I am concerned that if these proposed amendments are implemented, the Ontario Securities Commission will discontinue a payment option for purchasing mutual funds that has enabled Ontario families and investors to save toward retirement and other financial goals.

Can the minister please explain to this House why the Ontario Securities Commission is taking these steps and how our government will respond?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, the proposed amendments the member is referring to result from a process initiated under the previous Liberal government. The member is indeed correct: The proposed changes would make it more difficult for Ontario families and investors to save towards their financial goals.

We want to be clear: Our government does not agree with the proposal as it is currently drafted.

Premier Ford’s government is committed to making Ontario a competitive place to invest, grow and create jobs. We made a promise to the people of Ontario, and that’s a promise we intend to keep. We have said it many times and we’ll repeat it again today: We want the world to know that Ontario is open for business.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mrs. Belinda Karahalios: Thank you to the minister for his answer.

Speaker, I am pleased to hear that our government does not support the proposal by the Ontario Securities Commission as it is currently drafted. It is important to me and to all members of this House that we ensure Ontario is open for business.

I’m sure the minister will agree that it is essential for Ontario to grow our capital markets while ensuring strong investor protections.

Could the minister please explain how he plans to work towards making Ontario a competitive place to invest?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Thank you again to the member from Cambridge for the question.

Let me assure you that we are absolutely committed to making Ontario the attractive place to invest and do business. That is why we will continue to work with other provinces, territories and stakeholders to explore potential alternatives outside of the measures of the Ontario Securities Commission’s proposal.

We must do everything we can to ensure fair and efficient capital markets, alongside strong investor protections. In doing so, we will continue to allow people across Ontario to save toward retirement and their other financial goals. It is critical that we give the hard-working people of Ontario every opportunity to have their money work for them.

Notice of dissatisfaction

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Pursuant to standing order 38(a), the member for Mushkegowuk–James Bay has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Premier concerning unsafe school conditions. This matter will be debated on Wednesday at 6 p.m.

Decorum in chamber

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Timmins on a point of order.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Just on a very quick point of order: Earlier you ruled one of our members out of order for imputing motive under standing order 23. I understand that, and we are doing everything we can to make sure we adhere, but I ask that you do the same to the Premier, because time and time again he stands in this House and he imputes motive of the opposition. I would ask you to hold him to account for his actions and those of his minister, who does the same.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I will acknowledge the member’s point of order and reiterate once again—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Transportation, come to order—to all members of the House that it is inappropriate to impute motive in your questions, in your statements, in your

preambles. I would ask all members to think about that and do it.

There being no deferred votes, this House stands in recess until 1 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1140 to 1300.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Mike Schreiner: Good afternoon. I’m pleased to introduce one of my constituents from Guelph, Ryan Bannon, who is here in the members’ gallery visiting Queen’s Park. Welcome to Queen’s Park, Ryan.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: It’s my pleasure to welcome today a terrific person who is working with me: Jordan Chevalier. I believe he is just behind you there, Speaker. I’d like to welcome him as my executive assistant here at Queen’s Park.

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu: I’d like to introduce my very good friend and successful businessman from Brampton Manu Dutta, and his friend from India Mr. Vikas Sekhri; and Mr. Manohar Singh from California. Welcome to the Legislature.

Members’ Statements

Municipal elections

Ms. Jessica Bell: Monday was an emotional roller coaster for democratically minded people across Toronto. First, Ontario’s Superior Court Justice Edward Belobaba ruled that the Conservative government’s move to slash Toronto’s city council while the election was already under way has “substantially interfered with both the candidate’s and the voter’s right to freedom of expression as guaranteed under ... the Canadian Charter of Rights of Freedoms.” People rejoiced that their election would no longer be thrown into chaos.

Then, to the shock of nearly everybody, Premier Ford announced that he would be invoking the “notwithstanding” clause to overrule the court’s decision. Doug Ford also intends to continue to use this power and this clause should any charter ruling be used to stop his vindictive whims.

This is the first time in Ontario’s history that any Premier has ever—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to interrupt the member. Again, we have to call the Premier by the name “Premier,” not by his personal name—same thing with the cabinet ministers, same for everybody—and their ridings.

Continue.

Ms. Jessica Bell: This is the first time in Ontario’s history that any Premier has ever tried to use this clause. It is shocking that other members of his caucus, such as the Attorney General, are not only failing to stop him but are actually enabling this power grab.

Doug Ford—the Premier—has violated the rights of Torontonians. The size of Toronto city council is a decision for the people of Toronto. This election belongs to the people of Toronto. We do not support the use of

section 33 nor do we support any plan by the Premier to use public money to fund an appeal of the court’s ruling.

Jewish High Holy Days

Mrs. Gila Martow: We’re in the High Holy Days period for the Jewish community. It’s High Holy—H-O-L-Y—and then a separate word, “Days,” not “holidays,” which is what most people say, because it sounds like “holidays.”

It’s actually a serious time. It’s a time to really reflect on the past year and to think about the next year. In the Jewish community, we understand that people are imperfect and that we can always do better. It’s a serious time of year but yet a celebration. We dip apples in honey—or bread in honey, if there are no apples around wherever you are—to wish each other a sweet new year.

I want to wish everybody here in the Legislature a meaningful year, a prosperous year and a year where you accomplish—we set some goals. We all have our own personal goals, perhaps in our ridings or perhaps something that we care about or a reason why we wanted to be elected, and then we have goals that we’re working on with the rest of our teams.

Now, we’ve just had Rosh Hashanah, which literally means “head of the year.” It’s not commonly called the Jewish New Year. This is the year of 5779 in the Hebrew calendar. It’s a big number, and if we reflect on it, we realize how long the Jewish community has been around and has been at the forefront of a lot of our laws. A lot of our legal systems are based on ancient, ancient Jewish efforts.

Shana Tova, everybody, and Shana Tova Umetukah.

Sarah Doucette

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: I rise in the House today to talk about a phenomenal woman. Her name is Sarah Doucette and she is my local city councillor for Ward 13 in Parkdale–High Park.

Sarah has represented our community at Toronto city council for the last eight years. So much of what we love about our community is thanks to Sarah’s hard work. She saved our beloved High Park Zoo from closing. She brought our community together and rebuilt Jamie Bell park when it was destroyed by arson. She defended our public libraries from cuts. She protected our trees in the neighbourhoods. She has worked to preserve our city’s heritage. She did all of this and so much more.

We all know how important it is to have a strong local councillor. From my experience, I can tell you that Sarah knows how to do her job very well and, more importantly, she always puts the concerns and the needs of our community at the heart of all of her work. It is a real loss to Parkdale–High Park and to our city that a strong, hard-working councillor like Sarah, who has delivered results for our community, is not seeking re-election in a 25-ward race. As another Parkdale–High Park councillor said, “It’s a crime that we’re losing her.”

Sarah, we love you. Thank you for everything that you have done for us. We are so proud that you represented us so well at city hall for the last eight years.

Events in Mississaug