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

October 31, 2018

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2018-Oct-31 (PDF)

L044 - Wed 31 Oct 2018 / Mer 31 oct 2018

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 31 October 2018 Mercredi 31 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

Wearing of Halloween costumes

Oral Questions

Employment standards

Employment standards

Employment standards

Ontario film industry

Government spending

Skilled trades

Indigenous relations and reconciliation

Education

Release of documents

Taxation

Education funding

Flu immunization

Social assistance

Forest firefighting

Ethical standards

Visitor

Protestant Reformation

Visitors

Notice of dissatisfaction

Deferred Votes

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

Royal assent / Sanction royale

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Sikh massacre

Henry Norwest

Employment standards

West Lincoln Memorial Hospital

Employment standards

Guelph-Wellington Women in Crisis

Clarington Sports Hall of Fame

Snowmobiling

Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario

Taxation

Hospital funding

Petitions

Employment standards

Public safety

Northern health services

Public safety

Employment standards

West Lincoln Memorial Hospital

Employment standards

Public safety

Orders of the Day

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

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 30, 2018, on the motion for 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): When the House last debated this bill the member for Toronto–Danforth had the floor. He still has time. I recognize the member for Toronto–Danforth.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I appreciate the opportunity to continue my presentation. Recapping yesterday, in just a few sentences, we’re dealing with a bill today that reflects the reckless approach of this government towards climate change, an abandonment of moral responsibilities that governments have to protect the people of this province from climate damage, from climate loss. Frankly, yesterday I had the opportunity to review the ways in which cap-and-trade money was actually being used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and cut the costs of operating hospitals, schools and social housing.

There is no doubt, Speaker, that the cap-and-trade system that was put in place by the Liberals had flaws. This government could have corrected those flaws and moved on, but instead, without having a climate change plan to put in place, they simply cancelled that program.

We are well aware, Speaker, of the urgency of the climate issue, the speed with which change is asserting itself, and to not leave the previous plan in place—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I apologize. There are a number of audible conversations going on on this side of the House. I would ask you to quiet down so I can hear the member for Toronto–Danforth, who is less than 10 feet away from me.

Member for Toronto–Danforth.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Thank you, Speaker. The Conservative government says that renewable energy and the investments from the cap-and-trade program weren’t reducing carbon emissions, that they weren’t fighting climate change. This bears a very distant relationship to any facts. In fact, that statement is a stranger to reality. They’re correct in saying that the program wasn’t doing enough, but to take a course of action in which we will lose months, maybe years, before we take the action that’s required is not a responsible course of action.

The Conservative government speaks about the cancellation of cap-and-trade as making people better off financially. I want to say two things to that. First of all, in cancelling it, we come under the regime of the federal government, which will mean higher payments on a month-to-month basis for individual families. They could have decided to keep the lower-cost program in place, but no, they decided to give control to Ottawa, take control of those funds out of our hands, and put Ontarians in a position where they will be paying more.

The other thing, Speaker, is that their position is analogous to telling people they could save money by cancelling home fire insurance. Just a few little bits of information: There are around five million households in Ontario. From 2012 to 2016, we averaged a little over 600 house fires per year. So the odds seem pretty good that if you’re living in Ontario, you won’t see a fire in your house in the next few years and you may not see a fire in your home in your lifetime. Yet no one in this building would say that you shouldn’t spend the money to insure your home against fire. Why?

Because if you’re wrong, the impact is catastrophic. Home fire insurance is a lot more expensive than what people were paying under cap-and-trade.

That being said, there are two big differences between proceeding with investing in climate action through cap-and-trade or cancelling your home fire policy. The first is that unlike your house catching fire, which may never happen, the climate is already breaking down. We’re already seeing fire and flooding on an unprecedented scale. People are already getting Lyme disease in Ontario, as that disease spreads farther north as Ontario heats up. Without a substantial change in direction, without substantial cuts to emissions, we will be seeing our lives become poorer and harsher in the years to come.

So there may not be a chance in a million that your house will catch fire this year, but I can tell you that it’s a sure bet that Ontario is going to get hotter and we’re going to pay for it.

The second thing that is ignored by the Conservatives when it comes to the cap-and-trade program is that over time, more and more of the burden was going to be carried by big polluters. The reality is that with this bill, the government is setting aside a system that would put the bulk of the cost on big polluters so that people in this province would get the support they need to make the transition that’s required. I know they’re not interested in it.

This is the government for the rich people, absolutely, and they are quite happy to put the burden on the backs of everyday Ontarians, people from Ontario who already have a tough time. But no, they would rather protect big polluters and big corporations than look after the people of this province. It sends a very clear message to the people of Ontario: Lots of no future for you. That’s the direction they’re headed in.

We tried to amend this bill in committee, Speaker. I want to go over some of the amendments, because I think they’re important in terms of how we should be approaching this issue. We tried to amend the bill to ensure that a proper foundation was there for the direction of action.

The Paris agreement of 2015 set a global framework for action to stop climate breakdown, to stop the chaos that comes from a drop in our standard of living and an ongoing disruption of our lives. So I moved, on behalf of the NDP, that the Paris agreement be incorporated in the bill. Every Conservative member voted against that—every one. If we come forward with a climate plan that doesn’t have the Paris agreement as a foundation, what will be the basis for that plan? If we aren’t using an internationally agreed upon standard for action on climate change, what will be the basis? No basis was given.

We are already part of a global treaty, and we already know what needs to be done. Yet government members would not vote to put that foundation in a climate bill.

We move, then, to at least set targets for a reduction of emissions. We know that we have to move very quickly to cut back on our emissions so that we in Ontario will be doing our part and so that we can talk credibly to nations around the world about the validity and the workability of changing our economy. So I suggested, very simply, we go ahead using the limits, or the targets, that are already in place: a 15% reduction by 2020; a 37% reduction in emissions by 2030—which, to tell you the truth, Speaker, is about the same amount as we’ve done in the last 13 years, so really, a very reachable target.

Then, for the target in 2050—totally consistent with the most recent findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—that we reach net zero by the end of 2050; that is, we capture all the emissions that we make, so that even though we’re probably still going to be using fossil fuels at that time, the net emissions from Ontario are zero. There was no interest on the part of the government on that—no interest in those targets.

I actually think those targets need to be re-examined, because in light of the most recent climate science they may well need to be tougher. But at the very least, we should have had those targets in place. There was no interest on the part of the government in doing that.

I asked that public hearings be held on the exact targets so that we could have that broader scientific discussion and make sure that we could meet the targets that are internationally agreed to: keeping temperatures well below two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to keep the change, actually, at 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels—no interest on the part of the government on being in any way compliant with the Paris accord.

So I have to ask myself: What feverish right-wing think tank somewhere in the United States is writing the foundation for this plan right now? What sort of backward step is the government prepared to announce? Because if they’re not compliant with the Paris agreement, what they bring forward will be junk. It will simply be junk.

If the government is serious about a climate plan, then it has to have the structure of a plan that’s actually addressing what the world needs. It actually needs to be consistent with where the bulk of the countries in this world believe we need to go.

We further moved that the minister should prepare a climate plan and introduce the plan as a bill in the Legislature. This is a big departure from the Liberals, who would never do that. They would never introduce their bill into the Legislature for full public debate. It was a declaration: “This is what you got; like it or lump it.” Are the Conservatives any different? Absolutely not, they will not bring their climate plan to this chamber for a vote—no interest in that amendment. It should be here; it should be a matter of public record who takes what position.

The public should have the opportunity to come before committee, present evidence and be questioned, and committee should have the opportunity to debate things thoroughly. It was rejected by every member of the Conservative Party sitting in that committee.

We moved that the minister present a new plan every five years, unless there are substantial changes in the science, in which case he should bring a plan more frequently—no interest.

To some extent, our amendments are based on the climate legislation in place in the UK, administered under the Cameron Conservative government, and now administered under the Theresa May Conservative government. They don’t seem to have a problem regularly coming back to the House of Commons for debate and approval. They don’t seem to have a problem with coming every five years because the science is changing and having that debate here. But this Conservative government is apparently even less forthcoming than those Conservative governments.

We asked that there be a budget set out in their climate plan showing how much could be emitted in the different sectors so that people could judge who was carrying the burden and who was not; so we could decide politically what made sense, which is what we have to do—no interest in that.

We asked that the government present the estimate of costs to meet their goals. We asked that those be presented here in this chamber for debate—no interest in that. That alone should be troubling. There’s a lack of a systematic approach, a lack of goals consistent with our global ambitions and a lack of interest in actually having political control.

We further moved that, in the preparation of the climate change plan, the minister address the potential costs to Ontario if we didn’t take action. Because far too often when we debate this issue we have, on the one side, the cost of taking action, and on the other side there is silence. Very few are doing the analysis as to what the impact will really be. So if you are doing a cost-benefit analysis, you need both sides of the equation: cost, absolutely, but you need to know the benefit or the avoided risk on the other side. The government was not interested in costing the impact of climate change on this province.

In their plan, we moved that they look at the scientific knowledge about climate change, at the technology available to deal with it, at the economic circumstances that we would be effecting with a carbon budget, at the social impact and in particular the likely impact of a carbon budget on fuel poverty. We’re going to have to balance all these things. But the government is not interested, in any formal way, in incorporating that into their climate plan. In other words, they are not interested in a comprehensive review of all the factors that would affect the plan and that we in this Legislature need to consider when we make a decision.

I moved—and this is one the Liberals rejected as well, so I shouldn’t be surprised that the Conservatives rejected it—that the minister shall ensure that the climate change plan provides enhanced support for low-income, rural, northern and Indigenous communities, which are more vulnerable to climate change. Now, I would have thought, given their constituencies in many cases, that the idea that we look at rural areas for special consideration would have appealed to them.

My colleagues from the north can talk about the difficulties that they face and the fact that when we’re putting together a plan, the most vulnerable populations, those who will be most heavily affected by the plan and lack of changes that the plan is supposed to bring about—you need to look at all of that. I guess I wasn’t that surprised when the Liberals rejected it when I tried to put it in their cap-and-trade plan, because after all, that’s really not their constituency, right? Let’s face facts. But I actually thought that this time this government might be interested, given their rhetoric on the matter.

Clearly, I was mistaken.

Now, one of the things that I have noticed in a lot of the Conservatives talking points is talking about adaptation, effectively: “There’s nothing we can do. We’re too small a player. Let’s just get ready for the rough stuff to come.” I don’t think that’s a good attitude. I think it’s a dangerous attitude. It’s an attitude of having given up, of passivity in the face of a huge risk. There’s more on that, but I actually moved that the climate plan include an adaptation plan, because we’re going to need both sides. We need to plan to reduce our emissions, and we have to plan to deal with the consequences of the climate change that’s coming toward us.

I suggested a few things that needed to be critical in that plan: protection of life, because let’s face it, with more extreme weather there will be greater risk to life. It was this past summer that a firefighter fighting forest fires in northern Ontario died. We need to have protection of property. I thought that was an easy sell to the Conservative Party. Protection of biological diversity: You need to have that if you’re going to have a society and an environment that are healthy and thriving.

I also moved on behalf of my party that the adaptation plan include assistance to those whose jobs would be disrupted by a change in the form of energy that we use. It’s called “just transition.” If you’re working in the oil industry, distribution, processing, refining, as the economy changes, your life is going to be uncertain. We need, consciously, to put in our plan measures that will provide support for people to move from one economy to the next. I didn’t think that would be particularly controversial. I thought it would be something that the government could adopt.

I also, on behalf of the party, the NDP, asked that the adaptation plan include provision of assistance to individuals, communities and businesses negatively affected by climate change. So, those communities in Ottawa that were hit by the tornado; or a few years ago, people in Goderich who were hit by a tornado; or people in Toronto who were hit by the ice storm—we need to have an ongoing system of providing assistance, and think in advance. These are no longer accidents. These are, unfortunately, relatively predictable events putting people, property and lives at risk. That was rejected by every single Conservative member sitting on that committee, every single one.

Speaker, my time is short. I want to say this: The bill is a failure on two fronts. The cap-and-trade wind-down is not being done in a transparent way and is unnecessary. It puts us in a position where we will be subject to federal legislation and higher costs. And it’s a failure in that the climate change plan doesn’t have the structure to actually deliver the protection that Ontarians need. It doesn’t have the structure for a reduction of emissions, so that we can actually say to the rest of the world, “This is doable.” We may be a small player—even though, here in this country, we’re in the top 10 emitters in the world, but we’re smaller than China.

We need to have both sides of the plan. We don’t. This plan and this bill should be rejected.

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

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: Il me fait plaisir de me lever pour tenter de sauvegarder une dernière fois l’intégrité de nos efforts pour protéger l’environnement et combattre les changements climatiques.

I want to urge the government this morning to be cautious: cautious about our international reputation, cautious about the future of our province and our economic competitiveness, and to be transparent as well towards Ontarians.

Au cours des dernières semaines, des renvois éloquents ont été faits aux effets dévastateurs des changements climatiques sur notre société, et nous savons que les dommages ne font que s’accentuer.

I know that the minister has said publicly that Ontario contributes only a small fraction of the worldwide emissions, as though this diminishes our moral obligation to participate in this global effort. It does not. How will we be able to conduct ourselves on the international scene to support our international reputation, which is essential to investment, to immigration, to tourism and so many other aspects, if we fail to honour the promises toward the Paris accord? We jeopardize our reputation when we don’t follow through. We cannot pretend that we are alone in the world.

This government is a free-trade government and we agree with this. In that context, it must worry all the time about its international reputation.

My plea today is that we not pass third reading of the bill to cancel the cap-and-trade program before knowing what the alternative is and what the government has in mind. Ontarians are entitled to know what the plan is before scrapping and shredding what they have. The government says that it wants transparency; it should give us some.

Many Ontarians are probably puzzled by this government’s views on the environment and on climate change. A very large group of members of the government were part of the Patrick Brown team and signed the People’s Guarantee, which had a commitment to carbon pricing. Now they’ve changed their minds within about six months, and are spending millions fighting the federal government on carbon pricing. So what was the problem in the People’s Guarantee and how can people change their minds?

Many members of the government have spent their careers on reducing the size of government and reducing the number of regulations—red tape, as they call it. But the current version of the bill indicates that the minister will forgo market instruments in favour of regulatory instruments. This is bewildering. One worries about all these contradictions: Some people were in favour of carbon pricing six months ago; they no longer are. Some people spend all their lives fighting regulation; now, presumably, they will have to be in favour of regulation. All of this contradiction is worrying—that at the end of the day, the government will do nothing.

I know that the minister has promised his plan for next month, which is November. Shouldn’t we just wait and see what the plan is before voting for scrapping cap-and-trade? There’s no urgency to passing this today. The GreenON program has been cancelled; it finishes today. We’re out of the market, so there’s no urgency. We could just see what the plan is and then be able to be transparent to Ontarians so they know what they’re choosing. I think Ontarians are entitled to know what the government’s position on climate change is before we vote today.

In good conscience, myself, I think it’s always wiser to see what is at stake so that we can evaluate the cost of the plan, its effectiveness, and where it leads Ontario before abandoning what we have.

A second point that worries me a lot: The FAO has identified that by not having a climate change plan, the Ontario government is leaving on the table $420 million from the federal government. This is from a government that insists that the federal government owes it $200 million to help settle refugees in Ontario, which is fair to claim that amount. But this does not make sense. Why would we leave money on the table at a time when we need it so badly?

Finally, in my last message, I want to expand a little bit on what I would like to caution the government about: missing what I would describe as the electric train on this issue. China just announced that it is going to have a cap-and-trade program. It is therefore opening a large market of exchanges, because it makes good sense to confront the reality of climate change. The economic benefits of going green are well known. They are experimented with throughout the world.

Indeed, yesterday at Queen’s Park, I had the pleasure of being visited by the heat and air conditioning group, who were talking about the benefits of GreenON in the Ottawa Valley. A group of small entrepreneurs were very distressed by the elimination of GreenON. They could not fulfill all of the promises to their customers, and they could see the benefit of the program for their own customers right there, not only helping them refurbish their homes, diminishing their energy bills, but also feeling more secure in their homes: better windows, better furnace, better air conditioning. All this makes sense.

They were local jobs and local people that were involved.

So what’s the new plan? Will this new plan replace this? Will there be an alternative to ensuring that people reduce their energy consumption by better insulating their homes? Will all these small businesses that made investments to support GreenON be compensated? Will they be allowed to continue to participate in the greening of the economy?

I worry that Ontario will be left out of this new opening of cap-and-trade with China. I said it earlier in this House and I will repeat it: The future will be green, or there won’t be a future. Around the world, countries and governments recognize that they need to support the greening of their economies. They need to provide incentives to businesses to reduce their emissions and create greener products. This is where the competitiveness of business is going, and we should be part of this. This is the future economy. There will be manufacturing of green products.

It’s not being against manufacturing to say that manufacturing has to be about products that will be competitive around the world because they are greener than their competitors. This is the way of the future, and this government should hold on to this and prepare us for the future. It’s important. That’s the job of government: to prepare us to be able to be part of large economic growth.

I heard my colleague say, “The future is not green; it’s going to be blue.” I wish the future—put a little blue in the green. Make it aqua; I don’t care. Change the name of the programs because you want to label it under your own. I don’t mind. But you need to be part of this. This is important. It’s important to Ontario. It’s important for small business in the Ottawa Valley, and it’s important for big business around the province. It’s important to continue to be competitive and ensure that we are there in a world that is green. Maybe, if you want, label it blue; I don’t mind. I want us to be there and to ensure that we continue to co-operate.

Today, I think my message is about urging the government to pause and present its plan before scrapping what we have. It is more prudent, it is more transparent, and it’s fairer to the people of Ontario.

Aujourd’hui, je demande au gouvernement de ne pas passer la troisième lecture, de ne pas adopter le projet de loi avant d’avoir présenté à tous les Ontariens et Ontariennes le plan qu’ils veulent développer pour combattre les changements climatiques. Nous avons le droit de savoir ce qu’ils ont en tête. Ils ont le devoir de le présenter avant d’éliminer ce que nous avons déjà.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate? The member from Barrie–Innisfil.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to wish you a happy Halloween, and just remind everyone that Ontarians today are getting a treat; they’re not getting a trick. They’re getting the treat of the scrapping of cap-and-trade. They will not be tricked into the carbon tax and paying for cap-and-trade.

Let me tell you a little more about these treats that they’re getting. By eliminating the cap-and-trade carbon tax, we’ll be saving the average family $260 per year. In addition to that, removing the carbon tax from natural gas bills will also save families $80 a year and small businesses $285 a year. Not to mention that every time those families, every time those seniors, every time those new drivers are gassing up, they’re going to be saving money on their gas. There are many treats this Halloween.

But it seems that despite the path that our government wants to take, the path of making tomorrow much easier and sweeter than yesterday, making next month much easier than the month before that—that is the path that we want to take: the path of prosperity for the province, giving back to those people who work so hard to stretch every single dollar that they make. That is what we got elected to do. We got elected on a clear mandate to bring relief and affordability to the people of Ontario and a clear mandate to scrap the cap-and-trade program and to fight the carbon tax.

This is a fight that the federal government could be working towards as an alternative. As Minister Phillips has stated, instead of taxing us, the federal government could be working with us on climate change, but that doesn’t seem to be the appetite. The Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, said himself, “If Canada stopped everything tomorrow, and the other countries didn’t have any solutions,” it would not make a difference. Let me repeat that: “If Canada stopped everything tomorrow, and the other countries didn’t have any solutions,” it would not make a difference.

So why are we taxing people, then, with the cap-and-trade and the carbon tax? Why are we hurting those who need the help the most? Why are we espousing this elite policy on to other people because of the guilt? We’re letting polluters get away by letting them pay into a system of guilt, essentially. It’s okay if they pollute, but if they pay into the system, it’s totally acceptable. It’s unfair, because those people who are burdened the most—the regular people, the day-to-day average citizens that we talk to every day—are living on the edge. They cannot afford it. Those who have the means to pay this burden?

Sure, they can make it. Sure, the corporations, they can pay it. For those people in the middle, they cannot. They are living on the edge. And it doesn’t get better for them, it gets worse with a cap-and-trade system.

The FAO had stated that Ontarians are going to be saving $7.2 billion over four years. That is a tremendous savings for the taxpayer. But it shows what side the government is on. The side of the government is with the countryman, is with the people—those people who work every day. They do not have time to come into the Legislature to give speeches; that is what we are elected to do. We were elected with a clear mandate to represent the people.

Unfortunately, the debate here is a detachment—the detachment of, basically, dictating from the top what is best for the people and taxing them and burdening them with things that they cannot afford. It’s awful to think of the lack of interest that some people in this House have towards those people who cannot sit at the table of negotiating. Instead, the table they sit at—the kitchen table—their costs are going up, while everyone is talking on the world stage about taxing them and increasing their burden.

Mrs. Robin Martin: And their international credibility.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: And their international credibility; that is right.

This government—we do not admire China, unlike the Prime Minister of Canada. Sure, he admires China. He’s going to follow suit with them. We do not admire China. Right now, they are too slow to the game. They are polluting, yes, and now they’re starting to go into a cap-and-trade system. What will that do, Mr. Speaker? Well, it’s going to be burdening a lot of the people that need it most: those people who are hungry, the people who use the food bank. In fact, it has been proven that high energy costs make people use the food bank most. And so if we really care for the people, then why would we be increasing their burden?

That is why this government is providing relief to individuals, relief to Ontarians, those who work hard—relief like $4.2 billion in gasoline savings over a four-year period. That is money saved for every single hard-working Ontarian in this province. And that’s not it, Mr. Speaker. When we got elected with our clear mandate to repeal the cap-and-trade system and to challenge the federal government on its plan to impose the carbon tax, we made it clear that we will stand up for the people. But what I’ve been hearing is quotes about the United Nations and the report that they released earlier this month.

Well, if we were to follow their report, Canada’s share would represent 200 million tonnes; that is 0.8%. Ontarians simply cannot afford this. The same report suggests that the carbon tax—the same report that I was talking about earlier—would go up to $7,183 per Canadian per tonne. That is the tax that is needed on every single Canadian in order to receive the desired approach by the United Nations.

I will go back to those kitchen tables again, because they are not at the UN. They are not making these policies. They are paying the bill and the consequences of these policies. And as energy prices are going up, as the price of everything is going up, these families cannot afford it. That is why we’re providing hope. We’re providing hope for those that are being kicked when they are down. That is unfair. Ontario is already overburdened with debt. They’re paying high taxes. And now, when they’re at that point in their lives, we’re just going to kick them when they’re down and give them another tax upon tax?

That is not our approach, and that is why we got elected with a clear majority—such a majority that we actually extend to the other side of the House. We have colleagues on the other side; we have colleagues here. We have quite a strong majority. In fact, we’re sitting on the same side as the NDP most days; that is how big our majority is.

That shows you that it’s clear that we were elected by the people to represent the people in their interests—not the interests of the private elite that sit at the UN table, claiming that they know what’s best for the people that go to work every day, that gas up their cars, that have to drive their parents or their grandparents to doctor’s appointments, that have to drive their kids to soccer practices. That is who we are listening to and that is who we are standing up for.

But don’t just take it from me. Look at some of the reports that have come out. For example, I had stated the impact the carbon tax has on those who are most vulnerable: those who would have to use food banks with the rising food prices and the rising costs of everything, really. There was a study done in Nature Climate Change. It zooms in on how implementing a uniform tax on greenhouse gases and emissions would impact the agriculture sector, and therefore affect food prices. Well, you know what this report says, Mr. Speaker? “The results show that a blanket carbon tax ‘would have a greater negative impact on global hunger and food consumption than the direct impacts of climate change.’”

So it’s rich that people want to claim that they’re standing up for individuals, that they’re listening, that they want the next generation to do better—but if they can’t put food on the table, what good is it? That is why we want to have a balanced approach. We want to make sure we have a strong economy and a clean environment. Everyone wants clean water, clean air and clean land, certainly. But we’re not going to do it with the consequences of taxing people and letting the big polluters get away with it just because, oh, well, they feel good because they’re taxing people. Sure, we’re all paying the burden, but what good is it if you cannot put food on the table the next day?

Don’t just take it from me. When we were in committee, we heard from many stakeholders that said how their businesses were going to be impacted by this carbon tax. Some of the people we heard from were people who work in the farming sector, like the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers’ Association. They said the existing cap-and-trade program represents increased fuel costs on their equipment and climate controls, for things like packaging and storage facilities and heat for greenhouses. These are all things that they’re going to have to pay cap-and-trade on.

They would have to pay it all year round for their fruit production, especially in northern climates. The cap-and-trade program would actually add, for their industry, an additional $55 million to the cost of the production of fruit and vegetables in Ontario. To reiterate, they said they didn’t support the cap-and-trade program because the costs of it are unsustainable for Ontario’s fruit and vegetable farmers and for all Ontarians who are looking to put fruit and vegetables on their table.

Additionally, we’ve heard from other witnesses, such as the coalition of concerned manufacturers. They said they support the Ontario government’s decision to end the ineffective job-killing tax called the cap-and-trade program. This was just one of the previous government’s initiatives that did absolutely nothing—let me repeat that: did absolutely nothing—to impact the environment, but only served to stifle growth in Ontario and send jobs south of the border.

That is why, in addition to getting elected with the clear mandate of scrapping the cap-and-trade program, we also got elected on making Ontario open for business again.

Why is that so important in this day and age? Well, you look at our economy and the economy that we inherited. Ontario’s debt is $338 billion. That’s staggering. The current debt-to-GDP ratio is resting at an uncomfortable 39%, as updated by public accounts. That is staggering. We talk about the future and wanting a brighter future, solving climate change for the next generation, but do you know what else the next generation needs? It doesn’t need to be saddled with debt. That is what they need.

I was speaking at a high school last week, speaking to the Green Team. It was a lot of the science classes there. Many of them said they want to do something to combat climate change, but they don’t want to do it at the expense of the economy. I posed a question to the group. I said, “You want to do something for the environment, but you don’t want it to cost you money. Is this correct?” The vast majority of students raised their hand. So there is an appetite to do something for the environment; don’t get us wrong.

Of course, when we ran on our platform, we had a plan for how we would help the environment, things that I get from my constituents, things like cleaning up litter. I got a letter the other day. I will read it to you. It’s from Lorna Atkins, from Gilford. She writes to me that she agrees that we should take action, but she wants it to be formidable action, action that doesn’t punish her, as she’s a senior. She says, “What I find day to day when I’m walking around is that there is too much litter around, and why can’t we just have a government that focuses on picking up litter?”

Well, I’m glad to say that this letter comes with a promise, a promise in our platform that says we will go out there and we’ll make sure that we combat those people that just use our land and our parks as trash cans. Certainly, that’s not the place for it. But, again, these are tangible things that each individual can do to help combat climate change, things that do not punish them. They’re not punitive. They don’t take money out of their pockets, and they are used for actual environment programs.

We are often hear that, “Oh, if we don’t have the cap-and-trade system, then we’re not funding our hospitals; we’re not funding our schools.” Well, the wakeup call: It was never meant to do that in the first place. So I would be very scrupulous to say, “Where was that money? Why was it being redirected for purposes it was not intended for?” The culture of hidden agendas, the culture of unaccountability, of using programs for one intended purpose but really redirecting the money somewhere else, is simply dishonest.

Our government also got elected with a clear mandate for accountability and transparency. That is why we’ll be accountable to the taxpayers of Ontario by making sure that we scrap the cap-and-trade program, that we’ll put more money in their pockets, which will help them with their day-to-day costs, which will help them with their day-to-day errands, which will help them get to work, which will help them with their kids and raising a family and the costs associated with that.

But it’s not just about those small, individual examples in our communities; it’s also about what’s happening across our country, what’s happening in every province. Every province is now standing up for a made-in-Manitoba solution, a made-in-Saskatchewan solution, a made-in-New Brunswick solution.

Where is Ontario? Ontario needs to stand up for its people and have a made-in-Ontario solution. Why? Because here in the Legislature, we owe it to the people.

It’s interesting when you have Premiers like Brian Pallister stand up and say, “We are standing up for Manitobans by saying yes to Manitoba’s green plan and no to the carbon tax.” They rejected the carbon tax, like so many other provinces have or will.

In Ontario, we are following suit. We’re following suit for a made-in-Ontario program that is not punitive to those people who need the relief now. That is why we’re moving vigorously. Today does mark the end of cap-and-trade, because Ontarians cannot afford to wait. They need the relief now. They’ve been saddled with too much of the burden already—the burden for some fantasy dreams of something that cannot happen without punishing the hard-working citizens of our province. We are not going to be punishing and burdening those who are constantly living on the edge.

Instead, we’ll provide them with hope of a prosperous Ontario, an Ontario that thrives again, an Ontario that is the economic engine of Canada.

Unfortunately, those things do not exist anymore. That is why we are driven by each and every one of those individuals we spoke to when we were knocking on doors who just couldn’t afford to pay that amount of a regulatory burden just so that we can feel good about ourselves.

It’s not about feeling good about ourselves; it’s about action, not just words. That’s what this government is doing. Each and every day, it’s taking action to make life more affordable for those hard-working Ontarians who need the relief the most.

Under the previous government, we saw energy rates triple, and they were driving businesses and manufacturing out of this province. But now you have a government that’s willing to work with the people, willing to work with businesses, to drive those businesses back into Ontario to bring the prosperity again.

What does that mean? It means a lot of those people who came before committee who spoke against the cap-and-trade program don’t just represent themselves. They represent a vast amount of people. For example, I mentioned earlier the agricultural sector. The agricultural sector makes our economy not just thrive, but it feeds a lot of our cities, it feeds our towns and it feeds our communities. That needs to be taken into account. When that does not happen, it affects the entire supply chain. Then you have families who are struggling between heating and eating, as has been said in this House. It’s not just an anecdote, Mr. Speaker. It’s the reality.

The more we go out and speak to people and actually touch down to earth with the people who are harmed by this policy, the more we realize it’s needed now more than ever. The reason it’s needed now more than ever is because there’s a theme where the elites think they can dictate what is best to the hard-working middle class. That is unacceptable. While we’re all talking about our image on the world stage, no one is talking about the people who are working every day. They don’t have the world stage and a soapbox to stand on.

They rely on us, the elected members they have put into office, to stand up and give them a voice. That is what we’re doing. We’re giving those individuals who cannot stand here in the House a voice by listening to them each and every day, saying, “Yes, we do have a plan to combat climate change, but it will not be at the expense of the economy, and we were transparent with it.”

We did not hide, we did not misdirect, like the previous Liberal government. Instead, we were frank with Ontarians. We told them the cost of these programs, and they elected us with a clear majority.

What did we provide as a solution to them, in addition to keeping Ontario open for business, providing transparency and accountability? We also said, “Of course, we need to keep Ontario beautiful,” by protecting and preserving our waterways and supporting and enforcing our air quality programs. It was written point-blank in our platform. In addition to that, we also promised to improve enforcement, including hiring more conservation officers and increasing policing of major polluters.

We also said that we are going to clean up our communities and commit resources to reducing garbage in our neighbourhoods and our parks. Creating a cleaner Ontario—as a plan, all the initiatives—is over $5 million over our mandate. We also promised, obviously, to set up an emissions reduction fund and to invest in new technologies to reduce emissions right here in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, we were transparent, and this is the platform that we were elected on. It was a clear platform, a platform that provides hope and prosperity back to Ontarians, letting them know that tomorrow will be much easier than yesterday. That is why it is important to strike the right balance between protecting our environment and the responsibility to make sure we have a prosperous economy.

And why is this important? Again, I will reiterate that not only can Ontarians not afford it—as we see the number of people who go to food banks increase—but the world can’t afford it either. Those people who cannot be at the United Nations, who don’t have that soapbox to stand on, they cannot afford it.

As we’ve seen in the same report I alluded to earlier, what will happen is, we’re going to be driving up the cost per litre on gas. If we were to achieve that plan, we would be driving up the cost of fuel by $834. That is astonishing. Why would we impoverish not only our population but those around us? Therefore, if we think that we know best, I would urge you to start actually speaking to your constituents and asking them what it is that they’ve elected their politicians to do, because we owe it to the people to be their voice, to stand up for them in a time when no one else will stand up for them.

While there might be many people who can hire special lobbyists, who can hire special interest groups, to appear on their behalf, those people the cap-and-trade system affects disproportionately more don’t have the time to take off work to be able to appear before committee or to be able to stand up in this Legislature. But do you know what they did? They sent a very clear message. They sent a clear message by electing a strong majority Progressive Conservative government to the Ontario Legislature, because they want opportunity and hope for their children and for the next generation. But it comes at a balance of managing the economy, the climate and our environment.

It’s not to say that there is no plan. We’ve heard over and over again that the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks is consulting with Ontarians and making sure that there is a plan. He has set out that he is committed to targets in the cap-and-trade bill. I ask the members in this House to consider supporting the cap-and-trade bill because it’s a different path. It’s a new direction, a direction that makes sure it’s not punitive to those individuals who work every day and who work hard to put food on the table, but it is punitive to those who are the polluters.

That is why today marks a great day: a great day of relief and a great day of opportunity and hope for Ontarians knowing that light, help and relief is on the way. It’s on the way not only by strengthening our economy, keeping Ontario open for business and making sure they have money in their pocket, but it also means that we have a plan to make sure that we mitigate things and make sure that we do have clean land, clean water and clean air to breathe.

I don’t think anyone would disagree that those are important elements—certainly, they are—but we have to balance it. It’s a balance between making sure that those people who wake up every morning, and they have to commute for work—suddenly, if you tell them, “Sorry, your commute to work this morning was only $15 to go halfway, but tomorrow it’s $200, it’s $300, it’s $400.” What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? That individual cannot go to work. They’re at home.

What kind of system are we creating in this province and in this country when we’re saddling people with these additional burdens so that they cannot go out and do their calling, a career or a profession that they’re very passionate about? They cannot get there.

In my community, many people commute. Some of them use the GO train. Some of them have to drive. Are we now telling those individuals who have to get to work: “Sorry, if you can’t afford to put gas in your car, you can’t get to work”? What kind of message are we sending to the next generation? What kind of message are we sending to those individuals who might want to save for their next house or might want to save for their kids’ post-secondary education? We’re taking those savings of Ontarians that they can reinvest in the economy or reinvest in real climate change initiatives that work—and we’re taking that away.

What’s more is that, even with this plan—as we’ve heard from the Auditor General, as we’ve heard from the FAO—it will actually not reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the goal that has been set out. In fact, I will quote from the Auditor General’s report. It states, “Less than 20% of reductions required to meet the province’s 2020 targets will be achieved in Ontario”—less than 20%.

Another witness coming to committee from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation had told us that if the cap-and-trade program were to go through and if the carbon tax were to go through, it would still have no environmental impact—zero; nil.

Thus, I question the motives of people who are in favour of something like a carbon tax and the motives of people who are in favour of cap-and-trade, and who exactly they are listening to. Are they listening to people who have the funds to lobby them, to present them with data that works in the favour of their industry? Or are they listening to those people who will be saddled with the extra money that they were going to have to pay so that others can pollute?

We don’t believe that individual, hard-working taxpayers should pay for others to pollute. We shouldn’t be sending money to other provinces so they can pollute and then we can just tap ourselves on the shoulder and applaud ourselves because we feel good about it. It’s not about feeling good about something; it’s about actually doing the action. It’s more than words—that’s what I’m trying to drive across—it’s more than words; it’s the actions. That’s the action our government is taking.

Today will mark the end of cap-and-trade. I will reiterate that we did get elected by a majority to do this exact thing, and we are getting it done. We said, “We’re making a promise. We’re getting rid of cap-and-trade.” Promise made, promise kept.

Again, I will go back to questioning the motives of people who are supportive of cap-and-trade and the cap-and-trade system and the carbon tax, because we’ve seen that in order for it to actually be a formidable policy, the amount of tax that has to be imposed, not only on the individual but on our business sector, our schools, our hospitals—many people claim, “This is money lost. This is money that’s not going to be going to our hospitals and to our schools.” Well, it was never designed to do that in the first place.

A lot of people like to claim, “Well, it’s money that the government is not getting,” and I ask you to shake your head. What do you mean it’s money the government is not getting? It means it’s going back to the taxpayer. If the revenue is lost on the government side, it means it’s going back to the individual, the taxpayer. So I shake our head why we got elected to be in this Legislature and who exactly we really represent.

The reason I pose that question is because every time we, on this side of the House, get up in the morning, we think of those individuals. We think of those individuals who either have to drive to work—they might have to take the GO train, they might have to use other means of transportation, but somehow they have to get to work. We’re not Europe. We can’t just walk to work. It’s a great fantasy and a great fantasyland: Sure, why don’t we just use speedwalks, like in the Jetsons, to get to work? That’s not the reality that we live in. As comical as it is on Halloween to talk about dressing up as different characters from cartoons, the reality is that Ontarians can’t be saddled with this.

If you look across Ontario and if you look across other provinces that have stood up to make a made-in-their-province solution, we are joining suit because we don’t believe that doing nothing is acceptable. That is why we are doing something. It’s why the minister has been working on initiatives and working on his plan to combat climate change. But it’s a different approach. It’s a path where we will do things to make sure that we have clean land, clean air and clean water. But it’s not at the expense of individuals.

I will remind this House that if there isn’t anyone here to voice the opinion of those who elected us, then what is the purpose of us being here? That is the very crest of why we got elected and why we’re here. It’s great to have these initiatives and these global goals, and they’re very admirable, but if Ontario were to shut down all of its operations tomorrow, would we really make a big footprint or would we make a big dent in what the goal of the UN is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? I think not. Let me just quote Prime Minister Justin Trudeau once again, who said the very same thing.

So I find it rich that we think it’s okay to burden other people so that we give big polluters the permission to pollute, but why are we doing it at the expense of others? That is a huge fundamental disagreement we have. We don’t believe we should be kicking people when they’re down, when they need that extra dollar or that extra two dollars to go a long way.

People will claim, “Oh, well, you pay a few dollars to do something about climate change.” If it’s a dollar or two, I don’t think you would have people disagree, but when you’re telling people it’s costing them $2, $3, $4, $5, $6, $7, $800, or $8 million, or $8 billion—you name the figure—they can’t afford it. It’s nice to have the hypothetical of, “If we charge everyone a dollar, we’ll reduce the carbon tax,” but if we charge everyone a dollar it will not reduce the carbon tax, and that has been proven not only by the Auditor General but by the FAO.

So I will remind everyone that today is a day where we say goodbye to the carbon tax, and we bury it. We bury it because Ontarians can’t afford it anymore. They can’t afford it anymore. That is why we got elected with a clear mandate to make sure we stand up to those individuals that we got elected here to represent. We’re providing them many savings. Promise made, promise kept.

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

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: I rise in this House to remind this government that, under the Liberals, the cap-and-trade program and the environmental strategy were meant to provide a vision for Ontario of a carbon-neutral economy. It is now on your government to tell this province what your plan is to ensure that the future of this province is protected from an environmental perspective. That’s what I want to remind you of as you seek to push through this bill.

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

Pursuant to the order of the House dated Oct. 3, 2018, I am now required to put the question.

Mr. Phillips has moved third reading of 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.

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

I heard a no.

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

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

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

Third reading vote deferred.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Orders of the day? I recognize the minister.

Hon. Jim Wilson: No further business, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): No further business at this point; therefore, this House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1003 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Gurratan Singh: It is with great pleasure that I greet in the members’ gallery Savannah Chorney, from Sokoloff Lawyers, and Paul Miller, from Howie, Sacks and Henry, amazing advocates and amazing lawyers in the personal injury world.

Mr. Bill Walker: I would like to welcome members of the board of Canadian Registered Safety Professionals: Ali Golbabai, David Johnston, Dan Lyons, Dale Shafer, Stuart Taylor, Paul Andre, Nikki Wright, Ryan Singh, Don Moors, Samar Ismail, Geeta Singh, Scott Munnoch and Michael Parent.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I would like to welcome the Ontario Long Term Care Association to the Legislature today. I know they’re going to have meetings with many members. I also encourage you to come to our lunch reception with the Ontario Long Term Care Association. Welcome to the Legislature.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: It is a pleasure for me to welcome to the Ontario Legislature Jennifer Jonas, co-chair of FilmOntario and a producer with New Reel Films; Cynthia Lynch, managing director and counsel with FilmOntario; Jayson Mosek, business agent with Unifor; David Hardy, vice-president, industry, government relations and sustainability at William F. White International Inc.; and Marcia Douglas, director of business affairs and digital initiatives with the Canadian Media Production Association. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I’d like to welcome Susan Kwong, my new constituency assistant, and Kiara Osborne Pimentel, an intern with my office. Welcome to the Legislature.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: I want to recognize the good people from Ducks Unlimited who are here in the gallery today: Greg Weeks, Phil Holst, Kevin Rich, who is from Barrie, Sean Rootham, who is also from Barrie, and Tracy Smith.

Ms. Jill Andrew: Good morning, Mr. Speaker, and happy Halloween, everyone. It is with great pleasure that I introduce Cynthia Lynch, managing director of FilmOntario. I’d also like to say hello to Sue Milling, co-chair of the FilmOntario board and ED of ACTRA, as well as Jennifer Jonas, co-chair of FilmOntario, a film producer and director and founder of New Reel Films.

We had a wonderful time speaking with FilmOntario at the Motion Picture Association Canada advocacy reception today, where we talked about diversity, access, equity, inclusivity and our economy.

Miss Kinga Surma: I am pleased to welcome representatives from the board of Canadian Registered Safety Professionals, who advocate for safer workplaces in Ontario. They join us today as part of their advocacy day at Queen’s Park. Please welcome Ali Golbabai, David Johnston, Dan Lyons, Dale Shafer, Stuart Taylor, Michael Parent, former board chair Paul Andre and executive director Nikki Wright. Please feel free to join them at the reception at 5:00 in the legislative dining room.

Ms. Sara Singh: I would like to welcome the students from Bramalea Secondary School who will be joining us here today in the Legislature. Please give them a big round of applause. They’re a fantastic group of young students.

Ms. Natalia Kusendova: Good morning, Speaker, and happy Halloween. I wonder how spooky the opposition will get on us today.

Today I’d like to welcome the page from my riding, Eiliyah Siddiqui from Fallingbrook Middle School, as well as her dad, Azfar Siddiqui; mom, Ruquaiyeh Siddiqui; and sister, Asma Siddiqui. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I am very proud and pleased to welcome to the Legislature Emily Milana, who was one of my grade 8 students many years ago and is now a fourth-year poli-sci student. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Jill Dunlop: I’m very happy to introduce a constituent of mine from Simcoe North, Dr. Barb Loiskandl. She is here with me today discussing autism supports for young adults. Thank you, Barb.

Mr. Jamie West: I want to welcome Jose Vivar. Jose is the executive director of 25/7 Fitness, a not-for-profit gym that’s located in the Donovan. That’s the working-class neighbourhood where I grew up in Sudbury. Welcome to Queen’s Park, Jose.

Ms. Rima Berns-McGown: I want to welcome—they’ll be here momentarily—Ruth Gebremedhin, Haiat Iman and Eva Molina from the Daily Bread Food Bank to the Legislature.

Hon. Christine Elliott: I would also like to welcome the Ontario Long Term Care Association to the Legislature today. I hope that your meetings with members go very well.

Wearing of Halloween costumes

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m informed that the member for Ottawa West–Nepean has a point of order.

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: I have risen today to seek unanimous consent for a little bit of Halloween spirit. I see the member for Toronto–St. Paul’s has also gotten into the spirit of it. Could we have unanimous consent for Halloween costumes today in the chamber? Do we have unanimous consent?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Ottawa West–Nepean is seeking the unanimous consent of the House for members to wear Halloween costumes in the House today. Agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: Happy Halloween to all of the children at home.

Oral Questions

Employment standards

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I also want to start by wishing everyone a happy Halloween. I hope that children have a fun night, but a safe one as well.

My first question is to the Premier. Under changes that the Premier is making to the Employment Standards Act, people will now lose a day’s pay if they miss a day for illness. On top of that, they’ll be required to get a sick note, which most doctors charge for. Does the Premier think it’s fair for people to pay just to take a sick day?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Labour.

Hon. Laurie Scott: I thank the member opposite for the question. Look, for the first time in Ontario, workers are going to be protected with eight protected paid days off work every year for every worker in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, most businesses work well with their employees. They want to have good employees. We want them to have good jobs and we want good employers out there. That’s why we’re open for business. The province of Ontario, under the leadership of Premier Doug Ford, has said Ontario is open for business so that businesses can have the confidence to come, to expand, to provide good-paying jobs in the province of Ontario. That’s the best thing we can do for workers.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Minister of Labour has conferred with the Premier about eight paid days off for workers in emergencies; that would be a progressive change for the future that I think workers would welcome.

However, doctors in this province are raising some concerns. The head of the Ontario Medical Association says that with “prolonged wait times and hallway medicine ... we need to find ways to let people stay home to recover for minor illnesses.”

Why is the Premier ignoring the advice of medical professionals and forcing people to lose a day’s pay when they fall ill?

Hon. Laurie Scott: I meant to say “eight unpaid protected days.” I’m sorry for that, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

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

Hon. Laurie Scott: But Mr. Speaker, we want Ontario to be open for business. We’re providing workers with, for the first time, three days of sick leave, three days for family responsibility and two bereavement days every year for every worker. This is in line with other provinces in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the employers have the choice if they want to ask for a medical note from a registered health practitioner. Most businesses that we deal with—and that I know in the province of Ontario—want to have good relationships with their employees. This opposition keeps demonizing businesses as bad players. They are not—

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, it seems to me that the Minister of Labour just confirmed that her Premier is more interested in helping the bad-actor businesses in this province than making sure that workers can take a sick day off of work.

In other jurisdictions that have paid sick days and have had paid sick days for years, business owners actually celebrate them. To quote one: “[A] sick server could get 120 people sick.... They’re touching glasses, silverware. Having people work in a kitchen or wait on you when they’re ill does not make sense.”

In fact, in US cities that have paid sick days, the majority of people use only half of the sick days that they have.

Does this Premier have any evidence whatsoever that forcing people to lose a day’s pay every time they fall sick is actually good for business, or just good for bad businesses?

Hon. Laurie Scott: Mr. Speaker, most businesses, again, don’t want their workers coming in sick. They’re going to work with their employees.

These eight unpaid days are similar to what happens across Canada.

The previous personal workers’ leave reforms were a disaster for businesses, and a disaster for employees if businesses couldn’t keep employees employed.

Mr. Speaker, “Open for business” is our motto. We’re going to attract good-paying jobs, better jobs for employees, better programs for employees, and better benefits for employees. That’s what we want to achieve in the province of Ontario, and that’s what we’re going to do because Ontario is open for business.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Government House leader, come to order. Minister of Education, come to order.

Interjection.

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

Start the clock. Next question.

Employment standards

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. But I have to say, I don’t know how this government thinks they can justify that making things worse for workers is somehow going to make it better for workers. It makes no sense whatsoever, Speaker.

For some people, the cost of taking a sick day is actually more than they can afford. Last year, at hearings on employment standards, one doctor related the story of a patient of hers from Marathon, Ontario. Marathon is a three-hour drive from Thunder Bay and most medical services are only available Monday to Friday, so someone needing a CAT scan had to take at least two days off in order to receive potentially life-saving care. This patient did not undergo that procedure because he felt he couldn’t afford to take two days off of work.

Does the Premier really think that’s a choice a person in Ontario should have to make?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Labour.

Hon. Laurie Scott: Mr. Speaker, what we saw under the previous government’s Bill 148—

Interjection.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Okay, stop it. The member for Essex, come to order. Stop it.

Interjection.

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

Interjection.

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

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

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

We’re currently on a response by the Minister of Labour. Start the clock.

Minister of Labour.

Hon. Laurie Scott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we saw under the previous Liberal government’s Bill 148 was a disastrous effect on our economy, with job losses. We saw on January 1—the first month of the bill being implemented—over 50,000 job losses. In August, we saw over 80,000 job losses—most of those part-time, most of those youth. How has that helped workers in the province of Ontario? It hasn’t; they’ve lost their jobs. You’re not listening.

Bill 47 gives the confidence to businesses, our job creators in the province, to invest and create better-paying jobs and better jobs for the people. That’s what the PC Ford government is doing. We’re open for business, and we’re about better jobs.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Regardless of this Minister of Labour’s rhetoric, which is not backed up by facts, working parents should not have to choose between losing a day’s pay and staying home with sick children. That’s just the bottom line.

The evidence is very, very clear: Paid sick days give people a little financial protection when they get ill. It is the responsible, the humane, the proper thing to do for everyday workers in this province. If anything, it also protects businesses, who don’t need sick people on the job.

Why does the Premier think Ontario’s workers should have to try to choose between getting paid and getting well?

Hon. Laurie Scott: I don’t know what the opposition has against better opportunities for employment in the province of Ontario. What have you got against people having chances to have better jobs with benefits? What have you got against that? What is the best thing we can do for our businesses to create better employment opportunities? Cut ridiculous amounts of red tape and regulations, giving them a secure business environment and a safe and protective workplace.

Open for business for Ontario is what we are on this side of the House. We’re going to give people more opportunities—not like you have been doing.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What we do have something against is a mean-spirited, ill-informed, out-of-touch government. That’s what we have something against.

Working people in this province don’t ask for much, but having to lose a day’s pay and then having to pay for a doctor’s note just so you can go home and actually get better does not seem like a fair choice for people to have to make. And for some people, it’s no choice at all.

Why does this Premier think that Ontario’s workers should choose between getting paid and getting well?

Hon. Laurie Scott: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know what’s wrong with the dignity of giving people good-paying jobs in the province of Ontario. I don’t see how that’s uncompassionate. I don’t see how you, for years, supported the previous Liberal government in making life unaffordable. Why don’t you listen to those stories that came—

Interjections.

Hon. Laurie Scott: You made people’s lives worse off by supporting that Liberal government, by making the province of Ontario unaffordable. You know what the best thing—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Once again, I will remind members to make their comments through the Chair. This needs to be a debate. We need to make our comments through the Chair.

I will remind members we’ve got a long way to go. It’s only 12 minutes into question period. I will remind members that there are a lot of people watching this question period and they’re developing an opinion about whether or not we’re debating these matters in a respectful way. Our constituents are watching.

Okay, start the clock. Next question.

Employment standards

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Premier. With each day, the concerns about the Premier’s changes to the employment standards are getting louder, whether it’s doctors raising concerns about forcing people to lose a day’s pay and getting a doctor’s note when they fall ill or working moms who had been counting on an increase in the minimum wage.

Will the Premier commit to comprehensive public hearings from all concerned stakeholders before ramming this bill through?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Leader of the Opposition: We’ve consulted businesses. We’ve consulted unions. We’ve consulted front-line workers. The most important thing that they want: Businesses want to be able to be profitable, to reinvest in their employees and reinvest in their equipment to make sure they have a thriving business.

When I talk to the employees, they want a secure job. They want to know that they’re going to get a paycheque. They want to know that their government taxes are being spent properly. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition—through you, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has never created a job in her life. The Leader of the Opposition—all you know how to do is spend, spend, spend, tax, tax, tax.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Start the clock. Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Thousands of Ontarians are going to be hit hard by the changes the Premier is proposing. Temporary workers may be hit hardest of all.

Yesterday, I asked the Premier about the ongoing Ministry of Labour investigation into the death of a temporary worker at a Fiera Foods facility, the fourth temporary worker to die on the job at Fiera Foods. The ongoing investigation may in fact have much to teach us about the nature of temporary work in Ontario and the impact of changes to the employment standards.

Instead of rushing this bill through, I ask the Premier again, will he wait until the results of this investigation are made public and have some robust public hearings before this legislation becomes law?

Hon. Doug Ford: I mentioned yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I think it’s deplorable that a family is out there right now hurting and grieving, and the Leader of the Opposition wants to politicize it. She wants to politicize it, when the Leader of the Opposition knows that the employment standards inspections are unrelated to health and safety inspections. But you want to tie it all in together. You want to tie it all in together as the family is grieving right now.

Why don’t you have a little bit of compassion? Rather than trying to politicize it after the death of a loved one—that’s who wants to politicize it. We want to make sure that that family is taken care of. We want to make sure that they don’t have to hear it on the nightly news, running over and over again. I think it’s pretty disgusting, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Once again, I would encourage all members to make their comments through the Chair, and I would caution all members on the use of intemperate language. It doesn’t help us get through question period. It doesn’t help enhance the debate.

Next question.

Ontario film industry

Mrs. Nina Tangri: My question is for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Our government promised the people of this province that Ontario will be open for business. We know the importance of Ontario’s film, television, interactive digital media and book publishing industries in creating jobs for Ontarians. We know that this is an industry that helps drive growth across all of Ontario’s culture sector, which contributes over $25 billion annually to the provincial economy and supports nearly 270,000 jobs.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister update the House on our government’s support for this key economic driver?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: To the members in the chamber who were able to join us at the breakfast this morning at FilmOntario, thank you, because I think it’s important that we remind everyone of the importance of the film industry in the province of Ontario.

It’s not a trick, but it’s a lovely treat, that $3 billion is part of our economy as a result of this industry, including 54,000 well-paying, supported jobs. I think that we need to share that good news more often, and I also think that we have an opportunity in the province of Ontario with a Premier who understands that we are open for business and has made that a tenet of our administration, that we’re open for business.

We’re going to continue to expand this industry and support it, unlike the previous Liberal government, which tended to only put uncertainty in the industry.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mrs. Nina Tangri: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister: Thank you for that response. I’m proud to hear that our government is engaging with lead industry professionals to help build a strong, prosperous economy for our province.

It is important for Ontario to have sufficient film studio capacity to meet the demands of a growing industry. However, the film industry is reporting that Ontario’s film studio space is at capacity and, as a result, Ontario is losing over $100 million in potential investment due to a lack of studio space.

Can the minister elaborate on how our government is engaging with stakeholders to address their concerns?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Thank you to the member from Mississauga–Streetsville. I think she understands better than most, frankly, because there was a recent announcement that impacts the community of Mississauga and, we’ve heard very recently, Markham and Ottawa.

Frankly, it speaks to the confidence that this industry has in Ontario that they understand this government is welcoming them and wants them to produce in the province of Ontario. We will continue to ensure that that business confidence is there, and we will continue to support the expansion of the film industry in Ontario.

Government spending

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, the Premier seemed to be pretty stumped by a pretty simple question: How much of the people’s money would he be spending on his plan to put up vanity road signs across Ontario? We have to conclude that the Premier either has absolutely no clue or he simply won’t say.

Speaker, can the Premier tell us which one it is?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: This is one of the best investments we could do, advertising to the world that Ontario is open for business.

We have a new culture here in Ontario. It’s not about taxing. It’s not about regulations and red tape. We’re getting rid of regulations. We’re getting rid of red tape. We have to advertise to tell the $489 billion of trade that we do with the United States back and forth—we have to make sure that our friends south of the border know that we’re open for business. Open a company here. Create good-paying jobs.

That’s what we’re doing at a very, very reasonable cost.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Speaker, it’s pretty shocking the Premier can’t give us a simple answer to a simple question. What’s next, Speaker? Is he going to tell us, “Don’t worry, Mexico is going to pay for these signs”? I mean, come on.

The people who sent us here sent us here to handle their money with care, but the Premier seems unwilling or unable to tell us how much of their money he’s spending. One of the first questions most people ask before making a purchase is, how much is it going to cost? But perhaps the Premier doesn’t care because it’s not his money. We know the Premier has no problem paying for his former tour director a $350,000 job to sit at a desk in Washington.

Let me try to make this easy, Speaker. Is the cost of the signs more than $350,000 or less than $350,000? Give us a ballpark answer—come on—a guesstimate, a rough estimate, anything.

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: I understand the member for Essex wants to know the price, and we’re going to unveil that price when we put up the signs. It’s going to be the most reasonable price for marketing across this province that you’ve ever seen. We’re going to hit 12 borders as millions of people are coming across.

This is simple business 101, but the member of Essex wouldn’t have a clue about marketing, wouldn’t have a clue about sales, because you’ve never sold anything in your life ever. All you’ve done is feed off of the taxpayers. You’ve been in the pockets—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I can’t hear the Premier. I couldn’t hear the Premier for the applause.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. Next question.

Skilled trades

Ms. Jill Dunlop: My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Speaker, I have heard from many businesses and people looking for work in my riding about their concerns with the skills gap and the legacy of failed and reckless Liberal economic policies. They are frustrated that 15 years of Liberal government, propped up by the NDP, have left people without the skills they need and businesses unable to compete.

This is particularly true in the area of skilled trades, where I’m hearing from both employers and young people that many are having great difficulty becoming an apprentice in their desired trade. Can the minister tell us what our government is doing to make sure there’s enough skilled labour in Ontario and that young people can enter their field of choice?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you to the member opposite for the question and their strong advocacy for the people of Simcoe North. Our government promised the people of Ontario to create good jobs and make Ontario open for business. My focus as minister is making sure that Ontarians have the skills they need for the jobs of tomorrow, so that Liberal policies will not haunt job seekers and employers for years to come.

That is why I am pleased that our government introduced legislation that, if passed, would standardize ratios for skilled trades in Ontario. Employers are saying that this change would create good, quality jobs for the people of Ontario. Cam Besseling of Besseling Mechanical says, “These changes to Ontario’s apprenticeship ratios will allow our company to immediately start recruiting and hiring more young people. These changes will help to create job opportunities throughout southwestern Ontario. We fully support—”

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

Supplementary.

Ms. Jill Dunlop: Thank you, Minister, for your hard work in making Ontario open for business and addressing the skills gap. I understand that many businesses would hire more apprentices but are barred from doing so by the current ratios. The Ontario Electrical League recently released a report that said 73% of Ontario’s electrical employers would hire a new apprentice if it weren’t for strict ratios. Speaker, that means better jobs to our young people today.

Our Premier promised the people of Ontario to fill the skills gap by increasing access to apprenticeships. Can the minister tell us more about why standardizing ratios and filling the skills gap would bring career jobs to Ontario?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Ontario has some of the most restrictive ratios in Canada. A single, standardized, 1-to-1 ratio will reduce red tape on employers and the economy and make it easier for employers and workers to navigate the system. Addressing the skills gap is an essential part of making Ontario open for business again.

Our government is listening to employers. They are telling us that they support our plan. Gian Fortuna, senior vice-president of Kenaidan Contracting Ltd., says, “The skilled trade shortage is the number one issue facing our company and lowering apprentice ratios will help us engage, train and retain the young trade apprentices to develop Ontario’s future skilled labour force. This is a great move by the government and is welcomed by all construction employers and employees.”

Interjection.

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

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: We promised the people of Ontario to create good jobs and make Ontario open for business.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for York Centre is warned.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Next question. The member for Brampton North.

Mr. Kevin Yarde: This question is to the Premier. There is a disturbing media report today revealing that the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services and his law firm have been embroiled in multiple legal proceedings that include serious allegations of misconduct and fraud over a period of almost two decades. Was the Premier aware—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I don’t believe this question is relevant to government policy.

Next question.

Indigenous relations and reconciliation

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne: My question today is for the Premier. Last night, I had the opportunity to attend the final Massey lecture of 2018, and I believe that the member for Beaches–East York, the member for Kiiwetinoong—and there may have been others who were there. The series was given this year by Tanya Talaga. She’s a journalist. She’s an author. She’s an Indigenous woman who has shone a light on past and current abuses that have created the urgent crisis of youth suicide in Indigenous communities.

Mr. Speaker, I’ve sat in many seats in this Legislature, starting up in the visitors’ gallery in the 1990s, and in every seat that I’ve sat in, I’ve been able to see the increasing harshness of the debate in this House. It occurred to me again last night that one of the serious casualties of partisan political polarization is the possibility of any collaborative move towards reconciliation.

So my first question is really to simply ask the Premier if he will accept this gift of two of Tanya Talaga’s books I purchased for him: Seven Fallen Feathers: Racism, Death, and Hard Truths in a Northern City, and All Our Relations: Finding the Path Forward. I would like to send them over to the Premier with Eiliyah.

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

And I can’t receive gifts.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): You just refer it. You don’t add any additional information.

Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Thank you to the member opposite for her question. Obviously, I’ve spoken with the author, Tanya Talaga, who used to be a reporter here at Queen’s Park, on the work that we’re doing in this space, particularly for children.

What happened in Thunder Bay was a tragedy, but we accept the coroner’s report—between 2014 and 2017, when we lost several children in the care of the province. I wasn’t the minister—we weren’t in government at the time—but I did indicate that the buck does stop with me, and we have made arrangements immediately within our ministry to ensure that those children who are in group homes and who are funded by my ministry and supported by the children’s aid society need to have the wraparound services.

I was disappointed to learn that many of the young girls who took their lives, in the care of the province during 2014 to 2017, were actually trafficked. So we are taking important steps to make sure we work with our Indigenous partners, the Minister of Indigenous Affairs and the Minister of Health to make sure we have appropriate mental health supports, as well, in place.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne: I believe the Premier will find that the gift of the two books falls well within the ability of the Premier to accept the level of gift.

The findings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission were sweeping; they were broad. I appreciate the minister’s response on the Thunder Bay situation. But there were over 90 recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on how we, as Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, might be able to move together, forward, in order to give every person, and particularly every child, in this province a fair shot at a healthy life. Education is at the core of those recommendations.

Now, I know the Premier and I do not agree on much, but I’m asking today that we, together, find a way to work toward reconciliation. There’s a lot of knowledge in this House and in the community. Even if it were possible to have informal and informative sessions with elders, with Indigenous youth, where any of us in the House could bring our knowledge and our experience without the expectation of being included in any formal action, we might find a way to raise the bar. There have been actions this House—the apology, for example.

What I know, having begun this journey as a young woman of 25, is that there are no easy solutions and that we all have to play a role. My question to the Premier is, will he and his ministers let us help?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: The Minister of Indigenous Affairs.

Hon. Greg Rickford: I appreciate the question and that member’s ties as a young person to this opportunity, as well as my own. As somebody who started out in my early twenties working and living in Indigenous communities across northern Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the Arctic Circle, I have a deep investment and some of my best friends are from these parts of the country. I take this opportunity very seriously.

It’s why I’ve had an opportunity to reflect over the past 15 years. I still see, particularly in northern Ontario, a situation that’s unacceptable: suicide rates, high unemployment rates, a clear lack of economic opportunity that rests with the previous government. We will pick up that torch. We will commit to those Indigenous communities, form full partnerships and create economic opportunities for new, educated Indigenous youth who want to get out there in the workforce, contribute and lead their communities moving forward.

Education

Ms. Jane McKenna: My question is for the Minister of Education. After 15 years of reckless Liberal mismanagement, EQAO results have shown that nearly half of grade 6 students have fallen behind in math for years; Ontario has become significantly less competitive in the STEM field; poorly crafted legislation has allowed individuals who sexually abuse children to remain in the classrooms, where they are able to hurt students without consequences; and the lack of clear policy on service animals across the province has caused confusion and frustration to many, many families.

Speaker, through you to the minister, how does this government for the people plan to repair and improve for future generations the apparent damage to our education system?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Thank you very much for that thoughtful question. To the amazing member from Burlington, it’s so good to have you back, for so many reasons.

But back to the question. I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, through you, that I am pleased to inform Ontarians of the work that our government is doing to revitalize the education system for students and parents across this province.

When it comes to math in particular, we’re going to continue to focus on getting back to the basics. We will ensure teachers are supported and have the tools necessary to teach math. In turn, parents will be able to have the confidence that their students are learning the fundamentals that they and employers across this province are looking for.

Furthermore, we are going to fix the poorly worded legislation which has created loopholes for child abusers. We will ensure that children are kept safe from individuals like that. This is all about restoring trust in the education system, and we’re doing just that.

As for service animals, we know how important they are, and we’re supporting our families and getting it right once and for all.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Jane McKenna: Thank you for your thoughtful answer, Minister. I’m glad to hear that the education system is being returned back into the hands of Ontarians, and I’m sure my constituents will welcome the news.

This introduced legislation is underpinned by great ideas, but I know that my constituents are full of great ideas as well, Minister. I’ve heard countless perspectives on how we can improve Ontario’s education system. I know that parents, students and educators all have valuable opinions on how we can restore trust back into our education system.

Speaker, can the minister advise the House, my constituents and Ontarians across the province on the process for sharing their opinions directly with the government?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m always pleased to stand in this House to talk about the amazing consultation that we’re facilitating, and I want to encourage everyone in Ontario—and all our members here in this House, as well—to participate. Go to www.fortheparents.ca to get started and share your comments.

We want to hear from Ontarians on subjects like mental health, health and physical education, the legalization of cannabis, and how to improve student performance when it comes to STEM, math etc.—science, technology, engineering. That’s what we’re hearing from employers. Those are subject areas and competencies that are frankly missing after 15 years of bad management. Do you know what? We also want to talk about how we can limit distractions in the classroom like cellphones.

This government for the people will review input from all people participating, and we’re going to fulfill our election promise, because we’re focused on creating the best environment for students to achieve.

Release of documents

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Premier. Last Friday, the documents demanded by the select committee were provided to the committee, the equivalent of a million pages. On Monday, there was a request by several agencies that, due to their commercially sensitive nature, these documents not be made public. As a business person, that made sense. They’re commercially sensitive.

We made that case at the committee. Quite frankly, I was shocked that the government members of the committee forced it through, releasing a million pages of documentation to the public. Premier, why did you direct your members to do that? Because it certainly isn’t business 101.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Once again, I remind members to make their comments through the Chair.

Premier, response?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Government Services.

Hon. Todd Smith: Mr. Speaker, as you know and as the members know, the select committee is currently meeting to look into the mistakes that have been made and the decisions that were made, quite honestly, over the last 15 years by the previous Liberal government when it comes to playing with the finances of the province of Ontario and not ensuring that the numbers that were being signed off on by the officers of the Legislature were an accurate reflection of what the government’s books actually were.

That’s why it was very important for us to strike this select committee to get to the bottom of the decisions that were made by the previous Liberal government. We have a $15-billion deficit in Ontario now, and the numbers that were given to us by the previous government weren’t signed off on at public accounts. The Auditor General refused to sign off on those documents. That’s why we need to get our hands on those documents: to ensure that we get to the bottom of what happened under the Liberal government.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. John Vanthof: Once again to the Premier: We’re not talking about mistakes of the past government; we’re talking about mistakes made by this government at the committee. On Monday, the government that claims to understand business released the equivalent of a million pages of information, some possibly commercially sensitive and private. On Tuesday, we come to the committee and one of those agencies—I will read from the letter from the IESO:

“We have discovered that confidential and commercially sensitive information that could jeopardize the IESO’s very important relationship with electricity sector participants has been disclosed to the public by the committee.”

It was forced through by your members. For 24 hours, you put up, in a very competitive business—I’m just a dairy farmer, and I understand that that is crazy. Why, Premier? Why did you allow that to happen?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Once again, I’ll ask the members to make their comments through the Chair.

Government House leader, response?

Hon. Todd Smith: The first thing I would say is there’s no such thing as “just a dairy farmer.” We respect our dairy farmers across the province, including the member opposite.

What I would say, though, is that we really want to get to the bottom of what occurred with the previous government. That’s why we have ordered the documents that we’ve ordered—over a million documents.

I can understand why the NDP doesn’t want us to shine a light on what happened under the previous Liberal government. The reason that they don’t want to shine a light on that is because they are complicit. They are complicit in what occurred under the previous government. The NDP don’t want to have any light shone on this situation. We want to get to the bottom of what happened, and we’re committed to doing that for the people of Ontario.

Taxation

Mr. Jim McDonell: My question is to the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. The people of Ontario are stretched thin, many to the breaking point. In giving us a mandate to govern, the people told us they could not afford the former Liberal government’s costly, ineffective cap-and-trade system, nor can they afford Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax.

I’ve heard recently from my constituents in Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, who feel first-hand the mounting pressure of rising costs. Hard-working families every day are finding it increasingly difficult to pay the bills. Ontarians are frustrated at seeing their hard-earned tax dollars being put into policies and programs that don’t deliver results.

Last week, Trudeau made his intentions clear: He plans on imposing a carbon tax on Ontario. Can the minister share with us what support we have in our fight against the Trudeau carbon tax?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, through you, thank you to the member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry for that question.

The member is quite right: Families cannot afford the Trudeau carbon tax. We know, and we’ve heard from the FAO, the price of that carbon tax. That’s why our Premier has said that we will take every step that we have in our power to fight it. That’s why our Premier met with the Premier of Saskatchewan on Monday: to talk about our joint fight against that. That’s why just yesterday he met with the leader of the official opposition to talk about how we could fight against that.

It’s clear that it isn’t even just Conservative leaders who are taking on this fight. In PEI, the Liberal Party is speaking out against the carbon tax. In Alberta, the NDP are against the federal carbon plan. I’d ask the opposition, will they join their ideological soulmates and fight this job-killing federal carbon tax?

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Supplementary?

Mr. Jim McDonell: It’s clear that, with increasing support against the carbon tax plan, Trudeau’s promise to give back more money to the people is their admittance that they have lost the argument with Canadians.

I know that my constituents are proud of a government that holds true to their word and is ready to do what they need to do to fight against the imposition of a Trudeau carbon tax. Ontarians need a government that is willing to do what it takes to make life more affordable to them. They need a government who has their best interests in mind in every action and every decision they make.

Back to the minister: Can the minister share with us how the imposition of this carbon tax will adversely impact the working people of Ontario?

Hon. Rod Phillips: I thank the member for his question. This tax is going to raise costs for families and for business. When the Prime Minister talks about taxing polluters, we know what he’s talking about: He’s talking about taxing commuters. He’s talking about moms and dads taking their kids to hockey. He’s talking about people who need a vehicle to go back and forth to work every day. It doesn’t reflect the reality of life in Ontario, what he’s talking about.

We have watched the leader of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition in Ottawa ask for months, Mr. Speaker: How much will this carbon tax cost? What is the cost? They have just been met with non-answers. They’ve been met with redacted documents. Fortunately, the Financial Accountability Officer has told us: $648 per family by 2022—and that’s just the beginning for this government.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask again: Will the Leader of the Opposition in this House stand up with her comrades-in-arms in Alberta and stand with the people of Ontario, stand with the people of Alberta, stand with Canadians against this—

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Member for Davenport.

Education funding

Ms. Marit Stiles: My question is to the Minister of Education. Last week, the government jumped the gun on their own consultations and introduced legislation to create a new math test for teacher certification. Though the details of their plan remain secret, we now know that funding meant to help teachers upgrade their skills in math is set to come to an end, with no indication that the government will keep up that investment.

How can the minister justify imposing a new math test for teachers on one hand while cutting the funding meant to strengthen those skills on the other?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: First and foremost, I would like to suggest to the member from Davenport—and to the rest of the party, actually, as well—NDP: No drama, please. What we are doing is hitting the pause button. The fact of the matter is, over the last 15 years, the government that they propped up has put Ontario in a $15-billion hole. We’ve put a pause on EPO funding so that we can do our own line-by-line audit, so that we can justify the return on investment dollars that we’re going to be putting forward in our EPO funding pockets, if you will.

The fact of the matter is that we’re doing so much for teachers. Just on the weekend, I had a teacher come up to me at dinner. She said she loved the math resource guide that we provided to help them transition from discovery math—

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

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Supplementary?

Ms. Marit Stiles: I would invite the minister to come and meet with the many, many, many teachers I have met with who are very disappointed in the direction that this government is taking on almost every single issue and, particularly, in math.

The funding to support additional teacher qualifications saw 15,000 applications for mathematics alone. By introducing a new test at the front end of a teacher’s career but taking away those opportunities to build on the skills and keep them sharp down the line, it’s clear that this government is more interested in playing politics than actually improving outcomes for students.

The minister is going to tell me that she already put money in this August. I just want to say ahead of her, those are actually existing dollars. We know that those are not new dollars that have been assigned.

Will the minister hit the pause button on this latest funding cut and make sure that teachers have the resources they need to teach?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Again, Speaker, I say “NDP,” because what I said is that we’re refocusing funding to support our teachers as well—actually, to the tune of $55 million—to help teachers transition from discovery math to getting back to the basics. Do you know what? That’s what people want to be hearing: that a responsible government is ensuring our teachers are prepared to help our students.

Get this: The great member from Durham actually has done a consultation herself in her own riding. Allison in Durham stated during this consultation that she has travelled around the world and notes that our students are at least two years behind. Wally, a retired elementary teacher, wants more focus on math and the development of and a return to the basic foundations of arithmetic and algebra. Mary wants teachers hired who are comfortable with math, and actually—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Once again, I had to interrupt the minister because the applause on the government side was such that I could not hear the minister.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): No.

Next question.

Flu immunization

Mr. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. I know that our government has taken the necessary steps to protect the short- and long-term health of the people of this province. With flu season quickly approaching, it is crucial to have policies in place to ensure Ontario families are supported.

Tonight, as kids across Ontario go trick-or-treating, we may not be able to protect them from stomachs filled with too much candy, but what we can do is protect them from the flu.

Can the Minister of Health please tell us about the flu shot and how people can get one in Ontario?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I’d like to thank the member for this very timely question. The flu can be a very serious illness, so it is important to protect yourself and your loved ones. The best way to do that is to get the flu shot. It’s the single best defence against the flu virus, especially for all of the kids out there who are going to be playing in the schoolyard tomorrow and trading their Halloween candy.

You can book an appointment with your doctor or nurse practitioner or visit your local pharmacy or public health unit. As a matter of fact, I got my flu shot on Monday and encourage everyone else to get theirs. It’s quick, it’s easy and it’s free, so the sooner you get your flu shot, the sooner you’ll be protected.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Can the Minister of Health please tell us why getting the flu shot might just be the best decision someone can make to keep themselves and their families healthy?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you for the opportunity to reiterate the dangers of the flu and the need to get the flu shot.

When you get your flu shot, you’re not only protecting yourself but you’re also helping to protect your loved ones. The flu shot helps stop the spread of the virus and reduces the number of visits to the doctor, as well as hospitalizations and even deaths due to the flu.

We know that the flu can lead to serious complications for some people. One of the reasons we stress getting the flu shot is because it helps to protect those who are most vulnerable, like children under four years of age and adults over 65 years of age. This makes getting vaccinated against the flu every year an important part of keeping you and your loved ones healthy.

Please get your free flu shot. It’s an important defence to protect yourself and everyone else around you.

Social assistance

Ms. Rima Berns-McGown: My question is for the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services. The Daily Bread Food Bank just released its annual report this morning. It said that almost a million Torontonians needed to visit food banks over the course of a year. Food bank use remains 14% higher than it was in 2008 and continues to climb in the inner suburbs of Toronto, where it is harder for food banks to reach the people who need it.

Instead of addressing the issues that people need their government to tackle, like food insecurity and poverty, the Premier has instead cut in half the planned increase to OW and ODSP.

Minister, how much longer will Ontarians be left to fend for themselves while the government continues to make cuts that harm our most vulnerable citizens?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Thanks very much to the member for her question. This is very serious: One in seven people live in poverty in the province of Ontario.

That’s why we’re taking immediate steps, through the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, in ensuring that we have an Ontario open for business act so we can get more jobs in the province of Ontario. That’s why, in the fall economic statement, our Minister of Finance is going to tell us how we’re going to get back on track after 15 years of waste, scandal and mismanagement. That’s why, in the next week and a half, I’ll be outlining some of the changes that we’re going to make in social assistance to better lift people out of poverty, get them back on track where they can get a job and, when they can’t, provide better supports for them.

I have to say, though, I’m really happy to be the Minister of Community and Social Services—because of the work I’ve been doing for the past 15 years with Barrhaven Food Cupboard, raising tens of thousands of pounds of food twice a year and tens of thousands of dollars for that food cupboard. I’m going to continue to work with the Barrhaven Food Cupboard and all food cupboards across this province so that we can make sure that those who need a social safety net get it.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Rima Berns-McGown: Year after year, poverty levels are deepening in Ontario. More seniors are needing to use food banks, and jobs aren’t going to help them. Over 60% of food bank clients rely on that OW and ODSP that got cut—many of those people can’t work, so jobs won’t help them—and even then, the top three reasons that people still missed a meal were to pay for rent, phone bills and transportation. This is utterly unacceptable. People should not go hungry because they have to take the TTC or pay their rent on time.

When is the minister going to stop this outrageous disregard for Ontario’s most vulnerable and start taking real action on the issues that matter to most Ontarians?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I completely reject the premise of the question. We raised social assistance rates by 1.5% across the board immediately after assuming office. We’ve got a 100-day plan in order to get people lifted out of poverty and back on track with their lives, providing them with wraparound supports through multiple ministries in this government. That’s what we’re committed to doing.

We do not want to see a continuation of the disjointed, patchwork, silo programs of the previous Liberal administration, supported 97% of the time by that party. So what we’re going to do is make sure that we look at that $10-billion program in social assistance that one million people are relying on and see how many of them we can get back on track through our total means of support.

As I’ve mentioned many times—and we value the work of our food cupboards. I personally value the work that I do with our food cupboards. But the best social safety net is a compassionate society, the best social circumstances are when people are working, and the best social program is a—

Interjections.

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

Next question.

Forest firefighting

Mr. Dave Smith: Sensing the mood today, I have a fiery and incendiary question for the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. This year, we’ve had one of the worst forest fire seasons ever in Ontario. We saw more than 1,000 fires burning in central and northern Ontario. In mid-July, upwards of 154 fires were burning simultaneously. That put a strain on our firefighters.

Our government took immediate action to support our emergency responders, most of whom were working around the clock. Under the leadership of the Doug Ford government, we invested additional resources to make sure our firefighters had the tools they needed.

Last weekend, we saw snow in Peterborough–Kawartha. Winter is almost here. Can the minister update this House on the current forest fire situation?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: I’d like to thank the member from Peterborough–Kawartha for that question.

Mr. Speaker, the wildland fire season is officially ending today, and I’d like to announce to this House that we have officially extinguished all the fires in the province.

I’d like to thank the almost 2,000 firefighters from across Canada and around the world for their dedication to putting out these fires.

Our government was able to provide over $100 million in funding this past summer to successfully combat these blazes. This significant funding, along with the hard work of the emergency responders, allowed for an organized and effective response to the devastating forest fires throughout this province.

Ontario is an internationally recognized leader in wildland fire management. Annually, the government provides base funding of almost $70 million to deliver front-line operations to fight forest fires. We couldn’t have done this without our partners from the United States and across Canada, Parks Canada, and we thank them for their work.

Interjections.

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

Restart the clock. Supplementary.

Mr. Dave Smith: I’d like to thank the minister for his response. That’s fabulous news. I’d also like to give the proverbial tip of the cap and a huge thank you to our front-line workers.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the support of the other provinces and countries that stepped up to help us. We would not have been able to beat this without that combined effort.

Mr. Speaker, this was one of the first files that the minister had to tackle when our government took power in June. I’d like to commend both him and the team he leads for the hard work and dedication they showed. Can the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry please provide more information on how his ministry played a key role in battling the record number of fires and keeping the residents of Ontario and their properties safe this year?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: I thank the member for his question. The Ministry of Natural Resources would like to thank all of those personnel who left their family for much of the summer to battle these blazes. I’d like to especially recognize Jerry Gadwa, a resident of the Kehewin Cree First Nation in Alberta, who paid the ultimate sacrifice after he died while working the fires in Red Lake. His death is a reminder of the dangers these firefighters face each and every day on the job.

Mr. Speaker, my ministry alone provided 780 highly trained professional firefighters, nine CL-415 heavy water bombers, three Twin Otter medium water bombers and 13 initial attack helicopters, along with other aircraft, to combat these blazes.

In this House, I would like once again to thank the best firefighters in the world for helping to make sure that damage in our spectacular northern forests was limited.

Ethical standards

Mr. Kevin Yarde: This question is to the Premier. Can the Premier lay out the ethical standards he sets for members of his cabinet, and where he sets standards in terms of professional conduct?

Hon. Doug Ford: I know where the member is going here, but let’s be very clear: We have the most ethical, most transparent, most accountable caucus—not just cabinet, but caucus—I’ve ever seen in politics. They bring transparency and accountability. They make sure they don’t make the backroom deals that we’ve seen in other governments. They don’t do the backroom deals that you supported 97% of the time.

We have an ethical group of people here, and I’m proud to say that we have the greatest, greatest government I’ve seen in decades.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): That concludes question period for today.

Visitor

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

Mr. Jamie West: I’d like to rise on a point of order to introduce Markus Vivar; I neglected to introduce someone. I introduced his father, Jose Vivar, earlier. Welcome to Queen’s Park, Markus.

Protestant Reformation

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

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I know today is Halloween and I want to wish a very happy Halloween, but I would also like to acknowledge, as I missed it last year, that today is also the 501st anniversary of when a young Martin Luther nailed the 95 theses onto the door of the cathedral at Wittenberg, starting a great Reformation across Europe, which has had an enormous impact on our democracy and on religious freedom right across the globe. So I want to acknowledge that as well.

Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for London–Fanshawe.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I would like to welcome the CEO of the Ontario Long Term Care Association, Candace Chartier, to the Legislature. Welcome to the Legislature today.

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

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: It’s my pleasure today to rise and acknowledge a front-line police officer from the city of Ottawa and a mentor to many in the Somali community, my very close friend Abdul Abdi. Thank you for your service.

Notice of dissatisfaction

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Pursuant to standing order 38(a), the member for Davenport has given notice of her dissatisfaction with the answer to her question given by the Minister of Education concerning funding cuts to education. This matter will be debated today at 6 p.m.

Deferred Votes

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

Deferred vote on the motion for 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): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1144 to 1149.

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

On October 30, 2018, Mr. Phillips moved third reading of 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.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Anand, Deepak

Baber, Roman

Babikian, Aris

Bailey, Robert

Barrett, Toby

Bethlenfalvy, Peter

Bouma, Will

Calandra, Paul

Cho, Raymond Sung Joon

Cho, Stan

Clark, Steve

Coe, Lorne

Crawford, Stephen

Cuzzetto, Rudy

Downey, Doug

Dunlop, Jill

Elliott, Christine

Fedeli, Victor

Fee, Amy

Ford, Doug

Fullerton, Merrilee

Ghamari, Goldie

Gill, Parm

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Mike

Hogarth, Christine

Jones, Sylvia

Kanapathi, Logan

Karahalios, Belinda

Ke, Vincent

Khanjin, Andrea

Kramp, Daryl

Kusendova, Natalia

Lecce, Stephen

MacLeod, Lisa

Martin, Robin

Martow, Gila

McDonell, Jim

McKenna, Jane

McNaughton, Monte

Miller, Norman

Mitas, Christina Maria

Mulroney, Caroline

Nicholls, Rick

Oosterhoff, Sam

Pang, Billy

Park, Lindsey

Parsa, Michael

Pettapiece, Randy

Phillips, Rod

Piccini, David

Rasheed, Kaleed

Rickford, Greg

Roberts, Jeremy

Romano, Ross

Sabawy, Sheref

Sandhu, Amarjot

Sarkaria, Prabmeet Singh

Scott, Laurie

Simard, Amanda

Skelly, Donna

Smith, Dave

Smith, Todd

Surma, Kinga

Tangri, Nina

Thanigasalam, Vijay

Thompson, Lisa M.

Tibollo, Michael A.

Triantafilopoul