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

February 28, 2018

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2018-Feb-28 (PDF)

L143 - Wed 28 Feb 2018 / Mer 28 fév 2018

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 28 February 2018 Mercredi 28 février 2018

Orders of the Day

Climate Change

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Home care

Forest industry

Hospital funding

Hospital funding

Dental care

Pharmacare

Anti-bullying initiatives

Tobacco control

Public libraries

Taxation

Hospital funding

Horse racing industry

Assistance to flood victims

Court facility

Visitors

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Kevin Junor

Water quality

Elevator maintenance

Chatham-Kent Municipal Heritage Committee

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

Dorothy Cotton

Dewey Educational Group

Global Community Alliance gala

Black History Month

Introduction of Bills

Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology Amendment Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 visant à supprimer les obstacles en audiologie et en orthophonie

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Anti-bullying initiatives

Petitions

Anti-smoking initiatives for youth

Child protection

Guide and service animals

Cardiac care

Injured workers

Curriculum

Pharmacare

Long-term care

Provincial truth and reconciliation day

Orders of the Day

Fairness in Procurement Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur l’équité en matière de marchés publics

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Good morning. Please join me in prayer.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Climate Change

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 22, 2018 on the motion regarding climate change.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further debate.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Good morning, Speaker. It’s always a pleasure to see you seated so comfortably there in that wonderful chair.

It’s a privilege for me to be able to address this issue this morning. Last week—time goes so quickly—I had a chance to listen to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change talk about this issue and I had a chance to listen to two speakers from the Progressive Conservative Party.

The minister, after that speech, can never, ever say he doesn’t know what the impact of climate change is going to be. He cannot at some point say, “No, I wasn’t serious. No, it’s not going to have that big an impact.” He was very clear, he was very firm about the scale of the challenge that faces our society.

But I just want to add a little bit to his remarks for those who may not have had the opportunity to be here last Thursday to hear the minister wax eloquent on this issue. In 2006, the British government commissioned a study by a well-respected scientist, Lord Stern, and he produced a document, one of the most rigorous ever produced, on the cost and the impact of climate change on our planet, on our society.

I will quote a few things. He said, “Climate change will affect the basic elements of life for people around the world—access to water, food production, health, and the environment. Hundreds of millions of people could suffer hunger, water shortages and coastal flooding as the world warms.”

That was more than 10 years ago and things have continued at a pretty good clip since he made that comment. Increasingly, as we look at these things, we think about the potential for hundreds of millions of climate refugees, not the small stream of people from Africa going north through the Mediterranean, risking their lives—in many cases losing their lives—people from Asia, from Syria, from Turkey, from Afghanistan trying to get into western Europe, again, risking and losing their lives on small boats between the coast of Turkey and the Greek islands.

No, we’re talking hundreds of millions of people desperate to find dry land, desperate because their homes have been flooded and will never again be available to them.

Lord Stern goes on to say, “Using the results from formal economic models, the review”—his review—“estimates that if we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever.” And that’s talking not the worst, but what is within sight of the developments that are occurring on an ongoing basis, on an annual basis.

“If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of” gross domestic product “or more.” He noted that the impact of climate change, if not checked by human activity, could be equivalent to one of the great wars of the 20th century or the Great Depression. We all know the impact that those events had on human life: extraordinary loss of life, extraordinary loss of wealth, a world far more violent, far more difficult to live in.

We can see the beginnings of that now. This last fall, there were three Caribbean Gulf of Mexico storms that had significant impact. Hurricane Harvey hit Houston. It brought the largest amount of rain on record from any tropical system, about one and a half metres in about 48 hours. It caused flooding that you’d expect to see every 500 years, causing $200 billion of damage to Houston, Texas. Hurricane Irma, same season, devastated Caribbean communities. It was the second-strongest Atlantic hurricane ever, with sustained winds of 296 kilometres per hour.

Category 5 Maria, following immediately afterwards with sustained winds of 280 kilometres an hour, destroyed Puerto Rico’s power grid. As people are well aware, something like one third of Puerto Rico is still in a situation where people don’t have electricity. Finally, Hurricane Ophelia went past Portugal and Spain. That’s the furthest east any major Atlantic hurricane has ever gone.

We’re seeing a rewrite of the climate as we get closer to a one-degree centigrade increase, and we will see it rewritten even more dramatically if we stay within what the UN considers the safe limit, two degrees. If we go past that, we look at the very grim potential that Lord Stern outlined, of a dramatic reduction in our standard of living globally.

Toronto: People were here for the flooding last summer. It was very unusual. We were looking at losses on a small scale, $8.5 million, but Canadian flooding costs have had a huge impact in this country. The floods in southern Alberta in 2013 cost $2.25 billion. The 2011 floods in Manitoba and Quebec generated $1.1 billion and $78 million in costs, respectively. The Toronto flood in 2013 was the most expensive natural disaster in this province, costing taxpayers an estimated $805 million.

I’m not going to belabour that. You get a sense of the scale of damage and cost, and how that will be reducing our standard of living. Even now, people are finding it difficult to get flood insurance because insurance companies know they’re going to lose out, that the flood is going to happen. This isn’t going to be once every 500 years; this is going to be far more frequent, to the point that it is not worth insuring. It just simply isn’t worth insuring.

I had the opportunity to be at the Paris climate summit a few years ago and listen to a variety of climatologists. I went to a lot of the seminars and noted a few things. Since, globally, we first really acknowledged climate change in 1992, the amount of carbon dioxide we’ve dumped in the atmosphere has grown by 60%. In 1992, knowing that we were looking at very profound problems, very profound threats to our way of life, nothing of substance happened and the amount of risk built up for us and future generations climbed substantially.

Many of the people at the leading edge of this science are recommending that we have to cut our emissions between 3% and 5% a year, every year—so over a decade, cutting our emissions by half. Still, with those kinds of efforts, we would only see a 60% chance of limiting the rise in temperatures to two degrees centigrade. I’ll put it another way: If you had a plane flight that you were going to put your child on and you were told there was a 40% chance of it crashing, what comfort would that give you? What comfort?

The reality is that we have largely ignored this problem. There has been a lot of chatter, a lot of talk, a lot of minor effort, but nothing substantial along the lines of what has to happen—not in this country and not on this continent. Some things are happening that are useful in Europe, and China is doing some good things, but we have been laggards. I’m looking forward to the opportunity to talk about the performance of this government after the stirring speech last Thursday by the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

The motion put forward by the Liberal Party is that we need action on climate change—no disagreement; that’s fine. Saying that pricing carbon is the most effective, the central tool in actually making a difference: I challenge that. I think that pricing can be useful. It can be a tool in a box that can be used to raise funds for the measures that will actually make a difference, but its effectiveness is very limited and, frankly, you can set up a carbon tax in a way that’s quite disadvantageous to low-income and middle-income people.

In 2012, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives did an assessment of carbon pricing in British Columbia. It’s worth reading their document. They note: “Because BC has among the highest levels of poverty and inequality in Canada, a pressing concern is the potential for unfair impacts of carbon pricing on the poorest—those who have done the least to cause the problem. People with low incomes have smaller carbon footprints. Higher prices for home heating and transportation (and other carbon-intensive goods and services) hit the budgets of lower-income people harder than those with higher incomes.

To avert this regressive outcome, revenues must be used to compensate low- to middle-income households, and invest in complementary climate actions....”

When the cap-and-trade bill was before this House, my colleagues and I all argued for a mechanism to give direct rebates to low- and middle-income households so that they could deal with the financial impact of higher prices from the cap-and-trade system. We argued for priority for rural and northern areas because their demand for energy is far less controllable than it is here in downtown Toronto. I can walk to work, but if you’re in northern Ontario and you have to drive 20 or 30 or 40 kilometres to work—there is no bus.

There are times of the year that you might do it on a bike, but it would be awfully tough, and there are times of the year that that’s just not possible. So there needs to be a special allocation of resources for those areas, not put in the plan and rejected at committee—a huge mistake.

With what I’ve noted—the impact on low-income people in British Columbia—I want to say as well that the actual carbon tax put in place by the British Columbia government has had almost no impact at all. According to modelling done for the BC government, the carbon tax will reduce BC emissions by only 4% of the growing business as usual. To be effective in reducing emissions, the tax would have to be much higher than it currently is. When you actually don’t reduce the emissions but you reduce the amount that later would have been, you’re not doing what has to be done.

We actually need to see emissions going down by 3% to 5% a year. We don’t need to see simply a reduction in the height that they reach; we need them to be going downwards.

I’ll just note again about low-income people in British Columbia: “Even after tax cuts and credits are figured in, the carbon tax has a disproportionate impact on low-income British Columbians, and most benefits the highest-income households that are also the biggest emitters....

“The carbon tax as a share of income shows a regressive pattern. In 2010, households in the bottom 10% would pay 1.3% of their income in carbon tax,

whereas the top 10% would pay only 0.3%, and the top 1% would pay 0.2%.”

In other words, the money is going back but it’s not going back to the people who are hit hardest; it’s going back to the wealthiest. It is a system that we can’t replicate here. It’s the reason that we haven’t supported cap-and-trade. The carbon tax that’s set up in British Columbia makes rich people richer and poor people poorer. It is a bad model.

In 2016, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives updated their critique of the system and they noted that since 2010, British Columbia’s greenhouse gas emissions had increased every year. As of 2013, they were 4.3% higher than their 2010 levels. In 2016, British Columbia conceded that it can’t meet its 2020 climate targets. The most lauded program in this country, a program that focused on price, which is what the Liberal government is all about, can’t even meet the greenhouse gas targets in the province where it is the central pillar.

Speaker, if you want to know what has made an impact, it’s regulatory action, something that the Liberals haven’t talked about, something they don’t see as central, but in fact, regulatory action has the greatest impact. The biggest reduction attributed to any Canadian policy, pricing or otherwise, came from Ontario’s ban on coal-fired electricity generation, something that this party supported, something, I must concede, the Progressive Conservatives also supported, and something, I will concede, the government supported. It had far more impact than carbon pricing.

I want to talk a bit about cap-and-trade in California. There are a number of critiques that have been written about what’s really going on there and we need to be aware of them because, as we go forward—with the good grace of voters, we may well be the government—we are going to have to rewrite that cap-and-trade plan. I want to say to all of you, when you dig into the literature, the actual pricing in California has had almost no impact whatsoever on the emissions of carbon dioxide.

I was fascinated when I was Googling around that it is very hard to find on any official California website the amount of emissions reduced by the price itself, as much as this government and that Minister of the Environment are totally focused on price. There is a think tank in California, Near Zero. Take a look at it on the website: some pretty heavy-duty hitters in the world of economics and climate science.

They note that California’s climate emissions are falling, but cap-and-trade is not the cause; that greenhouse gas emissions were down about 5% from 2015 and 2016, but the key sectors that were covered by cap-and-trade, notably transportation, fuel suppliers and refining, actually reported higher emissions in 2016. They were capped and their emissions went up. They write that “based on available emissions and electricity data, that the state’s cap-and-trade program is not driving observed reductions.”

The progress that is actually reported by the California Air Resources Board is related to the electricity sector, where regulations and some market choices have driven reductions, not the carbon price. They note: Why is that? Why isn’t price driving down use the way the Liberal minister says it should? Because, in fact, the number of allowances to burn fuel far exceed the amount of fuel that’s burned. So it’s very easy to buy cheap credits or cheap allowances, far cheaper than actually making a difference in your operations, and far different from actually making the investments and putting in new equipment.

It’s just simply cheaper to buy those allowances. That’s a reality in California and that’s a problem that we would face.

I want to talk very briefly again about pricing and I want to quote Mark Jaccard. Mark Jaccard is an energy economist at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, very well respected in Canadian climate and energy circles. In fact, a lot of his analysis was at the core of Stéphane Dion’s 2004 climate plan, the one that was supposed to implement Kyoto.

Now, I had the opportunity at the time to analyze it. It wouldn’t have gotten us anywhere near Kyoto, but there was some substance in it, and most of that came from Jaccard. He says, if you actually want to make a difference, “that significant emissions reductions will happen only if we rapidly switch to zero- and partially-zero-emissions technologies. Fortunately, these are now commercially available.

But they won’t be widely adopted unless technologies that burn coal, oil and natural gas are phased out by regulations or made costly to operate by carbon pricing.” But he notes that the carbon prices that are charged in Canada are far too low to actually make a difference, which is what we see in British Columbia.

He helped Gordon Campbell do his carbon tax in BC. He did the initial work. But they found that there was a political ceiling on what they could actually put in place, at about $30 a tonne. Alberta says it will match that in 2018, but after that, it’s followed by very tiny annual increases. Quebec’s carbon price is $15, not slated to reach $30 for at least a decade. Ontario intends to match Quebec. Frankly, for all of these things, there are partial exemptions for different groups.

Jaccard writes that if you actually wanted to have a carbon price that would bite, that would push people to shift technologies, you’d have to be going at about 160 bucks a tonne, almost 10 times what we’re looking at here in Ontario. Politically, I say to all of you, I don’t think that’s feasible, and Jaccard makes similar comments in his analysis. The bulk of what we’re going to have to do is through regulation and investment, and I’ll talk about that later in the time that’s allotted to me. But to think that you can have a plan that’s effective with pricing at the core just doesn’t work out. It is not supported by real-world experience.

He noted, and I said to you earlier, that in Canada, the biggest impact in terms of reduction of greenhouse gas emissions came from the phase-out of coal in Ontario. But then he notes, what about British Columbia? I’ll quote him: “Surely, then, BC’s carbon tax must have caused the most reductions in that province. Wrong again. The 2007 ‘clean electricity’ regulation forced BC Hydro to cancel two private coal plants and its own gas plant. This cut BC’s projected annual emissions in 2020 by 12 to 18” megatonnes. “The carbon tax is slated to reduce 2020 annual emissions by three to five” megatonnes.

If you are talking about real impact and the change that’s needed to avoid the dire consequences outlined by the Minister of the Environment, you can’t rely on price alone. You have to go to regulation.

Now, I read to you comments from the think tank Near Zero about California. Mark Jaccard, Canadian professor of energy economics, well respected, said that “the carbon pricing policy in California ... will have almost no effect by 2020. Ninety percent of that state’s current and projected reductions are attributed to innovative, flexible regulations on electricity, fuels, vehicles, buildings, appliances, equipment and land use”—so, this grand California pricing scheme, which could work better if they weren’t putting out tons of allowances that say to operators, say to manufacturers, say to oil companies, “You really don’t have to do anything. You can buy these cheap credits.”

He notes that, “Even Scandinavian countries, famous for two decades of carbon taxes, mostly used regulations to reduce emissions. For example, the greatest” carbon dioxide “reductions in Sweden happened when publicly owned district heat providers were forced to switch fuels.”

I think we should vote for this motion, because we have to make it very clear that carbon has to be reduced, that climate action has to be taken. We think that pricing can be useful as a tool. But I have to say, it’s a flawed motion in that setting pricing at the centre is not actually going to give us the results that we need to avoid the dire consequences outlined by the minister.

Now, the minister said that this was a challenge for the future of our civilization. I have to say, there was a real Groundhog Day moment, because I was here in 2006 and 2007, when Dalton McGuinty said the same thing. He said that this was the highest priority of the government. I was there when we went through the cap-and-trade bill that subsequently got set aside in some dusty filing cabinet somewhere in the Whitney Block, never to see the surface again, until a new version was revived by Minister Murray.

I thought at the time, if this is the way you treat your highest-priority issues that threaten society, god help us when you’re dealing with the stuff that isn’t that important, because nothing is going to happen there.

The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario most recently brought out her report on greenhouse gas emissions and she talked about a few elements of the behaviour of this government. She noted that there was an underreporting of emissions to the Ontario public service, saying that, in fact, the emissions were double what’s reported. Now, how serious are you when you’re so dramatically underreporting your actual behaviour? She talked about the matching of money and goals for the greenhouse gas reduction account. She said that “no one is accountable for real results.”

I have to say to you, Speaker, when you have billions of dollars on the table being spent and no one is accountable for real results, as you might well imagine, strange things happen. In Quebec a few years ago, they had a scandal over the fact that their greenhouse gas reduction money was used to fix the tail assembly on an Air Canada jet. I don’t know how that relates to climate change. Maybe it made the jet more efficient to be repaired with that money. It was also used to build an oil pipeline along the north shore of the St. Lawrence; again, a mystery to me how that actually comes through.

But when you don’t have anyone accountable or responsible for actually delivering the goods, making sure the money is spent effectively, that opens the door to abuse of the funds and a waste of potential, because money does not come easily. It is hard to get. It’s hard on people to pay it out. It has to be used in the most effective manner possible.

She notes, “No one is accountable for the cost effectiveness of” the greenhouse gas reduction account. “And no one is accountable to link the total cap-and-trade proceeds to any specific level of economy-wide GHGs, not even to the 9.8 mt promised in the action plan.”

We’ve got a ship that’s just drifting, rudderless, out on the open water. It looks like it’s afloat, but it’s not going anywhere. No one is steering it. The Environmental Commissioner, I think, was very gentle with the government on this, very gentle. She noted that this needs to change. And she also noted there was no plan for the 18% of emissions not covered by cap-and-trade.

For the emissions that were covered, we’ve got a rudderless ship; for a big chunk, almost a fifth of the emissions, no plan at all; and, as we had proposed—these weren’t her words—no focus on the north, on rural areas, and no focus on low-income people. If you want to have political support for transitioning a society from one energy system to another, you have to deal with the people who are most directly impacted, who will have the most difficulty with that transition.

But it isn’t just the greenhouse gas reduction plan. The Environmental Commissioner put out a blog in November 2017 looking at the long-term energy plan. As she noted, the long-term energy plan is supposed to be Ontario’s plan for energy. Speaker, the bulk of our greenhouse gas emissions in this province come from the energy sector. They don’t come from agriculture. They don’t come from emissions from cement plants. They come from burning coal, oil and gas. She said, “The 2017 long-term energy plan ... fails to address the most pressing energy question of our time: how will we transform our energy systems ... to meet our ambitious future climate targets?”

The signature document on how Ontario would deal with energy—completely out of sync with this greenhouse gas reduction plan. Again, going back to this idea, no one is really in charge; no one is looking for where the ship needs to go. We’re drifting. We do things that may look good, that may look fabulous on a flyer, that will look really good on a YouTube commercial, but will not actually deal with the emissions that we have to deal with.

She closed by saying, “The most glaring absence from the LTEP is its failure to plan for fuel use ... other than electricity. Instead,” as she says, “the LTEP gives that important topic a shoulder shrug”—“Yeah, we thought about it. We didn’t do anything, but it’s okay.”

Again, I’ll go back to the minister’s comments. He said that the Liberal cap-and-investment program is having an effect; the reality is we have to act, we have to listen to climatologists; that the government is engaged in real actions; that the price on carbon is the most important part of what we’re doing; that that’s the lowest cost to the province; it’s more effective than carbon taxes; businesses need certainty, and the cap-and-trade does it.

He said that it generated $1.9 billion a year, which, as I have pointed out, is not actually being monitored by anyone. It is not being directed by anyone. No one is accountable for its spending. No one is checking to see its cost-effectiveness. But almost 2 billion bucks a year is drifting around out there.

Speaker, you have to actually look at what the record is on the ground: What are the failings? Between 2015 and 2020, we have to reduce emissions to meet our targets by 19 megatonnes. And our Auditor General actually spoke about that at some length. I would like to quote her, because I think she has very good things to say:

Section 4.3: “Ontario cap-and-trade will not significantly lower actual emissions up to 2020.

“Under its plans to link its cap-and-trade system with Quebec and California, Ontario is expected to achieve only a relatively small reduction in actual emissions within Ontario from implementation through to 2020.”

She notes: “The ministry did limited analysis of alternative approaches prior to selecting a cap-and-trade system linked to Quebec and California in 2008 as a means of reducing emissions in Ontario.”

In fact, she notes that, “In May 2016, the ministry received and made public an economic analysis of alternatives from its environmental consultant, entitled Impact Modelling and Analysis of Ontario Cap and Trade Program.”

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I see the member from Essex.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Speaker, on a point of order [inaudible].

I wonder if the sidebars could subside.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Be respectful for the debate.

I return to the member from Toronto–Danforth to continue.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: The ministry itself commissioned an impact modelling and analysis of the Ontario cap-and-trade program. The Auditor General reproduces in her report the analysis commissioned by the ministry, and it’s quite something to see, because she said that the consultants hired by the ministry forecast that of the required 18.7 megatonnes in reductions, only about 3.8 megatonnes in would actually be reduced in Ontario, and the remaining amounts would be reduced in Quebec and California.

Now, I want to say to you, Speaker, that the Auditor General was being far too generous to say that there would actually be reductions in Quebec and California from Ontario buying allowances. When you buy an allowance, that isn’t a certificate saying that some carbon dioxide was not emitted somewhere. It’s just simply a legal instrument that allows you to emit a tonne of carbon. So if you buy all of these allowances, you can say on paper, “Hey, I’m a great province. I’ve covered all of my problems. I’m here. I’m good.” But all you have is paper. You don’t have reductions.

You don’t actually have a project that has reduced the emissions that will produce the catastrophic effects that the minister has outlined.

The minister knows what’s going to happen if we don’t act, and yet what we get—I’m sorry; I’m at a loss for words because they’re all unparliamentary. Your imagination could run riot, Speaker. I’m sure you could think of many unparliamentary words that I might be tempted to use right now. But, if you see a child in peril and you say to everyone, “That child is in peril,” and you don’t act, what kind of person are you?

Donald Trump, the other day, talked about how if he’d been in Florida outside of that high school, he would have run in to confront that shooter. I’m not sure that most people would consider that credible. And I have to say, the minister knows what’s going to happen. He made it very clear in his speech.

He cannot ever say in the future, “Jeez, I didn’t know that hundreds of millions of people would be driven out of their homes or that our standard of living would come crashing down to the same level as the Great Depression.” He knows, and yet he continues on a path that will see us making miniscule changes in our emissions and covering it all up by buying paper allowances. That is not responsible. That is reprehensible, because this will have real consequences.

I might have said, 10 years ago, that my kid would be facing a pretty difficult life. I would have been right, but now I would say that in the next decade we are going to see far more substantial damage than anyone in climate science has projected a decade and a half ago. Things are moving much more quickly. The impact is much greater. This minister knows what he’s not doing. He’s doing it consciously. He’s going to have an impact on our lives because of his negligence.

The Auditor General says, “The ministry’s analysis also indicates that under the linked cap-and-trade system, many Ontario businesses are initially more likely to buy allowances—almost 15” megatonnes’ “worth in 2020—rather than pay for the more expensive equipment needed to actually reduce emissions.”

In his speech, the minister talked about a study done at the Oxford Martin School about the beneficial effects of a carbon tax. If you look at the abstract from that study, what it says is that because the price of fossil fuels is higher, companies will invest in machinery that will allow them to avoid carbon emissions; thus, it will strengthen them as corporations and it will strengthen the economy as whole. But if they aren’t spending the money in their factories, their offices, their trucks—but just buying paper indulgences from California—that isn’t going to make for a stronger economy; that’s going to undermine everything he had to say.

The Auditor General looked at a number of things in the climate change action plan. Like the Auditor General, I looked at them and I was pretty puzzled by them. I have to say that the climate change action plan claims that we reduce emissions by 9.8 megatonnes, which is half of what we need to do and far more than the minister’s own consultants said we would do. But let’s look at this failure of doing only a half a job. The Auditor General notes that the “action plan contains unrealistic or unsubstantiated assumptions.” I think that’s a fair comment. “These include:

“Electricity price reductions will have marginal impact.” About three megatonnes of reductions come from putting money into the electricity sector. She notes that “neither the ministry nor the provincial agency that oversees Ontario’s electricity system could show how they arrived at” this three-megatonne estimate of reductions. In other words, they have a big chunk of their already-weak plan unsubstantiated. It’s not just paper cover for a whole bunch of not doing, but for what you say you’re doing, you don’t have any substance. You don’t have any substance.

There’s no plan for achieving the renewable natural gas goal. Some $100 million is allocated to help natural gas distributors increase their use of biogas. But Speaker, the resources are not there to produce that renewable natural gas. It’s a fantasy. It is a child’s tale. It is a very bad-news bedtime story. But it’s not there.

She notes that the action plan commits about $1 billion to previously approved initiatives. Some initiatives such as the regional express rail transit project were approved years before the action plan was created. So in fact, money that’s raised from cap-and-trade is going to plans that were already made and funds allocated. We’re not getting new action. We’re not moving closer to the goal we have to move to. We’re just making the books look better. That’s it.

The Minister can talk about the grave things that will happen to us, our children and grandchildren, but what he’s doing is making sure that the chances of those grave things happening are far higher than they would otherwise be, because he’s not actually acting.

In her study, the Auditor General noted, “The ministry achieved significant reductions in greenhouse gases by 2014,” and she notes two things: the closing of coal-fired power plants—a good thing—and, “The ministry has also said that, had it not been for the 2008 economic downturn, Ontario would likely not have met its 2014 emission target.” So with all the pious talk, we wouldn’t have met the 2014 targets unless we had a recession.

That is not a climate plan; that is just bumbling. That is just stumbling around in the dark, hoping something will happen that’s not too painful. So we had a recession. We had emission reductions. But we didn’t have reductions because you had a thought-through plan with investments and real energy put into it.

Speaker, that course of action—if I can call it that—that the government has embarked upon is, to be extraordinarily generous, weak and irresponsible. Actually taking on the climate crisis is going to be tough, profoundly tough.

We can use regulation, and I’ll talk about that further. We can use investment and loans; I can talk about that. We can use pricing to raise money. But if we do all of those things and we don’t have a coherent system to drive it all, with people held accountable for results and a matching of plans to effectiveness, then it will be all for naught.

We’re talking about a very tough political fight when we’re talking about climate change. It’s not simply a technical issue. It is not simply a question of a policy here or a policy there. You’re talking about profoundly powerful forces that are extremely happy with the status quo. Trillions of dollars are on the table. Hundreds of billions and trillions flow through the hands of fossil fuel companies globally, annually. When you start to say, “Maybe we shouldn’t be doing this,” you are threatening those trillions of dollars.

Those political forces are very happy to spend the money they need to spend to defend the status quo and keep things going exactly as they are. They don’t think they’re going to be the climate refugees; they think that their well-appointed, green, well-trimmed estate in upstate New York or in Texas or in California is far enough above the sea that they aren’t going to be hit, that they have enough money that they can afford to protect themselves, shelter themselves. They are quite willing to burn everything and put us in jeopardy so that they can continue having the status quo.

So on the one hand you have a determined proponent of a course of action with almost infinite amounts of money to put on the table, and on the other side you have the public that increasingly has a sense of this issue as a problem but doesn’t see it as threatening their future in the way that it is, and so they’re softer on the issue. They think it would be a good thing to have action on climate, but not generally a critical thing.

Again, public opinion is changing. Every time people get flooded out of their homes, every time they get flooded out of their homes twice in a year, every time hurricanes go through their vacation spots and they see the destruction, they get a sense that something is awry here, that something has gone amiss. But they’re still not as focused as those fossil fuel companies.

So when we take on this issue, there are a number of things that we have to do to be successful.

I see pricing as very limited, in part because politically it puts a large burden on low- and middle-income people. There is no point in saying to them, “We have to deal with this problem, so just for a while we’re going to drop your standard of living,” because a lot of people don’t have a lot of room; they can’t see a large drop in their standard of living without substantial pain.

The course of the Australian Labor Party was instructive to me—how they adopted a carbon tax in a coalition government and were thrown out in the next election and replaced by a government that relentlessly fights against any action on climate change.

You have to be careful. I think the level that we’re collecting in Ontario is politically sustainable, but I don’t think 160 bucks a tonne is politically sustainable. If we’re going to move forward on this issue, we have to be very cautious and thoughtful about the building of coalitions of interest. We need to speak to people.

My colleague from Essex knows people who were flooded out in Windsor. He knows the impact on their lives. My colleague from Algoma–Manitoulin knows about the flooding that happened in Thunder Bay a number of years ago.

I had an opportunity in Thunder Bay a year ago to talk to the head of NAN, and I asked him what his concerns were. This was a little while after the fire in Fort McMurray. He said, “One of our big worries is that there will be a wildfire and we will have a community that won’t be able to get out.”

There’s the potential to make common cause with those who have already seen the concrete impact. There’s the potential to make common cause with manufacturers and with labour around the rebuilding that is going to be necessary in Ontario to move away from fossil fuels. We import about $35 billion to $40 billion a year in fossil fuels into this province. That’s about twice the cost of the electricity system. It’s a lot of money, and we send money out of this province to get those goods.

To the extent that we can replace that fossil fuel in Ontario with Ontario labour and Ontario products, we build a constituency for action on climate change because people relate it to jobs and a better way of life, to a higher standard of living. You have to go in that direction. You have to consciously nurture those coalitions and nurture those constituencies that can have a better life coming out of investment in climate action. You need to put in place regulations that deal with the issues at a fairly low cost to society as a whole.

I came across an

article published in 2016 in desmog.ca, which does pretty good work on climate news. They talked about an agreement between then-President Obama and Canada on reducing methane emissions from oil and gas operations. The natural gas that we use to heat our homes is leaking out of oil and gas operations at an incredible rate. Tens of millions of dollars’ worth of methane is going up into the atmosphere, and it’s a far more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. It really, substantially raises temperatures.

They found that simply by adopting best practices—nothing exotic technologically, just best practices for all oil and gas companies—that they could cut methane emissions by 45%. In Canada, that’s equivalent to eliminating all the cars in British Columbia and Alberta. That’s a regulation you could pass, because you’re saying, “We’re not asking you to do anything exotic; just find out who’s got the best practice and do that and save money and save the climate.” We need those kinds of regulations.

We need regulations for very high-efficiency housing. Frankly, I think when you do that, you’re going to have to look at a financing package to deal with the higher initial capital cost, but you can do that. You need to invest in people’s homes so that people can take their homes close to net zero. They can get off natural gas so that they can have a home that’s affordable, that’s comfortable and no longer contributes to the climate crisis.

I had an opportunity, Speaker, in the 1990s as a city councillor in Toronto to deal with two linked problems: climate change and unemployment—because there was a recession in the early 1990s. I talked to a lot of people, and with some colleagues I put together a committee looking at developing an energy efficiency program for the city of Toronto for commercial buildings, for businesses, because there’s a lot of job opportunity there as well as emission reduction opportunity. We had great buy-in from the business community and we had great buy-in from labour.

We were successful in starting the fund off at about $12 million, and it has continued chugging along over the years, creating jobs and reducing emissions.

But what was really instructive to me was trying to deal with small businesses. I guess the classic example is a corner store, a retail operator. What we found, talking to them, is that they didn’t have the capital to buy highly efficient equipment, so they bought the cheapest cooler they could, because they needed to cool their pop; they bought the cheapest freezer they could, because they had to have frozen ice cream. You could crank up the electricity cost on them, but they didn’t have the capital to go and switch out those pieces of equipment.

The obstacle was really capital rather than the price not being high enough, because the price was high enough. These folks operate on very tight margins, but they don’t have the capital to make the transition.

So if you’re going to make a difference, put in place regulations that cut costs with the least amount of disruption, at least initially. Start the ball rolling. Make investments in people’s homes, in people’s businesses so that they can save money and help the climate, and put people to work. When you’ve got all of those things together, then you have the potential for a societal consensus moving forward.

Now be very clear: Oil, gas and coal interests will not want this to happen. They do not want a reduction in their market. They will fight this politically; they are fighting this politically. But if we’re going to be successful, a motion that says that “our primary tool is pricing” is very weak. We support action on climate; we think pricing can be a useful tool, but it is a total misunderstanding of the problems before us to put things as the Minister of the Environment has.

Speaker, I don’t think I have a lot more that’s new to say. I want to say that I had an opportunity to listen to my colleagues from the Progressive Conservative Party. I would say that it’s fair to characterize them with regard to this issue as sticking their heads in the sand. They don’t want to hear about it; they don’t want to act on it.

But I do want to say about the government, the Liberals, that their approach is to throw sand in your eyes. They know the problems there. They’re doing the least they can do to get away with it and they just obscure it all the time to make sure that no one knows what’s really going on, to let it appear that they’re doing something when they’re doing the least possible. It’s irresponsible. It’s dangerous. And when these pages are in their thirties and with their families, they’ll look back at the negligence of this chamber and be extraordinarily angry.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Further debate.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: It’s really a pleasure for me to rise in the House today and to speak about this very important issue. I represent the riding of Scarborough–Guildwood. It is an ecologically sensitive riding. It’s located right on the shores of Lake Ontario. The beautiful Scarborough Bluffs rise majestically in my community. So issues of climate and the environment are very important to me, and I want to assure this House and the members in this House that this government takes this issue very seriously, is taking action and is getting results. We are aiming to achieve 15% below 1990 emissions levels in 2020, 37% in 2030 and 80% in 2050.

I want to say that I will be sharing my time with the member from Beaches–East York, as well, because we have a lot to say on this issue. We’re doing a lot and we’re being recognized for that. Last month, the—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I recognize the member from Algoma–Manitoulin.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Point of order: Do we have a quorum?

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I will turn to the Clerk.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Tonia Grannum): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Tonia Grannum): A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I will return to the minister.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: As I was saying, last month, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario recognized that Ontario is on track to meet our 2020 goal. So we are taking action. The province achieved this goal by taking bold steps, including closing all of Ontario’s coal-fired electricity generating stations. The member was speaking about what it was like 10 years ago. I have to say that since shutting down the coal-fired plants, we have seen the number of smog days drop from 53 in 2005 to zero in 2017. I remember those smog alert days and how difficult it was to breathe. We have taken action to clean up our air, to clean up our environment, so that everyone can breathe a little bit easier.

When we talk about climate change and we listen to the parties opposite, the PCs deny that climate change even exists. They are flip-flopping all over when it comes to taking any action. We simply cannot trust anything they say on this particular issue, because it just blows in the wind. But I’m surprised by the third party, because what I am hearing is that they have their head in the sand, not recognizing that concrete action is needed, that we have to take actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, that we have to then encourage a carbon-neutral economy by reinvesting those proceeds in initiatives that will solve the tremendous challenges that we face as a society.

When I think about my great riding of Scarborough–Guildwood and I think about all the ways that our environment touches my community, I remember the ice storm. I was just newly elected in 2013, and this storm pounded my community and knocked out power in many different parts of the community, in some very vulnerable areas. I recognize that we have to be serious about our actions in terms of our environment.

My community has some of the most beautiful ecological areas: the Rouge National Urban Park, Morningside Park. It is an absolute jewel in our city. We have the Highland Creek that runs through it. I’ve seen salmon go there and spawn—absolutely beautiful. But we cannot take this for granted. We have to have our policies and our programs in place that absolutely protect our environment.

Just recently, the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change and I went to the University of Guelph-Humber campus to announce the proceeds of our cap-and-trade, cap-and-invest program, which is being put right back into projects that are creating greener campuses, better learning environments for students and improving efficiencies in their systems, like new boilers and HVAC systems, and is also involving students in the transformation of those campuses and in the learning.

As we prepare the next generation, it’s important that they’re learning in environments that are inspiring to them, that are the best learning environments possible. We are making those investments through the proceeds that we received through the auction.

The member talked about the quality of offsets. The quality of offsets has to be done to a high standard because the whole purpose of this system is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and, for those who purchase offsets, we are reducing that cap each and every time so that we can lower those emissions over time. This is about Ontario putting a price on carbon so that we can decarbonize our economy. We can create a carbon-neutral economy and a safe and healthy environment for all of our citizens to enjoy.

The real impacts of climate change can be felt. Those who deny climate change are really denying what is happening in the world. When we think even just of this winter, we have polar vortexes now that are being reported in the media, and we’re experiencing that. That’s not something I remember growing up in Ontario. Yes, we had severe winters and really bad winters, but I didn’t hear about those big swings in temperature and polar vortexes. Now we’re enjoying spring-like temperatures, and it’s just the end of February. Climate change is real.

It’s something that is affecting us as a society, and our government is taking action to make sure we protect the future of our province and our country for the next generation.

I really value the opportunity each and every time to rise in this House to speak. It’s a privilege. I know that when I’m in my community, I can stand proudly and say that this government is taking real leadership. We’re the only ones taking real action on climate change. Others are denying; others are burying their heads in the sand. We’re taking action; we are seeing those results and we will continue to move forward.

We introduced the Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act in 2016, which outlines the steps we’re taking to make sure we deal with climate change head-on, and that is what we intend to do.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I turn to the member from Beaches–East York.

Mr. Arthur Potts: Thank you, Speaker. I’m delighted to be here and have an opportunity to discuss and debate this motion from the member from—well, the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

I had the pleasure of serving as his parliamentary assistant, and when I was parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, I was tasked with the opportunity to help spirit through the bill we were just talking about, the low-carbon bill, so we could put into place in Ontario a cap-and-trade program that would help address immediately the carbon footprint of the people of Ontario. I said at the time, and we need to continue to repeat it, that was, I believe, one of the most important pieces of legislation we brought forward during that year and probably during this term—that, coupled with the circular economy act.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I’m going to return to the member from Beaches–East York.

Mr. Arthur Potts: Thank you, Speaker, and thank you very much to the Minister of Infrastructure and Economic Growth, who is here to support me.

I was delighted to be able to share this time with the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Development. She put very clearly some of the problems that we see, particularly on the other side of the House with their flip-flop attitude towards whether climate change is real.

We know that in the people’s promise or people’s magazine that they put out, there’s a

section where they talk about climate change, which looks to me like they were actually saying, “We don’t believe it’s real. We’re just going to go along and put it in place because the federal government is going to make us do it.” It wasn’t a commitment that they actually took seriously—the issues associated with climate change and putting a price on carbon. They just wanted to do it because the feds, they said, were making them. That was how they were going to use the millions of dollars to be raised under the federal scheme in order to pay for many of the promises that they were making in the people’s scheme.

Now, as the minister pointed out, we have all four leaders—who, incidentally, when they agreed as part of the nomination process to run for leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, had to sign off a document that said that they supported all the points that were put forward in the people’s scheme. What is incredible is, here they are, right out of the gate, and they are already turning their back on the PC program that was democratically adopted at their policy convention. That’s quite surprising to me.

The federal plan is premised ultimately on a $50-a-tonne price on carbon—$50 a tonne. We have taken the approach in Ontario, on our cap-and-trade legislation, which is premised on a price of carbon at $17 a tonne. We’re able to do that and get predictable savings in carbon usage in Ontario using $17 a tonne because we’re able to take the proceeds from cap-and-trade and put it specifically and directly into programs where we’ll get the best bang for our buck to lower our carbon footprint.

We’re doing that right now. In fact, last year, in the four auctions that we held, we raised $1.9 billion through our cap-and-trade program, which by law needs to go to carbon-reducing programs. You’re seeing it; the programs are being released.

The investment we’re making in electric vehicles: Speaker, do you know that this last month, for the first time, Ontario now has more electric and hybrid-electric vehicles on the road than Quebec? This is a milestone, and it’s because of the investments that we have committed to, not just in providing funds to people who buy electric vehicles—up to $14,000 for a vehicle—but also because we’re investing in the charging infrastructure so that people with electric vehicles can plan their trips to recharge in the long haul and get where they need to be in an electric vehicle.

I had the pleasure of coming in today using my partner’s car. She’s got a Countryman hybrid. From my area in Beaches–York, at Main and Kingston Road, to here, not a single molecule of carbon was burned. I was able to come in here in a hybrid vehicle which gets about 25 kilometres on a battery charge. We charge it at night. It’s more than enough for her to get back and forth from work—she works at Coxwell and Danforth—and it’s more than enough for me to get here and most of the way home most days.

What I’d like to see is the Legislature having charging stations. The time is coming where we should be having charging stations around the precinct so that people can bring their cars, charge them up and go back at night.

The federal program that I talked about is $50 a tonne. When I was out in Alberta—you may recall that I was on an episode of Political Blind Date, Speaker. I was paired up with a wonderful woman, a Tory from northern Alberta, an MP—Shannon Stubbs. I went out to visit her community.

There I was on a farm, talking with this wonderful rancher. He had 1,500 head of free-range cattle. He was really concerned because he saw that the price of carbon that the feds were imposing on Alberta was going to cost him, he estimated, $100,000 a year. He looked at his wonderful wife and his two young children and he said, “How am I going to afford to put these kids through school?”

I explained to him the difference, about how we were doing this in Ontario, using a cap-and-trade program with targeted investments to reduce carbon. I explained to him that he was focusing too much on the costs associated with the cap-and-trade program and not enough on the benefits.

We’ll put aside the health benefits for now. The minister talked about the health benefits associated with getting off coal. I used to be a publicist for Pollution Probe; we had the clean commute days. We used to say that the equivalent of a jumbo jet was crash-landing in the Toronto area every year, causing the deaths of 350 to 400 people, and nobody noticed. That was the damage associated with the smog and pollution: premature deaths for people who were suffering from asthma, for instance. So we fixed it. We fixed the health impacts.

I told him, “Putting that issue aside, if you were doing this in Ontario on your ranch and the cost was $17, that would be only a $30,000 cost to your family, but you would be able to participate in programs that we’re now putting forward in Ontario; the GreenON programs, for instance. We could be subsidizing a hybrid or a hydrogen-powered tractor or pickup truck for your farm. We could be subsidizing putting in new windows and insulation, or smart thermostats in your house to reduce the amount of energy that you’re burning.”

When I started to put it in the context of what the benefits were, he completely came around. It was like I, a downtown Toronto urbanite, made a supporter and a friend of a northern Alberta rancher. It was quite a little moment for me that he understood where we were coming from and I understood some of the issues he was going through.

We have a whole series of programs that we’re putting forward here to reduce the amount of carbon that is being burned in the province of Ontario. I’m extremely proud of the direction our government is going through our Ministries of Transportation and Infrastructure around hydrail, for instance. This week I was on an announcement—and I should add, Speaker, I also have the privilege now of serving as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: A lucky minister.

Mr. Arthur Potts: A lucky minister and I’m a lucky member for being able to participate because I can marry up some of the programs that we’re doing in environment and climate change, where we are raising the funds in cap-and-trade and giving those proceeds over to the Ministry of Transportation to invest.

We’ve just completed a study which makes it clear that it will be feasible, we believe, to build a locomotive to drive the double-decker GO trains that we have in our Metrolinx system, the regional express rail system, and run them on hydrogen. The benefit that that gives us, because all of a sudden, the infrastructure cost of building out our electrical system for transportation—we no longer have to put up all these wires everywhere; a lot of people will look and they’ll see those wires associated with it. Yes, it’s clean; it’s faster; it’s more reliable.

But there’s an aesthetic feel attached to having all these wires. With the program we just put in Kitchener, there’s above-ground, and some people were concerned about it. They think it looks old school.

If we can get our locomotives on to hydrogen, it does a couple of things. One, it means we don’t have to spend that extra 30% of infrastructure to build the electrical network. Two, it means we’re making hydrogen, and I’ll tell you, Speaker, why making and using hydrogen is really important. It’s because we can take surplus power during the day, or at night, when the generation is greater than the consumption in Ontario, and we can use every kilowatt hour to make clean hydrogen from water through a process called electrolysis, and that hydrogen then displaces a fossil fuel. This becomes the biggest opportunity in Ontario to have a massive storage of surplus power.

We do have an excess of power in the province of Ontario right now, and that’s a concern to me and it’s a concern to our government. That contributes greatly to what is known as the global adjustment, that we are paying for more power than we’re using. That’s partly because we’ve been very successful in our conservation programs. Our large users are reducing the amount of electricity they’re using, so it has created a surplus situation. It’s a bit ironic, and I know we talked about this, that people have done all the conservation, it’s been successful, but now they’re paying more for their power. That was because of the impact it had on our global adjustment. So we’re reversing all that.

It’s not just in hydrogen and these opportunities that we could be building hydrogen-powered tractors to move goods and services, hydrogen-powered ferries—I know that the ferries we’re contemplating building out at Wolfe Island and Amherst Island in Kingston—we’re now putting in the rest of that program and saying—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Thank you.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Seeing as it is 10:15, I will be recessing the House until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It appears we will have a large contingent of introductions, so let’s do that sharply and get right through it.

Mr. Steve Clark: Speaker, I want to introduce to you and through you to members of the Legislative Assembly a constituent from my riding of Leeds–Grenville who is here with the Ontario Dental Association. I’d like to welcome Dr. Kim Hansen. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I’m so pleased to have had breakfast this morning with Dr. Brian Tenaschuk, Dr. Jerry Smith and Dr. John McLister from the Ontario Dental Association. Thank you and welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Today I would like to welcome Dr. Alice Jackes from my riding of Barrie, who is here with the Ontario Dental Association. Welcome.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: It is a pleasure to welcome, from the beautiful riding of Dufferin–Caledon, Dr. Lisa Bentley. Welcome.

Mr. John Vanthof: I’d also like to welcome, from the Ontario Dental Association, a constituent of mine and a good friend, Dr. Rick Caldwell.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I would like to welcome Gord and Mary Park, from Cobourg in the great riding of Northumberland. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I had a great meeting this morning with a constituent from my riding of Niagara West–Glanbrook. Jim Jeffs is here in the gallery this morning from the Ontario Dental Association. Welcome to the Legislature.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: It’s my great pleasure to announce that Klara Sulek-Popov is the page captain today, and to welcome her father, Mark Popov, to the gallery today. Thank you very much, and welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I have two friends visiting with the Ontario Dental Association today. Dr. Lesli Hapak is a periodontist and Dr. Charles Frank is a dentist. Thank you for meeting with me today, and welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: I would like to introduce members of the Canadian Organization for Rare Disorders to the Legislature today. They’re here to recognize Rare Disease Day. I would like to thank them for their leadership and advocacy efforts, particularly as we have moved into the implementation phase of our provincial rare disease strategy.

I would also like to welcome members of the Ontario Dental Association to the Legislature. They’re our valued partners to our government. We thank them for their hard work and collaboration on our Healthy Smiles program.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: It’s my pleasure to welcome my friend Dr. Raffy Chouljian from the Ontario Dental Association. He is a great community leader in Scarborough.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’d like to welcome some friends from the Canadian Federation of Students: Mohammad Akbar, Lindsay Yates and Denise Miller are here today to meet with me.

Hon. Bill Mauro: I had a good meeting this morning with members of the Ontario Dental Association. I’m pleased to welcome to the Legislature and to Queen’s Park my constituent Dr. Donald Young.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s a pleasure to welcome, from Kitchener, Mayor Berry Vrbanovic; Kitchener chief of staff Paul Grivicic; Waterloo Mayor Dave Jaworsky; Waterloo EO to the CAO Brad Witzel; Woolwich Acting Mayor Larry Shantz; from Woolwich, CAO Dave Brenneman; from North Dumfries, Mayor Sue Foxton; from North Dumfries, Shelley Stedall, treasurer and director of corporate services; and Waterloo Region Economic Development Corporation CEO Tony LaMantia. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Bob Delaney: A warm welcome to all our friends from the Ontario Dental Association, and especially from our area, from the Halton-Peel Dental Association. Apologies to any we may miss: Frank Bevilacqua and doctors Lisa Bentley, Sanjukta Mohanta, John McLister and Charles Frank.

For all of our dentists: Welcome, and glad to have you with us this morning.

Mr. Ross Romano: First off, I want to say welcome again to page captain Asia Boston from Sault Ste. Marie, her parents Nicki and D.J., who are in the gallery today, and brother Grady Boston. Thank you for coming from Sault Ste. Marie. Have a great day.

Hon. Daiene Vernile: Today we have our very first ever advocacy day for Waterloo region. I am delighted to welcome from our region our mayor, Berry Vrbanovic; the mayor from Waterloo, Dave Jaworsky; the mayor of North Dumfries, Sue Foxton; Waterloo region chair Ken Seiling; and their staffers Paul Grivicic, Brad Witzel, Dave Brenneman and Shelley Stedall. I just had a great meeting with them and I welcome them all to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Bill Walker: I’d like as well to introduce and welcome the Ontario Dental Association and specifically Dr. John Totten from the great riding of Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound.

Mr. Granville Anderson: I would like to welcome Dr. Graham Baldwin, who is here from my riding of Durham. He is here today with the Ontario Dental Association. Welcome.

M me France Gélinas: J’aimerais accueillir le dentiste M. Roch St-Aubin, de Sudbury, qui représente l’association des dentistes de l’Ontario. Bienvenue à Queen’s Park.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park today, from the Canadian Organization for Rare Disorders and from Shire Pharmaceuticals, former Queen’s Park staffer Lindsay Williams, who is the mother of my legislative assistant, Emily Williams. Please welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Michael Harris: Today is Rare Disease Day and I know we have a lot of folks here from the Canadian Organization for Rare Disorders. I’d like to welcome you all to Queen’s Park. We’ve got your back. Thanks.

Hon. Reza Moridi: It’s a great pleasure to welcome Dr. C.P. Giri, Dr. Elise Wong and Dr. Phu-My Gep from the Ontario Dental Association and from my riding of Richmond Hill. Thank you.

Mr. Michael Harris: Today is a busy day at Queen’s Park. I also would like to welcome mayors and administrators from the region of Waterloo, representing cities and townships in the region. Welcome to Queen’s Park. We look forward to a productive day.

Hon. Peter Z. Milczyn: On behalf of the MPP for Trinity–Spadina, I want to welcome the family of page Reed Benzie: his grandmother Judi McMichael and his grandfather Andrew White. I believe there’s another member of his family here as well, but he shall remain anonymous.

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: As you know, today is Waterloo region advocacy day at Queen’s Park. I know many have been introduced today, but I did want to make a special mention to my own mayor, North Dumfries mayor Sue Foxton, who is accompanied by the treasurer and director of corporate services, Shelley Stedall; and also the acting mayor of Woolwich, Larry Shantz, Woolwich CAO Dave Brenneman and Waterloo region chair Ken Seiling, as well as Mayor Berry Vrbanovic and Mayor Dave Jaworsky. Thanks for coming today.

Mr. Mike Colle: I would like to welcome page captain Michael Daiello from Blessed Sacrament school, one of the best schools in Canada; his mother, Seren Daiello; his father, Nick Daiello; his brother, who is also at Blessed Sacrament, Matthew Daiello; his grandparents Anjel and Ohannes Citak, and his grandfather from Barrie, Giuseppe Daiello.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I also want to welcome all the amazing dentists who are visiting from Ottawa at Queen’s Park. There are too many to name, but I will single out my friend and my personal dentist, Dr. Don Friedlander, who is in the House today.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: It’s a pleasure to rise and welcome Dr. Raffy Chouljian, from Scarborough–Guildwood, who is here with all the dentists who are here today. I want to thank him for the work he does in my riding with Brush-a-mania with all of our students.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I, too, want to welcome the dentists. The one from St. George is probably the best dentist around. I just thought I’d put that out there. I thank them all for being here.

Also—it will come to me—just a second. Oh, I know what it was. If anyone hasn’t been introduced, welcome. We’re glad you’re here.

We usually don’t do it after the Speaker but I will do it this time: the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

Hon. David Zimmer: Thank you very much for your indulgence, Speaker, because I have a worthy group to introduce: the members of the Willowdale Youth Council, future leaders and politicians who are seeing how we do business in the Legislature. They’re scattered about in the different galleries. Thank you.

Oral Questions

Home care

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, I asked the new minister to make her first order of business to scrap the proposed SEIU-backed home care agency. The cozy Liberal ties to the SEIU are apparent as the minister refused to budge.

Indeed, she touted Washington state’s model. Well, that state’s agency, also SEIU-backed, is rife with controversy. In fact, the headline from the Seattle Times editorial board read, “Legislators, Don’t Cave to In-Home Care Union—Reject Bill that would Increase ... Costs.”

Is this the model we want to follow, one that increases costs and harms patients?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just congratulate the new Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Mr. Speaker, I really believe that we can actually not overstate the importance of personal support workers in our society. These are people, largely women, who look after the very most vulnerable in our society. We are looking for ways to support this group of people, who are so, so important.

I know that the party opposite did not support the increased wages that we put in place a couple of years ago, directly to personal support workers. But we are going to continue to work with the people who are looking after our elderly, the people who are looking after people with disabilities, doing some of the very hardest work in our society. We’re going to continue to look for ways to support them and professionalize their workplace.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please.

Both sides have had their opportunity, and both sides have indicated to me that they’re going to pick up where they left off. So am I. The next people who decide they’re going to chirp, we’re going to go to warnings.

Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: Patients Canada came out yesterday against the government’s proposed agency: “Two thirds of patients and caregivers surveyed stated that they trust existing community care services that employ nurses, personal support workers ... and other home care providers. They oppose a new proposed Ontario government agency....

“‘Patients Canada believes that there should be less bureaucracy and more choice when it comes to selecting home care ... providers.’” This is how they feel, Speaker.

Why does the government refuse to put patients first?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I would say to the member opposite that—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville is warned. The member from Prince Edward–Hastings is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I would say to the member opposite that either he doesn’t understand what it is that we are doing, or he doesn’t think that actually giving patients more choice is a good thing, because that’s in fact what we’re looking at.

The other thing is, I’m surprised that the member opposite would suggest that everything’s just fine, and we don’t need to change a thing in terms of the way supports are delivered to people in communities. I bet the next question is going to be, “How do we put more money into the system? How do we provide better home care?”

Mr. Speaker, we are working with personal support workers. We are working with the people who are on the front line, who are dealing with a workplace that can be improved. We’re going to do that, we’re going to support them, because that means patients will get better services.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: This SEIU-backed home care agency makes no sense. For heaven’s sake, the VON is suing this government.

Providers are against this, patients are against this, workers are against this, but the SEIU is in favour of this. Mr. Speaker, who exactly is the government doing this for?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Yes, this is a new model. It is one that has proved its worth. It is definitely putting the patient at the centre of the care services. We are going to be giving Ontarians more control and choice over how they receive their home care services.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Simcoe–Grey is warned. The member from Elgin–Middlesex–London is warned.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I wish I knew who said it.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Mr. Speaker, we know that there is a small group of patients with chronic long-term-care needs, and they need to have that strong relationship with their care provider. Continuity of care is particularly important for this group of patients, and this is exactly what we’re working towards. We know that PSWs are extremely important front-line care workers. We have been supporting them on this side of the House—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

New question.

Forest industry

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Premier. A little later today, I’ll be speaking at the Ontario Forest Industries Association. For years, they have been raising the same concerns, Speaker. For years, this government has ignored them. The forest industry generates over $15.5 billion of economic impact and provides jobs for over 172,000 hard-working men and women.

We’ve already heard from the OFIA and its member companies that the government continues to ignore the importance of the forestry sector. As Jamie Lim, their director, said: “Ontario is three times ... bigger than Finland, but we harvest 80% less. That represents lost opportunity.”

Mr. Speaker, why are the Liberals content on losing the opportunities our forestry sector offers?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, quite to the contrary: We are very supportive of our forestry industry. In fact, in my trips to the United States, we have made a very strong case and worked with the federal government to try to advance the issues around the softwood lumber arrangement because we know that Ontario has a very important role to play in that supply discussion in North America.

Unfortunately, we haven’t been able to come to an agreement with United States that is actually advantageous—or even fair, I would suggest—to the Canadian lumber industry and the Ontario lumber industry. But, Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue to support our forestry industry.

I know that it’s a $15-billion-plus industry and there are 172,000 direct and indirect jobs. We understand that, which is exactly why we’re supporting the forestry industry.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: Nowhere do we see more red tape than the government’s overly restrictive Endangered Species Act.

This isn’t a new issue. In 2016, at the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association annual conference, Kenora mayor and NOMA president Dave Canfield summarized it clearly: “The Endangered Species Act could kill us”—period.

The forestry sector is already abiding by the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. The duplication is not necessary. We must find a balance between environmental protection and economic sustainability.

Mr. Speaker, is the government prepared to endanger thousands of northern forestry jobs just because it can’t keep its own laws straight?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Hon. Bill Mauro: I want to thank the member for the question. What Jamie Lim would say if she were here, and what she has probably expressed to the member, is that we have just, once again, extended the exemption on the ESA for an additional two years. What that means is, on the point that has been made by the member in his question, is that that will now be a seven-year total—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to win.

The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, come to order. You are warned.

Finish.

Hon. Bill Mauro: Speaker, what it means is that that will now be a seven-year total exemption as we work through issues related to the ESA.

By way of example, when we hear this party stand up and criticize the supports that we’ve brought forward for the forestry sector, I would give one example that speaks volumes: In the early 1990s, the NDP government downloaded the cost of maintaining forestry roads in the province of Ontario. For eight years, the PCs did nothing to reverse that decision. Just on the forestry roads program, we have provided about $800 million of support through only one program for forestry—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: Matt Wilkie, a forester at Weyerhaeuser in Kenora, told us that about a third of their company’s wood supply in Kenora comes from a new caribou zone. The caribou protection regulations act will result in a 40% to 70% reduction in forestry activities, significantly reducing wood supply. Yet the ministry’s own data does not back this action up. Simply put, this situation is becoming unworkable.

Mr. Speaker, why does this government refuse to work with industry to streamline the process and why won’t they ensure a balance between environmental protection and economic sustainability?

Hon. Bill Mauro: I think it’s important to relay the specific issue that the member raises on behalf of the OFIA. The OFIA understands this completely and fully. When it comes to the species that the member is referencing, the caribou, there is a federal overlay on this particular species as well, so “whether or not” is not the option.

The provinces are required to come forward with a plan, as directed by federal legislation. If in fact we do not come forward with a plan, the federal government’s prescriptions and restrictions will be enforced upon each province and territory in the country of Canada.

The work that has gone on to this point is to try and position our industry as best we are able and to continue to recognize the importance of forestry in the province of Ontario. We get it, Speaker. That’s why we’ve put in place a further two-year exemption. None of what the member has just referenced in his question is going to happen. We have a panel in place that continues to work on—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock is warned.

You have one wrap-up sentence.

Hon. Bill Mauro: The point is, we continue to work on it. I have a legion of examples here that would continue to support and show how we have supported this industry—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. That’s it.

New question.

Hospital funding

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Premier. Stuart Cline is 71 years old and lives in London West. Last week he was vacationing with his wife in Mexico when he fell ill and experienced a serious brain bleed. He was admitted to hospital on Wednesday. By Saturday, he was stabilized and in urgent need of a transfer home to London to see a neurologist. But Stuart’s family was told by their insurance company that there are no hospital beds for him in London. Today is the fifth day that Stuart has been waiting to come home while his condition deteriorates.

As we continue to hear more and more stories about the devastating effects of hospital overcrowding in Ontario, why is this Premier doing nothing to address it?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care is going to want to speak to this particular case, but I want to just take a moment to express my concern for this family. They are going through a very difficult experience.

I want to assure the family that the Minister of Health is looking into this case. She’s giving it her full attention. This is an extremely anxious time for a family. This is a situation that no one should have to undergo. I know that the Ministry of Health and the LHIN are looking at what can be done in this situation, but just to say that this is an extremely anxious time and my thoughts are with the family.

The Minister of Health and Long-Term Care will speak to it in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Stuart’s situation is critical and potentially life threatening. He also has a heart condition that requires blood thinners and a pacemaker. Stuart’s daughter-in-law is now in Mexico trying to help him get home. When we spoke yesterday, she told me through tears that the family is desperate. They feel they are all alone, living a nightmare, and they don’t want Stuart to die in Mexico.

She said to me in an email, “My dad is very weak. His heart is not doing well. He is fighting but I don’t know how much longer he can wait for a bed. We need to fly him back to Canada. Please, Peggy, I beg you, keep trying.”

Will the Premier ensure that Stuart is able to come home today?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: As the new Minister of Health, I want to assure that my staff and I are ready to help all members of this House when situations like this arise, because it’s extremely important to ensure the safety of and access to high-quality care for all Ontarians.

I want to assure the family in this case that my staff has been fully engaged in helping to coordinate this individual’s return home and to make the full service of Ontario’s health care system completely available to this family.

I know that our health care professionals on the ground, LHIN staff responsible for regional care coordination and staff in the ministry are always working hard to go the extra mile to ensure the highest quality of care for all Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: When my staff spoke to ministry staff this morning, ministry staff said it is the insurance company’s job to find a bed. Speaker, I don’t think so.

Last week, we heard about the Ronalds, a couple stuck in Costa Rica because there were no hospital beds available in Hamilton to help Mr. Ronald after a bad fall. We heard about Londoner Danny Marchand, who spent 11 days waiting for a bed to open up in London so he could get the medical care he needed after a skiing accident in Collingwood. Now, it is the Cline family who is suffering because Ontario’s hospitals are overcrowded. Yet all we hear in response from this government is that some temporary funding was provided to hospitals last year.

What will it take for this Premier and this government to finally take this crisis as seriously as the families who are affected by it?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Thank you.

Minister?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: I want to assure the member opposite, Mr. Speaker, that there is capacity here in Ontario. It was demonstrated last week with the individual she referenced who fell sick in Costa Rica, and my predecessor made a statement to that effect last week.

In particular, because of this issue, we have reminded insurers of what they need to do in terms of finding the appropriate capacity here in Ontario. What we have done is ensure that they all know that it is their responsibility to work with Ontario’s system of hospitals. It’s not just a matter of just calling one single hospital to find the appropriate capacity. They need to work with the LHIN; that’s their responsibility. That’s our expectation, and we would want to remind them of that. There are beds in Ontario for these individuals.

Hospital funding

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre.

The Hospital for Sick Children right here in Toronto is a world-class hospital, home to international experts and professionals who save children’s lives each and every day. But for over a year now, SickKids has been struggling with overcrowding that keeps getting worse and funding that is not keeping up.

In December, my leader, Andrea Horwath, toured SickKids. On that day, the neonatal intensive care unit was operating at 114% occupancy. Yesterday, that same unit at SickKids was now operating at 115% occupancy. The overcrowding has not been solved; it is getting worse.

Why has this Premier driven an Ontario world-class hospital like SickKids into an overcrowding crisis that’s making it harder to provide the care our children need?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think we’ve been very clear that we understand that increasing investment in hospitals is important. It’s why in our last budget, there was $500 million in additional funding for hospitals; in our most recent budget, another $500 million. So we understand that there is a need to increase the support to our hospitals’ operating budgets. We get that.

But I think the member of the third party suggesting that somehow SickKids is not a world-class hospital, that somehow it has deteriorated, is really an outrageous statement. SickKids is a world-class hospital. Literally, people come from all over the world to learn from what is done in the SickKids hospital. I was recently with Bernie Sanders, who came up with practitioners from the United States, and we were talking with practitioners at SickKids.

We understand that there is more to do. But to talk down the SickKids hospital is—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Essex is warned.

Supplementary.

M me France Gélinas: Well, I can assure you that health care professionals at SickKids are doing their very best. But this government is not doing enough to stop the overcrowding. Every month for the past year, SickKids has been running over 100% occupancy. February was at 111%. There is red tape on the floor separating one bassinet from the other. Infection control is a challenge each and every day. SickKids set a record this January for more emergency room patients than at any point in the last 140 years. That’s a long time.

This is a hospital that has run out of space. It needs help immediately today and capital funding to build the infrastructure they need for tomorrow. Why isn’t the Premier listening to SickKids and providing the funds that it so desperately needs?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: I want to assure the member opposite that we are in very close communication with our health system partners and we want to remain attuned to their needs and determine how to best provide ongoing support for them. As the Premier has said, we’ve made major investments. We know that, over the last year, there have been challenges across the health care system in respect to, obviously, influenza outbreaks and so on that have added to some hospitals’ difficulties. In fact, children—although I’m not particularly familiar with the situation at SickKids—have been particularly affected with influenza B this flu season as well.

Of course, we have been increasing our budget substantially. We’ve made these commitments in the 2017 budget and we’re starting to see improvements in our capacity issue.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary.

M me France Gélinas: For too long, people in this province have been asked to settle for cuts to health care and overcrowding in our hospitals that keeps getting worse. No community in Ontario should be forced to settle for that.

SickKids provides critical care, cancer care and transplants that sick children cannot get anywhere else but at SickKids. This hospital should never be forced to operate at 115% occupancy, and world-class experts shouldn’t be leaving SickKids. Yet in the last month, that’s exactly what happened. Two leading surgeons at SickKids have announced that they are leaving Ontario.

Why is this Premier refusing to stop the overcrowding and refusing to provide the crucial investments that SickKids needs right now?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: I want to remind the member of our 2017 budget, which incidentally both the PCs and NDP voted against. In that budget, we made substantial increases in health care investments in hospitals, as well as community care. In particular, I would like to mention:

—$9 billion to the health care sector over the next three years to reduce wait times, provide access to care and enhance the patient experience;

—$500 million to support Ontario hospitals, reduce wait times and expand capacity;

—$222 million over the next three years to provide urgent relief for those affected by the opioid crisis, which again, in many cases, does impact on our emergency rooms.

We have so many examples of our government’s commitment to maintain our excellent reputation for health care provision in this province.

Dental care

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Welcome to the role, Minister.

This morning, I had the opportunity to speak with dentists from across Ontario and I learned some troubling facts, like that this government has overseen the lowest per capita spend on public dental programs in Canada. While the overwhelming majority of dentists participate in the Healthy Smiles Ontario program, an important program for children of low-income, dentists subsidize this government’s program by $50 million a year.

Dr. Schwartz is with us here today. We heard from him this morning that he helps low-income children every day in his practice, but he operates at a loss because this government is underfunding the program.

Do you not agree that this program shouldn’t be delivered on the backs of dentists?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Mr. Speaker, of course, good oral health is absolutely essential for overall health. Our Healthy Smiles Ontario program does have an overall impact on children’s health, their self-esteem and their ability to learn.

We’re extremely pleased that we have our Healthy Smiles Ontario program, which is ensuring that children have equitable access to high-quality health care, including dental care. We have made it so much easier for children to get the dental care they need through our expanded Healthy Smiles Ontario program.

Of course, we’re very pleased to have a partnership with the Ontario Dental Association, and we continue to work with them on an ongoing basis to ensure that the program meets our goals of equitable dental care across the province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Back to the minister: A partnership usually works both ways. This government has just been dictating to these dentists across the province for far too long, and it needs to stop.

Speaker, there are almost 61,000 visits to hospital emergency rooms and nearly 222,000 visits to physicians’ offices for dental problems every year. This costs the government in excess of $38 million annually, with those funds typically spent on treating the symptoms of the disease rather than the disease itself.

Whether it’s dental care for low-income seniors or children, it’s clear that this government is not doing enough.

My question for the minister: Does this government plan on expanding dental coverage for seniors and children in their 2018 budget?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: I’d like to thank all the dentists who are here today, our great partners in this program.

As a partnership, we continue to work together to improve dental care, as we’ve said, obviously, for our children, but we have been improving dental care for adults as well. We have started with children and youth, but we do have funded programs through the Ontario Disability Support Program, with which I’m very familiar, and also benefits through Ontario Works that can provide coverage to those in need. We continue to work towards building a larger program for low-income adults that will provide peace of mind for those families and individuals and allow them to continue to be productive.

We will be working, as we speak, with the Ontario Dental Association, looking forward to ensuring that our partnership continues in the future.

Pharmacare

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre.

Let me be clear: It is time for national, universal pharmacare.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock.

Be seated, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We’re still in warnings.

Please put your question.

M me France Gélinas: But yesterday the federal government chose to study this idea yet again, without promising any action, without promising any money and without any timeline. That leaves millions of Ontarians between the ages of 25 and 65—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services is warned.

There are a couple of others on my radar.

Finish, please.

M me France Gélinas: That leaves millions of Ontarians between the ages of 25 and 65 without prescription drug coverage. That leaves people sitting at their kitchen table, cutting their pills in two to make their prescription last longer.

The NDP has a plan to deliver universal pharmacare for all Ontarians, no matter how old they are. Why doesn’t the Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The third party has a plan to deliver a little bit of medication to people. That’s not universal pharmacare.

Mr. Speaker, our former colleague Eric Hoskins has taken a role with the federal government, not to study pharmacare, but to determine how to implement pharmacare. I can tell you that he was as passionate about this here at Queen’s Park as he is now working with the federal government. He was the architect of the major step forward that we have made in Ontario, OHIP+, and I can tell you that he would not have gone to do this role if he did not believe that we were on a path to a national pharmacare plan.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Be seated, please. Thank you. Using your tie to hide your mouth doesn’t cut it.

Supplementary.

M me France Gélinas: Premier, a drug plan that cuts people off from drug coverage the day they turn 25 years old is not good enough. Ontario should not have to settle for a plan that leaves people between the ages of 25 and 65 with no prescription drug coverage. That’s not pharmacare, because real universal pharmacare is prescription coverage for everyone.

Interjections.

M me France Gélinas: Yes. New Democrats believe in universal pharmacare, and we have a plan to deliver it to Ontarians and make sure that no one is left behind. While the federal government continues to study pharmacare yet again, instead of acting upon it, why doesn’t this Premier have a plan for universal pharmacare, right here, right now, in Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We’re the only government that has moved forward and actually has put in place a pharmacare plan. Let me, if I may—indulge me for a moment—make a comparison. We moved ahead on retirement security in this province. There’s a national enhancement to the Canada Pension Plan. We moved ahead on OHIP+ and a universal pharmacare plan for children. Now we’ve got a federal government that is going to implement a national pharmacare plan. I don’t know, Mr. Speaker—I kind of think Ontario’s leading the way.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Start the clock.

New question.

Anti-bullying initiatives

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: My question is to the Minister of Education. In 2007, a male high school student in Nova Scotia was bullied for wearing pink to school. In order to show care and solidarity, the other students showed up to school the following day in a sea of pink shirts in support of their classmate.

We know that putting an end to bullying cannot be done by any one person alone. We are stronger together, and it is together that we stand united against bullying by everyone. It is the responsibility of all of us to help prevent bullying in our schools, our communities and our workplaces. Minister, please tell us what our government has done to promote student well-being, so that everyone in our schools can be accepted and protected from bullying.

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Thank you to the member for this very important question. Bullying is a terrible thing. It can take a child who is happy and confident and leave them feeling depressed, sad and anxious. That’s why today, on February 28, I stand together with thousands of students and educators across Ontario to recognize Pink Shirt Day. Today, students and educators are wearing pink and are rallying together to say no to bullying, and no to harassment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to you know our government is committed to fighting against bullying in schools, communities and workplaces in Ontario. In fact, our government introduced the Accepting Schools Act to support safe, inclusive and accepting schools. It’s the first legislation of its kind to become law in Canada, again leading the way. Our equity plan is a further commitment to building an inclusive education system. Supporting a culture of acceptance in our school communities is vital to helping our kids thrive and be successful.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: As an educator and the MPP for the riding of Barrie, I know that our government is committed to putting supports in place so that every student can reach their full potential. I know this government believes in supporting student achievement and well-being with safe, inclusive and accepting learning environments for all students.

Speaker, through you to the minister: Can you share what students and educators are doing to recognize Pink Shirt Day?

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Thank you to the member for the question. Pink Shirt Day is an important reminder that we all have a role to play in creating a positive school environment. It’s about equity, fairness and respect. I want to thank our educators, students and parents for their tireless efforts every day to create safe and accepting schools. In fact, every year, the Premier’s Awards for Accepting Schools recognize teams across the province for their exceptional work to create safe and inclusive environments.

In addition, we now recognize cyberbullying in our Accepting Schools Act—so important. We’re teaching students about online risks and giving them tips to develop online safety. We’re also providing bullying prevention training for teachers and administrators.

Mr. Speaker, we know more work needs to be done, but we’re committed to ensuring that all students feel safe and accepted in our schools.

Tobacco control

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is to the Minister of Community Safety. Last fall, I hosted a press conference to bring attention to the contraband tobacco problem in this province. I highlighted the fact that there has been a 37% increase in contraband tobacco use since 2014 and that contraband tobacco products are more accessible than ever. These products are unregulated and harmful, and they help to fund organized crime rings that threaten the safety of Ontarians. But instead of protecting Ontarians from harm, this government has sat on its hands, watching our province become the top producer of contraband tobacco in the country.

My question to the minister is, why has the government allowed contraband tobacco to thrive at the expense of Ontarians’ safety?

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I appreciate the question. This is a very important issue. We have been trying to battle contraband tobacco, ensuring that the underground economy and criminal activity get curbed.

The 2017 budget, which you voted against, included a number of measures in regard to this. One was to go after the items acquired from or used during offences under the Tobacco Act, which now must be forfeited. We restricted the importation and possession of cigarette filter components, which is called the acetate tow, going after the wholesale activity to registered manufacturers to identify what’s being delivered, and we further enhanced the oversight of raw leaf tobacco, including strengthening compliance and enforcement provisions.

We’ve actually engaged with greater enforcement activity. We are working alongside indigenous communities as well to ensure that they benefit from the very product that’s being produced and exported for their benefit. We’re looking at economic development and opportunities to legitimize some of that activity, and also recognize that the federal government takes its cut and the province of Ontario does not, so we’re looking to try to correct the matter.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Back to the minister: Obviously you’re not doing enough. I’ll give you a successful example out there that the government should be following. It’s from Quebec.

In 2009, Quebec launched its ACCES Tabac program, which gave new powers to law enforcement officers and provided them with the resources they needed to fight contraband tobacco. Since then, they’ve had a 50% reduction in contraband tobacco sales in Quebec and millions of new tax dollars have been generated. The government needs to actually do something to target criminal networks and stop the smuggling and distribution of contraband tobacco.

My question to the minister: Why won’t this government give our police officers the resources they need to actually enforce the law and stop the spread of contraband tobacco?

Hon. Charles Sousa: We actually have increased supports for police activity around contraband tobacco, as well as those off-reserve where criminal activity has been occurring and, in fact, has been catering to young people, which we’re trying to curb and correct.

As I said, we’re also working very closely with indigenous communities, looking at the ability for self-regulation, and it’s been working. Because of the work of our Minister of Indigenous Affairs, we’ve actually had much better dialogue and efforts to try to curb the activity and work alongside the members of our communities for the benefit of safeguarding our students and our children, and at the same time ensuring that we legitimize the activities for the benefit of our economy as well. The Smoke-Free Ontario Strategy has done a tremendous job, more importantly, of curbing the activity of tobacco overall in this province.

Public libraries

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Premier. Our public libraries provide extraordinary value to their communities. Whether it’s employment-skills upgrading or the integration of new Ontarians, whether it’s providing free space for seniors’ groups or the early development of literacy skills, our public libraries create community across the province.

But in 1998, the Harris government cut funding to libraries by 40%. The government’s public library operating grants maintained the Conservative cuts, paying for less than 2.5% of libraries’ annual operating budgets. So the Liberals maintained the Conservative cuts.

The Ontario Library Association and the Federation of Ontario Public Libraries have lobbied the government for years—20 years—for funding to be restored. Why doesn’t this Premier recognize the importance of libraries as a vital public service by lifting the funding freeze?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Hon. Daiene Vernile: I’m delighted to rise as the new Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport to address this issue. Shortly after being sworn in, one of the first groups with whom I met was the libraries. I have met with a number of local librarians as well who have expressed concerns to us about funding.

I want to say that our government does value the contributions of public libraries in building strong, vibrant communities right across Ontario, and we recognize the wide range of people in our province who make use of over 1,110 library service points right across the province.

Through our culture strategy, we recognize that public libraries are very essential spaces for access to culture, services and technology, and for our community life. The strategy that we have commits to reviewing and updating provincial funding programs in order to build the capacity of public libraries. We’re working with them. We know that they want increased funding, and we are addressing that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: Funding libraries is the best way to acknowledge how important libraries are in the province of Ontario.

Both the city of Kitchener and the city of Waterloo have passed council resolutions asking the provincial government to restore adequate, appropriate funding for local libraries that would increase each year, in line with the consumer price index. This is a reasonable request after 20 years.

Mary Chevreau, the Kitchener Public Library’s chief executive, called libraries “the cheapest deal in town.” Every one dollar invested in libraries equals $6 in terms of economic benefit for the community. Without a funding increase though, Chevreau says, “We’re going to have to cut somewhere else, and the most obvious place would be the actual content that we carry in our libraries.”

It’s time for the Premier to step up and lift the library funding freeze so that everyone in our community can learn, can connect and innovate and, yes, belong. Will the Premier commit to lifting this 20-year public freeze on library funding in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Daiene Vernile: I wholeheartedly agree that funding is important for this sector.

By way of background, the funding was frozen in the late 1990s by the Conservative Party—quite disconcerting to the library sector at the time. But I will—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Kitchener–Conestoga is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Daiene Vernile: To continue, Speaker, the funding was frozen back in the late 1990s.

The government values the contribution of public libraries. They do build strong communities. They build out literacy. Our libraries support lifelong learning. They provide resources to students and newcomers, and they help small businesses and entrepreneurs.

That’s why funding for the Internet connectivity program was increased just last year. This increase is in recognition of the role that libraries play in providing digital services and building out our community. So we are working with the sector. We are aware that they are looking for increased funding. I am looking forward to having an answer for them soon.

Taxation

Mr. Han Dong: My question is for the Minister of Finance. In the fall, I asked the minister a question on 401 Richmond, a building in my riding occupied by over 140 artists, culture producers, galleries, festivals and shops. At that time, we encouraged the city to create a new property tax class for arts and culture organizations in Toronto. That’s because Ontario’s vibrant arts and culture organizations are part of what makes this province such a great place to live.

The city has since passed a motion requesting that the province create a new property tax class for creative co-location facilities. I understand the next step will be for the province to create a regulation to allow this change.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: Can he please give the House an update on where this regulation stands?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I applaud the member from Trinity–Spadina for his ongoing advocacy on this very issue. I am proud to talk about this resolution for the people of Toronto and his riding. MPP Dong has worked tirelessly with the owners and tenants of 401 Richmond for the last year, and I thank the member for his leadership in his community.

Cultural innovation hubs contribute tremendous value to our communities and the economy, which is why I’m pleased that the city of Toronto has passed the motion for a creative class property tax bracket. My staff and the Ministry of Finance are working closely with the city’s staff to finalize the details of the provincial regulations, which will be completed in the coming weeks. We want to make sure we get it right, and I’m proud to work alongside our colleagues in this House and my caucus members who work so hard to support local arts and community culture. In particular, I’m proud of this member, who has achieved a great step forward for the cultural organizations of Toronto.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Han Dong: I want to thank the minister for his answer. The tenants of 401 Richmond received good news in the fall when the property assessment was reduced by MPAC, and the news of city council’s resolution is indeed to be welcomed. It will address their concerns on their future financial certainty regarding property tax. For that I am thankful.

I’ve been asked by other stakeholders in my riding who would also like to be included in this new property tax class about eligibility. Could the minister explain how our constituents can determine if they are eligible?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I want to thank the member again for this important question. We’re making sure the city has the maximum flexibility, so that this new property class can best reflect the needs of Toronto.

Let’s be clear: It’s the city that’s responsible for establishing the criteria surrounding the new property class. I understand city staff are in the process of developing a framework in consultations with the arts and cultural community, to ensure that eligibility criteria reflect the goals of that community, so any questions that property owners might have should be, in this case, referred to the city of Toronto.

However, we will continue to support the city and other parties in their efforts to ensure that properties like 401 Richmond can continue to operate as important incubators for the arts and cultural community. Again, I thank the member for this important question.

Hospital funding

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. On November 30, 2016, my very first question on my very first day here in the Legislature was to the former Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, when I asked the minister about redeveloping the West Lincoln Memorial Hospital in Grimsby. This hospital was built in 1948, and although the staff there provide excellent care, the facility is now outdated and in desperate need of redevelopment.

At that time, the former minister said he looked forward to working with me going into the future on the Hamilton Health Sciences proposal for infrastructure. Well, Speaker, the future is now, and we haven’t really seen a lot of progress.

My question is very simple: Are my constituents going to be let down once again?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: I certainly look forward to working with the member opposite. I would like to say that I have not been briefed on the particular circumstances that he references in relation to the facility, the institution in his riding. I look forward to finding out more, and I certainly commit to the member that I will look into it.

I would say in general that I am certainly aware that there is a need for redevelopment across the province. I’ve certainly seen institutions in my own riding that are worthy of consideration. Of course, that’s going to be done in a completely objective way, and priorities will be established. I look forward to working with the member on this file.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I thank the minister for her response. I’d be more than happy to sit down and brief her on this particular situation, because my constituents have been fighting for the redevelopment of the West Lincoln Memorial Hospital for far too long, going so far as to raise $14 million towards this redevelopment.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that in 2004, this Liberal government called the project a priority. First the government promised construction would start by 2009. Then they promised it would start in 2011. Then the next promise was that redevelopment would begin in 2013. Then, after years of broken promises, the 2012 budget cancelled the project completely.

Will this Minister of Health and Long-Term Care commit to the redevelopment of West Lincoln Memorial Hospital and give the residents of Niagara West–Glanbrook the health care they deserve and expect?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: We certainly have committed to some $9 billion to expand and rebuild hospitals, not only providing that essential infrastructure, but also creating jobs.

Currently some 34 major hospital projects are under way or being planned. Obviously, we will look at the situation that you referenced, but I’m informed, actually, that the Harris government designated that particular institution for closure and we, in fact, have reprieved it.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Just a gentle, subtle reminder that some members are already on warnings—gentle, subtle.

New question? The member from—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: He’s not very tall.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, no. I think there was an arm wrestle going on.

The member for Niagara Falls.

Miss Monique Taylor: I would have won, then.

Interjections.

Mr. Wayne Gates: Can I do my question now, Mr. Speaker?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I set ’em up, you knock ’em down. Go ahead.

Horse racing industry

Mr. Wayne Gates: My question is to the Premier. We’ve been fighting this Legislature for four years to ensure the Fort Erie racetrack has a future. When the private, for-profit Woodbine Group, which the Premier has effectively put in charge of public horse racing funds, announced its unfair stabling policy last April, we raised this issue in the House and demanded action. But instead of fixing it, the government announced a surprise audit of Fort Erie. That was fine; the track accepted this audit and opened every door. It has met every demand this government has made of it.

Can the Premier tell us what the result of that audit was and what she has done to address the issue we raised last April?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: We all know—and we appreciate the advocacy of this member as well—that Fort Erie is an important economic viability and heritage to that community as well as to the province. The track is critical to the local community and to the historic significance it’s had over the years.

As mentioned, we are working on an over $100-million horse racing industry program that will benefit Fort Erie. In fact, as he knows, Fort Erie has benefited by $7.9 million for the racetrack, even though they lost quite a bit under some Conservative cuts in the past.

But let me be clear: The racing industry in Fort Erie specifically gets supports for the purses as well as for operating. I’ll say more in the supplementary with regard to the audit.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Wayne Gates: Back to the Premier: It is my understanding that the Fort Erie racetrack passed the audit with flying colours. In fact, Fort Erie may be the most lean and efficient track in Ontario. Every year they continue to break betting and attendance records. But by giving the private, for-profit Woodbine Group such extraordinary influence over horse racing in Ontario and allowing it to use its influence against its competition, this government has put Fort Erie at an unfair disadvantage.

When will the Premier stop Woodbine from using its government-granted power over horse racing to put competitive racetracks like Fort Erie out of business?

Hon. Charles Sousa: The member opposite also knows that we did resolve the stabling policy. Woodbine has also come forward, recognizing the importance of that relationship with Fort Erie and that’s going to proceed.

In terms of the audit, we have received it. It has not been brought to my attention, but I do know that it has been noted that it’s been efficient. There are some challenges they face. The mayor has sent me a letter with regard to some of the measures he would like to see proceed, and we are acting upon it. We are actually going to support these small tracks. We’re going to provide the necessary steps and have oversight.

I want Fort Erie and the small tracks to be part of the Ontario racing board, to have transparency and overall effort to see what the industry should be doing. It cannot be just on one provider; it has to include everybody as well as the horsemen so they can breed and have greater stability in the breeding of horses. That, too, is an issue for Fort Erie. I recognize that.

I thank you for your effort. We will work together to benefit Fort Erie as well.

Assistance to flood victims

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The recent flooding events in areas of southern Ontario have clearly presented a very difficult situation for many residents, and our thoughts are with them. This falls almost one year after the floods in many parts of my riding of Kingston and the Islands, including Wolfe and Howe Islands, as well as neighbouring Amherst Island.

I know the Premier was on the ground in Brantford last week to meet with first responders and municipal leaders as an ice jam in the Grand River forced a state of emergency and evacuation. I’m also aware that on Monday, Minister Mauro visited communities impacted by the flooding last week, including Brantford, Thamesville and Chatham, to see the situation first-hand and the damage caused by these floods.

Would the minister please elaborate on the current flooding situation across some parts of the province and the impact that it has had on people’s lives?

Hon. Bill Mauro: Thank you to the member from Kingston and the Islands for the question.

Unfortunately, once again, we’ve seen a very significant flooding event, this time in southwestern Ontario. As the member mentioned in her question, the Premier was on the ground in Brantford on Thursday. I toured Brantford, Thamesville and Chatham myself on Monday. The damage is indeed significant. It is quite something to see.

I want to in the first instance offer my thanks and appreciation to the volunteers, to the first responders and to the elected officials. It was really something to see and witness the people who come through. There’s nothing that brings a community together like having to band together to fight a natural disaster, and they have done a great job. No one was injured. There were no fatalities in this specific instance.

The waters have receded to the point where I was excited to just yesterday, I believe, late Monday—we were able to announce the activation of our program, disaster relief assistance for Ontarians, for the city of Brantford yesterday morning.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

Mr. Speaker, we are seeing an increased number of natural disasters occurring in Ontario. Our government has adapted our disaster relief program to ensure people can receive the financial help they need when a sudden unexpected natural disaster occurs.

I understand applicants within a particular a