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

August 7, 2018

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2018-Aug-07 (PDF)

L015 - Tue 7 Aug 2018 / Mar 7 août 2018

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 7 August 2018 Mardi 7 août 2018

Orders of the Day

Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, 2018

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Curriculum

Curriculum

Public transit

Beverage alcohol sales

Municipal government

Refugee and immigration services

Curriculum

Social assistance

Community safety

Firefighting in northern Ontario

Firefighting in northern Ontario

Mental health services

Taxation

Social assistance

Taxation

Indigenous health care

Members’ Statements

Social assistance

Blandine Potvin

Ontario Disability Support Program

Aide sociale / Social assistance

Gasoline prices

Introduction of Bills

Zebra Mussel Analysis Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur l’analyse concernant les moules zébrées

Zebra Mussel Count Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur le dénombrement des moules zébrées

Zebra Mussel Evaluation Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur l’évaluation des moules zébrées

Counting Zebra Mussels Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur le recensement des moules zébrées

Status of Zebra Mussels Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur l’état des moules zébrées

Zebra Mussel Survey Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur le décompte des moules zébrées

Motions

House sittings

Petitions

Wearing of poppies

School facilities

Employment standards

Curriculum

Indigenous affairs

Orders of the Day

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

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, 2018

Loi de 2018 annulant le programme

de plafonnement et d’échange

Resuming the debate adjourned on August 2, 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): I recognize the member for Guelph.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: Good morning, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today with a heavy heart: that in 2018 the costs of climate change are so clear to our health, our economy, our pocketbook and our way of life that we are debating a bill to dismantle Ontario’s climate action plan.

This morning, literally parts of Ontario are burning as we speak, and government MPPs have been cheering the dismantling of Ontario’s climate plan. So I ask the members opposite to think long and hard about the actions you’re about to take.

I have children—two wonderful teenage daughters, so full of life, both excited and worried about their future. I think about their future a lot. It was my own fear and hope for their future that motivated me to work so hard for so long to occupy this seat. I refuse to make ice storms and hurricanes, forest fires and polar vortexes, floods and droughts the new normal without putting up a fight. They deserve better. Your children deserve better. Your grandchildren deserve better.

So I’m willing to work across party lines with you to develop a climate action plan. I believe it is irresponsible and reckless to take a sledgehammer to Ontario’s existing climate plan with no replacement plan in sight, especially given the urgency of the crisis that we face.

A year ago, I praised the Conservative Party for having the vision to support pollution pricing, for moving Ontario past a debate of whether we should act on climate to a conversation about what is the best form of action on climate. Sadly, that Conservative Party no longer exists.

The current Conservative Party clearly has no climate action plan. I know that there are members on the opposite side who understand the crisis we face and want to take action on climate change—people who want to reduce waste, diversify our energy systems, improve health, and reduce the costs that climate change is imposing on us. I’m asking those members to stand up and be on the right side of history.

I too am not a big fan of the Liberals’ cap-and-trade system. I thought it was wrong to give the largest emitters free pollution permits. I support using pollution pricing revenues to put money in people’s pockets—literally put money in people’s pockets with carbon dividend cheques to help them manage the transition to a low-carbon economy and to help them to afford to lower their energy bills. But the sad truth is that an inadequate plan is better than no plan at all.

So, I ask: What has happened to responsible governance? What has happened to making evidence-based policy decisions based on truth? The government’s actions will have real-world consequences. We feel the effects of climate change in our bank accounts right now. Insurable losses, according to the Insurance Bureau of Canada, in 2016 accounted to $5 billion across Canada. Government disaster relief fund payouts have risen from about $100 million per year two decades ago to now annually $2 billion. In this year alone, the province of Ontario spent almost $700 million on insurable losses due to extreme weather events.

We cannot afford not to act. So let’s be clear: 17 of the 18 hottest years on record have been since 2001. Rising temperatures are negatively affecting our health. As a matter of fact, nearly 100 people have died in Quebec this year alone due to extreme heat. New research is showing that even a one-degree increase in average tem-peratures increases depression, suicide and violence. Rising temperatures are leading to increases in diseases such as Lyme disease.

Failure to act hurts our health. It also hurts our economy. Not taking advantage of the $7-trillion global economic opportunity in the clean economy will hurt Ontario’s economy. As a matter of fact, pollution pricing works. The best-performing provinces in Canada economically are all the provinces with a price on pollution.

So I ask the members opposite to stand up, do the right thing and put forward a plan before dismantling our existing plan.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Questions and comments?

Mr. Paul Calandra: It’s curious, always, to hear some of the members of the opposition talk about the current cap-and-trade carbon tax as a solution to climate change. It has become quite clear that, in fact, it is not. It is just the opposite.

To have a system that allows people to pollute as long as they buy credits to offset that pollution is not a plan. It does nothing to clean up the environment. All it does is take money out of the pocket of hard-working Ontarians and redistributes it to other people. But it allows the polluter to continue to pollute. How the heck is that an answer to the problems that we’re facing? To hear members opposite get up constantly during this debate and somehow use the forest fires and the troubles that we’re seeing in some parts of this province as the rationale for taxing our biggest job creators is actually quite sad.

There is a problem with climate change, obviously. We have to address that problem. That goes without saying. But there are solutions, and there always have been solutions. It was a Conservative government—the Mike Harris government, of course—that put a plan in place to end coal generation, which ended the smog days, by bringing nuclear power back online. It was the previous Conservative government that brought a lot of our natural heritage under protection, whether it was the Oak Ridges moraine planning act or the protection of some of the Rouge parklands.

There are different solutions to this problem, but the worst possible solution for jobs and economic growth—and for the environment, more importantly—is to allow people to continue to pollute as long as they offset that pollution by buying credits to do so. Anybody who thinks that is the right solution hasn’t looked back at what has been successful, whether it’s the acid rain accord that was done by Prime Minister Mulroney, or previous governments that have brought in direct measures to protect our environment and that—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Thank you. Questions and comments?

Mr. Jamie West: Just to the member opposite from Markham–Stouffville talking about allowing polluters to pollute—it’s misleading, talking about “allowing to pollute”; it’s polluting with a cost. You can’t have a government talking about the free market and how business works not understand that having an extra cost makes it a disincentive to pollute. When you have the extra fee, then you become incentivized to be cost-effective against your competitors who don’t have the fee and who are more carbon-effective. That’s the system at work. You can’t turn a blind eye to it.

Essentially, as the member from Guelph said, there are parts of Ontario on fire. I think he minimized it, because there are 42 large fires, and 24 of those are out of control. That speaks to a lot. There are very few scientists who now say that climate change is not real. We kind of laugh at them now and, hopefully, move forward from the old days where people thought maybe they were legitimate.

The fire I want to talk about right now is Parry Sound 33. Parry Sound 33 is just south of my riding of Sudbury, near Parry Sound, obviously. Most people, when I tell them I’m from Sudbury, usually say, “Have you ever been to Killarney?” which actually isn’t in Sudbury; it’s south of Sudbury. But it is beautiful, and most people know Killarney because of the stunning beauty of it. Killarney makes most of its money through tourism because of the beauty and the fishing and everything that’s available there. Killarney has been evacuated because of this fire.

My in-laws have a camp in Noëlville, which is just out-side of Parry Sound. When you turn up the highway, you go through Alban, and Alban right now is on evacuation notice. My in-laws have been there for 45 years—at their camp—and every day this summer you can smell smoke in the air, which has never happened before.

The issue here isn’t what form of cap-and-trade or what form of green energy we move to; it’s that the government doesn’t have a plan in place. It isn’t “tear everything down or burn it to the ground like Parry Sound 33.” Have a plan in place before you burn it down.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Questions and comments?

Mr. Kaleed Rasheed: Our government was elected on a simple promise: to be for the people. During the election campaigning when I was knocking on doors—Mississauga East–Cooksville is a riding that’s made up of a lot of senior citizens. They are on fixed incomes. It is very sad to hear from them, “Kaleed, at the end of the day, we don’t know if we have enough funds to either heat our house or put food on the table.” These are the seniors who have given us so much, who have worked extremely hard, and yet, they are unable to make ends meet.

Over the weekend, actually, I was just speaking with some of my friends and some small businesses. We were having a conversation about this cap-and-trade program. I said that, at the end of the day, if you ask the organizations or corporations to pay this tax, somehow they have to pass it on to the consumers, the endusers. It’s not fair to the endusers. Why do we have to penalize these individuals or the seniors who are just trying to make ends meet?

While we understand the challenges that climate change presents, a regressive tax is not the solution to these challenges. We have to come up with a plan to make sure that these additional taxes that we are imposing on corporations should not be the way of moving forward.

I’m very proud to tell my constituents that the Ontario carbon tax era is over, because, as we say, promise made, promise kept.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): The member from London–Fanshawe.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Thank you, Speaker. I don’t think I’ve had an opportunity to express in the Legislature and to congratulate you on your Deputy Speaker position here in the House, in the chair. You certainly do fit the role very well, in my opinion.

I’m here to contribute to this debate on Bill 4, because the government decided that they’re going to cancel climate change. Yes, in their platform, that was one of their—I don’t call it a promise; I call it misleading, misguided ideas of how to help the environment.

In London–Fanshawe, people have reached out to us. Finch auto dealership, a very large dealership in London—in southwestern Ontario, as a matter of fact—called me and talked about how they are cancelling their eco car program. They had 14 orders on the books and now those people have backed out. The dealer called personally and he said, “You know, we have to take time to educate consumers in order to get them on board to buy these eco cars.” It’s about a year’s process; they are on order. There’s a lot of faith that the consumers put into the dealership representative in order to commit to the eco car.

What’s going to happen when people drive more eco cars because you have an actual example of someone buying one? They talk to their neighbours. More people buy them. It’s good for the environment. It’s good for jobs. It’s good for the auto industry.

This dealership wanted to know from this government what they were going to do to help the auto sector because of this loss to their revenue. They had a strategic plan for two to three years based on this program in the climate change. It is concerning. This government hasn’t come up with a plan. They haven’t told us what they’re going to do. People really don’t appreciate this kind of governance.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Back to the member from Guelph for a wrap.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and you do look good in the chair this morning after a long weekend.

I just want to say to the member from Markham–Stouffville that I do agree that the previous government’s climate plan was inadequate, but an inadequate plan is better than no plan at all.

I will have to say to the member from Mississauga East–Cooksville who talked about fairness: I’ll tell you what’s not fair. It’s not fair to our children and future generations that we’re not tackling the biggest crisis our generation faces. It’s not fair that we’re going to subject people to the increased cost in their insurance bills to cover climate change. It’s not fair that more government money is going to have to be spent in repairing infra-structure that’s lost due to extreme weather events.

I want to say to the members opposite, there are about three tools we can use to tackle the climate crisis. One is markets. The member from Sudbury talked about the way in which pollution pricing creates a market. As a matter of fact, most economists would argue that putting a price on carbon pollution is actually the most conservative approach to tackling the climate crisis. It appears the government is taking that tool out of the toolbox.

The member from London–Fanshawe talked about another tool that could be used and that’s subsidies. We can subsidize people to lower their carbon footprint. But the government has taken that tool out of the toolbox by cancelling the GreenON program.

That leaves us with another tool and that’s command and control economics. I would be surprised to see a Conservative government implement that. That’s some-thing you might expect from the NDP but not from the Conservatives. Unfortunately, that’s about the only tool they have left in the toolbox.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Further debate? Wakey, wakey. The member from Carleton.

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My coffee hasn’t hit me yet.

Before I begin, I just wanted to mention that today is my husband’s birthday and I just wanted to wish him a very happy birthday. I wish I was there with him, but we’ll celebrate this weekend. He’s survived me for 10 years and hopefully another 20 or 30 years longer.

I’m pleased to rise today to continue the debate regarding Bill 4, the proposed Cap and Trade Can-cellation Act. This act was introduced by the Honourable Rod Phillips, Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, everyone is aware of the challenges that we face together as a society. This is something that is going to impact all of us, especially when it comes to climate change. We all care about the environment, no matter our political background, and there is nothing partisan about that. However, where we part ways with the members of the opposition and the independent members is how best to protect and conserve the environment. It’s not that we don’t believe in climate change; we do, and we know that we have to do something about it.

But the fact of the matter is, taxing people for the sake of taxing them, just to say that we’re doing something in the name of climate change, isn’t the right way, because not only is it disrespectful to taxpayer dollars but it’s also ignoring the underlying and root cause of the problem at hand.

If we really want to tackle climate change in an effective way that is going to not just make a difference now but also help future generations, we have to find out what we can do to adapt and modernize. Just taxing people isn’t going to do anything because, at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, when you look at global emissions, 70% of those global emissions come from the activities of multinational corporations. Ontario itself, and the people of Ontario, are responsible for less than 1% of total global emissions, so even if we were going to go down to zero, it wouldn’t make a difference in the long run. So why are we taxing Ontarians? Why are we making them go broke?

I know, Mr. Speaker, that on the other side they’re going to come back and say, “Well, Ontario’s emissions are the highest per capita” or “per person.” That may be the case, but that’s because the reality that we are facing here in Ontario is much different than many European countries or many developing countries or industrialized countries that have a high-density population and rely on public transit.

I’m going to give my riding of Carleton as an example. Over 50% of the people in Carleton do not have access to public transit. They literally cannot get to where they need to go if they do not drive. Internet connection is just as bad, so good luck getting an Uber, and the Uber is probably just as expensive as, if not more than, a taxi.

So, Mr. Speaker, do those people have to suffer? Do those people who have no choice but to drive their cars to get to work, to go to school, to go to the doctor, to make sure that they’re not living in isolation, so they can go to community events, and have no way to get there except through driving—are we penalizing them? Is that fair? Or do we look at something more holistic? Do we look at long-term solutions? Do we look at ways that we can improve technology, improve the auto sector, improve emissions? So that’s why we are in support of getting rid of the cap-and-trade: because it just doesn’t work. It does not work.

It’s not coming from us, Mr. Speaker; it’s coming from the Auditor General, it’s coming from independent studies and it’s coming from the Fraser Institute. We all know the numbers and figures presented by the Auditor General. This is going to cost Ontarians $8 billion, and there’s no real evidence that it’s going to work.

So, really, we are about respecting taxpayer dollars. We are about making sure that the money that we receive from people is being spent wisely. That means coming up with a climate change plan that makes sense, a climate change plan that does not penalize rural communities, a climate change plan that does not penalize people who have no access to public transit, and a climate change plan that does not penalize our farmers, because the current system has had a huge negative impact on the 36,000 family farms in Ontario and on all of the ones in my riding.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, just last year, around March, I went to SunTech Greenhouse—SunTech tomatoes. It is a greenhouse located in my riding of Carleton, owned by Mr. Mitchell. This was a few months after the carbon tax and cap-and-trade had been implemented, so hydro had gone up, prices had gone up.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you would assume that a green-house that grows tomatoes, that is self-sufficient, that reuses 80% of the carbon dioxide that it creates back into the plants because plants need it and they produce oxygen, would have some kind of credit or some sort of recognition from the government, but he did not. Not only had his hydro prices gone up, but it had gotten to a point where he could not compete with Mexican imports of tomatoes.

At the end of the day, agricultural produce is a commodity. People aren’t going to buy something simply because it’s from Ontario. They’re going to look at the prices at the grocery store, at the supermarket, and they’re going to go for the cheapest product, because Ontarians are already hurting. They’re already strapped for cash. When you’re on your last few dollars and cents, you don’t care where those tomatoes come from. You’re just going to get the cheapest.

There’s a bigger story behind that, because not only are locally grown agricultural products now more expensive because farmers have to offset the price of the carbon tax, they’re competing with the cheaper products that are being imported by transportation trucks from Mexico to Canada. If our carbon tax is actually supposed to reduce emissions and is supposed to do our environ-mental global duty, then why is it in fact having the effect of promoting carbon emissions from other countries?

Because when you see that those tomatoes are cheaper to sell here and yet there are emissions that are being emitted just through the production and through the transportation of those tomatoes here to Ontario, the cap-and-trade isn’t actually doing what it’s supposed to do. That’s not just with greenhouses. I see it across cash crops, wheat, produce—everything. With the trade war that’s going on, we need to do everything that we can to ensure that our agricultural sector and our commodity products are able to compete in a fair marketplace.

A fair marketplace is one that does not unnecessarily impose unfair costs on our own domestic market such that they cannot even compete with foreign imports.

Cancelling the carbon tax was one of the promises that we made and one of the promises that we campaigned on. When I hear from members opposite stating: “Where is the consultation? Why aren’t you talking with the people?”, well, June 7 was the consultation. Everything that we did leading up to June 7 was the consultation. The people of Ontario elected us with the clear mandate to get rid of the carbon tax. It was one of our five priorities. It was right there. We consulted with every single Ontarian, and every single Ontarian that went to the ballot box that day was aware of what we were planning on doing.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Every Ontarian? It was 40% or 60%, not so much.

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: The other side can yell and complain all they want, but at the end of the day, there was consultation, this was made very clear to the public and we had a very strong mandate from the people of Ontario to get rid of this carbon tax. Promises made, promises kept.

Getting rid of this carbon tax and cap-and-trade program is going to go a long way not only towards the agricultural sector, but also to reducing the everyday cost of living for families in Ontario. It’s one step towards lowering gasoline prices; it’s one step toward lowering hydro bills.

Let us not forget that when the carbon tax—this cap-and-trade scheme—was implemented, the Liberals refused to put that additional cost on people’s hydro bills. That additional cost was absorbed, so people did not actually see the amount that they were being forced to pay because of this carbon tax.

The reason I say “forced” is because people were being forced to pay more for the basic necessities of life. People in Carleton, people in the majority of Ontario, when the weather is 40 degrees below zero, need to heat their homes. They need to live. There were several seniors in my riding who had to choose between heating their home and eating. This became a mantra for us, not because it was just another talking point but because this was actually what I was hearing at the doors.

Why is it that a 90-year-old man who lives in a small home by himself near Burritts Rapids, just on the boundary between Ottawa and Kemptville—why was he paying $300 a month for hydro bills? It blows my mind. An old man, 90 years old, lives by himself. He’s on a pension, a fixed income, and yet his cost of living is constantly going up, to the point where he could barely afford to make ends meet. That is shameful. That is shameful.

People who have lived here their entire lives—they’ve worked hard; they’ve paid their taxes. They’ve built a life, they’ve contributed, and now they just want to retire. They expect that when they retire, they can afford to stay in their own home for the rest of their lives, that they can afford to be there, to feed themselves, to heat their homes and to live in dignity. But they couldn’t because inflation, coupled with the cost of living, was jumping through the roof, and they were still on a fixed income.

All of that is to say that we’re proud, and I’m per-sonally proud, that we are repealing the cap-and-trade carbon scheme here in Ontario, because it was not doing anything for Ontarians. It was not doing anything for the environment. It was supposed to be an initiative that would fund new programs, or whatever it was the Liberals wanted to do, but several news articles and even the Auditor General herself indicated that the money being collected was going to pre-existing projects.

The Auditor General herself indicated that there was no concrete proof or evidence that this scheme the Liberals had come up with would actually reduce carbon emissions in Ontario by a significant amount. The burden being put on the Ontario taxpayer far outweighed any benefit or any advantage that this program would bring.

This isn’t something coming from us; this isn’t a partisan PC Party type of thing. There were organizations all across Ontario that were fed up with the carbon tax. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture was one. Another one was the Ontario Convenience Stores Association. I didn’t even know that association existed, but it does. I met with several of them and they indicated to me that, as small businesses, their members were struggling to operate and a lot of them had to close down.

In fact, one such convenience store did close down during my campaign in the past two years. It was a convenience store in a small little village, Kars, which is about half an hour south of Ottawa—still within the boundaries, but it was rural. That was the only place people could go to get the local newspaper, to buy an ice cream—they couldn’t even fill up on gas because that had been closed down a while ago. But, you know, a small convenience store that had been there for 20 years—and this past year, he had to shut it down because he just could not afford to pay his bills anymore.

The carbon tax has done nothing but kill jobs, put businesses in a dire predicament where they can barely make ends meet—and people are having difficulty paying their bills.

With the last few minutes, I just want to sum up everything about this bill that we support and the reasons why we’re doing it. As I indicated a few days ago in my response to a member opposite, the carbon tax era is over. Eliminating the cap-and-trade carbon tax is going to save families $260 per year; it’s a necessary step to reducing gas prices; and the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, introduced by the Honourable Rod Phillips, provides a reasonable and transparent plan to wind down the program in a way that minimizes the impact on taxpayer dollars while offering some support for eligible participants of Ontario’s cap-and-trade carbon tax program.

I have reviewed the legislation, and I am proud of it. It is well drafted, it is responsible, and it respects Ontarians.

If passed, this legislation is going to provide a framework for compensating the regulated community, it’s going to authorize the development of regulations in order to implement a compensation plan, and it’s going to require Ontario to develop a climate change plan and report back on its progress. That was one of our campaign promises: responsibility, accountability and trust.

With the wind-down of the cap-and-trade program, ministries are ending the climate change programs funded through cap-and-trade proceeds, including those programs that have not yet been implemented in 2018-19 that were to be funded by cap-and-trade proceeds, and winding down those programs implemented in 2017-18, including those delivered through transfer payment agreements. We’re also proposing changes to the existing greenhouse gas framework to provide businesses with certainty on what their reporting requirements are as part of the orderly wind-down of the cap-and-trade program.

At the end of the day, the carbon tax scheme did nothing but take hundreds of millions of dollars out of Ontario into other jurisdictions. We need to respect taxpayer money and we need to make sure that those dollars remain in Ontario while we find a responsible and economical way to conserve the environment.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Questions and comments?

Ms. Catherine Fife: I’m sorry that I only have two minutes to respond to this particular part of the debate on the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, Bill 4.

What we have in the province right now, as a result of the actions of this government, is a crisis in confidence. The member opposite talked about respecting taxpayers; well, taxpayers had contracts and companies and corporations had contracts with this government which this government has cancelled in bad faith. So you can’t talk about respecting the citizens of this province on climate change, on global warming—and then, from a business perspective, if you actually don’t have a plan, as you described it, no orderly wind-down of the cap-and-trade program. In fact, many corporations have just been caught off guard by this.

The retroactive termination of crown liability to pay compensation for breach of contract: It is unprecedented that this is embedded in this piece of legislation. It is actually taking corporations that were required to purchase what are essentially legislatively created financial assets in good faith—and they entered into an arrange-ment with the province whereby they could purchase the assets in exchange for a right to emit greenhouse gases.

So you have corporations that were compelled to be part of this act and then you actually had volunteers—universities, colleges, schools—that were part of this, that entered in good faith with the government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They are receiving no compensation whatsoever.

So how can you talk about respecting corporations and taxpayers and citizens when you are embedding the right to breach contracts with these corporations? It lends itself, quite honestly, to hypocrisy and compromises the confidence that corporations and businesses have in this government.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Questions and comments?

Ms. Natalia Kusendova: It is my honour to rise today in support of Bill 4, the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act.

During my campaign, I spoke with thousands of residents of Mississauga Centre and the most common concern that I heard from people is that life was harder under the Liberals; that prices had gone significantly up, such as gasoline and hydro; that people had to choose between heating and eating; that thousands of manu-facturing jobs had left Ontario.

In fact, the existing cap-and-trade carbon tax is one of the most crucial factors that is making everyday living less affordable for Ontarians. It is this very tax that makes heating homes more expensive during the winter months. It is this carbon tax that is significantly contributing to the high cost of gasoline at the pumps. And it is this tax that is driving manufacturing jobs out of Ontario.

It is estimated that with the cancellation of this tax, the average family will get to keep an additional $260 a year in their pocket and at least 14,000 manufacturing jobs will be created. As was said in the throne speech, there is no tax dollar better spent than the one that is left of the pockets of the taxpayer.

Speaker, I would also like to emphasize that we live in a global economy, where day by day our goods and services compete both on the international and domestic markets. What the cap-and-trade carbon tax has done is weakened the ability of our Ontario goods to compete. As my colleague has mentioned, how is it possible that goods that are made here locally in Ontario cannot compete with goods that are made in Mexico? That is simply not acceptable and shameful. Our government and our Premier have vowed to make Ontario open for business.

The cancellation of Wynne’s cap-and-trade carbon tax and challenging Trudeau’s—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Thank you. Questions and comments?

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: I’d like to speak to the speaker from Carleton. I would like to just address some of the comments she had made earlier about the Niagara farmers and the agricultural lands within the Niagara area.

Being from St. Catharines, I grew up right beside Niagara-on-the-Lake, where we have the best vineyards in all of Canada, I believe, and all of Ontario, as well as the most precious fruit lands within the greenbelt. I speak on that because of climate change and what will happen with this Bill 4 cap-and-trade elimination.

We’ve had the hottest summer temperatures on record in Niagara. And some of the hottest summer temperatures that are on record, as well as some of the most smog advisories. We’ve had approximately three days of rain. This does not help our vineyards and our special fruits that we take pride in selling at this time of the year. I believe it’s almost peach season and we’re getting into September in another month where we’re going to have the grape and wine festival.

I’ve spoken to thousands and hundreds of farmers within that area over the past summer. They have also said that the heat advisories, the hottest summer without rain has affected their vineyards as well as their precious fruits.

Interjection: Climate change is here.

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: Exactly. Climate change is here.

A plan? I haven’t seen a plan. The only plan I’ve seen is a plan that is completely hurting the Niagara vineyards, the Niagara farmers. I would like to just say that climate change is here and it’s not helping the farmers in Niagara.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Questions and comments?

Mr. Aris Babikian: Good morning, Mr. Speaker.

Our government was elected on a simple promise: to be for the people. During our campaign and since my election as the MPP for Scarborough–Agincourt, one question kept coming up at almost every single door we knocked on: “How are you going to put people first and make life more affordable for my family?”

While we understand the challenges that climate change presents, a regressive tax is not the solution to those challenges. The people of Scarborough–Agincourt have made it clear to me that they do not want an unfair tax that puts the burdens on their families and small businesses. We ran on a platform to get rid of cap-and-trade, and the people of Scarborough–Agincourt decided to vote for no carbon tax. I am proud to tell my constituents that Ontario’s carbon tax era is over. Promise made, promise kept.

I am proud to tell you that our plan to eliminate cap-and-trade means cheaper gas prices, lower energy bills and more money in the pockets of our families—saving families $260 a year. But it doesn’t stop there. Our plan also includes a commitment to put into place a more effective plan. We are committed to finding real solutions to the environmental challenges we face. The best

part is that we will do it in a responsible way that is respectful of the taxpayers’ money. This is our plan, a made-in-Ontario plan.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): We now return to the member from Carleton to wrap up the debate.

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: The members opposite are talking the current scheme as if there was a fully thought-out plan. But there was no plan.

In fact, the Auditor General herself said that the 2020 target is 15% below 1990 levels, and the cap-and-trade program will probably deliver less than one fifth of those required reductions. On top of that, over the next three years, as much as $466 million would leave Ontario’s economy, because it will be cheaper for businesses to buy allowances from Quebec and California than it will be to reduce emissions. The amount flowing out of the province could reach $2.2 billion by 2030. If that’s the plan that the Liberals had, that is not a good plan and it is not a plan that has Ontario’s best interests at heart.

Our proposed legislation is taking a responsible and pragmatic approach. Our proposed legislation includes a commitment to put into place a more effective plan, a made-in-Ontario solution to address the environmental challenges that we face while respecting the taxpayers of this province, while respecting the businesses in this province, while respecting the farmers of this province and while respecting this province’s environment—because at the end of the day, we are all in this together and we all want what is best for our families and our future.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Pursuant to standing order 47(c), I am now required to interrupt the proceedings and announce that there have been more than six and one half hours of debate on the motion for second reading of this bill. This debate will therefore be deemed adjourned unless the government House leader or a designate specifies otherwise.

I recognize the Minister of Education.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I must say, you look awesome in that chair and you’re going to do a great job.

I would like to share with you also that we would like this debate to continue.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I am glad to have the opportunity to stand in this fine Legislature and speak on such an important topic, to talk about climate, to talk about our plans—or lack thereof, unfortunately—and to talk about our future. I think that any chance we have to speak about health and wellness and a stronger, better future for everyone in Ontario, we should all embrace.

Here we are debating Bill 4, which is

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. Speaker, I have a lot that I would like to get into, but I’m going to start—I’m going to take us back to not too long ago, to the campaign. It was very interesting, the provincial campaign leading up to this session. The now-government did a lot of campaigning about axing the carbon tax and getting rid of the carbon tax, which I thought was so interesting all the way along, because we never had a carbon tax.

We did not have a carbon tax in the province of Ontario. We had a cap-and-trade system, one that we criticized, and rightly so. That was the Liberal plan that could have been better, should have been better. We should still be having that conversation, quite frankly, if this were a responsible government. But it was a cap-and-trade system, not a carbon tax. However, the rhetoric was “carbon tax,” so now we keeping hearing the government members refer to it as the “cap-and-trade carbon tax.” They’ve combined them into one concept. I will admit that they both start with “C,” so that’s a fair thing to do. So does “conflate,” but anyway.

They campaigned on axing the carbon tax, but we all knew—or the people who were understanding the semantics; the words matter here—that if we were to get rid of the cap-and-trade system, the federal government was going to come in with their alternative, their federal levy that is indeed a carbon tax. The feds have told all of the provinces, “Thou shalt have a system for your carbon.” Then, if we didn’t have one that met the thresh-olds and met the criteria, the federal government was going to impose that carbon tax. We as a province came up with cap-and-trade.

It was just so interesting because, with the campaign and all of the language around axing this carbon tax, really what we’ve done is asked for a carbon tax. Now the indignation on that side, that “How dare the feds do this and now we’re going to take them to court” and all of these things—the campaigning continues, and I look forward to when the governing will start—which is why we are here talking about this change and where we go from here. They have the majority, they have their—I was going to say “plan”—they have their ideas for going forward, but unfortunately, on this file, they are missing that plan.

Also, to take us back a little bit further in time—because there was a member opposite who made a comment earlier as we’ve been talking about climate change. We’ve been talking about the forest fires that we’re seeing, we’ve been talking about the drier conditions, we’ve been talking about the unpredictable weather, we’ve been talking about the severity of storms.

Yesterday was an interesting day in Oshawa, and I’m sure it was across the province, where we had unbelievable thunderstorms. I had gotten up in the morning and watered my front grass at 6 or 7, and my back lawn. Well, it’s like when you wash your car, Speaker, and then it rains; I watered my lawns and then we had one heck of a thunderstorm—and then I was back out on the deck a few hours after that. Every day is a new climate adven-ture. We’re very lucky that it isn’t more dangerous where we live. I think, as we see climate continuing to change, we’re going to see more severity. We should be having the conversation about our future.

As we’re talking about all of these issues, the forest fires—the member, I think, from Markham–Stouffville had said that, for us to be using those fires as somehow justifying carbon pricing and whatnot, is just sad, and that we do need to do something about climate change and that that goes without saying. But it doesn’t go without saying, because we don’t have it in writing. We don’t have a plan from this government.

The member took us back to reminding us that there have been initiatives that have worked in the past. But if we’re going to talk about acid rain—I don’t remember how old Jennifer K. French was back when we were fighting those fights, but I feel like it was elementary school—the climate has changed and our world has changed so much since that time that acid rain could be around the next corner as we continue to make poor decisions and as we’re not having strategies in place, whether it’s to tax or whether it’s to have—what’s the word I want? I can’t think of the word.

If you’re going to pollute, that there’s going to be some consequence—I’m looking for the word “consequence”—that we do need consequences that are going to be deterrents. We need something that is going to make our world cleaner and better.

Back to this bill: This bill doesn’t make concrete commitments to lowering greenhouse gas emissions, which is unfortunate. It is a bill that cancels cap-and-trade, which is going to make a significant difference financially for the richest of us but not for the everyday families. Rich families will see an average annual benefit from can-celling cap-and-trade that is about four times greater than families that make less than $40,000. Again, the member opposite—a different member opposite—said that we’re all in this together. Well, we are, but the benefits are not going to be shared equally, which isn’t surprising anyone these days.

We’ve also talked about taxpayers—“taxpayers, tax-payers, taxpayers”—and I’m awfully glad, but let’s talk about who taxpayers are. The member from Waterloo reminded us that taxpayers are businesses, taxpayers are families, and taxpayers are parents of children who are in crumbling schools that are not slated to get repairs, be-cause the money that came from the cap-and-trade coffers that was going to go into repairs is not going to come from that anymore. Well, then, is it coming from somewhere else? Are you going to put it in the budget? Are we going to have that change? We don’t know. We don’t know.

We can guess, I guess. But taxpayers are real people. Taxpayers are the folks who are concerned that the cycling programs across our communities are no longer going to be funded through the GreenON money. Okay: Is there going to be another place that that money comes from, or is it just up to the municipalities? The downloading and everything has already been such a struggle for them, so any other community program, they just—there’s no money for that, and this government is okay with that.

The taxpayers who were looking forward to safer, better and greener cycling infrastructure in their communities: “Oh, well.” Those taxpayers don’t matter? To say “taxpayers” as though it isn’t a human face, a family face, a business face, I think, is missing the whole point. Don’t forget, it’s not about the rhetoric; it’s about the important work. That’s why we’re here.

We’ve already been talking about the cancellation of contracts and this government leaving itself protected from backlash and from the legal ramifications of can-celling contracts. We’re finding more and more that the business community is getting more and more concerned about that. Why would anyone want to do business in the province of Ontario? If you’re going to say that Ontario is open for business—I’ve said this before: If that kind of business is leaving the businesses open to financial distress because this government can’t follow through on a contract, well, that’s problematic. We have another example of that here, frankly.

The act retroactively terminates crown liability to pay compensation for breach of contract. This is unusual. It basically means the government is giving themselves the right to expropriate private property without compensation. Now, using this power undermines confidence in doing business with the government. This is Bill 4. We just got here and this is not the first bill that is doing this; I think it was Bill 2. It seems to be par for the course now: “Make sure that no business can come back and get us when we disallow their contracts, when we go in and wreck stuff.”

There is so much that’s unclear about this bill. We don’t know whether Ontario is opening itself up to challenges by Quebec and California. We have no idea. Universities and hospitals were also participants in the cap-and-trade program, but we don’t know how this is going to affect them.

Interestingly, there were some folks that had to—the large polluters had to be part of this cap-and-trade program; no surprise there. There is a compensation scheme allowed for in here, but with more questions than answers.

Then you have other folks. There are 21 market participants. Market participants are companies or groups that opted into this program, that decided to be a part of it for various reasons. There’s no compensation for them. They’re being penalized for participating voluntarily. I’m just going to let that sink in. Imagine that you have an environmental responsibility program. The polluters have to be a part of it, but you can be a part of it too if you want to be environmentally responsible and be part of a cleaner, greener, brighter, better future.

I’m over-simplifying here; I don’t know what their motivation was for participating. But no compensation for you. “Oh, well. Sorry. You don’t get any money back. You shouldn’t have volunteered to be a part of a cleaner, greener initiative. No compensation for you.” So no good deed goes unpunished is another piece to that.

I’m going to read something here from an article, “Ontario Cap-and-Trade Repeal Bill Sees Compliance Obligations, Few Refunds for Purchase Allowances,” from July 25:

“‘It is outrageous not to compensate the market participants’”—side note, that’s who I was just talking about, the market participants that chose to participant that didn’t have to—“‘while also limiting the government’s civil liability. How can this government be credible when it is acting like a thug? Why would anybody want to do business in Ontario?’ another observer said.

“‘It doesn’t sound like [the government] knows what they’re doing or have thought about implications of their actions. Completely irresponsible ... What will it do with the money collected and not reimbursed rightly to those who bought those allowances in good faith. That is theft!’”

If this is the language being used in conversations in business circles, I think this government is in trouble. If it isn’t doing its homework and its math on these programs, it probably should. I don’t know where the impetus is coming up from, I don’t know if it’s from the Premier’s office, but I would take the time.

If you’re going to bring forward a bill like this that says, “We’re doing away with this system, we haven’t thought it through, we don’t have a replacement, na-na-na-na-na,” that’s the wrong thing to do because now you’re creating problems in the business world and that, I thought, was supposed to be your base. If the business community is calling you thugs and not trusting you, I would suggest that you have a sit-down with them, put their minds at ease and, better yet, come up with a plan.

I have already talked about penalizing the market participants; here is another part that said, “‘The government is effectively saying these 20 or so voluntary market participants shouldn’t have been participating. It’s kind of crazy and it sets a really bad precedent for a ruling government in a first world country....’

“In addition, the bill carries a clause to protect the government from any legal liability, which is certain to further infuriate some scheme participants, including those who feel they are owed their money back.”

You’ve got a lot of people who are going to be unhappy. They’re taxpayers, by the way. When you’re talking about the taxpayer, let’s not forget that those are some of your businesses as well.

We’ve talked about the fact that there is no clear plan and that’s disappointing. There are a lot of powers given to the minister to make determinations, to set targets, but we don’t know when. We have no idea what those targets are. But here is a basic thing in life: I have taught grades 7 and 8, I’ve taught elementary school, but when you talk about goal-setting or setting targets, you’re supposed to actually have something you’re aiming for. Even if it’s a bite-sized goal, it’s something that you are aiming towards. Otherwise, how on earth will you know when you’ve hit it?

If you set a goal, you know when you’ve fallen short, you know when you’ve hit it. You can always make it a better goal and make it a bigger goal. But when you don’t have a goal at all, you can spend all day patting yourself on the back: “Hey, look. We just did something good.” We have no idea how to measure that and it’s certainly not what it could have been or should have been.

Again, disappointing: This government needs to start to govern. We’re past the campaign now. As I said, you wanted to axe the carbon tax, but where are we? Where is this plan? Where is Ontario’s faith in you? We see a climate crisis everywhere we look around the province. We see it everywhere we look around the globe. But the member from Waterloo said that we also have a crisis of confidence. It is taxpayers who are going to be having that crisis of confidence; it is just everyday Ontarians, businesses. I would sit down and do the careful math on this if I were this government.

Let’s not forget, though, when it does come to climate, that this is a government that I think, right out the gate, fired our chief scientist. Does anyone know? Have we recast that role? So to come in and say, “Science? Ha. Away with you,” doesn’t help us have any faith when I see this bill in front of us that says, “Cap-and-trade or cap-and-trade carbon tax,” or whatever combined name you’re giving it, “away with you.” What is the replace-ment?

No minimums; there are no targets: “Just trust us.” Guys, if you’re already pulling the “just trust us” and we’re in an emergency summer session—we haven’t even come back in our full capacity, running on all cylin-ders, and you’re already doing the “just trust us” now—it’s going to be a long four years if you guys don’t start communicating with your people who you say you represent, which is all the people, apparently, except for business or taxpayers or families.

I’m not going to get into the weeds on the insufficient compensation framework. Suffice it to say, they’re still deciding; they’re determining. You’ve given the minister powers on how folks are going to be compensated—a lot of questions, more questions than answers. I’m worried that’s going to be the theme for the next four years.

I would like to talk a little bit, though, about some local perspective. This is an

article that had to do with regional governments, but there’s a

part in here—our regional chair, Gerri Lynn O’Connor, is quoted in this local article:

“‘The new provincial government has cancelled funding for various programs that were targeted to improve the energy efficiency of social housing stock, to expand transit and to make our infrastructure more resilient to climate change,’ O’Connor said. ‘Yet we have no indication of how, or if, the Premier plans to replace this funding to municipalities generated by the cap-and-trade program.’

“The veteran regional councillor called on the Con-servative government to soundly plan for the future.”

“‘I was a member of regional council the last time the province enacted change of this magnitude. I urge the provincial government to undertake the kind of con-sultation that is necessary on this important issue.’”

I second that. I hope they start to do the consultation that they say is so important when it comes to some topics and yet others: “Shh. No consultation.”

When it comes to the cancellation of $100 million in school repair funds, fortunately my board, the Durham District School Board, had already spent $5.2 million of the $7.5 million from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund that had been earmarked for things like boilers, heating controllers, air conditioning and replacements, that sort of thing. They had already used a significant chunk of the money; they had already put in and spent that money. So that’s a positive. But now, “Board staff is now trying to determine how much of the remaining $2.3 million will be honoured.

“‘At this point in time, it would be difficult to determine the exact effect of this cancellation of funding.... What we’re doing right now, is reviewing the criteria for the cut-off provided by the ministry, versus the contracts which we’ve alreay engaged in.’”

Interestingly, the Durham Catholic District School Board was allotted $467,270 under the fund, but un-fortunately none of it has been spent so far, which means none of it is available. So they are still going to have to make those improvements to the schools, but they’re going to have to do it over a longer period of time. That money is just gone—actually, that money is not gone; it’s still sitting in a fund that can be used at the minister’s discretion, so that’s one thing.

Well, Speaker, I thought that 20 minutes was going to be hard to fill. I have two seconds left. I look forward to my two-minute wrap-up.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Unfortunately, that two-minute wrap-up will have to wait until we do questions and comments at the next time this bill is up.

Seeing the time on the clock, this House is in recess until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1011 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: On Thursday, July 25, barbaric ISIS murderers slaughtered more than 200 innocent Syrian Druze civilians in the government-held city of Sweida in southern Syria.

Today, it’s my honour to welcome this morning several proud and resilient members of the Canadian Druze community: Mr. Walid El Awar, honorary president of the Canadian Druze Society; Dr. Bashir Hosn, representative of the social affairs committee; Adnan Hatoum, representative of the Sweida Druze community; Ms. Salma Hatoum, youth director; Khaled Chalhoub; Hashim Alsaadi; Kamil Rafeeh; Sami Rafeeh; Raian Rafeeh; Ghazal Rafeeh; Esmaeel Abofakher; Iyad Kattini; Ziad Adwan; Souhad Al Faqih; Raghid Adwan; Bassem Kattini; Mahfouz Kattini; Ahsan Farhat; Anas Arabi; Mary Hatoum; Nagham Adwan; Giath Hamdan; Feras Alhusein; and Talal El Atrache.

Thank you all for your presence here this morning. We grieve with you, and we are standing in solidarity with your community.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: It gives me great honour to introduce my chief youth organizer in the riding of Pickering–Uxbridge: from Uxbridge, Dominic Morrissey’s son, Noah Morrissey.

Mr. Vijay Thanigasalam: I would like to welcome my close friend and someone who was instrumental in the success of my campaign, Girishanth. Also, I would like to extend a warm welcome to his cousin, Subicsha Thayaparan, who came all the way from London, England. She is very young and very interested in politics. Today is a good opportunity for her to see how we do it on the other side of the pond.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I am pleased to welcome my constituent and friend Donna Lajeunesse to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’d like to introduce and welcome Margaret Schleier Stahl to the Legislature, a great friend of the Liberal family from Chatham-Kent–Leamington. Welcome, Margaret.

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: I wanted to introduce my intern, Daria Tsymbalarou. She is 18 and just graduated from high school. She is starting at Western University in the fall, and she is here to learn about politics.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: It’s actually not an introduction; it is a birthday greeting on behalf of this entire assembly to page Annabelle. Happy birthday, Annabelle.

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu: I’d like to introduce my very good friend and very successful realtor in Brampton, Kamal Sandhu, and his uncles from India: Mahil Singh Sandhu, Balwinder Singh Sidhu and Mohinder Singh Sanghera. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: My former page, my first page, Evan Tanovich, is here this morning. Welcome back to Queen’s Park, Evan. His younger brother Nicholas Tanovich is here as well. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Sarnia–Lambton? Sarnia–Lambton?

Mr. Robert Bailey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I couldn’t hear you.

I’d like to introduce the father of our page, Annabelle. Eric Rayson is in the east members’ gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Mike Harris: I’d like to introduce my executive assistant, Dr. Matthew Stubbings, who is here visiting from our constituency office today.

Oral Questions

Curriculum

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Deputy Premier. Every day more and more people are speaking out against the Premier’s backroom deal with social conservatives to repeal the updated sexual health curriculum. School boards, parents, educators and now health professionals are all speaking out against the Premier’s plan to put the health and safety of students at risk.

Why is the Deputy Premier ignoring the vast majority of Ontarians and going along with the Premier’s plan to scrub same-sex families, gender identity and consent out of Ontario’s classrooms?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you to the leader of the official opposition for the question.

What we have said from the beginning, what we said during the course of the campaign is that we want to involve parents in the consultations with respect to the sex and health ed curriculum that’s going to be taught in the schools. Parents were not consulted properly in the last iteration. We want to make sure that we have a thorough consultation. We want to hear from anybody who has something to say about the sex ed curriculum, so that we can make sure that it’s updated, that it is current, that it covers all issues including cyberbullying, sexting, all of the other issues we want to have covered, to make sure that our students are going to be safe in our schools.

We’re starting that consultation process in September and we want anybody who has something to say to be in touch with us and let us know what that is.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This morning, I welcomed Dr. Andrea Chittle to Queen’s Park. She’s a family physician from Guelph. Dr. Chittle joined me to announce that at least 19 health care organizations and nearly 1,800 doctors, nurses and health care professionals have signed a petition calling on the Premier to restore the updated health curriculum in its entirety. These medical professionals say that any repeal or dismantling of the curriculum is an affront to the rights and to the health of Ontario’s youth.

Will the Deputy Premier stop listening to radical social conservatives and start listening to the Ontario doctors, nurses and health care professionals who are so very, very worried about our youth?

I’m going to send this to her with a page.

Hon. Christine Elliott: What I would say to the leader of the official opposition is this: We want to hear from everyone. We welcome Dr. Chittle’s comments. We welcome the comments from the other health care professionals you’re referring to, but we also want to hear from parents, because parents know what’s best for their children, parents know at what age it’s best for children to learn about certain things.

We want to make sure that we get it right, that we make sure that all of our students are protected and that they hear the things that they need to when it’s most appropriate for them. So we welcome hearing from the health care professionals, but we also want to hear from parents.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Final supple-mentary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Almost 1,800 doctors, nurses and health care professionals are calling on the Premier to stop putting the health and safety of students at risk. That should be the primary job of government, not putting our children at risk. That’s 1,800 professionals who have devoted their careers to keeping people safe, and now are speaking out against this Premier because he is putting students at risk. When will the Deputy Premier find the courage to stand with these 1,800 medical pro-fessionals and speak out against the Premier’s plan to put students in harm’s way?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Well, nothing is more important to all of us in this legislative chamber than the health and safety of Ontario’s children. That is why we want to have a thorough consultation process, to make sure that all of them are protected and that we’ll teach them what they need to be taught, so that they can be successful in today’s society.

But I think we also have to remember, because we’ve been focused on the sex ed curriculum in this place for—what, a month now? There are other aspects of our children’s education that are also important, for example their math scores. We are falling behind the rest of Canada with respect to our math scores. We need to do better than that. We need to talk about that, and I would invite the leader of the official opposition to start focusing on that too, because that is also important to the future prosperity and well-being of our children.

Curriculum

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Deputy Premier, whose words ring pretty hollow. The Premier’s decision to side with radical social conservatives and rip up the health curriculum puts students at risk. That is the truth, Speaker. Whether they like it or not, that is the truth.

That’s according to 1,800 doctors, nurses and health care professionals, as well as scores of parents, as well as scores of hundreds of thousands of other people who are very, very concerned about this. It is according to the RNAO, Planned Parenthood, Ontario’s midwives and social workers, the Alliance for Healthy Communities, Canadian Women in Medicine, the Ontario Medical Students Association—and the list goes on and on and on. Why is the Deputy Premier ignoring health care leaders who are united in saying that the Premier’s plan puts the health of our children at risk? That’s what the Premier’s plan does.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Speaker, through you to the leader of the official opposition: Of course we respect the views of health care professionals. Of course we’re going to listen to what they have to say, but they are not the only ones who have an opinion on this.

Parents have an opinion. Parents know their children. Parents know when their children are able to hear about certain things. Are we going to pretend that we’re not going to teach them that? Of course we’re going to teach them that, but we need to know when is best, and parents are the best judges of that for their own children. Their voices have not been heard.

There are only 1,600 responses that were received for the last iteration of the physical and sex ed curriculum. That is not a representative sample of parents across this province. We want to hear from all parents who want to express their views.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, when is it best for kids to know about cyberbullying and sexting? When is it best for them to know about the dangers of sex and the disease that they can get? Right now is when it’s best, Speaker. Right now: That’s when it’s best.

Students, parents, doctors and nurses aren’t the only ones who are standing up to this Premier. At least 25 school boards are speaking out against this Premier’s plan to remove any mention of same-sex families, con-sent, gender identity and cyberbullying from the curriculum. Those 25 school boards are worried that the Premier’s plan contravenes human rights legislation in our country, and they have no idea how they’re supposed to teach students the outdated 1998 curriculum in just four weeks’ time.

Why does this Deputy Premier think school boards should roll back the clock to 1998 and deny students the crucial information they need to stay safe in 2018?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Mr. Speaker, through you: The leader of the official opposition is presupposing what’s going to be in the updated curriculum. We’re not doing that. What we are saying is that we want to hear from parents. We want to hear from medical specialists. We want to hear from anybody who has something to say on this issue about what should be included in the curriculum. We want it to be thorough. We want to have a full consultation. We want to make sure that it’s going to cover all aspects of things that young people need to learn in order to be safe in our society.

But we also want to make sure they’re going to be able to be successful, too, so I think we need to con-centrate on a few other things as well: making sure that our students do well at school, getting up their math scores in particular, so they can be competitive with the rest of the world. We need to do that.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Final supple-mentary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The government is pre-supposing that kids are going to be safe without the information, tools—and tools that they need to be safe. That’s the problem here. This—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I apologize. The government side has to come to order. I have to be able to hear the leader of the official opposition, just as I have to hear the Deputy Premier. The government side has to come to order.

I apologize; I will give you extra time.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Deputy Premier is aiding and abetting the Premier’s dangerous plan, Speaker, instead of doing her job as the health minister and stand-ing up to him.

Recently, she said that when a student asks questions that aren’t in the new curriculum, those conversations should not happen in a classroom. She said they should happen in private, behind closed doors. You’d think this Deputy Premier would want to install closets in every classroom to have these discussions.

Educators have said this is “unbelievable” advice, and the head of the TDSB said it makes her “cringe.” How can this Deputy Premier honestly suggest that same-sex families, gender identity and consent are dirty little secrets that should be sent back into the closet?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I think it really is important to those Ontarians who may be watching these proceedings to correct what I actually did say in that situation. What I actually did say when I was asked whether it’s all right for students to ask their teachers questions if they have questions—I think every teacher in Ontario would say yes to that, because I know that happens every single day.

If a student has a question and they don’t have anyone else to ask—and that happens very often—is there anything wrong with them asking a teacher about that so the teacher can help them get the help they need? No, there is not. I think it’s absolutely fine for a student to ask a teacher a question. There’s nothing wrong with that.

Public transit

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Deputy Premier. Transit should be a fast and affordable service for everyone in the GTA. It should cost just $3 to take GO Transit and the UP Express anywhere in this city. But the Premier disagrees.

This weekend, it was revealed that the Premier is refusing to lower the cost of GO trips in Toronto, forcing people to pay more for transit, pushing ridership even lower and throwing Toronto’s transit planning into question.

Why does the Premier want commuters to pay more for transit in Toronto when life is already very un-affordable?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Minister of Transportation.

Hon. John Yakabuski: Thank you to the Leader of the Opposition for the question. We are absolutely committed to making transit more affordable here in the city of Toronto and the greater GTA, but we’re also in the midst of a thorough review of the state of Ontario’s finances that has been brought on by the mismanagement of the previous regime.

The former Premier of British Columbia, the Honourable Gordon Campbell, is heading up our analysis that we will report by the end of this month. At that time, when we have a better view and a better idea, we will be responding to this in a more complete way.

I also want to point out—and I will deal with it perhaps more in the supplementary—that this is an ongoing discussion between Metrolinx and the city of Toronto as well. I want to make it clear that at no time did Premier Ford in the campaign commit to this price. But we are absolutely committed to the improvement of transit and making transit, as well as life in general, more affordable for the people of Ontario.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock again. Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Everyone in the GTA should be able to commute anywhere in Toronto for just $3 with GO Transit and the UP Express. Fast, convenient and affordable transit is the best way—the best way—to deal with the gridlock problems that we have, to help grow our economy and to help families spend more time together, but the Premier himself has refused to back $3 GO Transit.

After weeks of accusing city hall of inaction on transit and gridlock, when will this government admit that it’s actually the Premier himself who is standing in the way of fast and affordable transit for Toronto commuters?

Hon. John Yakabuski: Thank you again to the Leader of the Opposition for the question. Everybody would love everything to be free in this world. The reality is, nothing is.

Let’s put it into perspective. We have a debt in this province of some $320 billion. We have deficits that the previous government underestimated. The Auditor General said that they’ve underestimated them by $6 billion. The Financial Accountability Officer has said at least that much.

We have some real challenges ahead of us. What we are going to determine with our full financial analysis, looking back at all spending and all costs that have been incurred under the previous government—we have Gordon Campbell heading up a panel to determine the current state of Ontario’s finances. It would be irresponsible for us as a government to commit to something that we can’t afford. That was the style of the old government. We want to make transit and life more affordable, and under Doug Ford, it will be.

Beverage alcohol sales

Mrs. Amy Fee: My question is for the Deputy Premier. Today at Barley Days Brewery in Picton in Prince Edward county, Premier Ford formally announced that buck-a-beer is returning to Ontario. It’s another promise made, promise kept.

This is something that many beer consumers have been wanting for a decade, when the previous government raised the minimum floor price for beer in Ontario.

Deputy Premier, can you explain to the Legislature the details of just how our government is returning to buck-a-beer in Ontario?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I’d like to thank the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler for the question.

We were elected on a promise to reduce red tape and to put the people first. That includes the promise we made to bring buck-a-beer back to Ontario. It simply is, as the member put it, a promise made and a promise kept.

Thanks to the previous Liberal government, the minimum price floor for beer was $1.25. But effective August 27, our government for the people will lower the minimum price floor to $1 for any beer with an alcohol volume of less than 5.6%. We’re going to do this smartly and responsibly. Unlike the official opposition and the previous Liberal government, we trust Ontario beer drinkers and other consumers to make their own smart, mature and responsible choices.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mrs. Amy Fee: Thank you, Deputy Premier. Clearly, the days of the government putting its hands in the pockets of Ontarians each time they buy a two-four or a six-pack are over.

It is my understanding that Premier Ford has initiated the Premier’s challenge to brewers across Ontario. There has been a lot of public interest in this government commitment, and the Premier’s challenge provides a great opportunity for brewers, including non-financial pro-motional incentives. Can the Deputy Premier please explain how this is just the first step when it comes to fulfilling our government’s plan to modernize alcohol retailing in Ontario?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you again for the question. Mr. Speaker, we’re bringing back this minimum price floor to encourage competition in the beer market and to save people money. By lowering the minimum retail price for beer, the government has opened up opportunities for brewers in the value-priced beer category. Today it was revealed that the LCBO is interested in discussing promotional considerations with any brewer that agrees to lower their prices on or after August 27.

Buck-a-beer is part of the government’s commitment to transforming alcohol retailing in Ontario, which in-cludes expanding the sale of beer and wine to con-venience stores, grocery stores and big box stores. This is just further evidence that our government is going to do what we said we would do, and that’s put Ontario consumers first.

Municipal government

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. This government’s reckless decision to slash Toronto city council has left the rest of Ontario’s municipalities wondering if they will be next.

Mr. Speaker, does the minister support reducing Ottawa city council from 23 to just six councillors?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Steve Clark: Thank you, Speaker. Through you to the member: Bill 5, the Better Local Government Act, is a very clear bill. It only affects one municipality in the province of Ontario in terms of the composition of council, and it only deals with four regions when it comes to pressing the pause button on changes that were proposed by the previous government. We’ve been very clear in terms of the city of Toronto. The fact that Bill 5 reduces the size of that council provides a more stream-lined council.

With all due respect, the honourable member is fear-mongering and knows that this is only dealing with that council.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, I’m just following the logic of the argument made by the minister. This government’s entire justification for their undemocratic move is to align municipal wards with federal and provincial boundaries. So far, only Toronto has been targeted by this unconstitutional policy. But where does it end?

Mr. Speaker, will this government begin slashing city councils province-wide, reducing council in places like Sudbury or Windsor from 10 to 12 councillors to just two or three?

Hon. Steve Clark: Again, Speaker, through you to the member for Toronto–Danforth: I’ve been very clear. In a couple of weeks, we have the Association of Municipalities of Ontario conference. One of the first decisions that I made as minister was to extend the opportunity for municipalities to ask for meetings with both myself and members of our cabinet. I know that that decision resulted in the number of meetings my ministry had—they went up from 49 to 77. We made it very clear to municipalities—

Interjection.

Hon. Steve Clark: Do you know what? The opposition can heckle all they want, but I look forward to engaging Ontario’s municipalities. I look forward to hearing their suggestions on providing more efficient and more effective government. I invite them to come to AMO as well. It’s an opportunity for us to hear very clearly what the municipal sector has to say.

Please stop the fearmongering, and let’s talk about Bill 5.

Refugee and immigration services

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu: My question is for the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services, with responsibility for immigration.

Minister, the crisis at the border seems to be ongoing, with illegal border crossers making their way to Ontario and siphoning immigration and refugee border services away from family reunification and international student processing.

My question today on this important immigration matter is in relation to the federal government’s response to your reasonable and straightforward request for reimbursement for our support for illegal crossers. I recall that all Premiers recently agreed that the federal government should be responsible and cover costs associated with their decision to encourage and support the illegal crossing of the border as a means to access our immigration system.

I’m interested to know if the minister has received any response to her letter and formal request for reimbursement.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I would be remiss not to say how proud we are on this side of the House to have the member from Brampton West elected here as the first international student ever to be elected in this House. Congratulations.

A few weeks ago, I provided an itemized list of costs that have run up as a result of this irregular issue that’s happening at the border in Quebec. Right now, we have about $200 million and counting on itemized costs. That includes $90 million in social assistance, $74 million in shelter costs—$12 million in shelter costs for Ottawa—$3 million for the Red Cross and $20 million as a result of education.

That $200 million, we have asked the federal government to pay. They have come back to us with no letter, no offer, with only $11 million—a drop in the bucket. So I hope, with the new appointment of Bill Blair as a cabinet minister responsible for the border crossings, that he will come to the table and ensure that we have that.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu: Back to the minister: Minister, it is quite disappointing that there has been no response, not even an acknowledgement. I recall that you testified at a federal government hearing on the impact of crossers. I recall that your testimony to that committee focused on the financial and community impact illegal crossers are having in Ontario.

Minister, the impact of illegal crossers is being felt in our education system, our legal aid system, our social assistance system and in our emergency shelter system. Is the federal government ignoring your testimony and letter? I know from your answer that the cost to our education system is $20 million, the cost to our social assistance system is more than $90 million and the cost to our emergency shelter system is $85 million. Did I see the new federal minister deliver a cheque for only $11 million to the city of Toronto against their emergency shelter cost?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: This is an issue that has captivated the country. All 13 Premiers of this country signed on with our plan to make sure that the federal government would support us, including Liberal and NDP Premiers. Over 67% of Canadians agree with the approach this government has taken in asking the federal government to pay the bills for its failed policies at the border.

We are asking for $200 million; the federal government will give interviews and say that we should take it from the social transfers they send us. I have to ask the federal Liberals: What schools do they want us to close, what hospitals do they want us to close and what services do they not want us to deliver because they won’t pay their bills?

Curriculum

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Acting Premier.

This government’s dangerous decision to drag Ontario backwards to 1998 has mobilized thousands of parents, students, educators, violence-against-women experts and health care professionals who are calling to keep the 2015 curriculum in place.

Some 26 school boards, representing more than 60% of Ontario students, have issued formal statements raising concerns about the harm this change will cause. Some school boards and thousands of teachers have said that they will continue to teach the 2015 curriculum because of their professional obligation to protect the health and well-being of students.

What legal consequences will these school boards and teachers face for refusing to follow ministry direction and doing the right thing for students?

Hon. Christine Elliott: To the Minister of Education.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I appreciate the question, Speaker. Through you, back to the member opposite: We have said all along that we have every confidence in our teachers throughout this province of Ontario, and they’re going to do right by our students.

When we talk about doing right by our students, it also means respecting their parents. We made a campaign promise that we’re going to keep. We are going to respect parents and conduct a very comprehensive con-sultation that I think everybody in this House will be supportive of. I invite them to join me this fall when we kick off the consultation, because we must respect parents. We must provide a forum for all people to contribute their voice.

Do you know what, Speaker? The interesting part about all of this—when I say it’s comprehensive, we’re also going to be taking a look at getting back to the basics. We’re going to be addressing math as well. You just wait.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Supplementary?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has warned that repealing the 2015 curriculum violates Education Act requirements for school boards to “promote a positive school climate that is inclusive and accepting of all” students, and also violates the charter rights of LGBTQ students and families.

Not only is this government putting the health and safety of Ontario students at risk, but it is also creating legal jeopardy for school boards and teachers. Will this government act now to end the chaos and direct school boards to continue using the 2015 curriculum when students return to school in September?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I feel it’s important that we remind the opposition party that their former deputy leader and the current federal leader of the NDP said, “The lack of inclusive consultation before announcing the curriculum was disrespectful to parents.” He went on to say, “I urge the government to sit down with parents and allow an open dialogue before implementing changes.”

Speaker, I am so pleased to share with you that we are going to be working with our parents; we’re going to be keeping our promise to respect them. We are going to be moving forward, and Ontario can trust us when we say we’re going to be addressing what needs to be fixed in the education system. We’re going to be consulting parents in terms of moving forward with our health and physical education curriculum. We’re also going to be talking to our parents about what else needs to be addressed and—

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

Interjections.

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

Next question. Start the clock.

Social assistance

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: Ma question est pour la vice-première ministre. Last week, the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services cancelled the Basic Income Pilot project before the line-by-line audit. She explained her decision in the following terms: The basic income project is a “disincentive” for people to find work. “When you’re encouraging people to accept money without strings attached it really doesn’t send a message that our ministry and our government wants to send.”

Is it the position of the Progressive Conservative government that people who are in receipt of social assistance and who are participating in the Basic Income Pilot are lazy?

Hon. Christine Elliott: To the Minister of Community Services.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Thanks very much for the question. I reject the premise of it. We haven’t cancelled anything yet; we announced that we would be winding it down. We said that we would come forward with a plan in 100 days—94 now—and that during that period of time we would have a 1.5% increase to social assistance rates.

Let me be perfectly clear: We want to help people be successful in this province, and we need to do so with equal measures of head and heart. Compassion can’t simply be measured by dollars and cents. We believe, on this side of the House, that social assistance should be about lifting people up and helping people get their lives back on track. Just giving money away is false hope.

To begin, the basic income is a complicated research project that was failing, plain and simple. The Liberal government had difficulty signing people up, and now a sizable number of those people, over 25% of them, either dropped out or are failing to meet their obligations—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. Supple-mentary?

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: The announcement from the minister was a shock to the participants and to Ontarians, including the former senator and former chief of staff to Ontario PC Premier Bill Davis, Hugh Segal, who said that he had assurances from the Ford campaign that the pilot would be maintained so that Ontario would see the results in terms of health, education and justice outcomes and the potential savings from various public expenditures.

We’re all worried about the orders that the minister has received. I know she’s committed to doing the right thing for the less fortunate, but why is it that we don’t know what’s in stock? My question is, can the Deputy Premier commit today to releasing all the mandate letters of the ministers so that Ontarians know what exactly is in stock, particularly the mandate letter for the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I appreciate the member’s question. Look, given the fact that the Liberal government had difficulties signing people up to this program and that over 25% are either failing to comply or have dropped out, it calls into question whether the research is valid. I have great respect for Senator Segal, as do many people in this caucus. But I have to tell you, when we were left a set of books, the tough choices had to be made. This research project was going to cost $150 million. Where I come from, that’s a lot of money for research that might not be valid.

When I look at the program the previous government wanted to bring forward, it was a $17-billion program on top of a $10-billion social assistance project.

I ask the member opposite, does she think Ontario’s most vulnerable people should see an increase in the HST by 7%? That’s what this government would have done—the previous government. They made terrible decisions that hurt the most vulnerable. But I can assure you, I will never walk away from our most vulnerable—

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

Interjections.

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

Next question.

Community safety

Mr. Billy Pang: My question today is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Last month, Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada published a report that indicated violent crime in Ontario has been seeing an increase of 7.1% since 2016. This report confirmed what we already knew: that gun-and-gang-related violence has increased in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, with the recent brazen and indiscriminate acts of gun violence being seen in our streets, our government for the people has remained committed to public safety and keeping all Ontarians safe. Could the minister please update the members of this Legislature on how this ministry will tackle gun violence in this province?

Hon. Michael Tibollo: Thank you to the member from Markham–Unionville for the question. Public safety, as we’ve always said, is a paramount concern to this government. With the rise in gun and gang violence on our streets, it’s clear that the current strategies no longer support our incredible police services in battling these criminal acts. Ontario’s police services are among the very best in the world and our government will remain committed to providing the brave men and women of these forces with the tools and resources required to do their jobs safely.

At my ministry, Mr. Speaker, ensuring public safety throughout this great province is our number one priority. Our government will continue to remain focused on our commitment to tackling gang and gun violence in Ontario, especially violence within the city of Toronto. The status quo is failing, and we are the only party in this House prepared to do the work that needs to be done.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Billy Pang: Back to the minister: I want to thank the minister for his response. I’m proud to stand here today knowing that our government is committed to tackling gun and gang violence in this province, and providing the men and women of Ontario police services with the tools and resources they so desperately need. Mr. Speaker, policing is a dangerous job, and the men and women of our police services need to understand that our government for the people is here to listen to them, and that we remain committed to ensuring public safety across the province.

To the minister: What action will you take to support our front-line officers in tackling gun violence?

Hon. Michael Tibollo: Once again, thank you for that question. I’d like to again state that this government will continue to meet with our community safety partners over the coming weeks so that we can find solutions necessary to protect Ontarians from being the victims of senseless violence and to keep our first responders safe while performing their duties.

Mr. Speaker, my ministry will be continuing our important work on examining current community safety initiatives and their effectiveness in protecting the people within this great province, as well as our many dedicated first responders. During the election campaign, we made a promise to all Ontarians that we will commit to providing our front-line officers with the tools and resources they need to keep our communities safe. Promises made, promises kept.

Firefighting in northern Ontario

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Northern Ontario is going through one of the worst fire seasons in recent memory. Some of those fires have been categorized by the MNR as being out of control for weeks. Evacuations and evacuation alerts have been issued in many areas. Northerners are very appreciative of the resources that the province and other jurisdictions have put forward to fight these fires.

My question to the minister is: Can the minister assure northerners that all available resources will be requested and that these resources will be focused on the fires until they are brought under control?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: I thank the member very much for his question. It’s true that, due to ongoing dry temper-atures and dry conditions and thunderstorms and wind, we have a record amount of fires throughout Ontario this season. My ministry has been on top of this since day one, putting the necessary resources where they are needed, when they are needed.

There are three types of responses to fires. There’s a full response, which is an initial attack and sustained action until the fire is out. There is a modified response, which is a combination of suppression strategies and monitoring sections within the natural resources. And there’s a monitored response, to assess and determine any additional responses needed.

My ministry is on top of these, working day in and day out. We have called out to other jurisdictions across the province, across the country and across the United States and Mexico to work together to bring these fires under control. We will continue to support our front-line fire crews fighting these fires day in and day out until they are out, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary.

Mr. John Vanthof: Northerners are very appreciative of the heroic efforts of the fire rangers, water bomber crews and everyone else who is involved in fighting this fire. In one case, a firefighter sacrificed his life, and our condolences go out to the Gadwa family.

Many volunteers and community groups have also stepped up to the plate. For some, like tourist camp operators, forestry contractors and one farmer I know who might have to evacuate his dairy herd because of the evacuation notice, their economic survival might be at stake because of this. Can the minister assure them that the province will institute emergency measures to help them survive this economic disaster?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Thanks to the member for that supplemental. We have ongoing right now one of the greatest coordinated events in northern Ontario history, working with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, local OPP and local municipalities and communities to ensure that the safety of the public comes first, followed by the safety of the properties, to ensure that we can protect businesses, we can protect cottages, we can protect private property and public property from the damages of fire. We are succeeding in our efforts in doing so, Mr. Speaker.

On that note, I just want to say to the people travelling up to Parry Sound that Parry Sound is open for business. That fire is 75 to 80 kilometres to the north. I think people going out this weekend—to ensure to continue to go to those areas. Go to ontario.ca. See where the restriction areas are placed. When you do go to the north, start spending some extra money, because those people need the economic support that we are going to give them.

To the member opposite: We will continue to fight these fires. We will keep the public safe, and we will keep properties safe.

Firefighting in northern Ontario

Mr. Norman Miller: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. The forest fire burning in the north end of my riding since July 18, known as Parry Sound 33, has destroyed a huge area of more than 11,000 hectares and, despite being about 75 kilometres north of the town of Parry Sound, has scared a lot of people away from the whole area during this summer tourism season.

I recently heard that there have been some positive developments regarding this fire. Can the minister provide the House and the public with an update on the efforts to battle this forest fire?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Thank you to the member for Parry Sound–Muskoka for that question. I just want to take this opportunity one more time: On behalf of this Legislature and on behalf of the people of this province, I want to thank the fire crews that are working day in and day out and thank the support staff for taking on these fires and ensuring we keep the public safe and keep our properties safe.

Mr. Speaker, I’m happy to report that, over the weekend, the Parry Sound 33 fire—that the fire perimeter has been held. Crews have been able to lay over 300,000 feet of hose to help establish this perimeter around the entire fire and ensure that it’s not spreading further. In many places, crews are now working steadily in from the perimeter to fight this fire.

While this progress is good news, evacuation orders and travel restrictions remain in place in the area. These measures have been put in place to ensure public safety while allowing fire personnel to safely and effectively suppress the fire.

I do want to say, Mr. Speaker, that if you’re going up to Parry Sound, go up and spend lots of money. Let’s support northern Ontario; let’s support their economy.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary.

Mr. Norman Miller: Back to the minister: Thank you for that answer. I know the people of Parry Sound district will be pleased to hear the fire is no longer spreading.

Most media coverage has been on the Parry Sound 33 fire; however, there are other large fires being fought in northern Ontario.

Can the minister provide an update on firefighting efforts in other parts of northern Ontario?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Thank you very much for that supplemental.

I’m happy to report that a combination of improved weather over the weekend and the ongoing work by crews and teams across the province has led to an im-proved situation on many fires in this province.

Of note, the fire in Lady Evelyn-Smoothwater Provincial Park in Temagami, one of the largest fires in the province, is now being held. Provincially, resources are in good supply and most of the actionable fires have received the support they require.

We again would like to commend the hard work and dedication of those who are fighting the fires and, at this time, also thank our partners: the other provinces that have sent help and the United States and Mexico for sending us their support, their firefighters and their equipment.

We will continue our fight against these fires until they are out. Thank you very much for that question.

Mental health services

Ms. Doly Begum: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Last year, Toronto police responded to over 23,000 mental health disturbance calls, there were 12,000 children waiting up to 18 months to access mental health services and front-line hospital staff experienced record levels of violence on the job.

Time and time again our first responders, our communities and our children bear witness to the cracks in our mental health services. Ontarians need more mental health services, not less.

Why is this government cutting $335 million every year from mental health services?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I’d like to thank the member for the question but, in fact, it is incorrect. We are not cutting back on our commitment to funding mental health and addiction services; in fact, we’re making the biggest commitment in Ontario’s history. We’re adding $1.9 billion over 10 years to match the equal federal commitment; $3.8 billion is a lot of money.

We are adding to previous commitments; there is no cut whatsoever. Because you’re quite right: There is a lack of connection for services. We need to make sure our first responders are ready to be able to help people with mental health or addictions problems for their own safety and for the safety of the person who is not well.

We know we need to work with 12 different ministries to connect that patchwork of services to make sure that people have housing and that they have both the mental and physical health services they need to make sure they can get the education they need to be able to get out of poverty. There’s a lot of work that needs to be done.

I’d like to answer more in the supplemental but I think it’s important to note we are adding to—

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

Ms. Doly Begum: Thank you for mentioning housing. For years, mental health professionals have been calling on the government to increase the number of supportive housing units to enable those facing mental health challenges to get the help that they need.

In my community of Scarborough people are waiting for more than 10 years to get supportive housing space. During the campaign, the Conservative Party campaigned on a promise to improve mental health services, not gut them.

Will this government tell the House why they are reneging on their promise?

Hon. Christine Elliott: We made a promise to the people of Ontario that we were going to build a comprehensive mental health and addictions system. We have $3.8 billion to put into that over 10 years and that is what we are going to do.

We have to work on a variety of systems. We want to work with existing mental health service providers out there—CMHA and CAMH—and we want to work with children’s mental health. We want to make sure that everyone from small children to seniors is connected.

But you’re absolutely right; With respect to housing there is a lot more that needs to be done. They say every-one needs a job, a home and a friend; well, the home

part is missing, in many places the job’s missing, and the friends are missing too. We need to fix that. That’s what we’re going to do working across a variety of ministries. It’s not going to be siloed anymore into, “This is the part that I deal with, this is the part that you deal with.” You don’t get a comprehensive system that way. It’s too fragmented.

We are going to connect services and systems so that people will get the right help that they need when they need it.

Taxation

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Last week, the Toronto Sun called the Liberals’ carbon tax scheme plan a “Peter Pan approach to carbon pricing.” The National Post pro-claimed “the Liberals were in retreat over their”—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I ask the member, who is the question to? Which minister?

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.

After years of a government here at Queen’s Park that rolled over any time the federal government asked for anything, we finally have a government that is standing up for the people—sorry, not sorry.

Will the Minister of the Environment commit to this place that he will continue to fight a Trudeau carbon tax of any kind and of any size?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member from Carleton: Thank you for that question.

Last week, I was very pleased to join my colleague the Attorney General as we announced our next steps as a government to fight the Trudeau carbon tax. Our govern-ment promised that we would take steps to protect Ontario families, to help job creators, at the same time as pursuing a real action plan that would support the future of our environment. That plan will not include a regressive carbon tax.

We understand that carbon taxes are not effective, and the people of Ontario understand that a carbon tax will not be revenue neutral. We know it, Ontario businesses know it, the people of Ontario know it and now the Prime Minister is indicating that perhaps he knows it.

With all of the uncertainty in the economy today, with all of the tension in our trade relationships, Ontario does not need a job-killing carbon tax.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Back to the minister: I thank the minister for his response. It’s no surprise the federal government’s plan to impose a carbon tax on the people of Ontario is falling by the wayside. As the minister mentioned, last week our government announced our intentions to vigorously challenge the authority of the federal government to impose a national carbon plan.

I’m proud to know that we are on the side of the people. Just over a week ago, a new poll was released that reported that two thirds of Canadians—64%—agree with our policy and believe that provinces should have jurisdiction over how to reduce emissions.

Will the Minister of the Environment confirm that he will continue to fight for what’s best and for what’s right for the people?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member from Carleton: As the member noted, the federal government has started its climb-down after seeing the writing on the wall not just from the polls, which are interesting, but after direct feedback from Canadian business—Canadian businesses that went to them and said, “We can’t be competitive globally when we have the pressure of this carbon tax.”

The Trudeau government has finally admitted the carbon tax is a bad idea. A tax is a tax, and the federal government is acknowledging that the carbon tax is bad for jobs and bad for investment.

If the Prime Minister is willing to cut carbon tax deals with big business, he should not stop at half measures. He should be willing to eliminate his carbon tax on the people of Ontario. Our message to the Prime Minister was clear: Prime Minister, it’s never too late to do the right thing. Scrap your carbon tax. Stand up for the families of Ontario. Stand up for jobs in Ontario.

Social assistance

Mr. Joel Harden: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Three weeks ago, I asked the minister if the anticipated 3% increase to social assistance rates would be going forward. I asked the minister this because constituents of mine I’ve spoken to in Ottawa have worried that this increase would not be honoured under her government.

The minister responded by saying, “I want to make sure that the people, particularly the most vulnerable, in our province and in our city are looked after.”

Can the minister explain how cutting the incomes of poor people is going to help them?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I’d like to thank the member for his question. We actually are increasing rates by 1.5% across the board for those who are on Ontario Works and ODSP. We had to do this because we had to hit the pause button. The previous Liberal administration left our government a disjointed patchwork system that wasn’t helping people.

What we have decided to do is hit the pause button on that, make sure that a 1.5% across-the-board increase goes through on September 1 and ensure that in 94 days from today, that we have a plan that will lift people up, get them back to work where they can and assist those people who need it most.

I look forward to working with the honourable member opposite, listening to him and listening to those who are in poverty right now.

Did you know that, as a result of failed Liberal policies that that party supported 97% of the time, one in seven Ontarians are in poverty? That’s unacceptable. We’re going to change that.

Interjections.

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

Restart the clock. Supplementary.

Mr. Joel Harden: Speaker, as much as I appreciate the aerobics on the other side, this is a cut, plain and simple. The 1.5% is well below the rate of inflation, and there are thousands of families in our city and in this province who will suffer as a result of that action.

In the meantime, my friends on the opposite side are happy to ask the poor and the disabled to do more with less, but you’re cutting taxes on the most profitable corporations in this province by a billion dollars in lost revenue. So I have a question: Why is this government punishing people who are poor and disabled but handing out buckets in corporate welfare to your wealthy friends?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I welcome the member’s question, and I look forward to speaking with him. But let me assure you that people in need will be heard, not only by me but this government. What we have said is that we are going to fix a disjointed, patchwork system that is keep-ing our most vulnerable down when we should be lifting them up and restoring dignity for those people who need it most.

If someone finds themselves requiring assistance from a program of last resort, we have a responsibility to support that person and get them stabilized and back on track.

But let me tell you something: The current system is broken. One in five people stay on Ontario Works for more than five years. One in seven people in Ontario are living in poverty. More than 200,000 people were added to social assistance over the past 15 years, and right now 46,000 people have been on Ontario Works for more than five years. The number of people who are relying on ODSP has increased by 3% annually; that’s 10,000 people every year.

We can do better. I can do better. We will together—

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

Interjections.

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

Next question. Start the clock.

Taxation

Mr. Toby Barrett: To the Attorney General: Last Thursday our government announced, in keeping with our commitment to people in Ontario, that we’re launch-ing our own challenge of the federal carbon tax in the Ontario Court of Appeal—a challenge we can win. This announcement was made a few short weeks after the Premier announced that Ontario will also be participating in Saskatchewan’s challenge in the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.

While we know that the Trudeau Liberals’ carbon tax will obviously drive up the cost of goods and services we all rely on every day, some have been asking what the rationale is for participating in two challenges. Can the Attorney General share with this House why participating in two challenges is important?

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: I am happy to clarify the necessity of this approach. Ontario is working co-operatively with Saskatchewan to ensure that both provinces’ references proceed as efficiently and as affordably as possible. Combined with our partners in Saskatchewan, our ask of our respective courts of appeal will allow for a broad consideration of all possible arguments regarding the validity of the federal carbon tax.

Anywhere the federal carbon tax is being constitu-tionally challenged, we want to be a part of that fight, Mr. Speaker. We believe this approach can only increase our likelihood of success. We were elected with a mandate to stand up for Ontario taxpayers, and that’s exactly what we’re doing.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary.

Mr. Toby Barrett: Through you, Speaker, I would like to thank the Attorney General for that explanation. We all realize it’s important we stand up for people in Ontario. I know this government is working hard to do just that. I also know it’ll be a great day when we win this challenge for the people of Ontario.

To that end, I’m wondering if the Attorney General can speak a bit more about the benefits of our government’s efforts and what we can see to benefit people in Ontario.

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member from Haldimand–Norfolk for the follow-up question.

I agree wholeheartedly with his comments. Challenging the Trudeau Liberals’ carbon tax is important. Our government campaigned on a promise to the people that we would work hard to put money back in taxpayers’ pockets and bring real relief back to families. By challenging the federal carbon tax, we’re working hard to deliver on these commitments.

As I said in this House last week, our ask of the Ontario Court of Appeal is to provide advice on whether or not the federal carbon tax is unconstitutional in whole or in part. Our legal team is going to work hard and has been working hard to build our case, and our government is confident in our position and that we will win.

I’m also confident that this challenge, which will be using in-house lawyers at the Ministry of the Attorney General, will cost significantly less than initially thought. Our government knows that this challenge will protect the hard-working people of Ontario from an—

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

Indigenous health care

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Mr. Speaker.

Remarks in Oji-Cree.

My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. First Nations communities in my riding have been denied access to adequate health care for far too long. This has to change. There is a severe shortage of medical resources, safe health care infrastructure and medical professionals in northern communities. It’s cost-ing too many lives and causing too many people to suffer.

There was a document that was signed between Canada, Ontario and the Nishnawbe Aski Nation called the Charter of Relationship Principles Governing Health System Transformation in NAN Territory. Will this government commit to fully funding the First Nations health transformation, or will this government renege on that commitment and force people in our communities to continue to suffer?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I thank the member for the question. It is a very serious issue. We’ve had a brief conversation about it before. I recognize that there are serious problems with health care in northern Ontario and some of the fly-in communities as well. This is a priority for me. I look forward to working with you to make sure that we can improve health care outcomes for people across the province. It is unequal distribution. There are inequities there. I do take it seriously. I would like to hear more from you and work with you on this.

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: The needs of the people of the real north cannot be ignored any longer. In Sandy Lake, the nursing station model is not working anymore; it services 3,000-plus. Local residents are filling the gaps because there aren’t enough medical professionals.

In Sandy Lake, Pikangikum and other remote fly-in communities, little children—like five-year-old Brody Meekis—have died of strep throat infections that would have been cured anywhere else. Every single day I hear of families who cannot get the urgent health care they need.

The charter I spoke about calls for accountability, responsibility and resource allocation directly to the communities. Will the minister guarantee that every dollar that’s been committed to First Nations health care will be delivered to our communities?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I was aware of the child who died from strep throat because basic antibiotics weren’t at the nursing station. I have had the opportunity to visit Sandy Lake, and I know there are many other communities that are in a similar situation.

As we have discussed, part of the problem is the fact that there is federal responsibility for some of the fly-in communities to provide health services, but the provincial government operates the ambulance and, of course, the hospital services. They need to be better coordinated.

I certainly will be speaking with the federal minister about that, but I know there are many other issues that need to be solved so that we don’t lose children, we don’t lose people in communities. That would not happen in other parts of Ontario; I agree with you. Much work needs to be done, and I look forward to working with you on that.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): There being no deferred votes, this House stands in recess until 3 p.m. this afternoon

The House recessed from 1140 to 1500.

Members’ Statements

Social assistance

Ms. Rima Berns-McGown: In my riding of Beaches–East York lives a woman I’ll call Alice. Alice is a single mom with two kids. Her daughter attends one of the local high schools. Alice’s son is 10 years old and has a disability that requires him to have frequent appointments at the Holland Bloorview kids rehab hospital. Alice can’t afford to hire someone to take her son to these appointments, so she takes him herself, and because the appointments are so frequent, she can’t take a regular job and relies on social assistance to keep her family housed and fed.

Alice’s landlord recently evicted her on the grounds that he needed her rooms for a family member. She’s having terrible trouble finding somewhere else to live.

Also in my riding lives a man I’ll call George. George has worked hard all his life. He’s a senior now and is being treated for cancer. He relies on ODSP payments to keep a roof over his head. George is on a wait-list for social housing, but he doesn’t know how long he’ll be on the list, and meanwhile the rents in his apartment building creep up and up and up.

Homelessness is a real threat for George and Alice and countless others like them. Now the minister of social services has slashed their OW and ODSP. I would like the minister to look George and Alice in the eye and tell them how compassionate these cuts are. Cutting social assistance in the middle of an affordable housing crisis is not what compassion looks like in Beaches–East York or anywhere else in Ontario.

Blandine Potvin

M. Guy Bourgouin: Le 11 août, je vais participer à la fête d’une jeune dame nommée Blandine Potvin à Val Rita-Harty. La jeune dame est née le 4 septembre 1918. Blandine va fêter ses 100 ans le 11 août à Val Rita.

Blandine est originaire de Saint-Félicien au Lac Saint-Jean. M me Blandine et son mari, Edgard Potvin, sont arrivés à Val Rita en 1953. Ils sont venus s’établir à Val Rita pour cultiver un lot de terre et commencer leur famille. M me Blandine et M. Potvin ont eu 15 enfants. Sa fille Véronique me disait que Blandine et Edgard ont plus de 125 descendants. Dû au nombre d’enfants, M. Potvin a dû aller travailler à la ferme expérimentale de Kapuskasing. Malheureusement, M. Potvin est décédé en 1999, et Blandine ne s’est jamais remariée.

Je veux prendre l’opportunité ici dans cette Chambre pour souhaiter une bonne fête à une centenaire de Val Rita-Harty, M me Blandine Potvin.

Ontario Disability Support Program

Mr. Jeff Burch: Last week I met with two community legal clinics: Justice Niagar