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

October 24, 2018

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2018-Oct-24 (PDF)

L040 - Wed 24 Oct 2018 / Mer 24 oct 2018

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 24 October 2018 Mercredi 24 octobre 2018

Notice of reasoned amendment

Orders of the Day

Time allocation / Attribution de temps

Vandalism of constituency office

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

University and college funding

Employment standards

Employment standards

Economic development

University and college funding

Manufacturing jobs

University and college funding

Taxation

Taxation

Employment standards

Taxation

Labour unions

Ontario College of Trades

Home care

School bus drivers

Automobile insurance

Visitors

Notice of dissatisfaction

Deferred Votes

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Tom Kilpatrick

Aquaculture

Violence against women

Access to Justice Week

Mental health services

Bells of Peace

School facilities

Chinese-Canadian relations

Eurowerx

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Child Abuse Prevention Month

Visitor

Petitions

Employment standards

Public safety

Curriculum

Employment standards

Public safety

Employment standards

Public safety

Northern health services

Orders of the Day

Access to Natural Gas Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur l’accès au gaz naturel

Mitch Heimpel

Adjournment Debate

Home care

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Notice of reasoned amendment

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I beg to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 71(b), the member for Waterloo has notified the Clerk of her intention to file notice of a reasoned amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill 47,

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

The order for second reading of Bill 47 may therefore not be called today.

Orders of the Day

Time allocation / Attribution de temps

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 23, 2018, on the motion for time allocation of the following bill:

Bill 34,

An Act to repeal the Green Energy Act, 2009 and to amend the Electricity Act, 1998, the Environmental Protection Act, the Planning Act and various other statutes / Projet de loi 34, Loi abrogeant la Loi de 2009 sur l’énergie verte et modifiant la Loi de 1998 sur l’électricité, la

Loi sur la protection de l’environnement, la

Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire et diverses autres lois.

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

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: I am standing here today to show my concern about the decision on the part of the government to repeal the Green Energy Act. Ontario families, particularly in my riding of Mushkegowuk–James Bay, have shown their worry about what is to come. The decision on the part of the Conservatives is blatant denial of climate change, of the current solutions that we have at our disposal, and of the perils that the people in northern Ontario suffer and will continue to suffer unless something is done now.

En bref, quand on parle du changement climatique et des développements durables, les conservateurs nous emmènent vers l’arrière, dans le passé. Encore une fois, l’abrogation de cette loi démontre que les conservateurs nient carrément l’existence du changement climatique.

Again, this is the work of climate change deniers, whose interest does not quite seem to tap on the interests of my constituents, who are suffering more and more the effects of climate change and greenhouse emissions.

A few months ago, I spoke about the children of Kashechewan, whose school was shut down as a result of chronic flooding. Let me remind you about the community of Kashechewan and their elementary school. Speaker, I visited the community of Kashechewan to see it with my own eyes. Their elementary school had to be shut down because the portables that have been in place for 10 years—that’s right, 10 long years—are in ruins as a result of constant flooding. The portable structures have deteriorated so much that mold is pretty much everywhere. The floors are so uneven that you can barely walk on them and the doors simply don’t close.

So much were their concerns about the state of the school that the commencement of the school year was postponed and the kids sent to the secondary school. Certainly the school portables are not meant to survive the weather in the region, which is a shame, but those climate conditions have become harsher and harsher, which makes the experience of children in Kashechewan all the more troublesome.

Vous savez, on s’est fait dire qu’à chaque année la glace fond de plus en plus vite, ce qui cause des menaces d’inondation ainsi que des vraies inondations à chaque printemps.

Climate change, that is, is causing the constant flooding of Kashechewan, thereby putting the safety of our children and their schools at stake.

What I saw during my visit wasn’t simply the end result of poor school conditions; no, what I saw was the consequences of the Conservatives’ inaction or denial of climate change. I encourage the Premier to travel sooner rather than later to the community of Kashechewan to see the conditions under which these children go to school, which, it is my hope, will make him realize that this is not simply about the school, but rather the first-hand experience of climate change affecting my riding.

It also seems that this Conservative government has a short memory since they have already forgotten the ravaging wildfires in the north this past summer, which has been the worst season on record in northeastern Ontario. Speaker, is this not the end result of rising temperatures and drier, extreme weather conditions? Is this not the result of climate change? This bill shows that the Conservative government has no interest in strengthening environmental protection to conserve our northern forests.

Also, it is troubling for the people in my constituency that the Conservatives are winding down the green programs. This government says that it will honour the programs that had been signed that were funded by cap-and-trade, including the GreenON rebate programs. There is no week that passes without having someone coming into my constituency riding to complain about the slashing of the efficient insulation and window retrofit. What is to happen to the people who have started to build and renovate their homes, but were unable to apply for the program prior to the arbitrary deadline set by the Conservatives? Who’s going to pay the bill? We all know that answer.

Not only is this bill a symbolic gesture, a pushback from the Conservatives to the NDP’s sound environment platform, but it also fails to make hydro costs lower. What happened to the Conservative promise to serve Ontario’s people? Rural and remote communities such as those in my riding feel victimized because this bill will do nothing for the environment, nor for their electricity bill.

But the Liberals’ policy of privatization and deregulation of green energy, as much as the Conservative push to repeal the Green Energy Act, has failed and will fail to put a tap on increasing hydro costs and to protect our province’s environment. In fact, I dare say the Conservatives are finishing the job that the Liberals have left undone.

As a matter of fact, and just to give you an example, the Green Energy Repeal Act tears down all regulations under the current act. This means that rural and remote communities will be bullied around by their private energy companies.

The NDP had an evidence-based platform concerning renewable energy and climate change. We have time and again pushed for not just a move toward renewable energy, but also towards a system that is sustainable, fair, effective, transparent and efficient.

Mr. Speaker, what the Liberals and the Conservatives have done is to serve private interests and to make decisions behind closed doors.

The repeal of the Green Energy Act greatly affects the members of my constituency. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tells us that human-made greenhouse emissions are at the heart of the climate change threat. Conservatives, purely and simply, deny this.

Let me just say this: What the Conservative government is doing is shrinking government, to the detriment of their responsibility to protect the environment in Ontario today, instead of working towards a low-carbon, greener and sustainable economy, as has been defended by the NDP.

Nous avons entendu dans cette Chambre le député de Kiiwetinoong qui a mentionné qu’une jeune fille autochtone s’est enlevé la vie à cause qu’elle demeurait dans une demeure où il n’y avait pas d’électricité—ce qui n’a pas aidé, à cause de l’électricité. Peut-être qui si la ligne d’hydro se rendait, on aurait eu de quoi de différent. Mais, son domicile, peut-être que les autres sources d’énergie—les énergies vertes—auraient adressées la situation de l’électricité pour sa demeure.

Le fait qu’un adversaire politique a failli avec ses politiques ne veut pas dire que tout est pourri. Dans cette situation, dites-moi où est le problème d’avoir une entente entre les communautés concernées et le gouvernement, avec de l’énergie verte, où on pourrait desservir les domiciles où ils n’ont pas d’électricité tout en protégeant l’environnement? Pourquoi est-ce que ça ne se ferait pas, de pouvoir utiliser des moulins à vent ou bien des panneaux solaires où il n’y a pas d’électricité dans ces communautés? Avoir des ententes avec les Premières Nations qui généreraient de l’argent pour les Premières Nations—qu’est-ce qu’il y a de mal avec ce portrait-là? Je ne le vois pas.

Le problème qu’on a, je pense que c’est ce que le confrère Bisson—excusez, le confrère de Timmins, le député de Timmins—nous a dit. Le problème était qu’on avait privatisé l’énergie verte. C’est pour ça que ça n’a pas fonctionné. Je pense, dans ce cas ici, ça serait une solution à un problème qu’on a dans les communautés du Nord, dans le Grand Nord, si je peux user du terme, où on pourrait emmener de l’énergie à bon coup et aussi protéger l’environnement et avoir de l’énergie verte.

Mais non, nous allons tout scraper une énergie où le reste de la planète se dirige et reconnaît comme une solution au réchauffement de la planète. À la grandeur de la planète, on reconnaît que l’énergie verte est la solution du futur. Mais pour une raison quelconque, notre gouvernement en Ontario, on est plus intelligent que les autres. On dit : « non, ce n’est pas la solution du futur », mais je pense qu’on fait fausse route. On nage à contre-courant quand on devrait travailler et adresser les problèmes du gouvernement précédent, où on a failli à avoir ce qu’on cherchait avec l’énergie verte.

Le gouvernement conservateur est-il tellement borné qu’il ne peut pas voir l’avenir de cette énergie verte directement lié à l’environnement? Je l’ai mentionné maintes et maintes fois : le réchauffement climatique est vrai et est relié à l’énergie verte. On n’a rien qu’à voir ce qui s’est passé dans ma circonscription avec tous les feux de forêt, les communautés qui ont été menacées, les communautés qui ont été déplacées.

On a de l’énergie verte dans ma circonscription qu’on a utilisée avec succès : les « dams » d’hydro. On a Lower Mattagami. On en a plusieurs. On en a trois dans ma circonscription. Je pense qu’on devrait en profiter, puis en faire plus, mais ne pas juste scraper l’énergie verte parce qu’on est borné, qu’on a fait une promesse, et qu’on dit aujourd’hui « promesse faite, promesse gardée ». Je pense que c’est une erreur. Il ne faut pas aller à contre-courant, mais avec le courant pour améliorer l’énergie puis protéger l’environnement.

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

Hon. John Yakabuski: I hope I’m able to speak today, because my throat is a little challenged, but I’m going to do my best.

Before I speak, I want to remind the House that I’m wearing purple, because it certainly doesn’t look very good matching here, but I’ve never once won the award for best dressed person in the House of representatives here. I do want to point out that I’m wearing purple in recognition of Child Abuse Prevention Month. As a father and a grandfather and as someone, quite frankly, who rejoices every time a child is born, I want to emphasize that the greatest asset that we have is our children, and those children yet to be born. I want to make sure that whenever they are brought into this world, we do the very best we can to take care of them.

Speaker, to paraphrase Mark Antony, I come here to bury the Green Energy Act, not to praise it. It deserves no praise. I was the energy critic back in 2009 when George Smitherman, who lost another election the other night, introduced the Green Energy Act, one of the single most damaging pieces of legislation to Ontario’s economy that has ever been brought forth. And he did it with the full support of the members on the other side, the NDP. In fact, when I hear the NDP speak in praise of the Green Energy Act, they are so conflicted within themselves—not just among themselves but within themselves, because they really haven’t figured out where they stand on that.

When there are problems in one of their ridings—and I see the member from Essex here; he’ll wax on about the problems with the windmills causing water damage and contamination of water wells. But then on the other hand they talk about how important that green energy was, because, you see, they’ve got their insiders, too, that have profited by it.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I know it’s too complex for you to have a three-dimensional view on anything.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Order, please.

Hon. John Yakabuski: Well, the member for Essex likes to get himself a little worked up. He gets upset because he knows he is conflicted amongst himself. Because, you know, really, when I look at that side—

Mr. Taras Natyshak: You’re the picture of calm; you’re the picture of reason.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Stop the clock, please. All right, I am going to advise both sides right now that I caution both sides with regard to perhaps inflammatory comments, on both sides. We want to have civil debate in this House right now. We know the bill at hand and I would ask that all members take heed and go along with what I am suggesting.

I will now turn it back to the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. John Yakabuski: Thank you very much, Speaker.

I point out to the member from Essex that I was here in 2009. I was here when they brought in that act.

But when I think of the NDP and the Green Energy Act—of course, the blame has to go to the Liberals, and that’s part of the reason the Liberals sit as a very small group today. But when I listen to the different things that I have heard over the years about the Green Energy Act from the NDP, to steal one of—my friend from Kenora–Rainy River likes to use a different name for the acronym NDP. This would be because they’ve twisted themselves up so badly on this.

I would say they are the non-defined pretzels because they have twisted themselves up so badly over this Green Energy Act: One moment, on one side of them, they’re screaming and yelling about the problems they have in their own ridings because of wind development, and on the other hand they’re talking about how nuclear should be shut down and we can power the province on simply renewable energy. Hell, the world could be powered on renewable energy.

They know they’re absolutely wrong, but they continue to persist in it. And if there is any piece of legislation that they should be glad to see the end of, it is this piece of legislation, the Green Energy Act. They should be glad to see it’s gone because then they don’t have to worry anymore about being so duplicitous when it comes to talking about the Green Energy Act.

Let’s talk about the damage that it did. In 2009, George Smitherman came forth with the Green Energy Act. We said at the time this would be an economic disaster. In fact, we had a study completed by a consulting firm called London Economics International, which specializes in this kind of thing. They specialize in it. They came back to us and said it would mean at least $40 billion in overcharges for electricity to the consumers in Ontario because of the enactment of the Green Energy Act. Once the government revealed what its feed-in tariff was going to be and what they were going to be willing to pay for different types of generation, it was $40 billion.

Now, in 2015, the auditor said that Ontario electricity ratepayers had already paid $37 billion too much for green energy—$37 billion by 2015—and that they would be subject to paying another $137 billion in excess over the next 25 years.

Interjection: It was $133 billion.

Hon. John Yakabuski: It was $133 billion?

Interjection: Yes.

Hon. John Yakabuski: Thanks for contradicting me. I appreciate that. As C.D. Howe would say, “What’s a billion?” To the NDP and the Liberals, a billion wouldn’t mean very much. The Liberals certainly didn’t seem to worry what the cost of that was going to be to future generations and businesses in this province. We told them that would happen.

I remember when we were talking about this in the House and George Smitherman walked across from this side of the House to that side of the House, which I was sitting on at the time. He passed me a handwritten note and it said, “The Green Energy Act and everything we’re doing in it will only add 1% per year to your electricity bills.”

Now, ask yourself, how could you in good conscience, knowing what you’re going to get out of that Green Energy Act and the prices they were willing to pay, write a handwritten note like that? It was because they were absolutely fixated on what they wanted to do. You see, they had rushed, in their zeal, to try to prove that they were the environmental party. They rushed, in their zeal, to shut down the coal plants. They knew that in order to do that, they had to have something else to deal with.

All along, they were building new natural gas plants, but pretending that the coal plants were being shut down because of bringing in more renewable power. They offered prices such as 80.2 cents a kilowatt hour for roof-mounted solar.

I remember in the 2011 election, the Liberal candidate in my riding was singing the praises of roof-mount solar, and he said that even Gerald Tracey, the editor, now publisher, of the Eganville Leader believed in it, because he had put solar panels on the roof of the Eganville Leader printing office. And Gerald said, “Well, yes, because if somebody is stupid enough to pay me 80 cents a kilowatt hour, I’m smart enough to take it.”

They were in a rush to get so many subscribers oversubscribed—everybody wanted to get in on it. But what did it do to the price of electricity in this province? It just drove it up unconscionably, to the point where people had to make choices: Do we eat or do we heat? That became a catchphrase. It wasn’t invented by us in this party. It was coined by people out there who had to rely on food banks because they could not pay their electricity bills.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Jennifer in Ottawa.

Hon. John Yakabuski: Jennifer in Ottawa, I say to my friend from Nipissing, the Minister of Finance. Thank you, Jennifer from Ottawa, because you were the one who said first, “I have to choose as to whether I heat or I eat because of my hydro bills”—and all along, the New Democrats, who are now trying to block us in every way from passing this legislation so we can move on from a very dark time in this province’s history, when hydro rates went up by over 300%. This is a big part of it, and we’re getting rid of it.

I remember when Mr. Smitherman came back here and had this plan for this Green Energy Act. Amazingly, it coincided with a recent trip he had made to Korea. He was honoured in Korea, given some kind of award for his commitment to renewable energy. Lo and behold, the next thing you know, they’ve got massive contracts signed with Samsung. Coincidence?

Mrs. Robin Martin: I think not.

Hon. John Yakabuski: Well, you have your answer. I don’t have to; my colleagues have answered it for me.

When you have that kind of a questionable relationship, where a minister is being honoured in a country that is going to be very well financially rewarded, their businesses, by building wind power here in the province of Ontario, it certainly sounds a little bit suspicious to me.

What happened? Well, there was this move to build, build, build wind. The government realized that when they looked into the communities, the people said, “We don’t want that. We should have the right to determine whether or not we accept that kind of development within our municipal borders.” We brought in different motions. We brought in different private members’ bills. We tried to force the government to get municipal consent. I don’t remember the member from Essex supporting us in that legislation.

Speaker, when they had the chance to give municipalities the right—

Mr. Taras Natyshak: You haven’t done it in this legislation.

Hon. John Yakabuski: Well, I can say to the member from Essex: This is a repeal. Maybe you should try to understand things a little better.

They had the opportunity to give municipalities the right to say no. We fought for that. The Liberals said no. It drove a wedge right in the middle of communities where you had those people who were being offered massive amounts of money to give a wind developer the right to build on their property because they were getting paid so much money from the government. The money to the wind developer was so excessive that they could afford to pay excessive amounts to a landowner in order to build on their property. But it drove a wedge right in the middle of communities.

When municipal councils tried to fight back, they were told, “No, we’ll make the decision here in the corner office at Queen’s Park.”

Then, it finally got to the Liberals a little bit and they made some adjustments: “We’ll talk to the municipalities. We will consult. We must consult.” You know what “consult” means to the Liberals? “We’ll have a chat and then we’re going to do what we’re going to do anyway.” It’s sort of like what Judge Roy Bean used to say: “Of course I believe in fair trials. We’re going to give that man a fair trial, and then we’re going to hang him.” That’s how the Liberals felt about municipalities when it came to the Green Energy Act and their right to determine what would happen within their borders.

But not only did they play footsie with the idea of giving municipalities some opportunities to be involved in the decision, they actually then allowed developers to go directly to municipal councils and offer money to the municipality for the right to build within their borders. So now you had further division within the communities.

Now you had municipal councils that were struggling to meet their financial obligations as municipalities so that they could build their roads, so that they could pick up the trash, so that they could maintain their recreational programs, and all of the various other things that municipalities are responsible for. Then they looked at this leprechaun coming in with the pot of gold saying, “Hey, you let us build these turbines and we’re going to give you money.” So now the municipalities were further conflicted.

They weren’t only being told that, “You still can’t make the decision, but the developers, who we’re overpaying”—they’ve got money coming out of their yingyang—“are going to be able to bribe you.” Essentially, the developers could bribe the municipalities to get them built.

It never happened in my riding. I will give a lot of credit to the people in my riding who fought against it tooth and nail. My county council was united in saying, “We are not going to stand and have this happen here in Renfrew county,” but neighbouring counties did have that battle.

You have to ask yourself, if you had to do all of those kinds of things, what would be the net result of it? The net result would be that electricity would cost a whole lot more, because by the very nature of wind, it is the most unreliable source of electricity generation out there. It’s absolutely unreliable because we are totally dependent upon what nature gives you—totally dependent. When the wind doesn’t blow, you get nothing. If the wind blows too hard, you have to shut the turbines down because of the possible damage to the turbines themselves. So you’ve got this sweet spot where you can take the energy that’s developed by those windmills.

Interjection: At eight cents.

Interjection: Eleven.

Hon. John Yakabuski: It was actually up to 13.5. So if you’re willing to pay that kind of price, you’ll get your power.

Furthermore, they inserted into that act a guarantee that if wind was in the system, then wind would be bought. So in the spring, when the freshet was coming through and our hydroelectric stations were dealing with an abundance of water that nature was giving them free of charge, from the spring melt and the water running down those rivers, what were we doing? We were letting the water pass by the turbines, getting nothing out of it, because we were contractually obligated to take the power from the wind. But who was to pay? The ratepayer. The ratepayer would pay whatever the contracts were for regardless if we needed it.

Then we further complicated it, because the spring and the fall are your lowest demand periods for power. So then we would have this other situation where, even though we were taking the power from the wind, we couldn’t use it. The electricity system works like this: You can only put into the system what the system can use. There is no ability to store. So then what we had to do, on top of that, is figure out, when we got too much coming in, what we were going to do with it: “Hello, Mr. Quebec. We’ve got too much power.” “Sure, we’ll take your power. How much are you going to pay us to take it?” “What?

Well, let’s try New York. Oh, same thing.” You see, Speaker, we had to try to get rid of our power to neighbouring jurisdictions through the interties we have between provinces and international as well. We were in situations where sometimes we would get a little bit of money for the electricity—

Interjection: Pennies.

Hon. John Yakabuski: —pennies—and sometimes we actually had to pay them to take it. We would actually have to pay the other jurisdiction to take our power.

Now, put this math, Speaker: Let’s just say, for the sake of argument, that we were getting two cents a kilowatt hour from the province of Quebec, the state of New York or Ohio, but we were paying 13.5 cents or 80.2 cents or 44 cents, if it was a ground-mount. We were paying excessive amounts for that power and giving it away. But do you know where that went, that gap that wasn’t made up? It went onto your electricity bill. It just continued to drive the price of electricity higher and higher and higher.

Then the Liberals decided, “You know what? We have done everything we can to cloud the situation here, but we know that electricity rates will kill us in the next election. Let’s come up with another plan.” So then they came up with this Fair Hydro Plan, which was going to lower the rates by 30%. However, we were going to refinance it so that it doesn’t actually show on the books of the province of Ontario, but you will be paying for this. We’re going to save money in the short run—a few billion dollars. It’s going to cut the prices of your hydro by a few billion dollars over the short run.

But over the next 30 years, you’re going to be paying exponentially more in order to make up for that. It’s sort of like taking your house, and you had a 20-year mortgage and you decide, “Okay, let’s run the mortgage for 100 years.” By the time that 100 years is up, you will have paid for that house about seven times, or whatever; I haven’t done the math. But you will have paid for it many, many times over because of the cost of carrying that borrowing.

The Financial Accountability Officer and the Auditor General: They all came up with the same conclusion. But this was the Liberals’ last-ditch effort to try to take the hydro bill out of being a ballot box question in 2018. They were completely—I’m trying to think of a word that wouldn’t be unparliamentary.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Rejected.

Hon. John Yakabuski: Well, they were certainly rejected in the election.

They weren’t straight with the people of Ontario when they told them what this was going to be. They never, ever voluntarily told the people what this was going to mean to their hydro bills over the long term. One thing I’ll say: The people of Ontario do their own thinking as well. They realized that the future of their children and their grandchildren—those children I talked about when I first started speaking this morning. Those children’s future is going to be jeopardized by the actions of that government.

So here we are today, ending the Green Energy Act. This government campaigned on the promise to put an end to the Green Energy Act. It campaigned on a promise to lower your hydro bills. Ending the Green Energy Act is one of the primary components of that promise.

Gord Campbell said to the select committee yesterday something to the effect of, “In order to get out of a hole, the first thing you’ve got to do is stop digging.” You can’t change the course of action until you actually stop going in the wrong direction. That’s another way of putting it.

We had to absolutely end this Green Energy Act, so we brought in this bill, which matches one of our promises: that we would not allow this to continue in the province of Ontario. Promise made, promise kept.

Speaker, the NDP over there want to talk about the carbon tax. They love the idea of taxes. They just think taxes are great. You see, they believe that nobody is better at making the decisions on how to spend money than the government. They believe that if the government has the money, it will always do the right thing. The government will make the right decisions. Well, we certainly come from a different way of thinking. We believe that if the people have the money in their pockets, they will make the right decisions, and they have the right to make those decisions.

Absolutely nothing that the Liberals were doing with the so-called cap-and-trade carbon tax was actually even intended to reduce greenhouse gases. It was intended for one reason: to take money out of the pockets of most of the people to try to buy the votes of some of the people, with green programs that were directed at one segment of the population, but that most people couldn’t share.

We’ll have another chance another time, I’m sure, to talk about the NDP and their carbon tax plans, and the Liberals and their carbon tax plans, and Justin Trudeau and his carbon tax plans. This UN report that I hear the NDP talking about wanted to see carbon taxes at $5,000 a tonne. That’s the kind of stuff the NDP is supporting: $5,000 a tonne. It would drive the price of a litre of gasoline to $17 a litre. That’s the kind of stuff—

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Make it an even $30.

Hon. John Yakabuski: Well, they weren’t even talking about the reports, so they must support it.

Anyway, Speaker, my time is just about up, but I’m sure the people on the other side can’t wait. But we’ll be back. Today is the time and the NDP should actually be 100% behind us, saying goodbye, saying au revoir, saying rest in peace to the Green Energy Act, so they don’t have to look so duplicitous anymore.

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

Mr. Bill Walker: It is always a pleasure to weigh in. Like for my colleague the Minister of Transportation, this is not any celebration or concern, except getting rid of this act. Since I have been here, in 2011, with many of my colleagues, we have campaigned on this. We said we would do it, and again, promise made, promise kept.

This is a cost of $133 billion to Ontarians over the life of the Green Energy Act, money that could be going to hospitals, schools, long-term-care facilities or the less fortunate for social programs. This is taking money out of the pockets of Ontarians with the highest energy rates in the country.

We’ve lost numerous jobs, Mr. Speaker. When they brought this out, the Liberal Party and the NDP who have enabled them were talking about a whole new industry. They were going to create all these jobs. In fact, we’ve lost four jobs for every purported one that they’ve created over its life already, which is unacceptable.

They stripped local municipalities of the authority to say whether they wanted wind turbines sited in their communities. I remember my colleague from Elgin–Middlesex–London, now the Minister of Natural Resources—he has a community called Dutton Dunwich. They actually said, “We do not want it here.” But the government came in and said, “Sorry about your luck. They’re going here.” I can’t remember the name of the community right next door. They did want them and never ended up with any, Mr. Speaker.

So you knew again that they weren’t looking out for the realities of what people in Ontario wanted or communities wanted. They were going down a path because they had people who were telling them where they wanted this Green Energy Act.

At the end of the day, this is intermittent power at best. As many of my colleagues have said, we’re totally on board with making sure we have climate plans. The Minister of the Environment is going to come out with a very balanced, practical plan that’s affordable for the people of Ontario. That will come. We have to look at what the sources are.

Some of the NDP want to get rid of nuclear, one of the cleanest, greenest forms of power, providing all kinds of exceptional, good, well-paying jobs. It’s baseload energy with good, union-paying jobs, Mr. Speaker, certainly in the backyard of my colleague the Minister of Education, from Huron–Bruce. In her riding, Bruce Power has 4,500 full-time employees. They’re going to refurb six more units. They’ve already done two successfully, for that baseload power that’s going to ensure our businesses have good, low-cost energy going forward.

It’s going to create another 20,000 jobs across the province, to all of those companies. I believe we’re now up to 33 different companies that have relocated to my community of Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound and neighbouring Huron–Bruce. There’s a ripple effect, because we have communities in Cambridge, we have businesses all over the province supporting this nuclear refurbishment. Let’s just remind people here: That money is all from the private sector. That’s not government money; that money is borrowed from the private sector.

They are coming in and doing that job and they’re creating those jobs that are going to have a huge ripple effect for our economy.

So this Green Energy Act—many people have come to me and said, “Finally, a government that listens.” For 15 years, the Liberals were not paying attention. They would not listen to the people of Ontario, certainly in our municipalities, so I’m pleased to see that that is there.

Again, sadly, the damage has already been done by much of the actions that they had taken. Many businesses have left. We have 350,000 manufacturing jobs that were lost as a result, particularly to the energy policy. It was really an energy experiment by the Liberals, supported all the time by the NDP, the official opposition. They can say what they wish, but they have to go back to their voting record and know that they did that.

We’re pleased to see that we’ve actually taken control of that and we have given back that authority. We promised; we campaigned and said that we would get rid of the Green Energy Act, and I am pleased to say that that act will be gone. We’re going to give people back the ability. We’re going to go back to an energy policy that makes sense for all Ontarians. We’re going to have low-cost power going forward so we can, again, open Ontario back up for business.

One of the biggest concerns of businesses in my riding and, I’m sure, all the ridings across Ontario—they come and say, “We need stability.” We used to be the lowest-cost energy producer on the continent. Certainly, in Canada, we were the economic engine partly because of that. We had a thriving, booming manufacturing sector because of those low rates. Businesses need to be able to bank on those rates, and they need to understand those. The global adjustment for certain businesses was five, 10 times higher than what the actual cost of their energy was. How does a business bank on that?

How do they understand, going forward, how we’re going to maintain our business and expand our business if they can’t rely on rates that are going to be there?

Because of that intermittent source—that’s one of the biggest concerns, I’ve always said. You can’t predict when the sun’s going to shine and you can’t predict when the wind’s going to blow. At the end of the day, what they do is fire up gas plants. Even from the environmental perspective, how can they actually stand there and say that this was a good thing when you know that’s going to happen?

The first thing the Liberal government would do on days when we didn’t need as much power—and we didn’t need as much power because they chased 350,000 manufacturing jobs out of the country; many businesses relocated—is turn off Niagara Falls, our freest, cleanest, greenest form of power, at three cents per kilowatt. The highest point of solar was 82 cents a kilowatt. Nobody can make sense of why you would continue to do that.

We have always challenged it. We’ve always said that it never made sense from a business perspective; it certainly didn’t make sense from a math perspective.

If I go back to that $133 billion, what could we have done? We have a program called SWIFT that’s trying to bring Internet and broadband across southwestern Ontario to level the playing field and ensure that we actually have businesses that can thrive and grow and create more good-paying jobs in the future. What did they do? They went and spent $133 billion on the Green Energy Act, the highest, again, in the country.

Then they went out and they borrowed $25 billion for the fair hydro act, which is going to cost these pages and the next generation between $43 billion and $93 billion to pay back—money not going to our hospitals, money not going to our schools, money not going to our colleges and universities, and certainly not going to our social services sector. As a result, I have many people coming through my doors saying, “I’m really struggling with this.” Special medications aren’t being provided, in many cases, because we’re spending money on the Green Energy Act.

The surplus alone—many people out there still say, “We give power to the United States and Quebec.” Sadly—and it’s painful to even share this with people—we’re not actually giving them power; we’re actually paying them to take our surplus power, making their businesses doubly competitive against our businesses here in the great province of Ontario.

I’m pleased to say we came in and said that we’re getting rid of that. We’re going to give certainty back to people and know that we’re actually going to address the challenges of hydro. We’re not just going to do like the Liberals did, in a Hail Mary for the election, and borrow $25 billion and try to give people a reimbursement for two years and make them feel good and that everything is going in the right direction. They never, with any of that money, actually addressed any of the hydro challenges—the systemic challenges of the hydro system that they have ruined, frankly.

They have been enabled, for my 15 years here—I have only been here seven, but before that they were as well. The NDP did vote for most of those budgets and enabled them with a lot of this legislation.

I can’t tell you how many people have called me who are municipal politicians, and I congratulate all the people who put their name on a ballot in the last couple of days. I applaud those who were elected and I applaud those who weren’t elected because they still had the courage to put their hand up and do that. I’ve had many of those municipal councillors who have lived through that reign of 15 years and the Green Energy Act and saw the damage it was doing. The little grocery stores in many of our small, rural communities have been under siege. They’re losing jobs.

They’re having to lay people off at the end of the day. Some have lost jobs because they can’t take 30% and 40% increases in their hydro and still stay there.

Many seniors—we’ve heard in this House over and over again how many people were coming to a choice of heating versus eating, and that’s unacceptable over something that was never a true, proper business plan that could be justified.

At the end of the day, we need to make sure that whenever we’re setting policy and legislation, we are thinking of Ontarians. We want to open Ontario back up for business. We want to create full-time, good-paying jobs because that’s the way we bring ourselves back to a province of prosperity, when everyone has that job and that hope to get up in the morning to be able to come back. I’m pleased to see that we, as a government, are starting to enact legislation that will do that sooner than later.

We need to ensure that every day—I believe my colleague the Minister of Transportation said that one of the biggest challenges when you’re in a hole is to stop digging. We’ve stopped that digging but we’re going a step beyond with the Green Energy Act and saying we have to get rid of that act and we can’t allow it to go out to its end and do that damage.

Interjection.

Mr. Bill Walker: I hear someone who is not in their own seat heckling me, who always purports to stand up—why wouldn’t she stand with us and actually want to turn this around and vote with us to ensure that that money can certainly come back? Through you, Speaker, I’d like to share that with the person who is not in their seat but is heckling over there. I’d like that person to stand up and support us and give people out there hope.

I don’t know how she could justify, in her critic portfolio, that she would support the Green Energy Act and see $133 billion going to subsidies rather than to people in the very most trying times of their lives, and the most needy, some of those people, in their lives. You would hope she would show leadership to the official opposition and vote with us, to say this is a good thing that that is gone. They can repair a bit of their past ills by saying, “You know what? We understand and we are with you on this bill.”

It is my hope that when we come to this vote, it will go. We will be passing this, the Green Energy Repeal Act. I hope people out there understand that we’re doing this. We’re going to bring a new energy and environmental plan out that will show people that it’s practical, it’s balanced, and it ensures that people have the ability—

Interjection.

Mr. Bill Walker: Good point: The agricultural sector has been impacted by the Green Energy Act. The manufacturing and the steel sectors have been impacted by the Green Energy Act.

From day one when I got elected, I fought against the Green Energy Act. It was an experiment, at best, that the Liberals tried to purport to line the pockets of their well-heeled friends. Sadly, the NDP enabled them on those votes. I’m pleased that the Green Energy Act will be gone and we’ll give democracy back to local municipalities where it belongs.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: A few seconds on this: I hope the government realizes that the main problem with what the Liberals did with green energy was the privatization of the green energy sector. While we were forced to buy energy from private green sector generators, the province let our own public water go over the dams. I hope they realize it. Privatization is what is hurting the hydro customers in this area, not specifically green energy.

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

Hon. Todd Smith: It’s my pleasure to stand in my place today and talk about the death of the Green Energy Act. It’s something that I have been campaigning for in the seven years that I’ve been a member of provincial Parliament at Queen’s Park. The Green Energy Act will go down in history as the biggest con job in the history of governments in Ontario. It has been a travesty for our rural communities. It has caused electricity prices to skyrocket to the highest in North America. I, for one, and the members of the Bay of Quinte community, couldn’t be happier to see this day finally come and to put the Green Energy Act to rest once and for all.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Mr. Smith, Bay of Quinte, has moved government notice of motion number 13 relating to allocation of time on Bill 34,

An Act to repeal the Green Energy Act, 2009 and to amend the Electricity Act, 1998, the Environmental Protection Act, the Planning Act and various other statutes. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

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

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

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

Vote deferred.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Orders of the day.

Hon. Todd Smith: No further business at this time, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): There being no further business at this time, I then declare that this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 0957 to 1030.

Vandalism of constituency office

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Thank you very much, Speaker. I just want to rise on behalf of the MPPs in the official opposition benches to express our shock and dismay at what occurred in the Minister of Labour’s constituency. The vandalism that was experienced by our colleague the Minister of Labour is absolutely unacceptable and we condemn this action unequivocally.

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

Introduction of Visitors

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: As Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, I’d like to welcome the Chicken Farmers of Ontario to Queen’s Park.

I would also like to invite all members of the House to attend the chicken farmers’ event this evening in the legislative dining room at 5 p.m. Those on House duty are welcome at 6:05.

Mr. John Vanthof: On behalf of the NDP caucus and my leader, Andrea Horwath, I’d also like to welcome the Chicken Farmers of Ontario here today. They’re a very important part of our sector and of supply management, and we will be there to support you.

Mr. Bill Walker: It’s my pleasure to introduce R.J. Taylor, my constituent and the co-owner of Cedar Crest Trout Farm, with his sister, Arlen; Susan Cole, also my constituent and a representative with the Ontario Aquaculture Association; and Craig Hughson, with Aurora Strategy Group. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

M me France Gélinas: I would like to introduce a few people from Myeloma Canada. Myeloma is a cancer of the plasma cells that affects over 8,000 Canadians each year. We have Martine Elias, Steve Beattie, Sharon Aloian, Aldo Del Col, Robin Sully, Nina Rapoport, Norma Lindner, David McMullen, Patrick Taylor, Evelyn McDowell and Bob McCaw. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I’d like to welcome my constituent Christine Reno from CBI Health Group in Guelph, who is here with Home Care Ontario today.

I’d also like to welcome the co-deputy leader of the Green Party of Ontario, Abhijeet Manay, who is here visiting at Queen’s Park today.

On behalf of the Green Party of Ontario, I’d like to also welcome the Chicken Farmers of Ontario to Queen’s Park today.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to introduce some constituents of mine: Kevin Gilbert, Richard and Teresa De Wetering and Margaret and Harry De Wetering. They’re sitting in the west gallery. John Chapman, over here, is sitting in the east gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: In the members’ gallery, we have members of the board from the Retired Teachers of Ontario, who are also hosting a luncheon for MPPs following question period in rooms 228 and 230.

I would like to welcome all of the following members: Jacqueline Violet Aird, Paul Brazeau, Martha L. Foster, Richard Goodbrand, James P. Grieve, Mary Estelle Louise Guérin, Graham Martin Higgs, William Harry Huzar, David C. Kendall, Simon L. Leibovitz, Gayle Manley, Richard Prophet and Roger Régimbal. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park people from Home Care Ontario whom I visited with this morning: Stephanie Hayes, Gaye Moffett, Jay Turner, Jonathan Rose and Sue VanderBent. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Today is School Bus Driver Appreciation Day, as part of School Bus Safety Week. We’d like to welcome the Independent School Bus Operators Association, in particular, executive director Brian Crow and vice-president Rob Murphy.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Ottawa Centre—Ottawa South. I apologize.

Mr. John Fraser: They get us confused all the time.

I would like to welcome Alvin Tedjo, who was our candidate in Oakville North–Burlington—he’s here today in the gallery—and also my friends from Home Care Ontario, for being with us here today and helping to educate all the brand new members in the House about what they do here in Ontario.

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: I’m pleased to introduce one of my top volunteers from my campaign, Braedan de Bakker, who is also a Carleton University student and the director of campus activism for Carleton’s Conservatives. Welcome to Queen’s Park, and thank you for your work on my campaign.

Hon. John Yakabuski: I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park today Chuck Sandrelli, who is the operator of Valley Transportation in my riding of Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. He’s here for School Bus Driver Appreciation Day. Thank you very much, and welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: Today, I would like to welcome a good friend of mine, Joanne Becke, and her daughter, Elizabeth Becke, from Mississauga–Lakeshore.

Mrs. Amy Fee: I have the honour of welcoming a few guests today in the gallery: Deanne Allain and the service dog that she’s training for Autism Dog Services, Carlin. My nanny, Kristi Ostrander, is here and also my son Kenner Fee is here for his fourth question period but his first time with me as a member. He has his service dog, Rickman, with him as well.

Mr. Dave Smith: I would like to welcome Sally Harding, a member of my riding. She’s also a member of Home Care Ontario as well.

Hon. Jeff Yurek: I’d like to correct the member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound: Susan Cole is a constituent of my riding for the majority of her time. Welcome to the Legislature.

M me France Gélinas: I also want to welcome the people from Home Care Ontario who are here today and their executive director, Sue VanderBent, and thank them for the beautiful breakfast this morning.

Mr. Roman Baber: I’d like to welcome, seated in the east public gallery, students from grade 10 at Madonna Catholic high school, located in York Centre in north Toronto. Welcome.

Hon. Christine Elliott: I know there have been many welcomes already, but I would also like to say to the members of Home Care Ontario who are here today: Welcome to Queen’s Park. We’re very glad you’re here.

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: I would like to introduce Robin Sully, Nina Rapoport and Norma Lindner, who are at Queen’s Park today with Myeloma Canada. I look forward to meeting them later this afternoon.

Mr. Doug Downey: I’d like to introduce several people from the Appraisal Institute of Canada. It’s in its 80th year. Jim Rokeby, Steven Rocca, Lora Wylie, Dawn Powell, Kevin Reid and Shardul Jani: Welcome.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I’d like to thank all of the members in the House today who are wearing purple for Child Abuse Prevention Month. I’d like to seek unanimous consent for members of this House to wear purple ribbons for Child Abuse Prevention Month. I would also like to thank the finance minister for wearing purple today.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The minister is seeking unanimous consent of the House to permit members to wear purple today. Agreed? Agreed.

The member for Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry.

Mr. Jim McDonell: Thank you, Speaker. Professional Engineers Ontario are meeting here today and want to welcome everybody to their reception tonight in room 228.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Windsor–Tecumseh.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Thank you, Speaker. Just in case there’s somebody in the House who wasn’t introduced and welcomed to Queen’s Park today, welcome to Queen’s Park, everybody else.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We appreciate that.

I wish to join the member for Perth–Wellington in welcoming guests who are in the Speaker’s gallery today. They are the family of page captain Sophia Ruffolo—Sophia’s parents, Paul and Glenna Ruffolo, and her grandmother Jean Pfeffer, all visiting from Mount Forest; her uncles Michael Ruffolo and Wayne Kit Sujo from Toronto; and the mayor of Wellington North, newly re-elected Mayor Andy Lennox, and his son James Lennox from Damascus. Paul and Andy are former classmates of mine from Arthur District High School. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Oral Questions

University and college funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My first question is to the Deputy Premier. Late yesterday evening, after reporters headed home for the day, the government dropped a bombshell on three communities in the GTA. For years, Milton, Markham and Brampton have been planning for university campuses in their communities to provide opportunity for their children and to train a future workforce for their growing economies.

Last night, this government pulled the plug on those dreams in the dead of the night. What justification can they offer for this decision?

Hon. Christine Elliott: To the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. We promised the people of Ontario to restore accountability and trust in Ontario’s finances. Part of that process means making tough decisions about projects across Ontario. Our government is being forced to clean up the irresponsible and reckless financial decisions of the previous Liberal government. We know now, thanks to the independent commission of inquiry, the depths of the waste and mismanagement of the previous Liberal government.

To describe the previous government’s actions, the Auditor General used words like “conceal,” “bogus,” “deceptive” and “unreliable.” In an election year, they made promises—empty promises—to Ontarians for programs and projects they knew they could not afford, leading to a $15-billion deficit, while hiding the costs from the public. The Liberals have shattered the trust of Ontarians—

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

Interjections.

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

Restart the clock. Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I want to quote one local expert on the importance of these campuses. Speaking of the new York University campus in Markham, he said:

“Here are just a few numbers of the impact the new campus will make:

“—4,200 students ... will have access to teaching, learning and research.

“—400-plus on-campus jobs ...

“—$500 million in economic benefits ...

“The ... campus will benefit many residents of Markham and York region, allowing them to gain the skills and knowledge in order for them to be part of the 21st-century economy of Ontario.”

That expert was PC MPP Billy Pang, the member for Markham–Unionville, who was speaking in this House just weeks ago. Why is this government depriving these communities of economic investment and opportunity for their kids?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Our government was elected to restore accountability and trust in Ontario’s finances, and that’s exactly what we’re doing. Due to the independent commission of inquiry, the depths of the waste and mismanagement of the previous Liberal government are now clear. In an election year, the Liberals made empty political promises to Ontarians for programs and projects they knew the province could not afford, hiding the costs from the public and creating the $15-billion deficit that Ontario has today.

The Liberals shattered the trust of Ontarians, and our focus is on cleaning up the irresponsible and reckless financial decisions of the previous government and restoring trust and accountability in Ontario’s finances.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, the former government may have shattered people’s trust—and I agree with that—but this government is shattering their dreams. These are growing communities that deserve post-secondary opportunities for their kids. But now that the votes are counted, this government seems to think that they’re second class.

PC candidates spent the last campaign promising that these campuses would go ahead. During the campaign, the MPP for Milton said, “We will do everything we can to make this project a reality ... whether it takes $90 million or there’s more we need to do.” The MPP for Markham actually went to the groundbreaking ceremony of the new Markham campus. I guess this truly is a case of promises made, promises broken.

Why did the government break their word to the parents and students in these communities who were promised a university?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you to the member opposite for that question. Quite frankly, I reject the premise of the question.

We have been clear that this government is committed to the enhancing of financial accountability and transparency. The previous Liberal government, propped up by the NDP, who supported them on 97% of their votes, made empty promises in an election year for programs and projects that they knew they could not afford, leading to a $15-billion deficit while hiding the cost from the public.

The Liberals shattered the trust of Ontarians. Our focus is on restoring trust and accountability in Ontario’s finances, and that is what we will do.

Employment standards

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Deputy Premier. Working people in Ontario are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet. They find too many of today’s jobs are unreliable and underpaid. They’re looking to their government to ensure that they have basic benefits and that they get an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work. Instead of providing that, this government announced their plans yesterday to take basic benefits away.

Can the Deputy Premier explain why a woman working full-time on the minimum wage should have her wages frozen?

Hon. Christine Elliott: To the Minister of Economic Development.

Hon. Jim Wilson: Thank you for the question. As the honourable member will know, we promised to make Ontario open for business, and yesterday was a great big step in the right direction to do just that.

While the party opposite might be concentrating—as the Liberals did for 15 years, propped up by the NDP—on propping up a minimum wage economy, we need to get beyond that. We need to get better jobs, better-paying jobs. We can’t give up on our manufacturing sector. They gave up on our manufacturing sector. Premier Ford, I, our caucus and our party are going to revive those jobs in manufacturing and our industrial sector. To do that, we needed to get rid of the job-killing parts of Bill 148, and that’s what we did—

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, working people aren’t asking for luxuries. They’re asking for the bare-minimum basics: to take a sick day without having to lose a day’s pay, to enjoy their day off without being ordered to show up for a shift for fear of losing their job, to make a living wage of $15 an hour. Most employers who I meet are happy to extend these basic benefits to their staff. Why is the government rolling back these basic benefits?

Hon. Jim Wilson: Speaker, we’re not rolling back the basic benefits. If an employer wants to extend those benefits, they’re perfectly happy to do so, and a lot of employers are. By far, most employers aren’t paying minimum wage. They can’t get help at minimum wage. The fact of the matter is that what we did yesterday in the Making Ontario Open for Business Act is absolutely the right way to go to get our economy moving again.

When Bill 148 was brought in, we lost 52,000 jobs in January. In August, we lost over 80,000 jobs, and most of those, for the first time in my 28 years, were part-time jobs. Why? Because of the equal pay provisions in Bill 148. You had to have a part-timer paid the same as the person who has worked for you for 25 years. Businesses can’t afford that. They laid people off in droves—over 80,000 people. We can’t keep going the way they want us to go.

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

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

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s obvious that this government has no understanding that the value of a person’s labour is the same, regardless of that person. Whether they’re a part-time worker or a full-time worker, it’s the value of their labour that should be equal.

I’m certain that when the Deputy Premier needs a day off, she doesn’t lose a day’s pay. And we know that this government is more than comfortable handing Conservative insiders million-dollar pay packets. But when it comes to average working people, those standards don’t apply. They’re stuck working for poverty wages and have to choose between taking a sick day and losing a day’s pay. Why does the government think that’s acceptable?

Hon. Jim Wilson: To the honourable member, I say, what isn’t acceptable is 80,000 people losing their jobs in August and 52,000 in January. What part of this don’t you get? What part of going in the wrong direction don’t you get? Why do you keep propping up the direction the Liberals took this province? They took this province down the sewer, and you’re helping to once again—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members take their seats. I would remind all members to make their comments and their questions and their responses through the Chair.

Next question.

Employment standards

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Deputy Premier. But I’m going to state in this House what I’ve stated many times before: I will stand with working people before elections, during elections and after elections.

For people trying to make ends meet, losing paid sick days is actually a big deal. It means losing a day’s pay. That can make a huge difference when it comes to paying the bills at the end of the month.

The Deputy Premier doesn’t lose a day’s pay when she takes a sick day. Why must other workers?

Hon. Christine Elliott: To the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Laurie Scott: Mr. Speaker, yesterday’s announcement was a great announcement. It sent to the world the message that Ontario is open for business.

Interjection.

Hon. Laurie Scott: Absolutely.

The greatest benefit we can give to workers is reducing red tape to help create jobs in the province of Ontario so they have better-paying jobs.

We have one of the highest minimum wages in Canada, and we’re going to tie those ongoing increases to inflation—not politics, economics. Those increases are going to be tied to inflation.

The best thing that we can do for the workers of the province of Ontario is provide better-paying jobs and decrease the unsightly costs of affordability in the province of Ontario. That’s—

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, most working people are just trying to make ends meet, and this feels to them like another cut they just can’t afford. One woman working four different minimum wage jobs was on the radio this morning and she said that it felt like getting hit in the gut.

The government seems quite happy taking away people’s pay hikes or docking them a day’s pay just because they get sick.

Would the Deputy Premier be willing to dock her paycheque when she gets sick—or better yet, to try living on the $14 minimum wage?

Hon. Laurie Scott: Mr. Speaker, in the recent election, in which we received a large mandate from the people of the province of Ontario—they wanted life to be more affordable. So we’re making life more affordable. We’re decreasing their cost of living. We’re decreasing their hydro. We’re decreasing their gas bills. We’re decreasing their home heating.

We are providing an environment—and many businesses are here today, supporting our action of the open for business act so that they can provide more jobs, and better-paying jobs, to those people, so they can afford to live in the province of Ontario, so they can afford their groceries and so they can afford their electric bills. That’s what the people of the province of Ontario said in June: “Make our lives more affordable. Give us better-paying jobs.” That’s exactly what the PC government is doing on this side of the House.

Economic development

Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. Yesterday, the minister introduced the Making Ontario Open for Business Act.

For the last 15 years, the previous Liberal government created unnecessary red tape. The hard truth is that the previous Liberal government was fixated on job regulation instead of job creation. During our government’s consultations across the province, businesses told us loud and clear that the regulatory burden is getting worse every year. This comes at a time when our largest competitor, the United States, is reducing the cost of doing business in a historic way.

Could the minister please inform this Legislature of how Ontario fell behind under the previous Liberal government?

Hon. Jim Wilson: Thank you to my honourable colleague for the question. Ontario has slid rather badly. We’re used to thinking of ourselves as being up there in the same league as New York and California. But in a very disturbing recent report, using 2016 figures—a good measure of your economy is your GDP per capita, so your production per capita, and of the 64 jurisdictions in North America, so that’s the 50 states, the district of Columbia, the 13 provinces—

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Why do you hate Ontario?

Hon. Jim Wilson: Out of that ranking of 64, New York was third, California was ninth, and we were 46th, Mr. Speaker. We used to be right up there with New York and California; we were 46th. That’s how badly the Liberal government brought us down.

They didn’t care about jobs. They brought in every regulation and piece of red tape they could. There wasn’t a piece of red tape they didn’t like. They brought it in and piled it up, piled it up and piled it up. Our job creators are going elsewhere. They’re absolutely leaving, and our productivity has gone to the bottom third of all of North America.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos: Thank you to the minister for his response.

Ontario was once the economic engine of Confederation, but that was before the opposition voted with the Wynne Liberals 97% of the time. When the previous government introduced Bill 148, they drowned Ontario in a tsunami of new regulations that imposed unnecessary costs on businesses. For Ontario job creators, it was too much too soon. I’m proud of our government for the people for taking concrete measures to open Ontario for business and help create and protect good jobs in Ontario.

Could the minister please inform this Legislature of how the Making Ontario Open for Business Act will once again make Ontario a top-tier destination for job creation, investment, entrepreneurship and growth?

Hon. Jim Wilson: Thank you again to my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned Ontario’s GDP per capita statistic, and across the way they’re saying, “Why are you putting down Ontario?” We need to be realistic and transparent with the people of Ontario. They have their heads in the sand over there, Mr. Speaker, just like the Liberals had for 15 years. We’re sliding badly. Jobs are going, every day, to Ohio, Michigan and to Quebec. Other provinces are doing—we’re lagging four other provinces. We used to be, as the honourable member said, the economic engine of Canada.

The Making Ontario Open for Business Act, getting rid of the job-killing parts of Bill 148, opening up our trade sector and changing the ratios, those are all good things for good jobs and better jobs in the province of Ontario. We need to do it and we need to do it now.

University and college funding

Mr. Chris Glover: My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. The communities of Brampton, Markham and Milton had been eagerly anticipating a new university campus. These campuses were an opportunity for young people to get a world-class education closer to home. They were going to be centres of innovation that would grow the economies of these already fast-growing communities in the GTA.

Years of tireless effort went into making these campuses a reality, but last night this government snatched that away without a word of warning. Is the minister prepared to reconsider this callous and short-sighted decision?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. I will repeat that we promised the people of Ontario to restore accountability and trust in Ontario’s finances, and part of that process means making tough decisions about projects across Ontario. Our government is being forced to clean up the irresponsible and reckless financial mess and decisions of the previous Liberal government.

We know, thanks to the independent commission of inquiry, that the depths of the waste and mismanagement of the previous Liberal government have caused this situation. The Liberals have shattered the trust of Ontarians, and our focus is on restoring trust. I remind everyone that it is the NDP who supported the Liberals on 97% of their votes.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Chris Glover: Again to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities: Markham, Milton and Brampton are some of the fastest-growing cities in Canada, but they tend to be taken for granted by the government at Queen’s Park. They are the only communities with over a million people in North America that do not have a university. These campuses were investments in a smart future to make these communities centres of the next generation of research and development, and to create 21st-century jobs. Why is the government breaking the promise to make that investment to these communities?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you again for that question. I think we need to understand the financial situation that we are in. We were elected to restore accountability and trust in Ontario’s finances. In an election year, the Liberals made empty political promises all across Ontario for programs and projects that they knew we could not afford, hiding the costs from the public, and creating a $15-billion deficit that Ontario is reeling from today.

They shattered the trust of Ontarians, and our focus is on cleaning up the irresponsible and reckless financial decisions of the previous government. We are working on restoring trust and accountability in Ontario’s finances and our future.

Manufacturing jobs

Mr. Roman Baber: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. Minister, October is Manufacturing Month. It serves as an opportunity for government to come together with industry, labour, chambers of commerce, professional associations and educational institutions to recognize the vital role this sector plays in the day-to-day lives of Ontarians.

The manufacturing sector employs around 760,000 people in Ontario and makes up about 12% of our province’s GDP. It is safe to say that the manufacturing industry is an important driver in our province’s prosperity.

Could the minister please tell the Legislature what our government for the people is doing to stand up for manufacturing jobs in Ontario?

Hon. Jim Wilson: Thank you to my honourable colleague for the question. As all members know, manufacturing took quite a hit over the last few years under the previous Liberal government: 320,000 jobs—manufacturing jobs, good-paying jobs—were lost between 2003 and 2009, and since that date we’ve seen a steady decline; we’re still counting how many more thousands of jobs we’ve lost in the manufacturing sector.

I’ve had numerous opportunities, along with colleagues, in my capacity as minister, to tour a number of our great manufacturers that are still here in the province: General Motors, Linamar, Ford, Toyota and Honda in my own riding. Yesterday, Ministers Scott, Fullerton and I visited Leland Industries. I want to thank them for their hospitality.

All of these businesses told us that we needed to get rid of the job-killing parts of Bill 148, that they weren’t able to hire new people. They couldn’t find apprentices. They needed the College of Trades ended. That’s what we’re doing through the Making Ontario Open for Business Act, and we’re very proud to be doing that on this side of the House.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Roman Baber: Thank you to the minister for his response. Back to the minister: Ontario is North America’s manufacturing heartland and a world-class producer of automobiles, information technology, communications, biotech, pharmaceuticals, medical devices and many more goods. Ontario alone is the largest subnational automotive assembly jurisdiction in North America.

Yesterday, our government for the people announced a key piece of legislation that is going to support our manufacturing industry and encourage companies to stay right here in Ontario. If passed, this legislation will help businesses create jobs and expand.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the honourable minister: What is the government’s message to companies like Leland and the entire automotive industry?

Hon. Jim Wilson: Thank you for the question. Our message to the automotive industry and to all of our job creators in the province, large or small, is that help is on the way. Ontario is open for business, Mr. Speaker.

Not only is our government standing up for the manufacturing industry by reducing burdensome red tape, but our government has scrapped the Liberal cap-and-trade scheme. We’ve scrapped the Green Energy Act. We’ve promised to clean up the mess the Liberals left behind on hydro. We’re lowering taxes, and we’re fighting the worst tax of all, the job-killing Trudeau carbon tax, the federal carbon tax that will be a death knell for manufacturing in this province and that will undo all the good things we’re trying to do through our Making Ontario Open for Business Act. Shame on the federal government.

They need to rethink this punishing tax. It’s not only punishing families; it’s punishing jobs and our job creators. It’s absolutely the wrong way to go.

University and college funding

Ms. Sara Singh: My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Mr. Speaker, in my community of Brampton, parents, students and even senior citizens were eagerly anticipating a new university campus. We were excited for this opportunity because we were finally being recognized as a fast-growing and world-class city that can provide educational opportunity focused on innovation, job creation and cyber security for the next generation.

Years of tireless effort have gone into making this campus a reality. But in a blink of an eye, the work and planning has all been thrown out the window. Speaker, why is this government cancelling investments that are critical to our growth in Brampton?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you to the member opposite for that question—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Please take your seats.

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: We promised the people of Ontario to restore accountability and trust in Ontario’s finances. Part of that process means making tough decisions about projects across Ontario. Our government is being forced to clean up the irresponsible and reckless financial decisions of the previous Liberal government. And we know now, thanks to the independent commission of inquiry, the depths of the waste and mismanagement of the previous Liberal government. To describe the previous government’s actions, the Auditor General used words like “conceal,” “bogus,” “deceptive” and “unreliable.”

In an election year, they made empty promises to Ontarians for programs and projects they knew they could not afford, to a billion—

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

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Supplementary.

Ms. Sara Singh: Thank you very much, Minister, for that recording—sorry, I mean “answer.”

Brampton is the ninth-largest city in Canada, but it is constantly not getting its fair share. Millions of dollars have already gone into planning this university and our affiliated centre for innovation, not to mention the wasted time and effort from all of those involved in the project.

These campuses were investments in boosting Brampton’s economy, creating good-paying jobs and opportunities for our young people closer to home. In fact, this was something that members on the Brampton side of the government benches actually campaigned on. So why is this government continuing to treat Brampton like a second-class city?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you to the member opposite for that question. We’ve been clear that this government is committed to enhancing financial accountability and transparency. We owe our children a positive future.

The previous Liberal government, propped up by NDP, who supported the Liberals on 97% of their votes, made empty promises in an election year for programs and projects that they knew they could not afford, leading to a $15-billion deficit and hiding that from the public. The Liberals shattered the trust of Ontarians, and the NDP propped them up on their votes. Our focus is on restoring trust and accountability in Ontario’s finances. That is important for our future.

Taxation

Mr. Mike Schreiner: My question is for the Deputy Premier. Market economies have shown a remarkable ability to support innovation and adapt to changing circumstances—just think of the shift from horse to car travel a century ago. Market prices guide the decisions that people and businesses make, influencing what items they choose to buy, produce and sell.

Does the Ford government believe in markets and the importance of market-based solutions?

Hon. Christine Elliott: To the Minister of Economic Development.

Hon. Jim Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I sense a bit of a trap here from the honourable member. I’m trying to figure out what you’re up to over there, Michael—the honourable member, I should say. Perhaps I’ll just wait for the supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Supplementary.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I believe, Mr. Speaker, given the response I heard in questions around Bill 148, that the government does believe in market solutions. So if that’s the case, why is the Premier wasting taxpayer dollars to fight a lawsuit against the federal government to bring in a market-based solution to address the climate crisis?

Here’s the bottom line: If something is free, people will do more of it. If pollution is free, people will pollute more. It’s basic economics, supported by a Nobel Prize-winning economist. Even Conservative policy analysts have shown that putting a price on pollution will reduce pollution and put more money back in the pockets of hard-working people in Ontario, so they can save even more by reducing the amount of pollution. So I ask—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister.

Hon. Christine Elliott: To the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Hold on. Sorry, the question had been referred to the Minister of Economic Development.

Hon. Jim Wilson: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. To the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member from Guelph: We do know where the member from Guelph stands. The member for Guelph and the Green Party of Ontario are in favour of a $150-a-tonne carbon tax. Now, even Justin Trudeau, who is willing to put 11 cents on a litre of gas, isn’t willing to put 35 cents on a litre of gas. But to give credit, that is where the member and his party are coming from.

We understand the problem of climate change and we understand it needs solutions. We will be addressing those with a plan that balances the economy and the environment. What we won’t be doing is putting a 35-cents-a-litre charge on a litre of gasoline, as the Green Party advocates.

Taxation

Mr. Doug Downey: My question is for the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. Yesterday, the country tuned in while Justin Trudeau announced he was fully prepared to impose a carbon tax on provinces without a carbon pricing system. Trudeau conceded this tax will put a burden on the people of Ontario. He stated that the Liberals will “help Canadians adjust to this new reality.” In turn, he promised all residents the Liberals would then return funds back to them to ensure they would not be impacted by the increased costs.

This sounds too good to be true. I’ve never heard of a tax that puts more money back in people’s pockets. Can the minister please tell us the truth about Justin “Houdini” Trudeau’s tax?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, through you, I thank the member for Barrie–Springwater–Oro-Medonte for his insightful question. Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax is going to have an impact on people who drive cars. Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax is going to have an impact on people who have to heat their homes. His carbon tax is going to have an impact and it is going to hurt families. It’s going to hurt businesses and make them think twice about employing another employee. The president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business gave warning that the outcome for small business, whether it’s textile businesses, pizza businesses or other businesses, is dire. It is not good for job creators.

Mr. Speaker, this is not about a climate plan; this is about a tax. The FAO made it clear last week: $648 per family by 2022.

I agree with the member: Anyone who hears a politician say, “I’m going to increase your taxes and give you more money,” should think twice.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Doug Downey: I thank the minister for his answer. I’m so proud to be part of a government that does not submit and is ready to do what it takes to fight against this imposition of a carbon tax. We’ve made it crystal clear that we believe man-made climate change is real and our province is being threatened because of it. We’ve seen extreme weather cause floods, fires, wind damage and much more. Our government has been clear that our environment is a priority, and we’re ready to take action to minimize the effects.

Trudeau claims his carbon tax is a proven method to minimize the symptoms of climate change. The Trudeau carbon tax will start at $20 per tonne in January, and rise to $50 per tonne in 2022. Can the minister tell us: Will this really make a difference?

Hon. Rod Phillips: The member raises an excellent point. The Trudeau carbon tax will go to $50 a tonne—that’s the $648 per family—but as the leader of the Green Party would agree, that’s not an effective level for a carbon tax. If it’s not $150 a tonne, causing a 35-cent increase in gas, then economists who think a carbon tax is a good idea would agree. We don’t agree, Mr. Speaker.

When Justin Trudeau talks about a polluter, what he’s talking about is a commuter. He’s talking about mums and dads who have to drive their kids to hockey, who have to drive their kids to school. He’s talking about punishing families.

That’s why we’ve been clear: We will fight the Trudeau carbon tax. We will join provinces like Saskatchewan—six provinces now, that disagree with the federal carbon plan—and fight this carbon tax. We will fight it in the courts. We’ll use all the resources in our power to stand against this tax that hurts families and hurts Ontario job creators.

Employment standards

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Yesterday the government announced their plan to force workers to get a doctor’s note to prove that they’re sick, but for years doctors with the Ontario Medical Association have been very clear that when you’re sick you should be staying home, not dragging yourself in to work to avoid losing a day’s pay, and definitely not dragging yourself into a doctor’s office to get a note so you don’t have to drag yourself in to work.

Our health care system is already stretched, and this will only give doctors more work. What is the justification for this move?

Hon. Laurie Scott: Thank you very much for the question. We realize that doctors are stressed. We realize the medical system is stretched. I want to point out that in the legislation it says a medical note, a “qualified health practitioner” note. So there is, certainly, flexibility, but there also has to be accountability. Not every employer is going to ask an employee for a medical note. This is very much up to the employer. But we found—we’ve spoken across the province, heard feedback across the province—that there has to be some accountability when asked by an employer. We said, broadly, a medical health practitioner’s note.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that answers the question. It seems very reasonable on this side of the House for our businesses.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: Mr. Speaker, that response actually leaves us with more questions. And to add on to this mess, the government isn’t just taking away paid sick days. Under the proposed changes to the Employment Standards Act, people will now have fewer days off to deal with family tragedies. When a loved one passes away, the last thing anyone wants to worry about is whether they can take time off to attend their funeral.

Amazingly, the change also says an employer can demand proof in situations of bereavement. Is this government seriously proposing that people have to produce a death certificate for their mother before they’re allowed to go to her funeral in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Laurie Scott: Mr. Speaker, it’s very disappointing that the opposition is demonizing businesses in the province of Ontario and making it look to be that they don’t care about their employees. That is not going on in the province of Ontario.

We have eight job-protected days for employees, similar to other provinces across the country. We have designated—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Laurie Scott: We’re protecting every worker in the province of Ontario, Mr. Speaker, with those job-protected days.

I know the members opposite are upset that we brought in a piece of legislation that puts Ontario open for business and gives workers the opportunity to have better employment. Maybe you should look at it that way.

Taxation

Ms. Christine Hogarth: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.

We often hear pleas from the opposition in the House. The opposition call for help, to help the people of Ontario. On June 7, the people of this province voted for a change, and our government intends to deliver to Ontarians. Ontarians are tired of dealing with years of mismanagement and a government that wasn’t listening. Now they have a government that cares.

Can the Minister of the Environment tell members of this Legislature how we intend to ensure that the people of Etobicoke–Lakeshore and this province know that this government will continue to fight for them?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore: Yesterday, we did hear about Justin Trudeau’s plan—a plan that others have talked about. It will impose a $50-a-tonne, $648-a-year charge on Ontario families by 2022. At the same time, like the leader of the Green Party, members of the opposition, members of the NDP have talked about a $150-a-tonne charge. That charge is 35 cents a litre on gasoline. For the 73% of Ontarians who heat their homes with natural gas, that’s $263 a month more in natural gas charges. Ontario families just cannot afford that.

That’s why, as we promised during the campaign, we will be standing up to the federal government, joining Saskatchewan and the other provinces against the carbon plan, who will be facing the federal government in court against this unconstitutional, regressive, job-killing carbon tax.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Supplementary.

Ms. Christine Hogarth: I appreciate knowing we have such a passionate minister heading the fight alongside our Premier. Ontario voted for a government that would put their needs and their concerns first. Our government is holding true to our promise and making sure that the people of Ontario are first in our thoughts in all decisions we make.

Ontarians are far too smart to believe that Trudeau’s rebates are anything more than a temporary vote-buying strategy that will be discarded once the election is over. I am confident that our efforts we put in place will rid this province of a cap-and-trade carbon tax and ensure the Trudeau carbon tax is never imposed.

Following the removal of the cap-and-trade tax, can the minister please update the House on our plan to protect the environment for future generations in Etobicoke–Lakeshore and the rest of the province?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore: I share her confidence that Ontarians will see through the sham of a government that’s going to tax you more and put more money in your pockets.

She is also correct that we have to do our bit. Ontario has been a leader on the environmental front and will continue to be so. That’s why we will bring forward a plan that balances the economy and the environment, a made-in-Ontario solution that understands the importance of Ontario’s job creators but also the importance of the environment and makes sure the environment is protected.

We are in the middle of an extensive consultation process now. For those who want to share their thoughts, I’d encourage them to do so at www.ontario.ca/climatechange, where we’re gathering thousands of inputs. I look forward to presenting a plan that families can count on to protect the environment but also not attack their ability to live the lives they want, put more money back in their pockets—a plan that supports Ontario families and the environment.

Labour unions

Mr. Jamie West: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Now more than ever, workers in the province want to join a union, so it’s not surprising the government is going to make that more difficult. Tens of thousands of workers won the right to a simple card-check system, and that was in place for decades in the province before the previous Conservative government took the right away. Card certification for workers in the building service sector, the temp agency sector and the home care sector became a reality just last year. New Democrats argued that it should extend to every sector. If a majority of workers sign a union card, you should have a union.

Is making it harder to join a union what this labour minister represents?

Hon. Laurie Scott: Yes, we did take back the card-based certification for the three sectors that were put into Bill 148. We restored it with the secret ballot, which is a pretty good sign for democracy. I hope the member opposite isn’t against democracy. Workers will still have a choice. A secret ballot is a good democratic choice, and we hope the member supports us on that.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Jamie West: Back to the minister of employers—the Minister of Labour: People join unions because they want to be treated fairly and they want to work safely. This government is dragging the province backwards—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The government side has to come to order. He’s right there and I can’t hear him.

I apologize to the member for Sudbury. Put your question.

Mr. Jamie West: Thank you, Speaker. I was yelling as loud as I could to be heard. I apologize for their behaviour.

People join unions because they want to be treated fairly and work—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Mr. Jamie West: —safely. Now, dragging this province backward, limited rights to first-contract arbitration recently won by labour will be repealed. First-contract arbitration is often the only way to avoid disruption once a workplace is unionized.

What does the Minister of Labour have to say to the millions of unionized workers in need of protections now more than ever since the government is about to roll back their rights in a race to the bottom?

Hon. Laurie Scott: Yesterday’s announcement was a good-news announcement for workers and employers. Our government will remove the worst burdens on Ontario businesses, while we’re still preserving real benefits for Ontario workers. They still have rights. We’re not taking those rights away, Mr. Speaker.

Businesses have the confidence to succeed and they’re going to expand, and we’re going have better-paying jobs in the province of Ontario, and safe places to work. This was a good-news announcement yesterday for employers and employees, and the NDP should embrace those announcements.

Ontario College of Trades

Mr. Billy Pang: My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Many employees and job seekers are concerned about the burden of unnecessary and duplicative red tape and an unaddressed skills gap, particularly in the skilled trades. This is why I’m pleased to hear that the government is moving forward with modernizing the Ontario College of Trades. Businesses and tradespeople have expressed to me face to face their frustration with the college and the fact that the previous Liberal government—they are not here—failed to address the skills gap.

Speaker, through you, can the minister tell us how modernizing the Ontario College of Trades will deliver on our government’s promise to create good jobs and make Ontario open for business again?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you to the member opposite for the question and strong advocacy for the people of Markham–Unionville.

We’ve heard loud and clear from employers and tradespeople that the Ontario College of Trades is not delivering as it’s currently structured. Take the example of Alberta: Despite being a third of the size of Ontario, Alberta has 50,000 apprentices while Ontario has only 70,000. Meanwhile, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has said there are 154,000 unfilled private sector jobs in Ontario. We need a system that gets Ontario’s economy moving and fills the skills gap.

We know people are prepared to work and they deserve a shot at a job. We promised the people of Ontario to create good jobs in Ontario—

Interjections.

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

I’m going to remind the member for Markham–Unionville, and all members, that it’s inappropriate to make reference to the absence of any member at any time.

Mr. Billy Pang: I withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary. Start the clock.

Mr. Billy Pang: Through you, Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister, for your hard work in making Ontario open for business and modernizing the Ontario College of Trades. I’m proud that, unlike the previous Liberal government, we are focused on creating better jobs and filling the skills gap.

Under the previous Liberal government, which was propped up by the NDP, Ontario lost 300,000 good manufacturing jobs. The previous Liberal government hid the true size of Ontario’s deficit, leaving our province with the most debt of any subnational government in the world and a $15-billion deficit.

Speaker, through you, can the minister tell us more about how our government legislation, if passed, will increase access to trades and reduce red tape on businesses and job seekers?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Our legislation, if passed, will wind down the Ontario College of Trades and work to find efficiencies to reduce red tape and duplication that exist in the current system. The current system is not working for the economy, employers and tradespeople.

We’ve heard from the tradespeople and employers that many of the roles and responsibilities are overly burdensome. For example, apprentices must be registered in two separate systems, one with the ministry and one with the college.

We know people are prepared to do the work and they deserve a shot at a job. We were elected on a promise to reduce red tape and create good jobs in Ontario. Promise made, promise kept.

Home care

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. The crisis in Ontario’s health care has been growing after decades of Conservative and Liberal mismanagement. The quality of care has declined and wait-lists are getting bigger every day while people’s health suffers waiting for the care they need.

Across Ontario, home care has been hit the hardest. Patients and workers are both feeling the squeeze. Home care PSWs are doing the very best they can, but many have low wages, do not have protections and their work

schedule is unpredictable. Families are asking: What is this government doing to address the needs of their loved ones who are waiting for home care?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I thank the member very much for the question. I do agree with her that there has been a crisis that has developed in terms of resorting to hallway health care as a result of 15 years of inaction by the previous Liberal government.

We got elected to change that. We got elected to end hallway health care, and we’ve started action on that right now. We made an announcement several weeks ago about injecting an additional $90 million into the system to create 1,100 new spaces to get us through flu season while we are developing a long-term-capacity plan. We are working on that right away.

We also know that some of the reasons for wait times are because people are in hospitals and they don’t have anywhere to go. We know that we need to build more long-term-care beds. We’ve already announced that 6,000 of them are in production. But we know that home care is an increasingly important aspect of care because most people want to go home when they are able to leave hospital. Home care provides those supports with the nurses and the PSWs and the supports that people need. We are going to continue to build on that to make sure that people get the care they need.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Speaker, the situation in home care needs to be fixed, and this government is not helping by taking things from bad to worse. Cuts and deregulating will not provide Ontarians with the quality care they deserve.

Seniors in my riding of London–Fanshawe are suffering while this government hesitates to provide the home care services that the people who are the most vulnerable are waiting for. When will this government take the crisis in health care seriously and commit to providing the care that all Ontarians deserve and are expecting from this government?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I think it’s important for all members in this Legislature, as well as anyone who is watching these activities, to note that what we are doing is increasing health care in Ontario. We have indicated that through the investments that we’ve already made in hospitals and the investments that are happening across the board, the $3.8 billion that is going to be spent both federally and provincially to create a comprehensive and coordinated mental health and addictions system. Because right now what we have is bits and pieces all over that don’t connect with each other.

I think it is really important to note that we want to augment our health care services. We know we have a rapidly aging population. We have new medications that are coming on board to combat rare diseases, which is wonderful. We are going to make sure that we have those resources for people when they need them. That is our priority. Patient safety and patient concerns are top priorities for us on this side, and it’s something that I work on every day in the ministry.

School bus drivers

Mr. David Piccini: Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister of Education: Each day on my way into work I stop and usually see at least one school bus stopping to pick up young students in my riding. On occasion, I’ve been stopped behind these school buses as I see a lineup of students eagerly waiting to get on the bus to head into school to learn. They’re always greeted by a smile and parents are often there waving goodbye.

Mr. Speaker, today is School Bus Driver Appreciation Day, part of school bus safety awareness week. On this day, I can’t help but remember the many bus drivers who shaped my life growing up. I think of Keith and Wendy. These men and women end up leaving a lasting impression on young students’ lives.

Can the Minister of Education please tell me about how the government of Ontario plans to support these men and women who are crucial parts of our education system?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I would like to thank the great member from Northumberland–Peterborough South. He’s doing a great job on behalf of that riding.

I stand here today in front of you, Speaker, to share our sincere appreciation. On behalf of the Ontario PC government and Premier Doug Ford, I would like to thank school bus drivers across this province, because we all know the important job that they take on twice a day on behalf of all of us as they make sure that their students get to school and back in a very safe manner.

It’s interesting; every day, school bus drivers’ focus is ensuring that nearly 800,000 students from across Ontario are getting to school every day, as I said, two times a day. Their role is particularly critical in rural and northern Ontario.

I’d like to share with you, Speaker, that we recognize how important their job is. In fact, I’m pleased to say that by the end of this month, eligible school bus drivers will be receiving funding from the School Bus Driver Retention Program. That’s a thank you and it’s recognition for the important role they have every day.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Supplementary.

Mr. David Piccini: Thank you to the minister for that excellent answer. I know that parents and families across my riding appreciate the hard-working men and women school bus drivers that get their children to school on a day-to-day basis.

Can the Minister of Transportation update this House on how many students rely on these services and what is being done to make sure that our most precious assets are able to complete their journey each day from home to the classroom and back?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: To the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. John Yakabuski: Thank you to my colleague for the question. As with every file my ministry works on, safety is paramount, especially when it comes to our children. Our school bus drivers across the province do an excellent job of ensuring the safety of our students. Approximately 800,000 students in Ontario are transported back and forth to school every day, and our bus drivers travel 1.8 million kilometres each and every school day. I’m pleased to inform the House that school buses continue to be one of the safest ways for our children to get to and from school. Students are about 70 times more likely to get to school safely by travelling on a school bus than by travelling in a car.

On School Bus Driver Appreciation Day, I would like to take this opportunity to thank our school bus drivers and to remind all drivers in Ontario of the importance of paying attention, leaving space and being alert whenever they are approaching or passing a school bus.

Automobile insurance

Mr. Faisal Hassan: My question is to the Minister of Finance. This government recently allowed the Financial Services Commission of Ontario to increase auto insurance rates by as much as 11.6%. This is unacceptable and will hurt families in my community of York South–Weston who are already being gouged in their auto insurance rates just because of where they live.

Why doesn’t this government stand up to the insurance companies, stop the rate increases and finally end postal code discrimination in auto insurance?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: I want to thank the member for that question. Once again, it gives me a great opportunity to stand here and congratulate the MPP from Milton for his very, very hard work on this file.

Our member from Milton has proposed an initiative that is a great way to combat discrimination in our auto system. Now that the member’s legislation is tabled, we truly look forward to working with him and industry stakeholders to ensure our auto insurance system meets the needs of Ontario’s 10 million drivers. The member from Milton has done the right thing the right way. He consulted with stakeholders right across the province and will help with bringing relief to families across all areas of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Faisal Hassan: Again, through you, Speaker, I’ll ask the Minister of Finance. Drivers in my community are being gouged by insurance companies, and it is about time that this government takes action. This is the fourth quarter in a row that the government has allowed auto insurance rates to increase.

Interjection: Shame.

Mr. Faisal Hassan: Shame. One step this government could take to bring fairness back to auto insurance rates is to end postal code discrimination in premiums that penalize good drivers just because of where they live. Will this government—again, I’ll ask directly to the Minister of Finance—finally stand up to insurance companies and support the NDP’s bill that would end postal code discrimination in auto insurance rates?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: I think the member from York South–Weston should realize—I realize you are new here, but you should know the history is that the insurance proposal from the Liberals was part of a deal made with the NDP. So this is exactly why we are where we are. It was a “stretch goal,” in her own words, that the former Premier made. So we’ll certainly not be taking any insurance lessons from the NDP.

In the meantime, our Premier, Doug Ford, has made it very, very clear that our government is committed to ensuring fairness in rate setting, ending discriminatory practices and working towards a system that puts the driver first—unlike the NDP member from Brampton East. He wants rates to go up right across the rest of Ontario. We’ll have none of that.

Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Point of order, the member from London–Fanshawe.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I would like to introduce some guests to the Legislature: from Home Care Ontario, Sue VanderBent, the CEO of the organization; as well, this afternoon, I’ll be meeting with Sally Harding, Nightingale Nursing; Stephanie Hayes from 1to1 Rehab; and Bruce Mahoney from Home Instead Senior Care. Welcome to the Legislature, and I look forward to meeting with you later this afternoon.

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

Mr. Will Bouma: I just wanted to take a moment to introduce my long-suffering wife, Joni, and my oldest daughter, Lena, sitting up in the public gallery on the east side.

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

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I just wanted to introduce Rob Murphy, John Chapman, Chuck Sandrelli and Brian Crowe, who are from the independent school bus drivers of Ontario association.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Brampton Centre.

Ms. Sara Singh: I’d like to introduce my good friend Dasvinder Singh Kamboj, who is joining us here today. He’ll actually be leaving this weekend for Alberta.

Notice of dissatisfaction

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Pursuant to standing order 38(a), the member for London–Fanshawe has given notice of her dissatisfaction with the answer to her question given by the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care concerning home care. This matter will be debated today at 6 p.m.

Deferred Votes

Time allocation

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We have a deferred vote on government notice of motion number 13 relating to the allocation of time on Bill 34,

An Act to repeal the Green Energy Act, 2009 and to amend the Electricity Act, 1998, the Environmental Protection Act, the Planning Act and various other statutes.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1148 to 1153.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): On October 23, 2018, Mr. Smith, Bay of Quinte, moved government notice of motion number 13, relating to allocation of time on Bill 34. All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Anand, Deepak

Baber, Roman

Babikian, Aris

Bailey, Robert

Barrett, Toby

Bethlenfalvy, Peter

Bouma, Will

Calandra, Paul

Cho, Stan

Clark, Steve

Coe, Lorne

Crawford, Stephen

Cuzzetto, Rudy

Downey, Doug

Dunlop, Jill

Elliott, Christine

Fedeli, Victor

Fee, Amy

Fullerton, Merrilee

Ghamari, Goldie

Gill, Parm

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Mike

Hillier, Randy

Hogarth, Christine

Jones, Sylvia

Kanapathi, Logan

Karahalios, Belinda

Ke, Vincent

Khanjin, Andrea

Kramp, Daryl

Kusendova, Natalia

Lecce, Stephen

MacLeod, Lisa

Martin, Robin

Martow, Gila

McDonell, Jim

McNaughton, Monte

Miller, Norman

Mitas, Christina Maria

Mulroney, Caroline

Nicholls, Rick

Oosterhoff, Sam

Pang, Billy

Park, Lindsey

Parsa, Michael

Pettapiece, Randy

Phillips, Rod

Piccini, David

Rasheed, Kaleed

Roberts, Jeremy

Romano, Ross

Sabawy, Sheref

Sandhu, Amarjot

Sarkaria, Prabmeet Singh

Scott, Laurie

Simard, Amanda

Skelly, Donna

Smith, Dave

Smith, Todd

Surma, Kinga

Tangri, Nina

Thanigasalam, Vijay

Thompson, Lisa M.

Tibollo, Michael A.

Triantafilopoulos, Effie J.

Wai, Daisy

Walker, Bill

Wilson, Jim

Yakabuski, John

Yurek, Jeff

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): All those opposed to the motion will please rise one at a time and be counted by the Clerk.

Nays

Andrew, Jill

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Arthur, Ian

Begum, Doly

Bell, Jessica

Berns-McGown, Rima

Bisson, Gilles

Bourgouin, Guy

Coteau, Michael

Des Rosiers, Nathalie

Fife, Catherine

Fraser, John

Gates, Wayne

Gélinas, France

Glover, Chris

Gretzky, Lisa

Harden, Joel

Hassan, Faisal

Hatfield, Percy

Horwath, Andrea

Hunter, Mitzie

Karpoche, Bhutila

Kernaghan, Terence

Lalonde, Marie-France

Lindo, Laura Mae

Mamakwa, Sol

Monteith-Farrell, Judith

Morrison, Suze

Natyshak, Taras

Rakocevic, Tom

Schreiner, Mike

Shaw, Sandy

Stevens, Jennifer (Jennie)

Tabuns, Peter

Taylor, Monique

Vanthof, John

West, Jamie

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 71; the nays are 37.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I declare the motion carried.

Motion agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): This House stands in recess until 3 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1156 to 1500.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Jamie West: I’d like to introduce Eric Delparte. Eric was the one who originally nominated me to be a candidate for the NDP. He’s also the chief steward of mines from Steelworkers USW Local 6500.

Members’ Statements

Tom Kilpatrick

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I wish to pay tribute today to Tom Kilpatrick. Tom just retired after 40 years as a public school board trustee in Windsor—40 years, Speaker. He was just 35 years old when he was first elected. That was back in 1978. The Prime Minister was Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the Premier was Bill Davis and Windsor’s mayor was Bert Weeks.

Those were the days, Speaker, when school board trustees had the power to levy taxes. They had total control over the budgets and programs. They did all the hiring. They did their own bargaining with their employee groups. Yes, much has changed in education over the past 40 years.

Tom Kilpatrick served several terms as chair of the public board over those many years. His was a voice of reason, a quiet man of influence whose educated opinion was highly valued. Tom spent most of his working life at St. Clair College as the coordinator of the economics and management department.

He chose not to seek re-election this time, although he would have won easily had he decided to stay on. After 40 years as a trustee they give you a gold pin with a diamond star, but Tom Kilpatrick gave his public school system much more than that—thousands of volunteer hours. He was a role model and mentor to newer trustees, and someone administration could always go to for ideas and solutions.

Speaker, Tom Kilpatrick was one in a million. The Greater Essex County District School Board will miss his leadership. I wish him well and a long and healthy retirement.

Aquaculture

Mr. Bill Walker: Most of the members are familiar with Ontario agriculture, but how many have heard of Ontario aquaculture? What if I told you that over 100 million meals of farmed Ontario seafood were served this year across Ontario and in the United States? That’s 100 million meals of Ontario-farmed rainbow trout, Ontario shrimp, Ontario tilapia and Ontario lake whitefish that have been grown by farmers here in our great province.

Today, I’m excited to welcome several fish farmers to Queen’s Park, including R.J. Taylor, who is my constituent and the owner, along with his sister, Arlen, of Cedar Crest Trout Farm, one of the largest commercial trout hatcheries around. Their parents, Jim and Lynette, were pioneers in the industry and next year will celebrate their 50th anniversary raising farmed fish.

They’re here today to talk about the sector’s incredible growth potential, and I’d be remiss if I did not thank the Ministers of the Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture for making themselves available to discuss new job creation opportunities in this fast-growing sector. Last year in Ontario waters, farmers grew 15 million pounds of seafood and created more than 550 well-paying jobs, often in rural communities.

Speaker and members, with a small amount of red tape reduction and some regulatory changes to recognize the current realities of the industry, this sector could soar. And it could soar in a way that protects our precious water resources in Ontario. It could grow more fish and shrimp than ever before. It could bring jobs and industry to our province while increasing our export potential.

Why is this important to me? Well, if you’ve collected my trading cards yet—I can’t use them as a prop, Mr. Speaker—you already know the answer. The majority of farmed rainbow trout is born in my home riding, with seven commercial hatcheries that supply most of the young trout that grow in the sustainable net-pen farms in Georgian Bay and specifically in the backyard of my colleague from Algoma–Manitoulin, MPP Mantha.

I want to welcome our guests again here today and not steal Mr. Yurek’s friend from St. Thomas.

Violence against women

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: Over the last week I’ve heard from numerous organizations in my riding of London North Centre that condemn this government’s decision to scrap the expert panel on violence against women.

We know that misogyny is one of the leading causes of violence in this province, and yet this government continues to roll back support for abused women. Aside from cancelling the round table, the government has refused to honour funding increases for Ontario’s sexual assault centres. It has removed a health and phys ed curriculum that focuses on online safety, respect and consent. Now we learn that the government’s attack on Bill 148 threatens to axe a working woman’s right to receive paid leave if she is the victim of domestic or sexual violence.

Just this last week, I was proud to attend the media launch of the ninth annual Shine the Light campaign in London North Centre. The campaign, organized by Megan Walker, the executive director of London Abused Women’s Centre, aims to educate Londoners about men’s violence against women. For years, Megan has been a powerful, respected and outspoken advocate for women’s rights. She is a force of nature.

During the month of November, London will turn purple to stand in solidarity with abused women. This year’s campaign will shine a light on women who have died from male violence, as well as survivors of revenge porn. Sharing intimate photos or videos without consent is sexual violence, and this message is critically important in fostering a culture of consent online.

I applaud the work of the Shine the Light campaign and stand in solidarity with their efforts to end violence against women.

Access to Justice Week

Ms. Lindsey Park: I rise to recognize the third annual Access to Justice Week. As parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General, I’m honoured to stand in this Legislature to help bring attention to this important issue.

What is access to justice? As a starting point, it refers to the formal rights recognized by our Constitution: to be informed of charges against you in criminal and penal matters in a timely way, to be tried in a reasonable time, and to receive a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial decision-maker.

However, many would agree that real access to justice, real justice for the people, is beyond just the courtroom, and there is much important work to be done. I want to applaud the Law Society of Ontario and their partners for spurring a constructive dialogue on this pressing issue through the Action Group on Access to Justice and the sessions going on this week. Many people in Ontario still have difficulty accessing affordable legal services when they need them most. They also face seemingly endless court appearances and wait times to bring a conclusion to a legal dispute.

The first step in moving forward is understanding the issues we’re currently faced with and then crea