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

October 30, 2018

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2018-Oct-30 (PDF)

L043 - Tue 30 Oct 2018 / Mar 30 oct 2018

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 30 October 2018 Mardi 30 octobre 2018

Orders of the Day

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

Introduction of Visitors

Veterans

Oral Questions

Health care funding

Employment standards

Employment standards

Education

University and college funding

Climate change

Hospital services

Party status

Guide and service animals

Government spending

Government’s agenda

Social assistance

Interprovincial trade

Northern economy

Wildlife management

Climate change

Notice of dissatisfaction

Committee sittings

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Hospital funding

Freedom of religion

Indigenous programs and services

Colours of Love International Concert

Taste of Brampton

Remembrance Day

Autism treatment

Events in Sri Lanka

Maddie Smith

Introduction of Bills

Cutting Red Tape for Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 allégeant les formalités administratives pour les commerçants de véhicules automobiles

Long-Term Care Homes Amendment Act (Preference for Veterans), 2018 / Loi de 2018 modifiant la

Loi sur les foyers de soins de longue durée (préférence accordée aux anciens combattants)

Petitions

Employment standards

Public safety

Injured workers

Northern health services

Traffic control

Employment standards

Long-term care

Gasoline prices

Pharmacare

Long-term care

Northern health services

Celiac disease

School boards

Orders of the Day

Making Ontario Open for Business Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 pour un Ontario ouvert aux affaires

Adjournment Debate

Protection for workers

Social assistance

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

Mr. Phillips moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 4,

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

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Would the minister care to lead off the debate?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to begin third and final reading of Bill 4, the proposed Cap and Trade Cancellation Act.

Our government was elected with a clear mandate, a mandate to make lives more affordable for Ontario families. We made a promise to the people of Ontario, a promise that we would scrap the carbon tax cap-and-trade program imposed by the previous Liberal government. It’s a punishing tax that forces poor and middle-class families to pay more for basic things: heating, housing, and fuelling their cars. As the Auditor General confirmed, the program would lead to Ontarians paying about $8 billion more to the government over four years for their fossil fuel needs.

On top of this, the Auditor General asserted that even after these heavy costs were foisted on the backs of Ontarians, the majority of reductions in greenhouse gases would not happen in Ontario but outside.

Mr. Speaker, $8 billion is a very large sum to pay for measures that won’t do what they are intended to do: actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions from Ontario emitters. This is why, upon taking office, we took swift action to fulfill our promise to Ontario families and Ontario businesses. We revoked the cap-and-trade program regulation and ended cap-and-trade trading and emissions allowances. We initiated the process of withdrawal from all agreements related to the Western Climate Initiative, Inc.

We began the cancellation of all programs funded from cap-and-trade carbon tax proceeds, including the Green Ontario Fund. As part of our promise to Ontarians, we used every tool at our disposal to fight this unfair, unconstitutional tax, which has included challenging the federal government’s plan to impose a carbon tax on Ontario families in the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Instead of creating and protecting jobs, the federal government announced last week their plan to impose this tax on Ontario and three other provinces. We should be clear: This tax will burden Ontario’s economy with a carbon tax and chase jobs out of the province. The FAO has commented that there will be over $800 of costs by 2022 for the average Ontario family. This is why Premier Ford has announced that Ontario will not only have its own challenge but will also join Saskatchewan’s court challenge of the federal government’s carbon plan.

Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of introducing this bill we are discussing today, Bill 4, the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, on July 25. This was our first step in fulfilling our promise to make Ontario more affordable for families and businesses. The orderly and transparent wind-down of the cap-and-trade program will benefit all Ontarians. It will ensure that no additional cap-and-trade costs are passed on by suppliers to consumers and, therefore, more costs for families. This is real action that the Financial Accountability Office has confirmed will save the average family $264 annually.

If the proposed bill is passed, it is estimated that in 2019, it would lower the cost of purchasing gasoline by 4.5 cents per litre, and diesel by 5.5 cents per litre. Mr. Speaker, with the cancelling of the regulation, we’ve already seen changes of that magnitude come into place. The estimated direct savings for all sectors in 2019 will be over $1.9 billion.

The end of the carbon tax era means lower costs for businesses and lower costs for households. This, in turn, means more money for businesses and more disposable income for households, which will boost consumption, exports, output, business investment and employment.

The end of this regressive tax will also result in a boost to the Ontario economy. If the proposed bill is passed, cancelling the cap-and-trade program is estimated to increase our gross domestic product by 0.13%, supporting 8,000 net new jobs by 2021. For these reasons and more, the proposed Cap and Trade Cancellation Act is necessary.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the proposed bill sets out the legal framework for the wind-down of the greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program, including the compensation framework. Key elements of the bill are:

—repealing the Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act, 2016;

—the retirement and cancellation of cap-and-trade instruments—for example, allowances and credits;

—a compensation framework;

—immunizing the crown from domestic civil liability;

—a requirement for the government to set greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets;

—a requirement for the minister to prepare a climate change plan; and

—addressing proceeds credited to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Account.

A number of amendments have been made to Bill 4 during the legislative process. I should say that it was my pleasure to attend the reading of the clause-by-clause. Although I thought many of the amendments proposed by the opposition were more appropriately suggestions for the climate plan that will be coming next month, it was a very useful process that I would commend to my ministerial colleagues.

The amendments that we will be going forward with include:

—allowing the minister to appoint an advisory panel for the purpose of taking any steps with respect to the climate change plan—for example, providing advice on implementing or revising the plan;

—providing clarification regarding regulation-making authority for prescribing amounts of compensation;

—clarifying the scope of regulation-making authority to limit the compensation for eligible participants;

—making electricity generators ineligible for compensation, as they had the ability to recover their costs under the program; and

—authorizing the reimbursement of expenditures in relation to the wind-down that will be incurred by the crown prior to the enactment of the bill.

Bill 4 was also posted on the Environmental Registry for the 30-day public consultation that closed on October 11. We received many comments from a wide range of interested stakeholders, including members of the public, business, industry organizations, environmental organizations and municipalities. We also heard from industry associations, environmental organizations, investment experts and labour councils through the public hearing process for the legislation. All comments were received and were considered by the ministry as part of our consultation process.

Mr. Speaker, our decision to wind down the cap-and-trade program is being guided by several principles. We want to swiftly remove the carbon price from energy prices paid by Ontario consumers. We want to minimize the impacts to taxpayers of possible compensation and legal liability. Indeed, our current estimate is that total compensation will be approximately $5 million. We are putting the people of Ontario first and taking care to ensure taxpayers are protected from unnecessary exposures.

Finally, we want to provide a responsible, measured framework for compensation. The proposed compensation framework aims to minimize the impact to capped participants that were not in a position to recover their costs from consumers.

We are also proposing that the act include provisions that, if passed, would allow and enable the government to set targets to reduce emissions in the province. The legislation would also require me, as the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, to prepare a new plan to address climate change.

Mr. Speaker, we are committed to putting in place a better plan: a made-in-Ontario solution to address environmental challenges we face while respecting the taxpayers of the province. This government is committed to protecting the Ontario we know and love, and ensuring that the pristine beauties and the strong communities we enjoy now can be enjoyed in the future.

We know that climate change is a serious, global problem. We are seeing more severe storms, resulting in flooded basements, structural damages and costly cleanups. If you look at the insured losses we’ve suffered in Ontario this year alone, you get a very good picture of the consequences.

In February, a storm caused more than $46 million of insured damage in Brantford, Cambridge, London and the GTA. In April, a storm in southern Ontario resulted in almost $80 million in costs. The winds and rains that hit Hamilton and the greater Toronto area in May have caused over $500 million in damage—the biggest storm since the billion-dollar flood that hit Toronto in 2013. And in August, a rainstorm in Toronto caused $80 million in damage. Most recently, of course, we saw the destruction left in the wake of the Ottawa tornadoes.

These events disrupt our communities, threaten our health and safety, and cost families not only out-of-pocket expenses associated with cleanup but also cost them in terms of higher insurance premiums.

Climate change is a reality, and our environmental legacy will to a large extent be based on our ability to adapt and to prevent the worst consequences from becoming a reality. At the same time, our government for the people is committed to protecting the environment in a responsible and balanced way that creates jobs, respects taxpayers and grows the economy.

Mr. Speaker, next month our government will release a made-in-Ontario environmental plan. It will be tailored to meet the needs of Ontarians by protecting and conserving our air, land and water; addressing urban litter and waste; building resilience to the impacts of climate change, in particular extreme weather; and helping us all do our part to slow down climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Addressing environmental challenges, such as climate change, provides us with an opportunity as a society to innovate, transform and strengthen environmental safeguards while creating jobs, respecting hard-working taxpayers and growing the economy.

Earlier this month, we issued an invitation to the public to submit ideas on some of the key areas of focus for our upcoming climate plan. If anyone is interested in submitting, the consultation is still open at ontario.ca/climatechange. We have asked for thoughts on building climate change resiliency, pollution reduction and how the government can better partner with the private sector for sustainable solutions.

We have also had over 100 meetings in terms of consultations with stakeholder groups, environmental groups and business groups. We’ve also consulted globally with people who have had successful programs internationally, people like the UK carbon fund, the New York Green Bank and the Australian reverse-auction plan. So we’ve been consulting with the people of Ontario; we’ve also been consulting globally; we’ve also been consulting with other provinces, learning from the experience of provinces that have a plan in place. We believe that this ongoing public dialogue will help us find the most effective and innovative solutions to the environmental challenges we face today.

In the meantime, it is important that we pass Bill 4, the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act. This proposed legislation gives us an opportunity to usher in a new era of fiscally prudent and effective environmental action in the province of Ontario. It’s an era that begins with the cancellation of the cap-and-trade program. This is the right thing to do, it’s a good thing to do, and it’s another example of a promise made and a promise kept. I urge the members to support this important piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Ian Arthur: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be sharing my time with the member from Toronto–Danforth.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): With all due respect, you will not be sharing your time. There is no sharing of time in this debate. You will be speaking, and then we’ll rotate to somebody else.

Mr. Ian Arthur: That sounds great as well. So thank you again.

No matter if one supports a carbon tax, a cap-and-trade system or regulation, there is absolutely no doubt that we need to take action and create policy to fight climate change. Whether it is the footage of the tornado in Ottawa, the fires across northern Ontario or the floods in Gatineau and Toronto, the signs of new extreme weather events are all around us. Recent summers have seen Ontario’s worst drought followed by one of the wettest springs in recorded history.

In Kingston, our new cancer treatment centre at Kingston General Hospital flooded just after it was built, when Lake Ontario rose to unprecedented levels. Climate change is here and now, and it is something that my constituents in Kingston and the Islands, as well as those from across Ontario, care about very deeply.

Marilyn Kennedy writes, “I urge the government of Ontario to legislate strong action to reduce its carbon pollution in line with the commitments Canada has made under the Paris climate agreement.”

Marilyn continues: “Bill 4, as it stands, will take us backwards. It eliminates the legislative framework to address climate change—without doing anything to replace it.”

Philip Jacobi writes about his fears about man-made climate change: “I’m really worried about the future of my kids and grandkids and I know you’ll agree with me when I say that we need to do something now to make life better for them in the future.”

Heather Schreiner writes about the specific effects Bill 4 will have on Kingston: “Support for renewable energy infrastructure—from geothermal heating, to rooftop solar systems, to electric vehicles, including transit buses—has been curtailed. Kingston was to receive money to retrofit certain social housing buildings to increase their energy efficiency. All of these necessary programs for saving energy and using green energy have now lost this support.”

As you can hear, Mr. Speaker, there are many constituents who write passionately and eloquently on this matter. I applaud their efforts and encourage them to continue sending me their thoughts.

I share the same anxieties that Mr. Jacobi expressed in his letter. I cannot help but think of how my generation is inheriting a world that is burning, and I worry that the consequences of not taking immediate action will be catastrophic.

It is a sentiment shared around the world, and indeed by the United Nations itself. On September 10, the UN Secretary-General told the world that we have less than two years to avoid runaway climate change.

“Climate change is the defining issue of our time,” said the UN, “and we are at a defining moment....

“Far too many leaders have refused to listen....

“The time has come for our leaders to show they care about the people whose fate they hold in their hands.”

I fear that this government is filled with the very members the above statement is about, and that the ideology will win out over intelligent policy. I fear that enough won’t be done, and that it will fall on my generation to move from this course of history. These future struggles will be more difficult because we will have to do more with less.

Bill 4 is directly related to our ability to deal with climate change and extreme weather events. It repeals an internationally recognized, market-based method that has proven to be successful in reducing emissions.

I remind this chamber that the cap-and-trade system was pioneered by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. In the case of President Bush, in 1990 his Republican government introduced amendments to the Clean Air Act, using a cap-and-trade system to target sulphur dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants. As a result, by 1995 these emissions had fallen by three million tonnes. This example of actions taken by a conservative leader is a good one for this government to take note of.

Sometimes the obvious must be stated: Cap-and-trade is a market-based system put in place to provide economic incentives to market agents or participants to reduce the level of pollutants in their emissions. This is a policy that was put in place so that the market—the market—could combat the ever-worsening effects of climate change.

I want to make it clear that by eliminating cap-and-trade and putting nothing in its place, this government is removing the only market incentive it had for lowering GHG emissions. This government is ruining both our business and environmental reputations, taking us from leadership to pariah. Sadly, Ontario has become the laughingstock of so many of our major trade partners who are all pricing carbon. This bill has already irreversibly harmed our international reputation, hurting our competitiveness and ability to attract business.

Businesses require certainty. Businesses plan in decades, and the actions taken by this government have made it very clear that they cannot rely on Ontario to provide a stable and transparent environment for business. Businesses manage risk—it’s what they do—but no business can prepare for the stroke-of-pen risk that has been forced upon them by this government.

This doesn’t even touch on that they’re reducing revenue long before they have a hope of balancing the budget, and in fact are adding, at the bare minimum, $3 billion to the deficit over the next four years.

Some in this government call the cap-and-trade program a Liberal slush fund, but to me, that’s actually missing the point. That the Liberals allegedly misused the funds generated by this program does not mean that this government would have to do the same. There is an opportunity to take that money and create a new legacy, a legacy of leadership and meaningful action on the most pressing issue of our time.

Instead, in a time of fiscal uncertainty and massive debt, the government is forgoing that much-needed revenue. It is more than a little like putting the cart before the horse. Tackling climate change and paying for the already increasing costs associated with the effects of global warming is going to be a massive financial burden. Dare I ask what funds this government is planning to use to help Ontarians with the effects of climate change?

In addition to forgoing the revenue needed to combat climate change, there is a complete lack of targets in this legislation. Any legislation not based on the Paris agreement lacks both credibility and the bare minimum of targets needed to avoid catastrophic, runaway climate change within the next 10 years. Where there was once guidance, there is now a void that the minister promises will be filled by his yet-to-be-unveiled silver bullet climate plan. It’s good to know that the minister is so much smarter than the nations, scientists and experts from across the world who developed the Paris climate accord over the last 30 years.

This is what Bill 4 represents to me: this government’s aversion to anything other than their own dogma, their aversion to environmental and fiscal stewardship, and any acknowledgment that cap-and-trade could have been a tool for good. Cap-and-trade was the tool that government could have used to meaningfully combat climate change while also leveraging the market to create prosperity. Instead, it was rejected for nothing more than simple laissez-faire philosophy. The people of Ontario deserve better.

The Ford government has instituted a market transition that is incredibly complex, but the rhetoric of cancelling the carbon tax has obscured the complexity of the issues this simplistic legislation is attempting to deal with. Cap-and-trade is a market, and it should be treated as such. And cap-and-trade was working. Businesses from all over the world wanted to invest in Ontario’s cap-and-trade market—businesses with money looking for opportunities. Six months ago, Toronto was poised to be the green finance capital of the Americas, and now no one will even look at us.

Incidentally, this government talks about all the money that left Ontario during cap-and-trade, but it’s actually the opposite that was true. There was over $200 million in Ontario allowances that were purchased by California. We have $225 million of California’s money here, and we only sent out $13 million. Perhaps the government could share with us what they are planning to do with all of that money.

Now, I’m aware that Bill 4,

An Act respecting the preparation of a climate change plan, providing for the wind down of the cap and trade program and repealing the Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act, 2018, will pass. So let’s discuss the promises made for the preparation of the new climate change plan.

For any replacement to cap-and-trade to be successful, there are two requirements:

(1) There must be clear and binding targets informed by credible scientific sources, and these targets must adhere to the Paris climate agreement. There are currently 195 nations attached to the Paris climate agreement under a variety of targets. We must do our part. But no part of this legislation makes any sort of commitment to any of those targets.

(2) There needs to be an assurance that the policies put in place will create prosperity. It is more constructive to think of environmental market instruments like cap-and-trade as great opportunities for both innovation and job creation, rather than burdens on everyone.

The data coming out of California right now says that cap-and-trade was a quarter of the cost of other alternatives to achieve the same environmental progress that they did under a cap-and-trade system. This leads me to what I feel to be one of the worst and saddest aspects of this legislation: the massive loss of economic activity and business opportunities that we are about to experience.

During the October 15 meeting of the Standing Committee on General Government, I had the opportunity to listen to some incredibly insightful testimony. Lisa DeMarco, of the law firm DeMarco Allan, stated, “It’s my strong view, based on 20 years of history in and around climate policy both domestically and internationally, acting for governments of all policy bents, of all prescriptives, that climate is an absolute imperative we must act on now, and that good climate policy is actually extraordinarily good for the economy, for labour, for people in general.”

Katie Sullivan, the managing director of the International Emissions Trading Association, spoke of how “flexible, environmental market instruments like Ontario’s cap-and-trade system are not taxes or levies; they are markets. These are commodity markets with tradable assets, assets holding compliance and financial value. Think of them like any other commodity market: power, coal, gas, wheat, soybeans. For years, the low-cost nature and efficiencies of markets have spurred business engagement to tackle a variety of environmental issues, from acid rain and ozone-depleting substances to leaded gasoline and now, increasingly, carbon.”

She went on to say that this government continues to stress that Ontario is open for business. “IETA applauds and supports this sentiment, but, in recent months, how the province has moved in dismantling the cap-and-trade and related programs and communicating this has been perceived as rushed and challenging.... These actions have ... undermined confidence in Ontario as being ‘open for business’ across industry, investors and trade partners.

“All of these players are carefully watching....”

Andrew Heintzman, the CEO of a venture capital fund that invests in sustainable companies, stated: “My experience has taught me that leveraging the power of the market is the best way to truly tackle the issue of climate change. But the right policies have to be in place to leverage this engine for change, and putting a price on carbon is the trigger to leveraging the transformative power of the market economy. It works in part by mobilizing an army of one of our society’s most creative classes of citizens, our entrepreneurs, to focus their ingenuity, tenacity and intelligence to solve the problem of reducing carbon emissions. The market price is the spark for this ingenuity.”

I was struck during the testimony by the number of self-professed conservatives and others who talked about how they could not believe this government was abandoning a market-based solution that fostered growth in emerging fields. Nearly all who spoke argued that Bill 4’s goal of cancelling cap-and-trade is highly problematic. These are directors and policy makers, educated people who believe in market-based solutions, and they say the bill does not make sense.

Frankly, I shouldn’t be surprised. This legislation was written for the benefit of the old and the few, whose lack of foresight has shut them out of these growing opportunities. They are a group that is heavily invested in government’s protecting their short-sighted investments in fossil-fuel sunset industries.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw attention to the recent report from the Financial Accountability Office on the financial repercussions of Bill 4. Their report highlighted a number of issues around Bill 4 that are worth repeating: There will be $3 billion added to the deficit from this loss of revenue. The $5-million compensation scheme excludes 99% of companies who partook in the market. The $500 million in program spending, which is about 25% of planned program spending of the revenues from cap-and-trade, will continue. And without a meaningful plan, we will forgo $420 million in federal transfers that rely on us having a climate plan.

Let’s talk a little about what this means.

On the $3 billion added to Ontario’s deficit, the report states: “Overall, the province’s budget balance worsens because the loss of cap-and-trade revenue from ending the auction of emission allowances is greater than the savings ... from cancelling cap-and-trade-related spending programs.”

When the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks stood here and read a portion of the cap-and-trade balance sheet found on page 8, I thought we might actually get some meaningful discussion on this report. He began, and I sat here waiting for him to finish reading aloud the rest of the balance sheet, but he stopped reading after the savings, neglecting to mention the ongoing program and compensation costs displayed on that very table. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that the minister didn’t even read the bottom line. This government doesn’t seem to have a problem shifting those costs onto the people of Ontario.

On top of the $3 billion being added to the deficit, there is $500 million in ongoing expenditures associated with cap-and-trade-revenue-funded programs which will remain on the books. But, and again I quote the report: “The FAO cannot disclose the remaining cap-and-trade-related spending programs as the province has deemed this information to be a cabinet record.”

Additionally, the report states, “The FAO cannot identify the programs that funded infrastructure projects,” as this is also a cabinet record.

The government has deemed telling the people of Ontario what programs are being funded as unnecessary? How can this government claim transparency when they refuse to tell the people of Ontario what they’re doing with their own slush fund money?

Additionally, the current proposed compensation scheme under Bill 4 excludes 99% of firms that purchased carbon credits. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that those costs will absolutely be passed down to Ontarians.

I cannot help but ask how this government can claim to be putting money back in the pockets of Ontarians when their own pockets are so filled with holes.

Finally, on the topic of the report, it does not speak of the other potential liabilities that will be there if this legislation is passed. It is delusional to think that these companies that have been burned by this government’s actions are not going to take action themselves.

I’d like to take a moment to talk about what environmental leadership really looks like. Let’s start with our former partner in the cap-and-trade program, California. Under Jerry Brown, the state has led the world in environmental policy. I understand that Ontario is not California—we have our own unique circumstances—but I think it is rational to look at what other states and countries have done in this area.

California’s climate and anti-emissions policies remain popular: A poll last year by the Public Policy Institute of California found that almost three quarters of voters say they favour their state’s aggressive carbon emission cutting mandate and the green policies that drive these reductions. An

article in the Globe and Mail by Doug Saunders states that since Jerry Brown regained the leadership in 2011, he “has not just delivered some of the country’s most progressive politics, but also among its most economically conservative, fiscally restrained leadership.”

Let that sink in: progressive, economically conservative, fiscally restrained leadership, with a key environmental component being a market-based cap-and-trade system. To the old Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, the one that was there before Ford Nation, before Ontario News Now, before rhetoric and narrow agendas began trumping sound policy, this must have sounded too good to be true.

Jerry Brown “was elected on a promise to terminate” debt incurred by the free-spending ways of a previous government. “He paid it down, without losing popularity or abandoning his climate pledges, leaving a US$6.1-billion surplus....”

Throughout this period—in fact, since 2011—California outstripped Texas in growth. Again, let me repeat: A state with significant debt led the world in progressive environmental policy that was centred on a cap-and-trade regime, eliminated a deficit and created a surplus, all the while outstripping an oil-based economy in growth.

Unfortunately, for this to happen in Ontario, Mr. Speaker, it would require some real leadership, the likes of which I have not yet seen—dedicated leadership through a period of uncertainty and a willingness to think both outside the box and over the long term. I guess we are just not aiming high. Again and again, I have seen this government choose the path of immediate political gain at the expense of the planet—and the future of my generation and our children.

We have heard many times in this chamber how this government did not like the cap-and-trade system, and we have also heard many times how they feel about regulations in general. But the success of other jurisdictions in combatting climate change is based on either taxation, market incentives, regulation or some combination of those three. If this government is against all of these, how can they hope to possibly take meaningful action?

Mr. Speaker, as we debate the cancellation of cap-and-trade, we are really debating whether this government accepts responsibility for the effects of climate change and recognizes their responsibility to fight against it.

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

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: I have to say, I really appreciated the conversation, the debate, from the member from Humber River–Black Creek. He made reference—

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: Kingston and the Islands.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Oh, sorry; Kingston and the Islands. I apologize. It’s Joel who was not there. I’m so sorry.

Mr. Randy Hillier: They’re all interchangeable.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: No, actually. You know what? Sometimes this chamber needs good debate. Sometimes this chamber needs thoughtful, meaningful, factual debate. I really appreciated the member from Kingston and the Islands debating on the climate change issues that he’s seeing as being a part of the government’s lack of initiative—or, actually, too much initiative, in this case.

It is always a pleasure to speak in this chamber on behalf of the members of Orléans, who I have the great pleasure of representing. When the announcement came that cap-and-trade was going to be cancelled, in all fairness, I received several emails. I actually have about 30 people who physically came to my constituency office, which was very unusual, I have to say. Since 2014, I have had the great pleasure of representing this riding. They were distressed.

They were truthfully distressed about this lack of insight in the new government’s decisions to eliminate a plan to challenge, to bring forward a model that was going to help reduce GHG emissions. It’s important to put into context—de mettre en contexte ce matin que ce projet de loi, ce qu’il fait vraiment, c’est qu’il élimine un plan, le plan qui était ici en Ontario pour lutter contre les changements climatiques, en le remplaçant par, je vous dirais, une vague promesse qui va être dévoilée plus tard.

In my perspective—and, I think, in our perspective for many members of this Legislature—it really makes no sense to eliminate a climate action plan such as cap-and-trade without having presented to the people of Ontario what the government wants to do. Really, right now, I would say that I don’t think that doing nothing is an option.

We’ve also heard the minister reflecting on the fact that he is consulting with the broader public. Wouldn’t it be interesting, before passing third reading, if we heard comments that were collected by the new government, that they would show transparency with all comments that were shared with the new government regarding their thoughts on climate change initiatives that should be a part of Ontario. I also feel strongly—and I think we, collectively, feel strongly—that passing a bill without sharing the plan is probably not in the best interests of the people of Ontario.

If we pass this bill at third reading, it will actually leave Ontarians without any response to the most important challenge of our generation: addressing climate change. We’ve heard very nicely from the member for Kingston and the Islands some of the factual dollar amounts that are going to be lost revenues, that are going to be incurred—new costs of over $3 billion, according to the FAO report.

But I also saw last year—and I think members of this Legislature were impacted with flooding in Ontario, in the eastern part of Ontario. We saw first-hand the impact of those weather events that are a little bit out of context but happening more and more on our planet and here in Ontario. I went to Rockland—j’ai été me promener dans la petite communauté de L’Orignal—and I went to Cumberland just outside of the wonderful riding of Orléans. The amount of destruction, the amount of loss, what that costs for all of us from an insurance perspective and just in the trauma of having dealt with this, is very sad, Mr. Speaker.

I think it’s very sad to see that this government had a plan, a cap-and-trade program that was not only helping to reduce GHG emissions but that also had a significant impact in returning those revenues back to social issues, such as the repair of our school system and bringing an incentive to change from a gas vehicle to an electric vehicle. I had residents coming to my riding office in distress because of the program cancellation that affected them in their decision to upgrade their windows for better energy conservation in their house.

This was the reality of this government in my community. It really impacted us, and it will continue to impact us, particularly the fact that we may pass this bill without having a plan. This government has not shared any—what they’re saying really is just promises, promises, promises, with no clear action. I’m very distressed about that, because I believe in good governance. Good governance means you review things—I agree that new government likes to review and change things—but you don’t change things without having a plan in place. This is what this government is doing today, and actually over the last few weeks.

I also want to share another thought. This is, I guess, something I don’t understand. Many of the now MPPs in this Legislature were part of the People’s Guarantee—you could call it a magazine or you could call it a platform. This was something that many of those MPPs, and actually even the now Minister of the Environment, moved forward in the last years in pledging, very loudly, very elaborately, a taxation—a carbon tax suggestion. I was actually at their AGM a couple of years ago when they pledged to address carbon pricing in the province of Ontario.

In their People’s Guarantee magazine—actually, most candidates signed that magazine, and very, very visually, I have to say, over the last years. So it’s troubling for me that—

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: They changed their mind.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Yes, my colleague is saying they’re changing their mind. I don’t think they are changing their mind. I really think that they have, unfortunately—politicizing? Is that it? On a politisé, pretty much, the situation, the reality—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): The member for Niagara West will come to order, please. I’ll give one warning and then I’ll name you. Thank you.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: —instead of looking at the facts that have been presented by so many individuals.

Now we have no plan. We now know that this decision will cost taxpayers more than $3 billion and all the programs, which have been sadly, sadly eliminated, to help so many individuals in Ontario. I hope that at one point in our new government—along with some of our PC caucus members that were eager to sign that pledge—there will be a voice of reason and we will really, really find solutions for addressing climate change in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Further debate? I recognize the member for Toronto–Danforth. Or are we going to the Green Party?

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): We’re going to the member from Guelph first. Thank you.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I rise today to defend the people and places we love in Ontario, to stand up for our children, our grandchildren and future generations. We are already feeling the effects of climate change, and the crisis will only get worse. Bill 4 puts the final nail in the coffin of Ontario’s climate change plans.

I want to be clear, with all due respect to my Liberal colleagues: The previous government’s climate plan was flawed, but at least it was a plan. What has the Ford government delivered on climate change:

—no plan;

—an additional $3 billion to our budget deficit;

—a complete waste of taxpayer dollars on a politically motivated lawsuit against the federal government that has no hope of winning;

—an employment program for lawyers to defend this province from lawsuits from companies holding assets that are now worthless;

—a “closed for business” sign to the fastest-growing sector of the global economy, the clean economy; and

—ripped-up contracts that even have the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and the Business Council of Canada criticizing this government for its anti-business agenda.

The Premier’s irresponsible actions hurt Ontario’s economy, environment and our communities, but most importantly, they put people’s lives, livelihoods and way of life at risk.

I’m going to put this in terms that maybe this government will understand: Climate change is nature’s tax on everything, and it’s costing us big time. According to the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, in the first six months of this year alone, extreme weather events due to climate change cost every Ontarian over $350. Let’s be clear about that: That’s putting us on a pace of climate change costing us over $700 per person in this year alone. Flooded basements, roofs blown off, infrastructure destroyed, ice damage, forest fires, crop losses—it all adds up.

According to the Insurance Bureau of Canada, in the first six months of this year alone, there was $1 billion in insurable losses due to climate change. The cost of disaster relief in this country in one generation has gone from a few million dollars a year to now billions of dollars every year.

Let’s be clear: Scientists don’t agree on much, but the one thing they do agree on is that the damage we’re facing today is the tip of the iceberg of what we’re going to face in the next 12 years. If we don’t push the trajectory of pollution down by 2020—which is a year away—the damage will escalate and the costs will balloon out of control. Let’s be clear: No government can call itself fiscally responsible unless it takes action to prevent these costs.

No business would fail to protect itself from such extreme risk. No government that is for the people would fail to defend the people and places we love in Ontario. But that is exactly what the Ford government is doing by getting rid of Ontario’s climate plan and having no plan to replace it.

Mr. Speaker, the numbers tell one story; the people of Ontario tell another story. Last night—12 hours ago—I put out an email asking people, “What would you want to tell the Premier?” I’ve received almost 2,000 responses in less than 12 hours. I want to share a few of them with you.

Ann from Toronto says: “We know how to mitigate climate change. Respect the knowledge of Nobel laureates, of scientists, of economists and of ordinary people by taking responsibility. Business will not thrive in the uncertainty of climate change. Business will not thrive as climate crises destroy vital infrastructure. The future—jobs and healthy people—is in alternative energy. We urge you to turn to the future, not to the past—to turn towards the people of Ontario, rather than look away.”

John from London asked me to say, “Doing nothing will only hurt all our children and grandchildren, plus tell them that this generation was too lazy to do the right thing. I value doing the right thing far more than a few pennies at the pump.”

Bronwen from my riding of Guelph wrote: “Mr. Ford, I would like you to think twice about passing Bill 4 which will cancel pollution pricing and erase emissions targets. I work in the conservation field and see first-hand the increasing effects of climate change here in Ontario. I am not talking about weather—I’m talking about the longer-term trends such as flooding and extreme heat that is very worrying. I have kids and the situation for them when they grow up will be much more dire.

I am worried about their future and the future of all Ontarians (and indeed, people all over the world) when it comes to this issue. I would like to be proud of my province and the role we could play in addressing climate change issues head-on.”

Natasha from Brampton wrote: “I have a small child, a baby on the way and hopefully grandchildren in my future and I want them all to have fresh air, clean water, green space and a safe, healthy environment to thrive and flourish in. Unfortunately, with all of the green initiatives that have been targeted ... I fear something closer to a post-apocalyptic wasteland seen only in movies becoming a reality sooner rather than later. Right now I worry that this planet won’t survive my lifetime let alone my children or grandchildren. I’m saddened and disappointed by your actions, Mr.

Ford, and ask that you put aside whatever anti-environment agenda you seem to have and try to think big picture long term.”

Finally, I just want to share what Margaret from Toronto had to say: “Premier Ford, I am 81 years old and what happens in the next few years won’t make much difference to me. But my children and my grandchildren will have to live with the consequences of shutting our eyes to what is happening. To avert the disaster barrelling down on us all, we need to take action to cut down drastically on pollution, and we need to do it now! I just hope that it isn’t already too late.”

Mr. Speaker, once upon a time there was a Conservative Party that believed that markets could solve problems. They either don’t today, or they are playing politics with the biggest crisis we have ever faced. All that pollution pricing is, is a market mechanism to send the right signals to businesses and people to reduce pollution. That’s what Nobel Prize-winning economists tell us. But the Premier calls it a tax grab. How is it a tax grab if you return the money back to the people of Ontario through a carbon dividend?

As a matter of fact, the best way to help hard-working, low-income and modest- and middle-income Ontarians is to put a price on pollution and return the money back to them as a carbon dividend. The FAO says this. Even conservative policy analysts like Mark Cameron say this. It shows how people can have more money in their pocket.

The Premier says pollution pricing kills jobs. Well, the provinces in Canada with the five best economies have a price on pollution. The 10 states in the US performing best economically have a price on pollution. The European countries performing well economically have a price on pollution. Why? It drives efficiency, innovation and job creation in the fast-growing clean economy. But this Premier wants to throw it away.

The Premier says pollution pricing won’t work. Well, British Columbia brought in a pollution price, dropped their emissions almost immediately by 16%, and they have one of the best-performing economies in Canada. The state of California has already met their emissions targets ahead of

schedule and has one of the best-performing economies in the world right now.

Mr. Speaker, pollution pricing works. We know it’s only one tool. There are other tools. We’re going to have to electrify our transportation system. We’re going to have to build out public transit. We’re going to have to help people transition to electric vehicles. We know that we’re going to have to retrofit buildings to help people save money by saving energy.

Here’s the bottom line: Bill 4 sends the wrong signal. It tells the people of Ontario and it tells the world that Ontario is closed for business in the clean economy and that Ontario is not doing its fair share to solve the biggest crisis we face.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It’s a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak today.

Speaker, I’m going to start off by talking about the political context within which this bill is being debated and brought forward by this government.

The first part of this is to understand that right-wing populism is a fever dream. It’s not connected to reality in the way most ways of understanding the world are connected. We, in fact, have a government that can describe the problem that people are facing, that many people are facing in their lives. We’ve had increasing income inequality, more and more people finding that their incomes have stagnated or dropped in the last 30 years, people finding life harder on a daily basis—no doubt about that. That’s the reality. Thus, there is rising frustration. There is rising anger.

There is a demand on the part of people in Ontario for someone to actually deal with this fact that life is getting tougher.

What you get with right-wing populism is very much what you got with physicians from the 17th century: the application of leeches and, as they got further on, bleeding of patients as a way of curing disease. If you don’t actually deal with the big issues like income inequality—and I’ll put it into clearer language: the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer—if you’re not dealing with that, then what you’re doing is applying leeches to the body politic.

This is a government that’s very happy to attack regulation. It thinks that regulation—regulation put in place, frankly, to make all of us safer, to make our lives better—is something to be avoided, to be shut down. They don’t want to take collective action to deal with the problems that we face.

One of the biggest problems that we face—and speakers today have addressed that—is climate change. It will be a defining part of our lives. In fact, in the last year or so, there was a very interesting speech about climate change becoming the news issue in the decades to come, just as other, what can I say, earth-shaking events like the Second World War or the First World War defined all the other politics that were going on in this country and in countries around the world.

This is a government that looks for scapegoats, diverts people’s attention, will not address this question of income inequality, won’t address the question of climate change, this huge risk to our way of life. So that’s the larger framework within which they act.

The second is that we have a Premier far more interested in running in the federal election than he is in running Ontario. We’re about to blow 30 million bucks on a lawsuit that the government of Manitoba—I will note, a Conservative government—has already done a lot of research on and realized that the lawsuit would die. In fact, our Attorney General here in this province, at the media conference announcing that lawsuit, would not answer reporters’ questions when they said, “Can this win?” She wouldn’t even say, “Maybe.” She stuck to her talking points. She was a drowning woman in the sea and she held on to that life jacket, because that talking point was keeping her afloat.

This government doesn’t believe that that lawsuit can win, but they do believe that they can score big political points with it—$30 million of our money being flushed away. This is a Premier spending all his time sparring with Justin Trudeau when in fact what we need is someone who is going to pay attention to what has to happen here in Ontario.

This is the context we have: a government that’s trying to divert attention from the real questions that we’re facing in this province—income inequality, climate change, cutbacks to public services—don’t want to go there, don’t want to go there; a Premier looking to his next conquest, the federal government; and a Premier doing politics in an old-fashioned and yet strangely modern way.

And that brings us to this bill. This is a bill that shows complete abandonment of responsibility and in fact a recklessness, a complete recklessness.

The Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks was interviewed in the last few weeks by Matt Galloway on Metro Morning. Matt tried to get a sense from the minister as to whether he thought there was a moral imperative to act, given the dire warnings from the global scientific community about the scale and the speed of the risk that is coming upon us. I thought it was a simple question: “Do you have a moral responsibility to act to deal with this risk, to protect the lives and livelihoods of everyone in this province, to protect their property?” I thought it was a softball question.

I thought Galloway had been set up by the minister’s staff to ask him something to which he’d just say, “Of course it’s a moral question; we’re acting morally.” But, intriguing to me, the minister could not go there. He could not answer that question, and that was extraordinary to me because, in fact, it is a moral question. It’s a practical question but a moral question: Do we, as government, look after the people in this province, do we look after the generations to come or do we abandon them? That is fundamentally a moral question unaddressed by this government—unaddressed.

Speaker, there’s a ferry that goes from the Jack Layton terminal on the mainland out to the Toronto Islands, constantly going back and forth. Do you think that governments have a legal and a moral responsibility to ensure that there are life jackets for every passenger, to ensure that there are lifeboats, to ensure that if things go wrong, it is possible to save their lives? I believe you would say yes, Speaker. I believe you would say yes.

So, in an analogous situation, we are going forward into very rough water—very rough water—and we have a government that not only has not given any indication that we will have life jackets or lifeboats, but is jettisoning them, throwing them overboard, as quickly as it possibly can, to reflect the political priorities of the Premier. I’ve outlined that style, those priorities, that analysis.

There is no doubt that the existing climate plan was flawed. For those veterans who were here before the last election, you will have heard myself and many members of this caucus speaking about the flaws in that plan. They were substantial. But the reality is that to scrap it without having something to put in its place immediately is reckless, because things are changing very, very fast. It was very clear, from the most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that we have a very short window to avoid the next round of catastrophic change.

In the early 1990s, we were debating this issue and we knew that at that time, for a relatively low price, we could change course on this issue and we wouldn’t have to actually deal with any substantial climate change. The Kyoto protocol sort of wrapped all of that up together—again, a flawed agreement, but one that actually was heading in the right direction. It wasn’t carried through, and we lost that opportunity. So we are now going to have to deal with a fair level of damage, no doubt about it. But we have the opportunity in the next few years to avoid the next level of damage. This government has refused to recognize that and refused to act on that reality.

I was listening, earlier in the debate on this bill, to the member for Cambridge, who said that the climate plan before us and the investments from cap-and-trade did nothing—did nothing. Speaker, I actually went to look at the public record on that, because I felt that the plan was inadequate, I felt that it was far too weak to actually do what had to be done, but I never said, and most people who actually looked at the facts would not have said, that it did nothing.

I can’t be sure of the quality of all of the programs that were funded. In fact, I don’t even know which programs the government is going to carry on—the $3-billion increase in the deficit for programs that they are continuing to do, a small part of what needed to be done. They won’t release that information. We don’t know, actually, what they’re doing with the remaining funds. But I will say, if they felt that the projects that were being carried on by the previous government were problematic, inadequate or wrong-headed, they could have cancelled those and continued on with those that actually were making a difference, that were helping us here in Ontario to deal with this problem.

I had an opportunity in the summer, when this bill first came forward, to talk about some of those things. One of the projects that was cut was $100 million in funding to fix schools and make them more energy-efficient—$100 million cut from schools.

Interjection.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Maybe not in your riding, Parliamentary Assistant. I’m sure in your riding you were looked after. But the rest of the kids in Ontario get beat up by your government.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Order, please. Order.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: You cut $100 million in funding to fix schools and make them more energy-efficient. It didn’t need to be cut. You could have continued with that.

People are well aware of the conditions in the schools. The Liberals left a $15-billion or $16-billion deficit in capital repairs in schools—schools where the temperature reaches 25 degrees, 30 degrees, 33 degrees in May and in June. That is no environment for young people to learn in. It’s no environment for anyone to learn in. You could have actually kept that money.

Just an example of some of the things that were invested in: $358,000 was invested in Kensington Community School for two energy-efficient hot water boilers. It doesn’t sound slushy to me. It sounds like a necessary capital repair that would reduce emissions. My guess is that the old boilers were clapped out and had to be junked. That’s the condition of a lot of our schools. That $100 million could have helped to reduce the cost of operating those schools—cut by this government for no reason whatsoever.

They cut funding that was going to fix up social housing. In 2017, it was announced that $200 million would go to retrofit social housing apartment buildings to reduce their energy costs and their emissions. It sounds like something that would really make a difference. It would cut the operating costs so that we’d be able to provide housing and make buildings more comfortable. Now we have a government that is very happy to cut funding to housing and happy to cut funding to schools just because the Liberals do something that they don’t like. They aren’t stuck with what the Liberals were doing.

They could have moved the funds to other things, or they could have continued actually putting them into schools and housing.

There’s another report. It’s an interesting one; it came from the Ottawa Sun. As you’re well aware, Speaker, the Ottawa Sun is not exactly, in fact, an NDP-aligned publication. Those from Ottawa can correct me, but my sense of it is that it tends to be on that side of the spectrum. But I can do further research.

Their headline on the cuts from this Conservative government was “Millions Gone: Scrapping of Cap-and-Trade Ends Program that Helped Hospitals Save on Electricity.” It must have been real bad. The Ottawa Sun says it was bad, talking about their own friends. It must have been real bad.

They note: “A $64-million program that was helping cash-strapped hospitals save millions on electricity bills is among the provincial programs that have been cut as a result of the scrapping of cap-and-trade in Ontario.” Actually, Speaker, it was cut by a government that said the money wasn’t being used for useful things when, in fact, helping hospitals reduce their operating costs and reduce their emissions is a useful thing.

The editorial said, “The Hospital Energy Efficiency Program paid out $64 million to Ontario hospitals in 2017-18 for projects such as motion-activated light sensors,” and other things that reduce energy costs.

My colleague, health critic France Gélinas, “says the program was a boon to smaller hospitals in particular”—smaller hospitals, most of which would be in rural and small-town Ontario, not big-city hospitals that may have a bit more money, but the smaller places with a tougher time—“many of which are facing deficits and couldn’t afford to put money into work that would help reduce their rising energy bills.” That’s who the Conservatives targeted. That’s who got pushed to the back of the line. That’s who got forgotten about.

In this rush to shut down climate action, they cut funding for hospitals, they cut funding for schools, they cut funding for social housing. I’ll say this: They’re comprehensive. They don’t miss out on any vulnerable target to beat up on. They go after them all.

So, just a message to rural hospitals from the Conservative government: “Tough luck. We’re keeping the money. You’re not going to get it. Your bills are going up. We’re not going to help you.”

As my friend and colleague France Gélinas from Nickel Belt said, “The program was extremely popular. They got way more requests than they were able to fund.”

In recent years, she said, she has heard from as many as half of the province’s 152 hospitals with serious concerns about increasing electricity costs.

So what’s the government’s response? Cut the program that was going to cut those energy costs. That’s their response. Cut, cut, cut, and keep cutting until you’ve gone through the bone. That’s where they’re headed.

“Fourteen hospitals in eastern Ontario’s Champlain LHIN received a total of $3.6 million through the program, says a spokesperson for the LHIN.”

Speaker, I’m sure there was some spending that I wouldn’t have approved of, but I think spending money on hospitals, particularly small, rural hospitals and small-town hospitals that are having a tough time of it with their energy bills, is entirely defensible. But it’s something this government decided to cut, with not a moment’s concern on their part, not an instant.

The Environmental Commissioner looked at a number of the other programs. One of the things she talked about in that Hospital Energy Efficiency Program—not just energy efficiency, but cutting greenhouse gas emissions—was hospital energy retrofits and waste anaesthetic gas collection and recycling. Anaesthetic gas is a very powerful greenhouse gas. It’s very useful, vital and critical for operations, but something that, when released into the atmosphere, heats things up. That program was going to launch in the summer of 2018—cut. That’s reality.

Speaker, funding was cut for university and college retrofits. Some $214 million was scheduled for improving the energy efficiency of colleges and universities. A $300-million loan fund was due to be launched in the summer of 2018. The program is now cancelled. We hear regularly about the expense of running post-secondary education, and yet a program that was going to cut costs and help fight climate change got the axe. How logical is that? Where is the sense? Where is the understanding? Where is the concern about climate change or post-secondary education? It’s gone, not there.

Speaker, one of the things that was cut was Green Ontario for industries—$200 million in support for industrial greenhouse gas reduction products. All those projects have been cut. So when the government talks about helping industry and helping manufacturing—when a program is set up to actually help those businesses, to cut their costs and cut their greenhouse emissions, they get cut.

Here are some of the programs that were out there for funding but we don’t know whether they were cut or not, again, because we can’t get information from the government on what’s standing and what’s not standing:

—using landfill gas from the Walker Environmental disposal facility in Niagara Falls to power a General Motors plant in St. Catharines, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 5,500 tonnes per year, a 77% reduction, and significantly cutting plant operating and energy costs. It sounds to me like a good plan, a good program. We should have more of that;

—the Stelco steel mill in Hamilton substituting recycled bio-carbon for coal in its coke oven, to reduce 64,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases, divert waste from landfill and improve competitiveness;

—Goldcorp, a mining company, developed Ontario’s first all-electric mine in Chapleau, avoiding more than 6,000 tonnes of GHG emissions annually from diesel, and improving air quality for miners, and helped develop new low-carbon power generation technologies.

Some of these projects may continue. Most are cut. But again, we can’t find out, Speaker, because this government is completely secretive when it comes to these costs.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): The member may continue at another time when this bill is brought forward.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): We are going to take a recess until question period at 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Michael Mantha: I want to invite everyone to Meet the Miners tonight. They’re going to be having an event. Also, I want to welcome Chris Hodgson, along with the 85 members who are going to be here, from the mining association. Welcome to Queen’s Park, gentlemen.

Hon. Todd Smith: I’d like to welcome a special guest who is in our east members’ gallery this morning. He’s had a distinguished 50-year career as a physician. His name is Dr. Conor Healy. He spent the last 30 years or so as the head of radiology at Trenton Memorial Hospital. We thank him for his service to Ontarians. Thank you.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I’d like to welcome a friend of mine. A city councillor from Windsor, Bill Marra, is here. Bill is also a vice-president at Hôtel-Dieu hospital in Windsor. Welcome, Bill.

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: Ça me fait un grand plaisir d’accueillir à Queen’s Park Marie-Claude Martel, Valérie LeVasseur, Gilles LeVasseur, Jean-Guy Martel et Anne-Marie Martel, qui sont les parents et amis d’une de nos pages, Sophie LeVasseur. Gilles LeVasseur est un pilier de la francophonie à Ottawa. It’s a great pleasure to have them at Queen’s Park. Merci beaucoup. La page Sophie fait un travail extraordinaire.

Mr. Dave Smith: I have a number of people to introduce today: my constituent assistant, Julie Chatten; her daughter, Madeline; a constituent of mine, Sally Carson; and her 12-year-old son, who is here for his birthday, C.J. Carson.

Mr. Jamie West: I’d just like to take a moment to introduce Peter Xavier from Glencore in Sudbury. Welcome to the Legislature.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: It gives me great pleasure to introduce, over in the members’ gallery, my mother, Ester Bethlenfalvy, and my beautiful sister Sylvia Bethlenfalvy.

I would also like to introduce someone else. It’s with an abundance of hubris that I’m reluctant to introduce this next person. He’s worked for the European Union, particularly in refugee areas—my friend and relative, Peter Bethlenfalvy.

Mr. Paul Miller: It’s my pleasure to introduce my wife, Carole Paikin-Miller. We have a new politician in the family. Carole was just elected school board trustee, ward 5, in Hamilton.

Mr. Kaleed Rasheed: Today, it’s my pleasure to introduce my dear friend, who migrated with his family from Pakistan in 1996. After the death of his father from cancer, he started his business right in Ontario. I’m proud to announce today that my friend will be donating $5 million in his father’s memory to the cancer clinic at Markham Stouffville Hospital. Thank you and welcome to Queen’s Park, Shakir.

Mr. Ian Arthur: It’s my pleasure to introduce to the Legislature today a former neighbour and constituent, Craig Leroux, who is here representing Queen’s University.

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: I would like to introduce my executive assistant, Kyle Jacobs, and his friend Alan Pisano from Oakville. He is studying finance at university.

Mr. John Fraser: I’d like to introduce the family of page captain Sophie LeVasseur, who is from my riding of Ottawa South. Her mom, Marie-Claude, is here; her dad, Gilles; sister Valérie; and her grandparents Anne-Marie Martel and Jean-Guy Martel. Welcome to the Legislature.

Hon. Greg Rickford: I’d like to welcome the Ontario Mining Association members and staff who are joining us today for Meet the Miners Day, in particular my friends from Noront. It’s good to see you here. I’m pleased that a number of their members are in the visitors’ gallery and joining us for question period.

For 40 years, representatives from this special industry and government have been meeting at Queen’s Park for Meet the Miners Day. Please join us for our reception this evening in rooms 228 and 230 at 5 o’clock.

Welcome, miners.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I want to introduce Sanjin Zeco, who I know is going through security and will be in the members’ gallery. He’s an advocate for people with disabilities. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Roman Baber: It’s the fourth annual tech day at Queen’s Park. We welcome North of 41, an organization dedicated to technology innovation and to training Canadian Armed Forces veterans for the IT jobs of today and tomorrow. Joining us are Jeff Musson, Lois Shaw, Phil Landry and Joe Marra.

All members are invited to the 5:30 p.m. reception at the legislative dining room. North of 41: Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Donna Skelly: I would like to welcome Wally Boonstra, who is a small business man from my riding of Flamborough–Glanbrook. He is here with George Parry and David Weishuhn from the Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Institute of Canada.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Along with the other miners from Ontario is a very good friend of mine from North Bay, the president of the Redpath Group, Mr. George Flumerfelt.

Mrs. Nina Tangri: I’d like to welcome Mr. Blair Stransky and Jim Keohane from the Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan; also, from my great riding, from a company called Zebra Technologies, Denis Wills; Mr. Kevin Richardson; and from Maple Leaf Strategies, Giancarlo Drennan.

Mrs. Robin Martin: I’d like to welcome Victor Hyman, a constituent from my riding of Eglinton–Lawrence, here today at Queen’s Park with the Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Institute of Canada.

As well, I would like to extend a welcome to the grade 10 students from Havergal College and the grade 5 students from West Preparatory Junior Public School who will be here later today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

M me France Gélinas: I also would like to welcome Meet the Miners, specifically Tyler Nicholls, from Technica Mining; Danica Pagnutti, from Vale; Shane McShane, from Covia Canada; James Higgins, from the Centre for Advancement of Water and Wastewater Technologies; and Ken Korman, from Story Environmental. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Amy Fee: I would like to welcome again my son Kenner and his service dog Rickman to the Legislature. Also, my rock, the one who has figured out how to balance having four kids at home without me and two jobs as well: My husband, Craig, is joining us.

M me Marit Stiles: C’est un grand plaisir d’accueillir les étudiants et professeurs de l’École secondaire catholique Saint-Frère-André, une école dans ma circonscription. Bienvenue. Bienvenue aux étudiants.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: It’s my pleasure to introduce my able constituency staff from Nepean. Brooke Timpson is here, as well as Caitlin Clark, who is also the daughter of our Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We welcome all of our guests. At some point, we have to cut this off. I’ve ignored the clock. We’re going to have to move on now.

Veterans

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): As we approach the month of November and Remembrance Day, I want to take this opportunity to remind the House of a motion that was unanimously passed on October 30, 2014, to permit MPPs to have Canadian Legion poppy donation boxes in their constituency offices, if you so wish.

Oral Questions

Health care funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, my first question is to the Premier. Our health care system is stretched to the max, with patients being treated in hallways without the privacy and dignity that they deserve. David Jones is a person who knows this first-hand, and he’ll be joining us later on today at Queen’s Park.

On April 8, David’s wife was taken by ambulance to St. Joseph’s hospital in Hamilton due to complications from cancer she had been battling for several months. When the ambulance arrived, she was transferred to a bed in the hallway of the emergency room, waiting for a room to become available. Tragically, Donna passed away that day without ever being moved to a hospital room.

What does this Premier have to say to David, like so many others who have had to watch their loved ones be treated in hallways in hospitals all across our province?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: First, let me express my condolences to the family. This is something that is a tragic situation, but one that we know that we need to fix.

That was one of our major promises when we got elected—to end hallway health care. That is something that had been developing over 15 years under the previous government’s rule. This isn’t something that just happened overnight, but it’s going to be our responsibility to fix it. It is a multi-faceted problem. It’s not something that there’s going to be one solution that’s going to change everything overnight.

We are looking at enhancing our long-term-care facilities, making sure that those patients who are alternate-level-of-care, who are in hospitals but don’t need to be, have a place to go, either home with home care supports or to a long-term-care home.

We know that there are many people who are waiting long periods of time to get out of the hospital to where they need to be to receive the best care. That is what we’re working on. I’ll have more to say in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: David found those caring for Donna during her illness “almost without exception professional and caring.” But he goes on to say in a letter, “Having observed the health care system during the several months of Donna’s illness, I am aware of the challenges, but I believe that, in this instance, Donna deserved better.” I think we can all agree that Donna deserved better, Speaker.

Can the Premier explain specifically what investments he will make in the hospital system to eliminate the sort of hallway medicine that has become all too common in Ontario?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I would certainly agree that our health care professionals are doing a wonderful job in situations that are not ideal for the best provision of care—hallways, storage rooms, auditoriums and that sort of thing. We need to move away from that and get people into beds in proper hospital rooms, which is for their benefit but also for the benefit of the health care professionals who are doing their best to provide excellent-quality care to all patients.

We have already made some investments and we’re continuing to make more. As I indicated before, it is a multi-faceted problem, but we have already announced the inception of 6,000 long-term-care beds, and have put $90 million into hospital care to at least get us through the flu season while we are developing a long-term-capacity plan for our hospitals. We are working on that on a daily basis.

Interjections.

Hon. Christine Elliott: The other important point to note, if I could just complete that, is that we are also investing $3.8 billion into a comprehensive—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It was disappointing for us on this side of the House that the government shorted the flu surge funding by about $10 million compared to what the previous government invested last year, Speaker.

No one should have to watch a loved one pass away in a hospital hallway because they can’t get a room, Speaker. We can address the challenges in our health care system and in our hospital system, but we won’t get there with an agenda of cuts and so-called efficiencies.

Just this week, we’ve seen the future of a hospital in Grimsby put in doubt due to lack of funding. Will the Premier reject an agenda of cuts and privatization and commit to investments in a hospital system that desperately needs it?

Hon. Christine Elliott: It’s hard to know where to start. There was a lot in that question, but I think the overall theme I completely disagree with.

What we are doing is increasing our services in mental health and addictions, in hospital care, in health care. We are increasing them across the board, because we know that people need these services.

With respect to the flu season, a significant amount has been put into that—$54 million. There are no shortages of the flu vaccine this year. Anyone who wants to receive a flu shot will be able to do so, either at their family doctor’s office, in public health units or in many pharmacies across this entire province. They are available—no shortage.

With respect to hospital funding, we are continuing to fund hospitals. We are continuing to make the investments in terms of renovations. Patient care and safety is an absolute priority, and we are investing in that. We are going to invest $3.8 billion into mental health and addictions, all-inclusive—

Interjections.

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

Restart the clock. Next question.

Employment standards

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. A worker in his forties was killed last Thursday when he was pinned between a tractor trailer and the loading dock at a Fiera Foods facility in North York. We don’t know his identity yet, but he is the fourth person to be killed working at Fiera Foods, all of whom were temporary workers.

Four families have lost loved ones, and we all have a responsibility to make sure this doesn’t keep happening. The Ministry of Labour is investigating now. Will the Premier wait for their findings before moving ahead with his changes to the Employment Standards Act?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: I was saddened to hear the news. My condolences go out to the family. It’s an absolute tragedy. Any time a worker loses their life, it’s a tragedy. My thoughts, again, are with the family.

The Minister of Labour is currently investigating the situation. The official opposition is attempting—which I find disgusting—to politicize last week’s tragedy, and I won’t have anything to do with it. I’m very proud of the legislation we introduced last week, but again, I’m not going to politicize the death of a worker.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, whether the Premier likes it or not, he is responsible now for preventable deaths that happen in our province, which may get worse with his legislative changes.

Amina Diaby was just 23 when she was killed while working at Fiera Foods. Aydin Kazimov was 69 when he was crushed by a transport truck on the job. Ivan Golyashov was just 16 years old when he died cleaning a Fiera Foods dough machine. All of them were temporary workers. Each and every one of them were temporary workers. None of them should have lost their lives as workers in the province of Ontario.

The government is proposing major changes to employment standards laws that protect temporary workers. Will the Premier, at a bare minimum, agree to wait for the results of the Ministry of Labour investigation before pushing through his changes to the Employment Standards Act?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Labour.

Disingenuous. Unbelievable.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I ask the Premier to withdraw his unparliamentary comment that I heard.

Hon. Doug Ford: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Labour?

Hon. Laurie Scott: We all feel horrible about the tragic incident that has happened in that company. Our thoughts are with the family and the workers.

Look, the Ministry of Labour is strongly committed to the health and safety of all Ontarians—and it’s the Occupational Health and Safety Act the ministry is investigating through, not the Employment Standards Act.

I say to the member opposite, this is tragic. The Ministry of Labour is investigating. The processes are being followed. I ask you please not to politicize such a tragic event that has happened in the province of Ontario.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I will stand in this House every day to try to protect workers from being killed on the job—every single day if I have to.

The friends and families of these workers are worried that basic protections on the job were not there for their loved ones, and they’re—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I heard an unparliamentary remark. Would any member over there like to withdraw it? I’m not sure who—Minister of Energy.

Hon. Greg Rickford: I withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m sorry to interrupt. The Leader of the Opposition.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: They’re very worried about what they see from this government: cancelling investigations designed to protect temporary workers, and gutting legislation that ensured temporary workers would be properly paid and receive decent treatment on the job.

We have an obligation to these four people to learn what we can do to prevent tragic deaths like those from happening again and ensure that they don’t ever happen again.

Why is this Premier so determined to move ahead with his plan to gut workplace rights and protections?

Hon. Laurie Scott: Again, I reiterate the fact that the ministry’s key role is to investigate the fatalities and health and safety incidents at workplaces, and that is under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. We’re making sure that those things are followed and are enforced.

Again, it’s an ongoing investigation. We are very concerned about what happened. The investigation is in process through the ministry, through the occupational health and safety. It has nothing to do with the Employment Standards Act.

Again, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Leader of the Opposition, please don’t politicize such a tragic event. We are all here to make sure workers in the province are safe. Let the investigation follow.

Employment standards

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier, but I think the government needs to know that treating temporary workers like lesser-than workers puts them in a precarious position in the workplace, Speaker. That is a reality.

Here’s what one former temp worker said last night at a vigil for the deceased man: “It’s so sad because this is what happens when we don’t have rights and protections at work.”

These are people who work incredibly hard to provide for their families. They don’t have money to hire lobbyists, but they pay their bills, they raise their families and they deserve to be heard. Will the Premier listen?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Labour.

Hon. Laurie Scott: Through you, Mr. Speaker: We want to protect all workers in the province of Ontario. That’s why we do have the Occupational Health and Safety Act. We want workers to have good-paying jobs, and we want to create more better-paying jobs in the province of Ontario with better protections. We want more people in the province of Ontario to have better-paying jobs, better benefits, better ways of life. That’s why we brought in Bill 47, so we can attract those types of businesses and provide jobs for people—not in a temporary situation.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Working people have some very serious concerns about the government’s changes to the Employment Standards Act, whether it’s losing a day’s pay when you get sick or losing basic on-the-job protections for temporary workers. Before the government tears up legislation that protects people on the job, they should wait for the evidence that these changes won’t do harm, especially from their own ministry investigating a death on the job.

Speaker, with yet another person dying at Fiera Foods, will the Premier do that? Will he at least wait until the ministry report is complete, to ensure that these changes are not going to make things worse?

Hon. Laurie Scott: Through you, Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition is stretching. There is no connection between the open for business act in Ontario—Bill 47—and the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Of course we’re protecting workers. We want to protect workers. We are doing that.

Mr. Speaker, the best thing that we can do for workers in the province of Ontario is remove the worst burdens on Ontario businesses while preserving the real benefits for Ontario workers, so businesses have the confidence in reasonable and predictable regulations. Everyone who works should have the confidence of a good and safe workplace, and that is what we’re doing on this side of this place. We are protecting workers and making Ontario open for business so there are better jobs out there for all the workers in the province of Ontario.

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

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

Mr. Paul Miller: Have you worked in any industry? I did.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Economic Development, come to order. Premier, come to order. The member for Waterloo, come to order. I’m learning your riding names.

Start the clock. Next question.

Education

Ms. Donna Skelly: My question is for the Minister of Education. Last week, Minister, we tabled the Safe and Supportive Classrooms Act. This legislation is the first step in closing two gaps in Ontario’s education system.

Student safety is always a top priority for this government, but for a while now we have known that sometimes students have been taught by individuals guilty of sexual abuse toward children. However, these individuals have escaped legal trials because of poorly worded laws. In some cases, it took months and years of complaints from students, parents and teachers before these individuals were removed. This is completely unacceptable.

Can the minister explain what our government is doing to make our schools and our early years and child care settings safer?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I’d like to thank the hard-working member from Flamborough–Glanbrook for that question because we need to talk about this.

Our PC government has zero tolerance when it comes to any form of proven sexual abuse within the school environment, be it a student or a teaching colleague. That’s why we’ve proposed mandatory revocation of teacher and early childhood educator certificates of registration for all acts of proven sexual abuse. Today, a certificate will only be revoked if the specific form of sexual abuse is on the current defined list within the Ontario College of Teachers Act or the Early Childhood Educators Act. We believe very strongly on this side of the House that the previous government did not go far enough, and I know there are members of the NDP caucus who agree with that.

We’re proposing in Bill 48 that if a member of the Ontario teachers’ college or the College of Early Childhood Educators is found guilty by their respective disciplinary committee of committing any form of sexual abuse, their certificate will be revoked immediately.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Donna Skelly: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister: Thank you for ensuring that student safety remains a top priority.

Ontario’s parents also want their children to succeed. However, our students have been falling behind in math, with some students graduating at a disadvantage due to poor math development. The previous government just made things worse with an unproven and experimental curriculum called “discovery math.” Now that we have discovered that it is a failure, can the minister tell me how the Safe and Supportive Classrooms Act will address the level of math achievement in Ontario?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Again, thank you to the member from Flamborough–Glanbrook. We know that for the past five years, there has been an overall decline in the education quality and accountability of math scores. As I’ve said before, and we all echo it, this is absolutely unacceptable.

We recognize that more needs to be done, and we will work with teachers to ensure they are prepared to teach the fundamentals of math in order to improve the success of Ontario’s students. The Safe and Supportive Classrooms Act would require any new teacher seeking to be registered with the Ontario College of Teachers to successfully complete a math knowledge test.

All of these changes will provide more confidence that our PC government is working to make sure that Ontario continues to have the best education system in the world.

University and college funding

Ms. Sara Singh: My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Bramptonians have been patiently waiting for a university in our city, and now that dream has been shattered because this government has decided to cut the funding to our new university. The Brampton campus of Ryerson University, in partnership with Sheridan College, meant so much, like better access to education, job opportunities and a stronger economy for Ontario at large. But this cut signals that the Conservative government doesn’t care about education or job creation, especially in the city of Brampton.

Speaker, why does this government keep giving Brampton the short end of the stick?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Our government has had to make tough decisions across Ontario regarding expensive projects.

However, I want to share a quote from a letter sent to me from the president of the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance, representing 150,000 students, Danny Chang. He says, “At OUSA, we believe in responsible investment that will effectively improve the lives of students and the future of our society. That is why our students wanted to communicate alignment with your decision on October 23. We believe that the Ontario university sector should ensure that any new or growing university institutions and campuses are financially sustainable.”

Speaker, Ontario students know the importance of fiscal sustainability, and it is time for the NDP to recognize that as well.

Interjections.

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

Restart the clock. Supplementary.

Ms. Sara Singh: Time and time again, the Conservative government has demonstrated that it does not care for the people of Brampton. Now it is taking away a university in our city that would have created jobs and economic development, and provided a much-needed campus close to home for those living in our city.

Sadly, yesterday, not a single government member from the Brampton side stood up to be counted on yesterday’s motion to preserve funding to our universities. Does this government not believe that Brampton is worth the investment?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you to the member for the question. Our government has had to make tough decisions about projects across Ontario, I repeat.

I want to share the perspective of Leo Groarke, president and vice-chancellor of Trent University. He says, “In a situation in which the system is characterized by a lack of students, creating entirely new campuses takes students away from existing campuses at a time when they are scrambling to find students they need to fill the spaces they already have available.”

He goes on to say that we cannot “expect a provincial government that is trying to wrestle with its deficit to pay for” new campuses “at a time when there is no pressing need to establish them....

“The Ford government has made the right decision.”

The people of Ontario expect us to make tough decisions and clean up the fiscal mess left behind by the Liberal government.

Climate change

Mr. Parm Gill: My question is for the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. Yesterday, the minister had the opportunity to represent our government at the Empire Club to address important issues that we currently face. For the last 115 years, the Empire Club of Canada has hosted debates on some of the most important topics. Leaders have participated in forums discussing the issues of the day.

Today, our government is faced with 15 years of Liberal mismanagement that has left our province $15 billion in deficit. Our government for the people has made it a clear priority to address the concerns we’ve heard during our campaign. Under the leadership of our Premier Ford, our government is focused and remains clear and consistent.

Can the minister tell the members of this Legislature what he was able to share at yesterday’s event?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the member from Milton: It was an honour to speak on behalf of the Premier and the government yesterday to the Empire Club. What I was able to tell them was that our government has wasted no time in terms of putting in place the actions that will make life more affordable for Ontario families.

Cancelling the cap-and-trade program, ending Drive Clean, scrapping the wasteful Green Energy Act, freezing driver licence fees and other fees—these are just the beginnings of trying to put more money into the pockets of the people.

We talked about the introduction of the Making Ontario Open for Business Act and how that’s going to reduce red tape, unlock thousands of skilled trades jobs for Ontarians and repeal the worst parts of Bill 148, which has burdened Ontario with unnecessary regulation. We talked about the completion of a line-by-line audit, which is going to help put our finances back on an even track.

Mr. Speaker, this is just the beginning. Like the rest of the members of the government, I’m proud to be part of a government that’s standing up for the people and working to make life more affordable for families.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Parm Gill: I want to thank the minister for making it clear that this government is working hard to ensure that the voices of all Ontarians are heard and our commitments are kept.

Speaker, back to the minister: During election time, the people of Ontario were clear. They were tired of dealing with a Liberal government that acted in their own political self-interest. They were tired of taxes being imposed on them. Ontarians called for a government that would finally listen to the people.

One of the concerns facing this province is the threat of climate change. Mr. Speaker, we see more frequent storms, resulting in flooded basements, structural damage and costly cleanups. Can the minister tell us what he was able to emphasize at the Empire Club in terms of how our government will address concerns like we’re facing in Ontario?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member for Milton: We talked about how the elimination of cap-and-trade is going to save Ontario families $264. We talked about the threat of the imposition of a federal carbon tax that could add hundreds and hundreds—even $850—to the price for our Ontario families.

We also, though, talked about Ontario’s climate leadership. We talked about how Ontario is on track to meet its Paris 2020 targets. We talked about the plan that we’ll bring forward next month, which will be a balanced plan that will balance the economy and the environment.

Mr. Speaker, we talked mostly about the importance of the leadership of our Premier, Premier Ford, and how he is going to be leading with other Premiers. He is meeting with other leaders across the country to make sure that the unconstitutional tax that Prime Minister Trudeau is bringing forward will not be brought forward and that Ontario families will not be punished. We’ll meet our environmental objectives—

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

Hospital services

Mr. Jeff Burch: To the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care: Yesterday in this House, I asked the minister about cancelled services at West Lincoln Memorial Hospital, specifically obstetrics and surgical programs. Following my question, I heard from Frank Trivieri, a constituent from the riding who feels this action is a slippery slope to a hospital closure.

In January, he suffered a heart attack and received exceptional care at this hospital. Frank asked me what the minister meant when she stated that she would be maintaining services. I could not give him a clear answer because she wasn’t clear on what services will continue and which will not.

Speaker, will this minister be honest with the people of Niagara West and explain what services will not continue and why there was no consultation with the hospital or the people of Niagara?

Hon. Christine Elliott: We did have a discussion about the West Lincoln hospital here yesterday, and I indicated to the member that I recognize that this is a matter of concern to all the residents in Grimsby and surrounding area. I can tell you again that the member from Niagara West has done an excellent job in bringing the community’s concerns to me—an absolutely outstanding job in reiterating those concerns and bringing forward considerations that have been brought to him by members of the community.

I’ll say again today what I said yesterday: Hospital services will continue to be provided at West Lincoln hospital. The Ministry of Health is in active discussions right now with the LHIN, with Hamilton Health Sciences and with the West Lincoln hospital to determine the best way to provide care to patients who need services and where that care will be provided in the short term. In the long term, I can tell you that there will be a hospital in West Lincoln.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Jeff Burch: Again this minister is playing word games with the people of Niagara when it comes to their health care. The chief of staff of the hospital resigned because of this government’s failure to consult. The community is frustrated, and a petition is being circulated by the member from West Lincoln—

Interjections.

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

Mr. Jeff Burch: —against his own government. Will the minister confirm today whether the obstetrics and surgery programs will continue at West Lincoln Memorial Hospital—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Niagara West is warned.

I think the question was put. Response.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Well, I think that there’s a short answer to this. I have been very clear with my communications throughout, as has the member from Niagara West, as has the Premier, who visited the West Lincoln hospital last Friday. We are all working on a solution that is going to benefit the people of Grimsby and surrounding area.

Patient safety is of utmost concern. We’re all looking at that, but we are also very concerned that the hospital remain open to provide services to the people who need them. A solution is being formulated now that is going to take into consideration all of those factors, but the hospital in West Lincoln is going to remain open.

Party status

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the Premier. Good morning, Premier. It’s great to see you.

Premier, there are so many things that we haven’t had a chance to talk about, like how proactive inspections have been stopped by your government, making workplaces and workers’ rights more at risk; or how your finance minister has been unable to get the signature of the controllers on this year’s public accounts; or how the costs from all the programs you’ve cut aren’t reflected in the public accounts; or where the proceeds from cap-and-trade are going; and, most importantly, how workers’ rights and wages are being stripped in Bill 47 and, at the same time, the Premier can hire his ex-party president and campaign adviser to $350,000-a-year jobs here in Ontario.

My question to the Premier is this: Does the Premier think that six friendly questions a day is a good thing?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I’m not too sure where the member for Ottawa South is going.

But I find it pretty rich that this member was part of the $15-billion deficit that has been put on the backs of businesses, put on the backs of the people here in Ontario. The member from Ottawa South was personally responsible for destroying the financial books of this province. He destroyed 300,000 families who lost their jobs under the Liberal government. We had the highest hydro rates in North America under his government. He wants the highest carbon tax anywhere in the entire world. We are facing $338 billion, the largest subnational debt in the world because of this government—

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

Interjections.

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

Government side, come to order.

Start the clock. Supplementary.

Mr. John Fraser: I think I put six questions in there, and I didn’t hear an answer to one of them.

One question a day, 22 minutes of debate on a substantive bill like Bill 47, and no participation in the financial oversight committees to this Legislature just doesn’t cut it for the 1.1 million people who voted Ontario Liberal—or, actually, the 1.4 million, if you include the member from the Green Party.

This Legislature has recognized the importance of the popular vote in the business of this Legislature, most recently in 2003. In 2003, a motion was passed in this Legislature that supported the seven members of the NDP and the 600,000 people who voted for them. Two weeks ago, we put forward an amendment that mirrored that motion. You voted it down, supported by the NDP.

Will the Premier commit to passing a motion that will ensure the voices of more than one million people in this province are fully supported in this Legislature and can participate in a fulsome way in the business of this Legislature?

Premier, will you commit to that?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Before I recognize the Premier to respond, I would remind all members to please make your comments through the Chair.

Premier.

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, again to the member from Ottawa South: I just find it so rich and so ironic. He’s talking about oversight. There was no oversight for 15 years for the taxpayers. We have an inquiry going on. We have a select committee going on to find out who got rich off this government, the Liberal government.

I’m telling you, Mr. Speaker, we’ve never seen more backroom deals, more scams, more people getting their pockets lined, than under this government—

Interjections.

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

I’m going to caution the Premier on that sort of language.

New question.

Guide and service animals

Mrs. Amy Fee: My question is for the Minister of Education. World-class education means accommodating all students, including those with unique learning needs. Research shows that service and therapy animals provide a wide range of emotional and physical support for students.

Parents across the province have expressed the need for service animal supports in school boards. Today, though, only approximately half of Ontario’s 72 school boards have a policy or guideline in place to address the needs of students with service animals. That means that half of school boards’ families are being left behind to try to navigate the system.

Minister, what will this government do to provide consistency across the province when it comes to student access to service animals?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: First of all, I would like to thank the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler for the question. She is an amazing MPP, an amazing advocate for support dogs and, most importantly, an amazing mom to Kenner and his siblings.

I would like to share with the House that after 15 long years of inaction, I am pleased to say that it’s the PC government that is taking this issue of support dogs very seriously, and we have taken the first step to get it right. It has only been 120 days, and our government is proposing a legislative amendment to the Education Act that would require every single school board in this province to put in place a policy to address this important and unique need.

Mr. Speaker, I stress the fact that currently there is not one consistent policy in the province, and we owe it to our students to get it right. If the proposed amendment is passed—and I hope we have support from all of the members in the House—school boards will be directed to have a publicly available, clear and fair policy regarding support animals.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mrs. Amy Fee: Back to the minister: First off, thank you for those kind words. I’m very glad to hear that this government for the people is taking action to put our students first.

My constituents have been participating in consultations via fortheparents.ca. The people of Ontario are pleased that they have a say in what student education will look like. I’m sure they will also have a lot to say around student access to service animals in our schools.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister: Can you confirm that my constituents and all Ontarians will have the ability to submit opinions on what these policies and guidelines will look like?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: It’s my pleasure to rise in the House and say to the constituents of Kitchener South–Hespeler and all across Ontario: Thank you for exercising your voice. We want to hear from you. If you haven’t already participated in fortheparents.ca, we are listening.

With regard to support animals and to service animals in particular, all members of the public will have an opportunity to provide input on the policy directive that would be issued to the boards. That includes families, education partners, advocacy groups and community agencies. It will help us to develop the best form of guidelines for school boards and develop policies that will work for students with special needs.

Parents deserve a clear and transparent process for requesting service animals no matter where they live. I’m proud that our PC government is listening and striving to ensure that every student and family will be accommodated in our education system.

Government spending

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Premier. The Premier claims to believe deeply in respect for taxpayers and transparency in government—

Interjections.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Speaker, I appreciate the enthusiasm—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Just a sec. We haven’t started the clock yet. The government side will come to order.

Start the clock. Member for Essex.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I appreciate the enthusiasm from the members of the government. Maybe they might want to wait until I’m done the rest of the question to show their enthusiasm.

That’s why it was really shocking to see the Premier refuse to tell reporters how much taxpayer money he’d be spending on his plan to roll out these new “Welcome to Ontario” billboard signs up at the border. Can he tell us now how much of the people’s money he’ll be spending on this project?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, and to the member of Essex: As a matter of fact, we’re going to put a sign up right down the street from the member’s home there, to make sure people know that Ontario is open for business. We’re going to make sure the world knows, and the millions of people that cross every border across Ontario, that we now have a province that encourages business to open up, because we’re going to lower the hydro rates. We’re going to create a business-friendly atmosphere to invest. We’re going to make sure we don’t lose the 300,000 jobs that the previous administration lost.

On 96% of the votes, they supported the Liberals. They were part of destroying this province.

We’re going to make sure we have this province thriving. We’re going to create tens of thousands of new jobs. We’re going to attract new businesses. Again, Ontario is open for business.

Interjections.

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

Hon. John Yakabuski: Taras, you should get your picture taken by one of those new signs.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Transportation, come to order.

Start the clock. Supplementary.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: We don’t care whether it’s billboards or bumper stickers from Deco Labels; we just want to know how much it’s going to cost the people of the province. Be upfront with us. Come on. Tell us how much it’s going to cost.

The Premier also committed to some additional taxpayer spending this week. He committed to bilateral trade talks with the province of Saskatchewan, a province that we do about 5% of interprovincial trade with, which is especially interesting considering Ontario and Saskatchewan were the only two provinces to skip a meeting on interprovincial trade this past week. That’s where the other 95% of interprovincial trade is actually being discussed.

Can the Premier tell us how much of the people’s money he will be spending on trade talks with his friends in Saskatchewan?

Interjections.

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

I recognize the Premier.

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: I was proud to host Premier Scott Moe. He’s like-minded. In total, we do $11 billion of trade. But BMO came out with a study. It’s costing us $50 billion a year as a country that we don’t even have proper interprovincial trade. We have regulations over regulations.

But guess what? We’re going to blaze a new trail, because BMO also said it’s costing Ontario $15 billion to $20 billion to the economy. But I can make sure that we’re going to have a deal with Saskatchewan, and then you’re going to see all the other provinces hop on board. We talk about the USMCA deal, and we can’t even get trade down within our own country. But under our leadership, we’ll make sure that happens. We’ll make sure we create jobs—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Both sides of the House, come to order. Member for Essex, come to order. Premier, come to order.

Start the clock. Next question.

Government’s agenda

Mr. Mike Harris: This government has committed to being responsive to the needs of Ontarians and, most importantly, we are listening. While the Liberals ignored the business community and ignored the people, this government is working day and night to get Ontario’s finances back on track, something my constituents are very happy to hear.

That’s why the President of the Treasury Board has been conducting round tables and stakeholder meetings with organizations across the province. In fact, a few weeks ago, I welcomed him to Waterloo region, where we met with job creators and constituents to discuss the state of Ontario’s economy and finances.

Can the President of the Treasury Board please inform this House who he has consulted with over the past few weeks?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Thank you to the member from Kitchener–Conestoga for that excellent question.

Our goal is to transform government to one that is both efficient and responsive to the needs of the people. This is the only way that we can repair the damage to both the public finances and the public trust caused by Liberal mismanagement.

That’s why the Planning for Prosperity consultations have evolved from—

Mr. Taras Natyshak: You’re in government now. The bad people can’t hurt you anymore. It’s okay.

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

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: —a consultation for the people to a conversation with the people—

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Seriously, it’s okay.

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

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: —as opposed to the barking from the other side.

Over the past two weeks, I have visited four chambers of commerce, two colleges and universities, two innovation hubs, a dairy farm, a greenhouse farm and many more. I’ve heard from hundreds of Ontarians who know that help is on the way and that Ontario is now open for business.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Mike Harris: Thank you to the President of the Treasury Board for his answer.

Mr. Speaker, businesses across Ontario are being suffocated by red tape. My constituents are also concerned about how the legacy of poor financial management left behind by the Liberals will impact them and their families. In fact, this sentiment is the same toward the federal Liberals. A recent survey shows the majority of Ontarians surveyed preferred balancing the budget compared to running a deficit.

Despite the opposition’s insistence that we are nothing more than a party of cuts, it is this Premier and government that are actually listening to the people and building up Ontario.

Can the President of the Treasury Board inform this House as to what he has heard during his consultations with Ontarians?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Thank you to the member for that question.

I can say that our government for the people is taking the necessary steps to finally get this province back on track. We will be cutting red tape, we will be cutting inefficiencies, and we will be cutting the deficit.

Everywhere I’ve gone, I’ve been hearing a common theme. I hear that red tape is haunting businesses, that we need to improve and modernize this province’s services, and that the needs of business owners are finally being addressed.

Ontarians want change. They want a government that is efficient, effective and receptive.

To those who have participated in our consultations, I say, we hear you. We are working non-stop to get this province back on track.

I say again, Ontario is open for business.

Social assistance

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: My question is to the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services. The Conservative government has announced that they will be releasing the results of their 100-day review of Ontario’s social assistance system on November 8. However, they have been surprisingly tight-lipped about how exactly they are conducting this review and who has been involved in its development.

Can the minister tell us exactly who she has consulted during this process? And can she explain the steps her ministry has taken to make sure that the public has been engaged, particularly those who have lived experience with the Ontario Disability Support Program and Ontario Works?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Thanks very much for the question.

It’s really great that the NDP is finally starting to talk about this important issue, which should be in their wheelhouse—but they’re really neglectful in that they really haven’t engaged very much in the Legislature.

We were very clear when we assumed office that we were going to hit the pause button on the previous Liberal administration’s patchwork, disjointed system when we repatriated the five ministries that I’m now responsible for. When we did that, we said we would bring in a 1.5% increase in ODSP and Ontario Works right across the board, and that has happened.

We’ve started to engage stakeholders, and we’ll be ready in a couple of weeks to outline the positive changes that we’ll be making as a government to lift more people out of poverty and back on track where they’re able—and where they’re not, we’re going to be able to provide additional supports. But I can assure the member opposite that we have been engaging with stakeholders, and we have been engaging with previous research from the previous Liberal administration, and we’re going to continue to make those supports.

I can assure you: One in seven people living in poverty in the province of Ontario is—

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

Interjections.

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

Restart the clock. Supplementary.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Back to the minister: Minister, you might remember the Mike Harris government, which actually cut social assistance rates by nearly 22%, and your government, which has also cut social assistance rates and cut off the basic income.

Over the past month, I’ve spoken to members of my community, social policy experts and leading advocacy organizations, and I have yet to find anyone who was invited to take

part in the minister’s review. It’s shocking to hear that this Conservative government is not including in the process the very people who will be impacted by their decisions.

Does the minister think that it’s smart policy-making to make unilateral decisions without consulting the people whose lives she is directly impacting? Does she simply think that she knows best and understands social assistance better than anyone who is currently receiving it?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Look, the member opposite is misleading the House by suggesting that there has been a cut, because—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member knows the rules. She’ll withdraw.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Withdrawn.

The member opposite knows that we raised rates by 1.5% across the board for people on ODSP and Ontario Works. We have a $10-billion program in social assistance that one million people in Ontario are on, and one in seven people in this province are living in poverty. What we were doing in the past was not working, and that’s why I will stand here to make sure that the best social safety net in this province is a compassionate society. The best social circumstances are when those people who can work are in the labour force. And I will remind the member opposite: The best social program in the province of Ontario is a job.

Interjections.

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

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Late-show it, Lisa.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Children, Community and Social Services, come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Municipal Affairs, come to order. Member for Hamilton Mountain, come to order. Member for Ottawa South, come to order.

Start the clock. Next question.

Interprovincial trade

Mr. Stephen Crawford: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. While the federal Liberal government is dreaming up new ways to tax the people of Ontario, our government for the people is working hard to create jobs and bring new investment to our province. Last week we introduced the Making Ontario Open