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

March 1, 2016

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-Mar-01 (PDF)

L143 - Tue 1 Mar 2016 / Mar 1er mar 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 1 March 2016 Mardi 1 er mars 2016

Orders of the Day

Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur l’atténuation du changement climatique et une économie sobre en carbone

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Ontario budget

Northern Ontario

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Hospital funding

Health care funding

Ontario budget

Education funding

Affordable housing

Assistance to farmers

Water quality

Economic development

GO Transit

Answers to written questions

Correction of record

Introduction of Visitors

Notice of dissatisfaction

Members’ Statements

Rideau Carleton Raceway

Dimitra Daskalos

Newmarket Riverwalk Commons

Bill Guthrie

Whippet Good

Paul Palleschi

Heather East

Georgian College

Ontario budget

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Standing Committee on Social Policy

Standing Committee on General Government

Petitions

Health care funding

Accident benefits

Lung health

Health care funding

Privatization of public assets

Elder abuse

Landfill

Health care funding

Lung health

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Ontario Northland Transportation Commission

Water fluoridation

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Waste-Free Ontario Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 favorisant un Ontario sans déchets

Adjournment Debate

Domestic violence / Violence familiale

GO Transit

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur l’atténuation du changement climatique et une économie sobre en carbone

Mr. Gravelle, on behalf of Mr. Murray, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 172,

An Act respecting greenhouse gas / Projet de loi 172, Loi concernant les gaz à effet de serre.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I want to begin by saying that I’ll be sharing my time with the member from Beaches–East York.

Let me just very quickly set the frame for the need for this bill, if I may. Obviously, a new stand-alone bill is required to set a long-term framework for climate action and a stronger foundation for a cap-and-trade program, and to ensure the transparency and accountability of Ontario’s path toward a low-carbon economy and the use of proceeds to support greenhouse gas reductions.

This new bill will replace and expand the existing legal framework to clearly outline the purpose and elements of the proposed cap-and-trade program, setting a much stronger framework. May I also say that, in addition, the proposed bill enshrines the government’s commitment to fight climate change by reaffirming emission reduction targets and the need to publish action plans and progress reports, providing the certainty, transparency and accountability necessary for continued progress toward a prosperous, low-carbon economy.

If I may, I will pass on to the member for Beaches–East York.

Mr. Arthur Potts: Thanks to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines for moving second reading of this very important bill. It gives me great pleasure to provide the government’s leadoff debate, or maybe second position debate, having had the minister start with a very short lead.

I think this is the first time I have had an opportunity to stand in this House and present a bill for an extended period of speaking time, and I hope to be able to educate the House, to enlighten them on the contents of this bill over pretty much the next hour and get us all thinking in a very positive way about why this bill is so important.

If passed, of course, this legislation will establish a strong legal foundation for Ontario’s cap-and-trade program, and will ensure transparency and accountability by committing to reinvest proceeds from cap-and-trade into projects that reduce greenhouse gas pollution.

I’m absolutely honoured to have this opportunity to speak to this bill today. I’m honoured primarily because I think the Premier and the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change have shown trust in me that I can present to the House the rationale for why this bill is so important. I’m honoured because, in my view, this bill is absolutely transformational to the province of Ontario and, indeed, to the work that other cities, provinces and countries around the world are doing.

I believe that this bill is probably the most important thing we will do, certainly, in this session and, indeed, in this Parliament because, as Leonardo DiCaprio said the other day at the Oscars—I heard the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change mention this in his remarks on a question yesterday—this is so critical; if we don’t get this piece right, in 30 years, we won’t be around, effectively, to get anything else right. So it’s absolutely critical that we put in place the kinds of mitigation measures now, reducing carbon emissions in the atmosphere, so that we can reverse a trend that will take place in greenhouse gas and the heating of the planet.

We should understand that we are experiencing today the climate change impacts of emissions that happened a generation ago—20-some years ago—and the efforts and actions we take now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions aren’t going to show up until 10, 15 or 20 years down the pike. One of the reasons that it’s so hard to get our minds around the necessity of acting now is that it’s hard to forecast where we will be and what our circumstances will be some 20 years from now. But it is absolutely critical that we get on and start it.

For me, this is an example—a description—of what true leadership is. It’s why I think I came into this House: an opportunity to put forward bold ideas that are absolutely necessary to move the province forward. I want to thank the Premier of Ontario for the leadership she is showing on this file, and I want to thank the finance minister for the leadership he is showing on the file to put in place the programs that have been identified by the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change as absolutely necessary for Ontario to meet its commitment internationally, nationally and throughout North America. This is an absolutely critical thing for us to do.

We also know that previous leaders of the Liberal Party federally—Stéphane Dion, who was elected, I believe, in 2006 to lead the Liberal Party of Canada, got this piece almost a decade ago. He understood how important it was, and he made the pitch to the people of Canada that it’s absolutely important that we get ahead of the game on this. He also tied in very carefully the economic opportunities that the new carbon economy, a low-carbon economy, would have for our economic well-being.

He understood it back then, but, dare I say, maybe he was 10 years too early. He was 10 years too early because we hadn’t been experiencing the dramatic economic costs associated with the extreme weather that we’ve been experiencing of late. We hadn’t experienced five years of drought in California, which is dramatically impacting the capacity of that state, which supplies to Ontario so much of our fresh fruit and vegetables, particularly off-season. We hadn’t experienced that 10 years ago, but we are experiencing it now.

What you can see is that consumers who are out doing simple things like buying a head of cauliflower—the symbolic value that a head of cauliflower has had in the climate change debate is incredible. People were going to the grocery store, and what they used to pay $1.69 or $2.69 for—a nice head of white cauliflower coming from California—is suddenly costing upwards of $8 in places because of the drought and because of shortened supply. So people are experiencing the impacts of climate change in their pockets, and that’s why they’re now getting the picture.

I’m pleased to say that I think the public is very much on side with us on this measure. I got a tweet yesterday from a good friend of mine, Michael Polanyi. Michael and I grew up together. I knew his father, who you would know as Dr. John Polanyi, a great Canadian, a great scientist, a Nobel Prize winner in chemistry. Dr. Polanyi and his wife, Sue—we used to meet annually at a Christmas adventure down in south Rosedale with a friend of mine, Hugh Mackenzie’s mother, Sheila Mackenzie. She would put on an annual event called St. Thorlak’s.

It was basically a hymn sing to celebrate Christmas, to celebrate the season. Sue Polanyi would be on the piano playing hymns and we’d all sing along. Michael Polanyi and I got to know each other. He’s somewhat younger than I am, but we got to know each other in those days, and he has resurfaced as a constituent in my riding of Beaches–East York. He’s resurfaced with the group known as the Citizens’ Climate Lobby.

The Citizens’ Climate Lobby have been in to see me and they’ve seen so many other members. They’ve had events down here, and I know members on the opposition benches have also had a chance to speak with the Citizens’ Climate Lobby. Michael Polanyi shared with me a map with every single riding across Canada, the ones that all of us represent in our own discrete parts of Ontario.

It’s a riding map where you could push a button, push on the touchscreen and it will tell you, from a whole series of polling that’s been done, the percentage of who is absolutely on side, the percentage of people on side in regions across this country, in regions across the province who are on side with climate change mitigation measures. Most importantly, he showed me how in Beaches–East York, the community he lives in, 87% of people in Beaches–East York—so 140,000 people—believe the world is heating up in a dramatic way and are concerned about it—87%.

Well over 70% believe it’s absolutely essential to put a price on carbon. They support the cap-and-trade program. I would invite all members of the House to find—maybe you’re following me on Twitter and you’ll get the link easily that way.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Oh yeah, we’ll go on that right now.

Mr. Arthur Potts: You should. You should go and find out how many in your own community understand the circumstances that we are in, because it is absolutely important that you recognize—I know none of us want to be on the wrong side of public opinion. It’s an important political motivator, but we also know that we want to do the right thing.

Sometimes, as we experienced with people’s response to us modernizing the management of Hydro One—optimizing, leveraging the assets in Hydro One in order to put it on a sounder management footing, in order to take those assets and reinvest them in a better asset management program—we know that that hasn’t been on side with the public but it’s the right thing to do, and I’m confident, come the time when people go to the polls in 2018, they will recognize that it was the right thing to do, that they will have seen it.

And although I’m concerned when municipalities across the province are putting in resolutions opposing the partial sale, I also know those same municipalities are coming to see me and asking me for infrastructure dollars. They’re asking me for everything from bridge repairs to road work and sewage infrastructure upgrades. They’re asking me about gas lines in rural Ontario.

I know that it’s important to them that they get infrastructure renewal and I think they are finally starting to put together the piece of the puzzle that says it ain’t coming if we can’t finance it, and we’re not going to finance it by extending our borrowing capacity even further than it’s at now, so we’re going to leverage assets like we did with General Motors shares, like we did selling off real estate that’s no longer in the public’s interest to hold, such as the LCBO head office. That is money you can reinvest as an asset in a better asset, and whether it’s regional express rail or these bridges and stuff, it’s absolutely critically important.

I know that Stéphane Dion had a vision, and he was defeated by it. He was defeated by it because the opposition parties made it so difficult, or they sold the simplistic argument that this is a job-killing tax, which it’s not. They convinced the people because—and you see it already now, Speaker. You see it in the kinds of questions we’re getting from the opposition, that the 4.3% increase projected on the cost of gasoline is a job-killing type of tax, where the reality is that every other jurisdiction, such as BC and Quebec—California I’ve already spoken a bit about.

California put in cap-and-trade measures and lo and behold, yes, there was an increase in the cost associated with fuel, heating fuels, but there was an increase in productivity, in new jobs, in job creation, in GDP growth, and I’ll talk a little bit more about that later.

We’ve seen the fact that it’s easy to be critical of this proposal if you take the very simplistic notion that some costs will go up. You’ve got to frame the debate in the context that a lot of other costs are going to go down, particularly costs associated with renovating your house, for instance. I’m pleased to say that last night I spent my first night in my new house. I know members of this House will be delighted to know that I’ve finally moved into my own riding.

Mr. Mike Colle: Hear, hear.

Mr. Arthur Potts: Thank you very much.

My partner, Lisa Martin, and I bought a house last June. It’s a beautiful old house in upper Beaches. It was built in 1870, and it’s a classic, beautiful, old Victorian house. We went in, and it was a disaster inside. It had been a rooming house. So we had to gut it to the walls. Incredibly—well, maybe not so incredibly; it was built in 1870—not a stitch of insulation in the whole thing, nothing. I am convinced that our heating costs associated with that renovation will be reduced, probably by 60%, maybe 70%. So we gutted it to the walls, rebuilt it, put in spray foam insulation, very thick.

We put LED lighting in. We did all the things that we can now do with a financing program administered through our funds that will be acquired through the cap-and-trade. We will allow homeowners to go forward. Now, of course, my renovation happened before the program was in place, so I won’t be able to benefit from it, but all of you will be when you have the chance to renovate.

Mr. Mike Colle: It should be retroactive.

Mr. Arthur Potts: It should be retroactive. Maybe we could have the opposition members put in a motion or an amendment to that effect, to make it retroactive. I did it because I wanted to live in a house that was solid, secure and environmentally sensible, and so we did all that work. We are still heating with gas.

It was a brand new gas furnace, and I really contemplated whether to just scrap an almost brand new furnace—it was the only thing in the house that was decent—and then do something different that would be more environmentally sustainable, like ground-source heat pumping, because there, really, is the solution: to get off gas, which is a carbon-emitting program, and go to something much more passive like ground-source heating.

I actually had to take down a tree that was in the back, Speaker, an old Manitoba maple that was, like, 12 feet in diameter. It was huge. It was all rotten and falling apart. We took it down, and now I’ve got a big stump, a huge stump in the backyard. We’re still waiting for the guy to come back when it’s no longer frozen to dig it out. I recognize now that I’m going to have a hole in my backyard that’s going to be about six to eight feet deep once they remove all of this root. If I were to take that and extend that hole, make it a little bigger, I could put—

Mr. Grant Crack: A swimming pool.

Mr. Arthur Potts: —a swimming pool. I was thinking more about a reservoir, where I could put glycol or some other liquid, which could then circulate through piping into the furnace area of my house with a heat exchanger, and for the price of a small circulating pump and the little bit of electricity associated with that, a heat exchanger, I could remove any necessity for an air conditioning system in my house.

All the costs associated with air conditioning would disappear because you would be taking the ambient temperature of the earth, which I think stands at about 53 degrees, as a baseload which goes through heat exchange. In the wintertime when it’s 20 degrees or 10 degrees outside, it brings it up—heat exchange. So a circulating pump keeps you at ambient temperature. Likewise in the summer, when it’s 85 degrees out—I’m using Fahrenheit because I’m not doing the translations, having been brought up in the old system.

Younger people like the member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell can do the centigrade translations faster.

In the summertime, I know that with a ground-source heat pump I could avoid using air conditioning and keep my house at a comfortable temperature without really expending very much energy at all. That’s the focus of the flip side of, yes, it’s going to cost you a little bit more to use your car; it’s going to cost you a little bit more to heat your house with gasoline or with gas. The flip side is that you’re going to be able to do other things.

I sat with a number of mayors from the Bruce Peninsula area about three months ago and they were making a pitch to me, as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, in my rural affairs capacity. They were making the pitch to me why that community should be getting gas lines faster than other communities, how imperative it was that we build the gas infrastructure up there. One of the mayors looked at me; he said that he was in a constituent’s house, and he said, “It’s so expensive to heat with electricity. The cold air is blowing in under the doors. There’s no insulation in the walls, so it’s expensive to heat with electricity.”

I looked and said, “Why don’t you put in a renovation program? Why don’t you help people reduce their energy costs, the high price of electricity, by putting in a renovation program?” The city of Toronto has done it. They had a free audit program that they did. The city would loan you money against your heating bill with Toronto Hydro in order to renovate your house to reduce the use of electricity, to reduce the use of fossil fuels to heat.

What we know is coming out of this bill is an opportunity, with a large capital pool, to have people apply and put in these kinds of necessary measures. In rural communities, for the purpose of home heating, ground-source heat pump opportunities are a fantastic way to go. It’s almost counterproductive for us to be thinking about putting gas in every home across the province because now we’re going down this whole route of more emissions. I get the fact that equality demands that rural Ontario should be treated as equally as the downtown urban cores as we possibly can. I get that, and I understand why.

But if we could help people in rural Ontario who don’t have access to gas to reduce their heating bills by 50% or 60% by putting in proper insulation, by putting in good windows and the rest of it, it would go a long way to solving the concerns that all of you here, on both sides of the House, are hearing from your constituents about the high cost of electricity.

I was really hoping that we could have had a debate in this House on this measure, on this bill, which wouldn’t fall into the partisan opposition-government type of framework, because this is, as I said, a transformational piece that we have to get right. I understand how the opposition needs to be there to provide opposition, but what I’m hoping we hear from the other side are ways that we can ameliorate the plan—not be against the plan, but fix it, make it even better.

This is like the War Measures Act, in my mind. This is like people standing up in 1939 in the House of Commons and saying, unanimously, “We need to do what’s necessary to stop what’s happening in Europe. We need to put ourselves forward.” This is in the same vein as that. This is the kind of bill where all of us should be joining together in a rallying cry to support this kind of initiative so that your children and your children’s children, and the next generation after that, can live in a community that is not so devastated by climate change initiatives.

I’m really honoured, Speaker, to have the chance to do this. I spent the last 25 years of my life before I came here as a consultant doing government relations work, doing company-to-company work and doing a lot of work in environmental communities. I’m not sure if I mentioned it in, as I like to call it, my rookie speech. I think I mentioned that I used to drive a car, an old Mercedes diesel, on vegetable oil from a restaurant in my neighbourhood. It was a 1981 Mercedes 300D.

As you all probably know, because you’re well versed in these things, Rudolf Diesel invented the diesel motor to run on peanut oil. When he was in South America and he was exploring, he saw South American natives taking peanut oil in a bamboo tube, and they would pound it. They would pound the oil, and the pressure of cracking the oil would create a spark. He was like, “My god, I could make an engine out of this,” if he could systematize that pounding. That’s the origin of the diesel motor. So the diesel motor was designed to run on vegetable oil.

Only with the advent of us digging up and drilling and getting oil out of the ground—that top 1% becomes lubricating oil and the next 10% to 12% is used as gasoline. But the remaining—the crude, the bunker crude, type 2 or 3, whatever—is a bit of a waste product. They determined that a diesel motor will run on almost anything. You can run naphtha in it; you can run regular gasoline in it; you can run bunker diesel; you can run vegetable oil of all different sorts.

I was using used french-fry oil from a restaurant. I literally would go up to the back of the restaurant. Once a week, they’d put out 15 litres from cleaning out their french fryer, and I would take it, take the top off and pour it through a strainer to get the bits and pieces out, because you don’t want to run your car on pieces of chicken fingers and french fries and such. It ran beautifully. In fact, it didn’t just run beautifully; it ran better than running on diesel. It ran better because vegetable oil has an extra oxygen molecule in it, so it has a higher combustion at a lower pressure rate.

You know when you start up a diesel motor and you get that cloud of black smoke out the back? If you put biodiesel or vegetable oil in your tank, you actually remove that black spurt of smoke coming out. This is why there’s a whole effort now to create more biodiesel in the community.

I worked with a company which was out of Oakville, but now they have a plant in Hamilton, called Biox Corp. I was assisting them in their dealings with municipalities at the time. Biox Corp. had a plan to take all the used vegetable oil they could collect across the province and make biodiesel. Taking out the glycerin makes it a cleaner-burning fuel. But I didn’t bother taking out the glycerin. I just poured the vegetable oil straight into the car and ran off with it. As a result, the car did smell a bit like french fries and popcorn.

I used to joke with my kids that if you drive it down the street, the dogs are going to run after you because they think there’s food in it. But it worked, and it worked beautifully.

I worked with Biox, and now they’re producing 60 million litres a year of biodiesel in Hamilton, in a continuous process that they invented with the assistance of the University of Toronto engineering faculty. It was difficult to make biodiesel, because it was a batch process which was very time-consuming and very expensive. They do it continuously now, and it makes an incredible product. Again, because it’s a renewable fuel from corn, soy or whatever, it is far more sustainable than it is from digging it out of the ground.

I also worked with a company out of Israel, Arrow technologies. ArrowBio technologies had an anaerobic digestion system for garbage separation. What they would do was take mixed garbage and stick it in a vat of water. Plastics would float and heavies would sink. Everything that was left in solution tended to be organic, and you could mulch that up, anaerobically digest it, create methane and use the methane for power.

This has an incredible impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, because that material would otherwise get into a landfill stream, where it would degrade and create methane unless you captured it all effectively, and would exhaust into the atmosphere, which is bad. So it was another win.

This is the kind of thing that I was doing as a consultant over the years, so it’s tremendous for me to be here with an opportunity where I have a chance to speak to this particular bill.

I’ve also worked in the Blue Box Program, trying to expand the amount of paper that’s collected in the Blue Box Program so that we’re not just collecting magazines and newspapers. We’ve expanded the blue box now to collect boxboard, cardboard, wrapping paper, and soft-cover and hardcover textbooks, all of which can be mulched and put back into productive paper. That saves trees, and it saves the costs of transportation associated with going to get those trees and bringing the trees and the pulp to the manufacturing. It’s a huge saving in greenhouse gas emissions.

Because of that background and that experience, I think that’s why the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change has asked me to provide opening lead remarks on this bill.

I would like to talk a little bit more about the bill specifically. We know that the costs of climate change are adding up. The costs of inaction far exceed the cost of us taking action, and it’s absolutely critical that we get that point.

A 2015 Citigroup study found that the costs, in terms of lost GDP, from not acting on climate change could be upwards of $44 trillion by the year 2060. That is absolutely staggering, if you put it in context. If you think about what we’ve experienced so far—and Premier Wynne has said that climate change represents the single greatest threat to our health and prosperity today and for generations to come.

Interjections.

Mr. Arthur Potts: The members opposite can heckle and not want to take this issue seriously, but, Speaker, they need to get and grasp the severity and the seriousness of this situation, because we are seeing impacts in Ontario communities and their local economies.

The United Nations World Meteorological Organization tells us that 2015 was likely the hottest year on record. Certainly, the last five years have been the hottest five-year period on record. Some locations in southern Ontario could see a 3.5-degree Celsius rise in mean summer temperature and a four-degree rise in winter. Models predict that by 2050, southern Ontario’s humid, continental climate will feel more like the humid, subtropical climate of the state of Kentucky.

One of the things that we are seeing in climate change is that we are starting to experience climate realities that are more associated with southern climes such as Kentucky. Areas of the midwestern US are becoming arid and drier and starting to have more desert-like conditions.

There’s a writer by the name of James Lovelock, a great scientist who understood how CFCs were getting into the atmosphere and destroying the ozone layer. He was the first to blow the whistle on that many, many decades ago. He’s been tracking the climate conditions. I read his book a number of years ago called The Revenge of Gaia. He identified this concept of Gaia, that the Earth is a living mechanism, almost a sentient being—maybe the prime being—and that the Earth has the capacity to react and respond to climate issues or things affecting it and to take out the detractors.

He has a sort of non-anthropological view of the world, where the human being is not the most important thing. He will smugly say that the world is going to take care of you guys, because you’re the guys that are destroying the climate and the world will take care. He says, in a sense, that it’s not so important to even try to get ahead of the climate changing, because we’re too far gone.

He thinks the most important thing that we should be doing as legislators is to better understand the migration patterns that are going to come with this; to better understand how our immigration from the midwest US states into Canada is going to cause incredible dislocation of peoples. Because their land will not be habitable; ours will be more habitable, but maybe not as habitable as it currently is.

His view of the world is as an organic, responding being. If you think about a tree—those of us who have agricultural interests in our portfolios or in our communities know that when plants don’t get the sustenance, the liquids they need, the leaves will start to curl up. They’ll respond in a way to try to protect their core being in the hope that new rain will come and that the leaves will open up again. That’s kind of how the world is responding to the heat right now.

The capacity of the world to control it—it’s contracting and holding itself in, and at some point, a critical mass gets hit and you have an incredibly quick, downward spiral, because the plant dies. That’s what we need to be guarding against: the plant dying, which is the world dying, and making it uninhabitable for all of us.

The situation is even more dire in the Far North. Mean winter temperatures will likely rise by as much as eight degrees by 2030 due to climate change. The communities in the north, with 24,000 people, mostly First Nations and aboriginal people making up almost 90% of the population—they are in remote communities that can only be reached by plane and winter roads.

What we are seeing is that with those winter roads, because the permafrost isn’t freezing early enough and long enough, we’re not able to get truckloads of supplies into these outward communities, making them unreachable, possibly uninhabitable, or so incredibly expensive to live in because everything will have to be flown in—construction materials in addition to fresh produce etc. Thirty-one of the 34 communities in the Far North—about 21,000 people—depend on about 3,100 kilometres of roads, and these are disappearing.

Churchill, Manitoba, recently announced that they’ve had a huge influx of polar bears. It’s becoming an unmanageable population—a threefold increase in the polar bears coming into the city looking for food. This is a direct result of local climate change, because the ice floes aren’t sustained long enough for the polar bears to get seal meat and fatten up for the winter months. They’re coming into communities, where they’re trapped, housed in polar bear jails and then relocated. It’s just another example. Climate change is so real that we have to take action in order to pause it and stop it from getting worse.

There is a widespread recognition among countries that we are running out of time. The global community has identified the objective of holding the increase in global temperatures to well below two degrees Celsius in order to stop the most devastating impacts of climate change. This is a very conservative estimate. The question is, how many megatonnes of carbon are we going to allow to get into the atmosphere? There is a broad consensus that carbon pricing, such as the cap-and-trade system, is a key tool for reducing greenhouse gases and driving a prosperous, low-carbon, high productivity economy.

Now, there are two basic systems that one can look at for pricing carbons. I talked earlier about the Citizens’ Climate Lobby. Their push was for what is known as a tax-and-dividend system, more what has happened in BC, where you do put a tax on carbon fuels, gasoline, natural gas etc., and everybody pays that. Then you just give everybody a dividend cheque back, which splits up the proceeds of all the money you got for that and you split it up equally amongst the population, in essence. So those people who are using carbon excessively are paying for it.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: You’re not doing that.

Mr. Arthur Potts: I’m not suggesting I’m doing it. If the members want to listen, we’ll get to that.

There are two systems; one is the BC system. The theory there is that people are incentivized to get off carbon—maybe instead of taking their car to work they’ll take their bicycle—so that they won’t be paying that extra dollar, that extra seven cents it actually works out to in BC, on their fuel, but they’re still getting the full benefit of it. So maybe those who are driving a car will take their money and invest it in a bicycle. But we are taking the different approach of cap-and-trade because we believe we’re going to get far better carbon reductions through a cap-and-trade program. They’re guaranteed because you set targets and you reach those targets.

According to the Conference Board of Canada, this is also an extraordinarily economic thing for us to be doing. For each $100 million that we would invest in Ontario in climate-related technologies, we would generate over $107 million in gross domestic product increases, $25 million in federal and provincial tax revenues, creating about 1,400 new jobs—for each $100 million invested. So it’s very important that we recognize that the flip side of us putting a tax on carbon or putting a price on carbon is that we will be creating jobs in the economy.

In 2015, the World Bank’s State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2015 report stated that 39 nations, 23 cities, states and regions have now implemented scheduled prices on carbon. In Canada, that includes British Columbia, as I mentioned, Quebec, Alberta and Manitoba, and now Ontario is following. Once these programs are implemented, almost 90% of Canadians will then live in a province with some form of carbon pricing. Globally, jurisdictions with carbon pricing cover seven gigatonnes of emissions:12% of annual global emissions. That’s a threefold increase over the past decade.

So it’s not like we’re the first ones out of the gate on this, although maybe we should have been. This is a trend happening globally worldwide, and we don’t want to be the last out of the gate on this. Taking action now, again, is absolutely imperative. China, for instance, recently announced that it too will implement a national cap-and-trade program in 2017, building off seven regional pilot projects that have been operating since 2013.

Our government has demonstrated leadership and commitment to fighting climate change through a series of very bold measures. We’ve ended stand-alone coal-fired electricity generation in the province, which is one of the largest greenhouse gas reduction initiatives in North America. The Minister of Finance, in his budget speech last week, talked about the fact that taking coal-fired generation stations off-line has resulted in there being no smog days. The health savings alone associated with that were immense and important and, again, demonstrated why it was absolutely the right thing to do.

We are also, Speaker, as you know, through our regional express rail, improving regional transit networks. I’m pleased to say that today, coming from my new house and location at Main and Danforth, I was able to easily walk up to the subway and across here. It was equally convenient to get on the subway at my last location at Logan and Danforth, but now in my own community it was great to be able to walk up there and meet some constituents en route and come down here by subway.

I bought a Metropass today, Speaker, because I know the system is improving and it will be an opportunity for us to go across regional express rail from London and St. Catharines and Uxbridge and Stouffville. That’s happening and, once electrified, that will be the most significant change in carbon emissions in our economy. So these are the kinds of bold acts we’ll be doing, but we still have much to do.

With this proposed legislation, we will be establishing a stronger, long-term legal framework for climate action in Ontario. The proposed Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act will enshrine Ontario’s greenhouse gas reduction targets in law. It will require regular action plans dealing with how we make progress towards achieving those targets and will establish a strong legal foundation for a cap-and-trade program.

I would like to explain some of the key elements in the act in some greater detail. Targets, for instance: We now know that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is vital to fighting climate change, so Ontario will be setting a target for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions relative to its 1990 levels. We have committed to a 15% reduction by 2020, a 37% reduction by 2030 and an 80% reduction by 2050.

The proposed act will enshrine these targets in the legislation. It includes enabling provisions that will enable the Lieutenant Governor to increase the existing targets or to add additional interim targets by regulation, but it will prohibit any future government, without changing the law, from lowering those targets.

Another key element of the proposed legislation is the development of an action plan. The bill requires our government to prepare and publish a climate action plan. The plan will detail actions to be taken that will enable Ontario to meet our emissions reduction targets. The bill sets out what will be required in the action plan. This will include information about each action, and it requires a timetable for implementation, an estimate of the potential emissions sought to be gained and an assessment of the cost per ton of those reductions.

If an action could be funded in whole or in part from cap-and-trade proceeds, then the plan will include the estimated amount of such funding that is being considered.

Under this proposed legislation, the plan could be revised at any time and must be renewed every five years. The bill also requires that the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change publish a progress report every five years. So providing detailed descriptions of government actions, including the use of cap-and-trade proceeds and the impact on greenhouse gas emissions, as well as reporting on our progress: These are part of our commitment to transparency in the proposed legislation.

So, Speaker, in April 2015, Ontario announced it will join the cap-and-trade systems under the Western Climate Initiative. By doing so, we will be working with other jurisdictions, including Quebec and California, in making carbon pricing a cornerstone in our fight against climate change. The bill before this Legislature provides a strong foundation for Ontario’s cap-and-trade program and establishes its framework for implementation. The proposed legislation provides provisions for agreements to link Ontario’s cap-and-trade program with those in other jurisdictions, such as the Western Climate Initiative’s.

Our government has included a number of elements in the proposed legislation to ensure accountability and transparency. The act requires an annual report of funds flowing in and out of the greenhouse gas reduction account, a dedicated account of all proceeds from assessments, from our trading of carbon credits, to be used for climate change initiatives. It will also require the government to publish a report on the use of cap-and-trade proceeds, which will be invested in projects that specifically reduce greenhouse gas pollution. It also requires government to develop a climate change action plan detailing how the province will meet its reduction targets every five years.

Now, Speaker, this is not the first time that we put a price or put limits on how much we allow industries to pollute. Years ago, I had the pleasure of working with an incredible gentleman by the name of Gary Gallon. Gary Gallon, one of the founders of Pollution Probe, was chief of staff to the Minister of the Environment many years ago, in the 1980s, when they brought in the acid rain plan. Our lakes, our fish, our livable waters were being destroyed by acid rain. We put a price, we put limits on the amount of acid that industry could spew into the atmosphere, and as a result we have reversed that process.

This again is not new, but the scale and the magnitude to which we are doing it with respect to carbon emissions is immense. It’s imperative that we get that piece right.

We also want to ensure that there is proper oversight on our cap-and-trade market. Being a member of the Western Climate Initiative, Ontario has a non-profit corporation which provides administrative and technical services to support greenhouse gas emission trading programs for its member jurisdictions. We have worked with other initiative members, including California and Quebec, and our cap-and-trade oversight rules align with Quebec’s and California’s to ensure consistency once all programs are linked.

The Western Climate Initiative also requires the services of a market monitor to ensure jurisdictions have enough information to ensure that emitters are complying with cap-and-trade requirements. Offenders who don’t comply will be prosecuted under Ontario laws and, if convicted, will face fines.

We also have great concerns for our First Nations and Métis people. The bill specifically acknowledged that the First Nations and Métis communities have a special relationship with the environment and are deeply connected, spiritually and culturally, to the land, the water, the air and the animals. This bill includes a provision that requires the minister to consider any traditional ecological knowledge a community may offer in respect to the action plan that the government is required to prepare.

So we’ll be working in consultation with our First Nations communities in gaining experience and intelligence from how they view and interact with our natural world. The bill also includes a provision making it clear that nothing in the bill is intended to take away from the protections provided for aboriginal and treaty rights in the Canadian Constitution. The provision is intended to signify respect for those rights and is not intended to impact the

interpretation or protection of those rights in the context of this bill.

Speaker, taking robust action on climate change will not weaken our economy; in fact, it can serve as a crucial leader for stronger growth in the province of Ontario. Nations around the world are making deep emissions cuts in the coming years, and global demand for cleaner technologies, energy, infrastructure and better low-carbon solutions will rise sharply. Through smart investments and actions, we have an exciting opportunity to take advantage of trillions of dollars—some estimating as much as $7 trillion in the global economy per year—an opportunity way greater than the technological revolutions of the past 15 years. We will make our province more productive, efficient and prosperous.

We’ve heard questions from the opposition, again, detailing the costs associated with carbon pricing, the cost of gasoline, the cost of natural gas and such. But what they should also be celebrating is that the impact of carbon pricing will have no impact on electricity rates. You need to understand, critically, why that’s the case: because over 95%—95%—of our electricity in this province is generated carbon-free.

So putting a price on carbon doesn’t affect electricity rates because Ontario, over the past 10 years, has done some very heavy lifting in getting off of carbon-based coal; for instance, reducing the amount of dependency on gas power plants at peak demand by bringing in sustainable programs—wind and energy. And while I appreciate that those programs have added to the cost of the bills, it is an investment that we’ve made. We are over the hump of those investments in terms of their impact on electricity rates.

When we look at our competing jurisdictions around North America, in the US, where 60% to 80% of electrical power is being generated by carbon sources, particularly coal, they haven’t done that heavy lifting. When they get hit with the costs associated with carbon initiatives, our electrical pricing becomes relatively so much less expensive that we will continue to be able to compete in North American markets far more effectively. It’s very important that we understand that as a result of what we’re doing here, it doesn’t affect the price of electricity. In fact, our modelling suggests that it will result in a very slight downward pressure on electricity pricing.

Speaker, we will be taking robust action on climate change that will not be weakening our economy. We can look to California to see the impact of what implementing cap-and-trade has on the economy, because cap-and-trade has been very good for that state’s economy. During the past two years, California’s overall economic growth was higher than the national average, and the state’s green economy grew even faster. California added almost half a million jobs—3.3% growth, compared to the national average growth rate of only 2.5%—and they have a carbon economy.

They are the largest jurisdiction in the US to have implemented a carbon economy, and it’s working for them. Gross domestic product increased by over 2%, breaking the link between emissions and economic growth. What’s good for the environment in carbon pricing is actually good for the economy.

What’s more, California has received more clean technology venture capital since the signing of its Global Warming Solutions Act in 2006. Between 2006 and 2013, clean technology venture capital investments were $21 billion in California, versus only $19 billion in the entire rest of the United States of America. In essence, California has cornered the market on green economy investment. This is a very important piece to take note of, because Ontario is positioning itself to be in exactly the same place.

Carbon pricing has also been good for British Columbia’s economy. According to a recent review by Duke University and the University of Ottawa, BC’s carbon tax has been an economic and environmental success. Models suggest that taxes reduced emissions in the province by 5% to 15%. At the same time, the model shows that the taxes had negligible effects on aggregate economic performance, though certain emissions types have faced some challenges. Studies reviewed differed on the effects of the carbon tax initiative, but agreed the effects are very small.

There are more examples of successful carbon pricing across North America. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is a market-based regulatory program by nine northeastern states in the US, and its purpose is to cap and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity generation sector. Detailed economic modelling of the initiative’s second three-year compliance period found that the program generated a net economic benefit of US$1.3 billion for the region over this period.

Who wouldn’t want to get on this train? We’re going to be creating jobs, creating economic wealth and developing technologies in Ontario, for Ontario, by Ontarians. Proceeds during the three-year period were nearly US$1 billion, and the large majority of this was reinvested by states in programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. Speaker, we talk about carbon leakage, which I know is an issue of great concern to the opposition parties. Leakage refers to the risk that a business would leave a jurisdiction with carbon pricing and set up in a jurisdiction without carbon pricing. Carbon leakage is a concern not just for the economy, but also for the environment, because it just moves greenhouse emissions to a different jurisdiction rather than helping reduce them. We all know the motive: Think globally but act locally. Because global carbon emissions don’t know trade boundaries and don’t know political boundaries, emissions in the US are just as bad for us as emissions in Ontario.

It is in every Ontarian’s interest to have a strong, healthy, clean and robust industrial and manufacturing sector, so the province is now going to provide some free allowances to industries to help them transition to low-carbon technology while they reduce their greenhouse gas pollution. A number of allowances, determined by a declining cap, are not affected if a portion is provided free instead of being sold. It is our way of providing proper balance to assist industry with the transformation that has to happen.

Ontario’s proposed approach to cap-and-trade strikes the right balance between reducing greenhouse pollution and fostering economic growth. If costs and timelines of implementing cap-and-trade are too onerous, companies will move production to facilities outside the province. We recognize it and we’re taking steps to ensure that doesn’t happen.

Our approach is very consistent with how California and Quebec successfully phased in their cap-and-trade programs. During the first compliance period, the province will assess its approach to providing free allowances in subsequent phases of the program. I know that under Ontario’s cap-and-trade program design options, fuel suppliers will not receive allowances free of charge. Ontario is only proposing free allowances for business and industries that are emissions-intensive and that are trade-exposed.

Household costs are of great concern to all Ontarians. I’ve spoken a bit about it in the home renovation program. Let me just say more, though. Ontarians will want to know about the potential impact. While prices of some things such as home heating and gas could increase, Ontarians will take advantage of climate-change-fighting initiatives such as energy retrofits, public transit and electrical vehicle incentives, and this will actually see that their overall costs will go down.

The cost of buying a Chevy Volt is I think about $19,000, and under the program, it’s my understanding that upwards of $14,000 will be provided to someone buying a Chevy Volt. So you can go out and get yourself a $5,000 brand new car because it’s emissions-free. People should think about that. If you want to trade in your old gas clunker, your big pickup truck—

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I think you better check your numbers.

Mr. Arthur Potts: I’ll check my numbers on that, but that’s my understanding.

At the very least, we do know that if you’re going to buy an electric vehicle, a good portion of that expenditure will be covered off by the proceeds of our cap-and-trade system.

Ontario is investing $31 billion into a plan that will, among other things, make public transit an easier and more convenient option for people. We are also putting in place infrastructure to make cycling in our communities safer and more convenient. I know that’s of great interest to my colleague from the town of—

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: Burlington.

Mr. Arthur Potts: Burlington. I was going to say Brampton.

Drivers will also receive incentives to buy electric vehicles. Those who drive electric vehicles will be able to cut down their commute times by having unrestricted access to high-occupancy vehicle lanes no matter how many passengers are in the vehicle. It’s important also to note that recent trends in gas prices have decreased fuel costs so that between 2014 and 2016, average prices in Ontario have decreased by 34 cents per litre. We’re adding 4.3 on the estimates of what it will cost suppliers—not a huge amount compared to where gas prices were two years ago.

Through the Green Investment Fund, Ontario is committing $100 million to help about 37,000 homeowners conduct audits to identify energy saving opportunities and then complete those retrofits.

I talked to you about the happy story in my house. Actually, there’s another happy story in my house. In the course of finishing my renovation, I discovered that the federal government has an HST rebate program based on substantial renovations of the house, particularly where you’re bringing in all these energy retrofits. So I will be able to qualify for an HST rebate, maxed out at about $16,000. I’m very pleased with that initiative. Its motive is in the right place: to encourage people to fix their homes up and make them more energy efficient.

The Ontario program will help house owners replace furnaces and water heaters and upgrade insulation. It will also help spur innovation and create jobs in clean energy industries, for instance in ground-source heat pumps.

The province is also investing $92 million to retrofit social housing buildings and single-family homes. The retrofits could include installing energy-efficient boilers, insulating walls, mechanical systems and installing more energy-efficient windows and lighting. Businesses and consumers that take no action and continue to pollute will spend more on things like transportation, fuels and natural gas, while those who take steps to reduce emissions will avoid cost increases for carbon pricing.

The money raised through cap-and-trade will be invested in a transparent way into programs that further reduce greenhouse gas pollution, such as public transit, families consuming less energy, and helping factories and businesses reduce greenhouse gas pollution.

We can now look at the experience of consumers in Quebec and California following the introduction of cap-and-trade legislation in those jurisdictions. It’s estimated that the price of gas increased between two and three and a half cents a litre in California and Quebec due to their programs. While these jurisdictions have not seen significant increases in natural gas prices, we are sensitive to the cost and we are working hard to deliver a program that works for consumers and industry.

Mr. Speaker, I’d like to address the potential impacts to industry under cap-and-trade. Facilities covered directly by a cap-and-trade program will not have to purchase allowances for the natural gas that they use. As I mentioned, our analysts anticipate a slight increase in the cost of natural gas and transportation fuel when the program is implemented. However, recent trends in prices have decreased, leaving industry fuel costs significantly reduced. Putting a price on greenhouse gas pollution is about encouraging businesses and consumers to pollute less by reducing their reliance on carbon-intensive programs.

Our proposed legislation builds on consultation with industry, businesses, environmental and indigenous leaders across the province and the public on how to best combat climate change and implement a cap-and-trade program. As a first step towards the development of Ontario’s Climate Change Strategy, the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change released a discussion paper in February 2015 proposing a path forward and guiding principles. We engaged Ontarians in a province-wide dialogue. The ministry held 15 community stakeholder dialogues across the province, with more than 1,200 individuals and 200 businesses and organizations attending.

The province also held a series of engagements with First Nations and Métis organizations. We received over 31,000 submissions through an online consultation tool, as well as over 500 comments on the discussion papers. We know we’ve been out to the public. We’ve got their feedback. The polling that has been done that I referenced earlier shows that the public wants us to take concerted action on climate change, and we’ve consulted with them.

So I go back to my initial plea to all members of this House that we rise up in unanimity to the concept of putting forward this cap-and-trade legislation, that we seek the intelligence of all members of this House through your consultations in your own communities on how we can make it better. I challenge every member, on the other side of the House particularly, to give us workable solutions that fall in line with the general principles of what we’re trying to do, because it’s the right thing to do, and it’s the right thing to do now.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Questions and comments?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: It’s a pleasure to offer a balanced approach to the tax—pardon me, a Freudian slip—cap-and-trade scheme that this Liberal government is introducing, because the fact of the matter is, we’ve heard from stakeholders left, right and centre about their concerns.

I think it’s pretty rich that the member opposite is focusing and suggesting that the cost of electricity will not go up. We all know that when turbines are not turning in Ontario, natural gas plants—remember the gas plant scandal—are to replace and help out in peak demand, and if you don’t think they’re going to pass that cost of production along the value chain to the end consumer, you are sorely mistaken.

I really want to touch on, in my two minutes, something that’s very important to discuss, and that is the notion that this government would dare suggest that anyone other than themselves isn’t going to do the right thing around climate change. This is where we stand up and say, stop the partisan ways, because we all know climate change is a very serious issue. But guess what? The methodology and the path forward is where we will divide, Speaker.

We feel that we need to point out all that is wrong with the Liberal cap-and-trade scheme while balancing the importance of addressing climate change and making sure we listen and consult with stakeholders so that we get it right. We need to care for the environment, absolutely, but in doing so, in tandem we’re also going to be treating Ontarians and Ontario businesses fairly, and that is the paramount focus for us.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Michael Mantha: It’s always a joy to stand in my place on behalf of the good people of Algoma–Manitoulin and hear the comments from the member from Beaches–East York. I’m very pleased to hear that he goes out and talks to his constituents, as he should. As an elected member—there are 107 of us who are here—it’s always a privilege being here, and the day we forget that is the day it’s time to step away from this place.

A good friend of mine, who served in previous years as a minister and a good representative and MPP for the Algoma riding, as it was then, Mr. Bud Wildman, jumped into my mind this morning. He used to always tease me about using a phrase. I will call a canard on you, my friend, because of some of the stuff that you brought up this morning. You used words like “optimization” and “modernization,” as far as what happened with Hydro One. I am sorry; we have different words that we use in northern Ontario in order to describe what the Liberal government did with that, some of them which are not going to go on the record this morning.

But I just want to let you know some of the engagements that I have had with people from across Algoma–Manitoulin. You talked about having options available to you and to your constituents in your area. Let me talk to you about the options that we have in northern Ontario, particularly with the cap-and-trade that is being imposed. We have always requested that it be fair, that it be transparent, and that it be equitable across the province for people.

Let me talk to you about the options that we have. First, we don’t have an option for transit in northern Ontario. Second, we don’t have GO trains. The trains that we had, you took them away. The rail that was there is no longer there, and the bus routes are being reduced by 50%. Those are the options that you’ve taken away from northern Ontario. So when you look at options and when you look at the increases in fuel prices, home expenses and everything, that’s the message that’s coming to me. That’s a reality for people in northern Ontario.

They are not connected to this budget. I am very sorry but you need to listen—as well as being part of government—to the rest of the province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: I’m delighted to take

part in this vigorous conversation this morning about a very important issue; in fact, arguably the most important issue facing humanity right now: climate change. I’m delighted to follow my colleague, the very knowledgeable member from Beaches–East York, and to join the member from Huron–Bruce and the member from Algoma–Manitoulin.

The last member, from Algoma–Manitoulin, was talking about things that we can embrace together. At least, that’s what I took from your comments. I know that he is a vigorous supporter of a cycling network in Ontario because in his very riding there are upgrades to same.

Of course, I’m proud to not only have been a cycling advocate prior to arriving in this place, but to have worked to develop the #CycleON strategy. My colleague, my neighbour here, the member for Cambridge and the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation, led a conversation yesterday among cycling groups and the Ministry of Transportation about the vigorous and continued investment that’s going to be required in our province to make cycling easier and more convenient.

Right now, of course, 135,000 people a day, according to estimates, are riding their bicycles in the city of Toronto, and over 600,000 Ontarians, which represents an incredible opportunity for us to give people options about the way they travel every single day, but also to contribute in a very personal way to their own health, to a more connected community, and, of course, to lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Cycling is not all about the carbon economy, but the carbohydrate economy. Lowering our consumption of both is an important contribution that cycling makes. I look forward to that continued conversation.

If I may, one last quick point, Speaker: As a former employee of Petro-Canada, I was proud to see the oil industry taking a lead in conversations out west after an announcement by the Alberta government, in fact, in November. They are showing innovation, and our companies here are going to do exactly the same.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Steve Clark: I am pleased to provide a couple of minutes of comment on the member’s speech regarding Bill 172. I agree with my colleague from Huron–Bruce. Climate change is a very serious issue and it needs a very serious response from the government.

Specifically on their cap-and-trade plan, I don’t know of anyone who has faith in this government to administer a $1.9-billion fund that, for all purposes, will be used for their waste, their mismanagement and their scandals. This is a government that, in the speech today, talks about working with other parties, but in a by-election we just had in Whitby–Oshawa, specifically, they fraudulently tried to tell voters in that riding that the opposition parties would bring back coal plants, which is, again, a categorically false statement.

On the one hand, they say that we should work together—if they really meant that, we should all celebrate the closing of the coal plants equally and we should all work towards measures that would reduce emissions.

In his lead speech today, the member opposite talked over and over, glowingly, about the British Columbia system, yet this government’s plan is nowhere near like the British Columbia system. When he talks about the fact that citizens get credits back from the government through tax credits—this bill does not include any measures that are similar to British Columbia’s. Here you’ve got a situation where the government is going to collect funds on the backs of drivers in my riding. I have no Leeds–Grenville transit system. Gas is going to go up, both natural gas and gasoline.

Again, what is this fund going to be used for? Is it for your pet projects or is it actually going to be for something that’s going to benefit the province?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member from Beaches–East York for final comments.

Mr. Arthur Potts: It gives me great pleasure to respond to the comments. I appreciate very much that people were listening. It’s such an important first step, that people are hearing what we’re saying on this side.

What I think I heard from the member from Huron–Bruce and, to some extent, the member from Leeds–Grenville is an acknowledgement that something has to be done and should be done. I think that’s a fantastic change. When the member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell brought a motion not too many months ago to discuss exactly this issue, only six members of the opposition party showed up to support the measure. I’m delighted to hear that there are voices within the party opposite that are looking to support this initiative.

Yes, maybe we want to go down a route of product performance standards as opposed to the assessment program we’re using now; I don’t know. I would love to get more positive feedback. We know that in BC, yes, that was the approach there. But BC, per dollar being spent, isn’t getting nearly as fast a carbon reduction as they are getting in California, as we will get in Ontario, as they’re getting in Quebec. Cap-and-trade forces industry,

whereas the BC program is far more premised on a voluntary compliance kind of model. Those were the consultations we went out on. That was the feedback we got: that in fact it’s better to do cap-and-trade because you can guarantee your carbon reductions.

I also want to respond to the member from Algoma–Manitoulin. Bud Wildman was a great guy. I had the pleasure of being on Toronto Islands when Bud Wildman was the Minister of the Environment, test driving the very first Mazda Miata hydrogen-powered car. I actually set up the whole event, because I had an involvement. Bud was an incredible guy and a very good promoter of the environment, and I’m glad to hear him referenced.

Of course, my friend from Burlington—and the response back to the member from Algoma is that you don’t want to ride your bikes to work, you can’t do that, but maybe four-stroke motors on all the boats taking fishers out on the lake would be a great start rather than the two-strokes, which are much more polluting.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): It’s now close to 10:15. This House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise today to introduce Phil Holst, from the great riding of Oxford. Phil is here at Queen’s Park today with his colleagues from Ducks Unlimited. Welcome, Phil, to this morning’s session.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I’m very pleased to introduce my brother Frank Chiarelli and his wife, Marg, who are the proud grandparents of Ottawa page Julia Robertson.

I want to introduce Frances Robertson, proud grandmother of Julia Robertson, and also Maria Chiarelli and Glenn Robertson, mother and father of Julia Robertson.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, I want to say, with respect to my brother Frank, he is the proud father of Peter Chiarelli, who was the GM of Stanley Cup winners the Boston Bruins, and now is general manager of the Edmonton Oilers.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): In the cause of fairness, I’ll turn to the member from Nepean–Carleton.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Thank you very much, Speaker. Just to echo the Minister of Energy, who represents Ottawa West–Nepean, I’d like to welcome his family from Nepean–Carleton to this esteemed chamber.

I would like to let them know that I had lunch with Julia last week. She’s an incredible young lady, and I see her doing well in life. Maybe, just maybe, I’ll actually make a Conservative out of a Chiarelli sometime in the near future.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The battle is on.

The member from Hamilton Mountain, are you introducing or resting? Okay, thank you.

The Minister of Immigration.

Hon. Michael Chan: I would like to introduce to the House a number of my wonderful locally engaged staff and some of the senior economic officers. Their dedicated work in our international trade offices around the world is invaluable. It is my pleasure to have them join us in the House later on today.

Hon. Bill Mauro: I’d like to welcome Ducks Unlimited to Queen’s Park today. I had a good meeting this morning with Lynette Mader, their head of provincial operations; Owen Steele, the manager of conservation programs; and Angus Norman, their volunteer.

I remind all members that there is a reception this evening in the dining room with Ducks Unlimited from 4:30 to 7 o’clock. I hope to see everybody there this evening.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s my pleasure today to introduce the family of page Delaney Mastronardi. Present in the public gallery this morning are her mother, Rima Mastronardi; her father, Domenic Mastronardi; her sister, and a former page of about four years ago, Domenique Mastronardi; and her aunt, Rolla Reid. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Chris Ballard: I’m absolutely delighted to welcome, in the public gallery, students from the Académie de la Moraine, located in my riding of Aurora. Welcome.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: I’d like to welcome three of my constituents from Barrie: Kevin Rich, Mike Williams and Kristen Wozniak are here today with Ducks Unlimited, one of our nation’s foremost conservation organizations.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: It is a great honour for me to introduce Zainab Abu Alrob, who is here in the gallery. She is an intern at Ryerson and will be working with us in our office for one of her classes.

Hon. Dipika Damerla: I’m delighted to introduce the mother of today’s page captain. Suzanne Uraiqat is today’s page captain. She’s from the riding of Mississauga East–Cooksville. Her mother, Raja Rayyan, is in the public gallery. We welcome her.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Visiting us today in the Speaker’s gallery is an award-winning producer, writer, comedian and performer, a friend and a member of the Order of Ontario: Mr. Rick Green. Please join me in welcoming Rick Green to the House.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): He’s a fairly funny guy.

Oral Questions

Ontario budget

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. I would like to ask a question today from Global’s Alan Carter, aka Queen’s Park’s very own anchorman. I ask because he couldn’t get a straight answer from this government last week during the budget scrum. He asked, “If you drive a car, heat your home with natural gas, you are going to pay more, correct? There will be less money for people at home, correct? There will be less money in their pocket at the end of the day.”

Is this correct? Does this budget mean less money for families at the end of the day? We believe Alan deserved an answer.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let’s talk about—

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Tell Alan. Just tell Alan.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, I think Alan is perfectly capable of asking his own questions.

Let me just talk about what is in this budget that is supporting people. Quite frankly, there are enormous supports. I was at a high school this morning, at Jarvis Collegiate, and we talked about the reality that students who live in families who are low-income right through to middle-income are going to get more support for tuition. They’re going to have more access to post-secondary, Mr. Speaker. That transformation of student assistance—free tuition for low-income families and more affordable tuition for middle-class families—is incredibly important across the province.

We are continuing to lower auto insurance rates. We are eliminating the $30 Drive Clean emissions fee. We’re lowering hospital parking fees for approximately 900,000 patients and visitors—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: If the tax increases weren’t enough, this budget increases virtually every government service fee. Fees for driver and vehicle licensing are going up. Camping in provincial parks, fishing and hunting licences just got more expensive. Everything from liquor licences to event permits for charity fundraisers will cost people more. And the kicker is that it’s not a one-time increase. Fees will go up every year under this Liberal government.

Is there not a single person, family, charity or business that you won’t take more money from to pay for your years of waste and mismanagement?

Interjections.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I think the answer is no.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m not enamoured by some of the comments I’m hearing and so I’m going to start ratcheting up my role here, if it’s necessary. Please keep those comments civil.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, it is quite something, and I know that the Leader of the Opposition might not be aware of this, but for many years his party was very adamant that we should look at the Drummond report, that we should look at what Don Drummond said to us about good government and responsible fiscal management. We continue to implement many of the recommendations that Don Drummond gave us. He might want to check with his colleagues about that.

Let me go through, again, the changes that we are making that are going to support families in this province. I talked about free tuition. The biggest investment in infrastructure in Ontario’s history: We’re in the third year of our $160-billion investment. That creates 110,000 jobs a year. Surely, the Leader of the Opposition would agree that having a job is a pretty important part of having a high-quality life in the province.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: There is no one in the province that won’t pay more because of your mistakes, because of Liberal mistakes. If you drive a car, you’ll pay more. If you heat your home with gas, you’ll pay more. If you fish or hunt, you’ll pay more. If you are a senior with medication—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Natural Resources.

Mr. Patrick Brown: —you’ll pay more. If you’re a charity hosting—

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

The moment I say “Come to order,” you continue. Don’t go for two.

Please.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, fundamentally this budget makes life more expensive for everyone in Ontario. What has happened to this Premier’s compassion? Why is she making life so much harder for everyone in Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, Mr. Speaker, again, let me just reinforce what I have said already, that there are many ways in this budget that we are supporting and lowering costs for families. Seniors between the ages of 65 and 70 will be able to get—

Hon. Deborah Matthews: It’s 65 and 70.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Sixty-five and 70, that’s what I said—will be able to get the shingles vaccine for free. We’re dedicating $100 million to help 37,000 homeowners conduct audits in order to reduce their energy bills. As I’ve said, we’re eliminating the $30 Drive Clean emissions fee. We’re providing $650,000 in matching funding with the Ontario Chamber of Commerce to support an innovative program for high school students that will help them with financial literacy education.

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General noted in 2009 that Ontario’s service fees per capita are among the lowest in Canada. That’s the reality. That’s what we’re dealing with as we continue to support families of the province.

Northern Ontario

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is to the Premier. This government has no credibility in northern Ontario. The Liberals say that they value northern Ontario, but not once did the Minister of Finance mention the north, northern Ontario or the Ring of Fire during his actual budget speech. This is the third straight budget that in the budget fine print, they have reannounced funding for the Ring of Fire; it’s a reannouncement of a reannouncement. But despite three years of these announcements, there is not a shovel in the ground or a single dollar spent.

Will the Premier stop paying lip service to northern Ontario? Will she finally invest in the Ring of Fire? Will she finally stand up and invest in northern Ontario?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: You know, I believe that the students who live in northern Ontario will be able to access free tuition as easily as students who live in southern Ontario.

Let me talk, Mr. Speaker, about the $550 million in northern infrastructure through the northern highways program: four-lane expansion of Highway 69 south of Sudbury and Highway 11/17 east of Thunder Bay; rehabilitation of the Noden Causeway near Fort Frances; resurfacing of 36 kilometres of Highway 144; and replacement of the Valentine River Bridge.

Let me talk about the $300 million a year to support projects in rural and northern communities through the Ontario—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Don’t encourage anyone else.

You have a 10-second wrap-up, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —through the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund for rural and northern communities.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: The only news that government is making in northern Ontario is their Sudbury by-election scandal.

This budget ignores the importance of the north. Let me quote Nathan Lawrence, the president of the Northwestern Ontario Associated Chambers of Commerce, when he told the pre-budget hearings that “there is a significant component of our northern region that is inaccessible through transportation, through electricity and other means of infrastructure.”

For a government that can’t say a sentence without mentioning their commitment to infrastructure, the development of northern infrastructure seems to be missing from this budget. The Liberals already cut part of the north when the Nipigon bridge failed.

Is their lack of funding a plan to cut off northern Ontario? Will you support northern infrastructure, yes or no?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The premise of the Leader of the Opposition’s question is ridiculous. The fact is, the investments we’re making in infrastructure are across the province. I just talked about $550 million in northern infrastructure—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You don’t know when I’m going to call you to attention when I’m asking for quiet.

Please finish, Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think that the Leader of the Opposition could talk to the folks at the Atikokan General Hospital, where the renovation of the acute and long-term-care beds is taking place. He could talk to the folks at the Alexander Henry High School in Sault Ste. Marie, where $8 million is going to retrofit that school.

Mr. Steve Clark: He could talk to the nurses in Thunder Bay who are closing down their practice.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Leeds–Grenville.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: He could talk to the folks at Confederation College in Thunder Bay where a new technology, education and collaboration hub is happening. He could talk to the people who are involved in the 6,956 projects that have been supported by $1 billion through the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund.

He could have a conversation with all of those folks and understand the investments that this government has made in northern infrastructure.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m standing.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: The question the Premier called ridiculous was actually a quote from the Northwestern Ontario Associated Chambers of Commerce. It’s nice that that’s the way you treat northern Ontario. You can dismiss northern Ontario, you can dismiss their concerns, but the reality is, look at the pre-budget hearings. Your finance minister may not want to pay attention to the pre-budget hearings but you should pay attention.

New Liskeard, in the pre-budget hearings, reported that they had to close their operating room for 50% of the time because one in 10 of their staff got cut. Timmins was forced to cut 26 beds, close their physio and fire 40 staff. And in the Soo, they had to cut 50 beds in acute and complex care. That being said, there is nothing in this budget for northern Ontario except for reduced health care and a higher cost of living.

Why has this Premier continued to, again and again—

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

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I was not in any way commenting on the remarks of people from the north, Mr. Speaker. I was—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Energy.

Please finish.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I was challenging the premise of the question from the Leader of the Opposition. This is a member who sat in the Harper government for nine years. We have had $1 billion invested in the Ring of Fire. There was no support—

Interjections.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —anything to do with the north or the Ring of Fire. We have made investments in the northern economy and we will continue to do so.

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Premier. It sounds like the Premier realized her plan to make most seniors pay more for medication was a mistake. Will the Premier acknowledge that we should be expanding prescription drug coverage and protecting universal access to health care, not cutting back the coverage that seniors need?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member opposite knows perfectly well—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington will come to order and the member from Prince Edward–Hastings will come to order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —that the changes that we made in terms of the Ontario drug benefit were intended to and will increase support for 170,000 seniors, who will now not have to pay any deductible for their prescription drugs. That’s 170,000 seniors who will have more support and will have more access. That was the intention and that is what will happen as a result of the changes we’re making.

I acknowledged yesterday that, as the regulation is out for consultation now in terms of the threshold for the seniors who will be asked to pay a bit more on their deductible—that consultation is out, and if we can come to an agreement that that threshold should be changed, we’re open to doing that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: A senior in Ontario living on $19,500 will see their drug costs nearly double under this Liberal budget. Yesterday, the Premier said, “If we didn’t get it right, then we will make a change,” like she just said earlier.

Will the Premier admit today that if she didn’t get it right, she will commit today to changing it?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Minister of Health wants to weigh in on this, but I just want to make it clear what’s happening here. The third party came to a conclusion. I came to the same conclusion. The third party said, “This is what we think should happen.” I said, “I’ve reached that conclusion. I agree with you. We should be open to making this change.” Now they are saying, “Are you going to do this?”

I said yesterday that we were going to have the regulation out for consultation. We’re open to making the change. I would suggest they’re having a hard time taking yes for an answer.

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

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: The issue is about this consultation. Listen: The Premier shouldn’t need another series of consultations to figure out that doubling drug costs for seniors living on $19,500 is not right.

Will the Premier commit today, admit that she was wrong and cancel her plan to double drug costs for most seniors in this province?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Quite frankly, I can’t understand why the member opposite can’t take yes for an answer—

Mr. Paul Miller: Half a cup is no good; we want a full cup.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, come to order.

Mr. Mike Colle: He should be in his right seat, too. Get over there.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Eglinton–Lawrence, come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member will get a second time if he continues to, first, speak while I get him to pay attention and, second, speak while I’m standing.

Finish, please.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I can’t understand why the member opposite is not interested in the fact that 170,000 more low-income seniors are going to pay no drug costs on an annual basis, and 30,000 more each and every year.

The member opposite hasn’t acknowledged that our out-of-pocket drug costs for seniors in this province are by far the lowest in the entire country. In fact, our average out-of-pocket drug costs for seniors are $277 a year. The next closest province is over $600. There are provinces that are over $1,000.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): New question.

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: The question is to the Premier again. Yesterday, the Premier said that she needed more consultation to figure out if it was the wrong decision to nearly double the drug costs for seniors living on $19,500. Well, it’s clear. I can tell you the answer: That’s the wrong decision. You don’t need a consultation to tell you that. Anyone who doesn’t get that is out of touch with the reality that most people and most seniors face.

Will the Premier commit today to cancel her plan to double the medication costs for most seniors living in Ontario?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: The member opposite knows we’re not planning to double the costs to our seniors. The Premier has been crystal clear: As we put this forward for consultation, as we draw in an additional 170,000 of the lowest-income seniors who will no longer have to pay any annual deductible, as we post the regulations for consultations, we will look at all seniors and how it impacts them.

The Premier is very open to having that conversation. I would hope that the member opposite would be part of that conversation as we determine what’s best for our seniors, but I’m disappointed that he refuses to acknowledge that those 170,000 of the poorest of the poor seniors under our plan will no longer have to pay any annual deductible.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Ensuring that seniors can afford medication means keeping seniors healthy. It means less time in the hospital and more time for seniors to enjoy what they’ve earned. It also means fewer worries—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Deputy House leader, second time.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: —about how they’ll pay those bills.

Will the Premier, again, commit today that come this summer, seniors will be able to afford their medication costs?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Let me talk about some of the other things that we’re doing for our seniors in this budget: for example, the additional $250 million that we’re investing in home and community care to benefit our seniors; the $75 million over the next three years in community-based, residential hospice and palliative care—we’ve heard nothing about that from the member opposite or his party; the 170,000 more seniors who will pay no annual deductible; and the shingles vaccine provided free of charge, a $170 value to each and every senior between the ages of 65 and 70.

We’re removing the debt retirement charge, which will save seniors on average $70 a year. There’s a new $10 million in behavioural supports for seniors in long-term-care homes who are suffering from dementia. That’s 10 million more dollars to support those individuals.

The list is long. I’m happy to talk further in the final supplementary.

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

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Doubling the cost of medication for most seniors in this province is a huge mistake. I hope the Premier understands that. She shouldn’t need yet another consultation to tell her what everybody already knows, that doubling the drug cost for seniors, without consultation, without warning, without even asking them, was a mistake.

Will the Premier ensure that Ontarians won’t have to pay for her mistake?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: The member knows that our drug program hasn’t been updated in 20 years. We decided that we would actually bring 170,000 more of the lowest-income seniors into the category which allows them to pay no annual deductible at all—to go from $100 deductible annually down to zero dollars. I would hope, at least, that the old NDP would have supported that kind of measure. The new NDP has chosen not to reference that whatsoever. It’s not a doubling that we propose; it’s increasing that deductible from $100 to $170.

The Premier has been absolutely crystal clear. She’s willing to work with the opposition parties. You’ve come up with no suggestions. I know you want to spend more and more and more money. We have an incredible drug program in this province. We need to make sure that we get it right for all seniors. That’s the commitment that our Premier and this government make. We’ll do that as we go forward with consultations.

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is to the Premier. We’re now seeing the effects of your government bringing forth a budget without proper consultation. Seniors were shocked to hear that, on top of higher hydro rates and driver’s licence fees, the prescription drug costs will double. Three quarters of Ontario seniors will be affected by this drug cost increase. However, seniors were not consulted. In fact, even the Ontario Pharmacists Association was taken aback by this decision.

Consultation should take place before the budget is released. This totally exemplifies your government’s total mismanagement of our province. Premier, could you not have taken the time to sit down and consult with seniors prior to this budget release?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I have to repeat that 170,000 of the lowest-income seniors in this province are going to be joining approximately 300,000 who already pay no annual deductible because they can’t afford to. We’re going to have almost half a million seniors in this province who will pay that co-payment of $2 or less because many pharmacists will waive that cost, and they will pay no annual deductible. It will go from $100 down to zero dollars.

I would hope that even a party such as the Conservative Party would support that measure, Mr. Speaker. I would hope that the NDP would support that measure, where we’re providing significant support to those who need it most. As we go forward, we’ve committed to looking to see how it impacts all seniors, and we’re open to good suggestions.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Back to the Premier: You should have looked at what the impact is going to be on all seniors prior to going forward with this budget.

Your government and Minister of Finance were quick to release this budget, so quick that you forgot to include Ontarians in consultations. Our seniors, who are the most vulnerable of our society, should have a say in what’s happening in our province. I would have thought your government would have learned to consult after they embarrassed themselves over the smoking of medical marijuana just a few months ago.

Yesterday, you said that you’d like to get it right for seniors. Why didn’t you properly consult with seniors before the budget release?

You’re making life unaffordable for seniors. Seniors now will pay more for energy, seniors cannot access long-term-care beds, seniors will pay double for their prescription costs, and seniors still cannot get their knee or hip replaced in January, February or March of each and every year. Premier, why are you failing seniors?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: It begs repeating the measures that we’ve announced in this year’s budget that will benefit our seniors. I didn’t get an opportunity when I was providing that list to the NDP to reference as well the additional investments we’re making in long-term care—a 2% increase over the next three years.

We’re already in an environment where Ontario, by far, by a long shot, is more generous than any other province or jurisdiction in Canada.

Hospital funding

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. Patients and their families were hopeful with this year’s budget, and so was I. But seven straight years of squeezing hospitals with base funding below inflation will not undo the damage the Liberals have done to health care in Ontario.

Page 116 of the budget says, “In 2016-17 the government is increasing its base funding for hospitals by 1%.” That’s less than inflation; 1% is the status quo. It means that the 1,200 nurses who have lost their jobs won’t get their jobs back. It means that the long wait-lists will continue. It means that hospitals will be forced to continue to cut programs, services and jobs.

Why did this Liberal government choose to make life harder for patients in Ontario?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: A 1% increase to the hospital line works out to about $150 million. The member knows that in this budget we’re increasing the hospital line by $345 million. That’s more than 2%. That’s more than the CPI or the rate of inflation. It’s a substantial increase.

I wish I had the quote in front of me from Anthony Dale from the Ontario Hospital Association, but when I was with him yesterday morning at University Health Network with a whole host of patients, their advocates, health care workers and health care professionals from that part of Toronto, they applauded the substantial investment of $345 million and the difference that it would make to patient care and to our hospitals. It was applauded enthusiastically by the head of the Ontario Hospital Association.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: At St. Joseph’s Healthcare in Hamilton, they say that the Liberals’ budget is not going to change anything; they still have to cut $26 million and they still have to lay off 136 workers. Family and front-line workers know better than what you’re trying to say to us.

Patients are suffering with the government cuts. Nurses are being laid off in Windsor, Hamilton, Waterloo and right across the province. Beds have been closed in North Bay and Timmins. Hospitals in Thunder Bay and across the province are so full that they are forced to open beds in hallways and patient lounges, and none of this gets paid for.

When will the Minister of Health realize that Liberal cuts to health care are hurting patients?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: It boggles the mind to understand how a billion-dollar increase in the health care budget this year going forward can be characterized by the third party as somehow being a decrease—a billion dollars more in new funding, $345 million of that going specifically to the hospital line of the budget.

But we’re doing much more: $12 billion over the next 10 years to build and improve existing hospitals—to build new hospitals and renovate existing ones. In fact, that fund that we have annually that helps hospitals with maintenance and renovations, we’re increasing that by an additional $50 million.

We’re investing $85 million in our nurses through our nurse practitioners, in our community health centres, in our family health teams—hopefully they would support that—and $75 million as well to fund 20 more hospices, to increase funding to hospices. There are so many positive investments for our health care system. I don’t understand how that can possibly add up to anything but good news.

Health care funding

Ms. Daiene Vernile: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Our health care budget is increasing every year, and in the 2016 budget you see this confirmed. We see an increase of $1 billion this year, to a total of $51.8 billion. In my riding of Kitchener Centre and in greater Waterloo region, I recently met with hospital CEOs, LHIN representatives and doctors, who are very pleased to see increases in our local funding.

As our population ages, we need to ensure that our system is ready to care for our seniors. With health equity as a top priority in the minister’s Patients First: Action Plan for Health Care, it is very important to address health care for our most vulnerable. Can the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care please tell this House what the government is doing to support Ontarians through health care investments?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Well, at risk of repeating myself, let me start with a couple of quotes from individuals who I think, as it pertains to our hospitals, have a tremendous amount of credibility.

Anthony Dale, who is the president and CEO of the Ontario Hospital Association, his quote about our budget: “This investment will go to support front-line care and help to keep wait times low, maintain access to elective surgery and ensure that important health service programs are maintained.” Or, if that’s not enough, the Council of Academic Hospitals of Ontario, so all the hospitals across the province, the teaching hospitals that do such great teaching and research: “The Council of Academic Hospitals of Ontario ... welcomes the commitments in the 2016 Ontario budget for an investment in Ontario’s hospitals, and its overall focus on fostering innovation and building prosperity.” We know it’s much more than just our hospitals; it’s also that transformation that we’re undertaking.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Daiene Vernile: I’d like to thank the minister for his response. I know, in particular, that at St. Mary’s hospital in my riding of Kitchener Centre the staff and the management there were very happy to learn about the investment. But we know that health care extends beyond hospitals, and that’s why our government is continuing to increase funding for home and community care by $250 million this year.

A few years ago when my mother had surgery for breast cancer, she was very anxious to leave the hospital to go home, where she wanted to recover, and she was able to do so with excellent CCAC care that followed. I sat on the pre-budget consultations, we toured the province, and there were repeated calls for expansion to hospice care. Now we’re doubling our investment in community-based hospice and palliative care to $155 million over three years. Can the minister please tell this House what the government is doing to make life easier for those who need end-of-life care?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’m very proud of the investment that we’re making in palliative care and end-of-life care. It’s an investment we’re augmenting; we’re putting in an additional $75 million, for a total of $155 million over the next three years. It’s in response to what is such an appropriate measure to take, an appropriate support to provide individuals and their loved ones at that very difficult and challenging part of anyone’s life. It has resulted, I think, in a response even from members of this Legislature, although of course if they’re in the opposition they would refrain from saying it here. Let me quote the member from—Vic Fedeli. I’m sorry, the member from—

Interjection: Nipissing.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Nipissing. I apologize for saying his name. From the member from Nipissing: “I was really pleased to see the hospice money come through. We have a hospice in North Bay and it’s such a huge need.... When I saw that, I thought that was excellent. And the autism money. I sat in my office when I met with constituents and they’re just at the end of the road. And so those two initiatives I thought were well announced.”

These are the types of things—

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

New question.

Ontario budget

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the Premier. Last week’s budget was her government’s ninth straight deficit. They have more than doubled the debt. We have a larger debt than all other provinces combined. We have the largest subnational debt in the entire world, forcing their government—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. If you don’t respond, it makes it easier for me to get there. Thank you.

Finish, please.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: They’ve made servicing the debt and the deficit the third-largest spending priority of their government. That puts our future generations at risk. I said that last week. It takes money intended for health care and education and gives it toward paying off the debt.

You don’t have to take my word for it. Even the Toronto Star said this past week that the Liberal plan “leaves Ontario’s poorest children behind.” Not only is this budget a fiscal train wreck; it makes life more difficult for everyday families.

For active middle-class families, it’s just as bad. They are taking money, namely for the children’s activity tax credit, which helps moms and dads give their kids a hand up. I would like to know why this government is trying to take that away and making a bigger burden for mothers and fathers.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, as usual, it’s difficult, because there’s no consistency coming from the opposition. I’m not quite sure whether they think we should be spending more or whether we should be spending less.

We’ve got a credible plan to eliminate the deficit, but at the same time, we know that investing in people is important. That’s why the free tuition and the changes to student assistance are so very important for families across the province, particularly low-income and middle-income families.

We’ve been very clear in terms of changes on the tax credits. We were going to look at every line in our spending. We were going to make decisions based on the evidence. So if you look at the children’s activity tax credit, it was not serving its intended purpose. Its intended purpose was to assist lower-income families with enrolment costs. That’s not what it was doing, so we changed that.

We’re going to continue to make those kinds of decisions that reinvest and deliver the outcomes that we know people need.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: If the Premier wants to talk about consistency, she has to look at the last nine budgets her government tabled and see a massive deficit and an even bigger debt that has made Ontario a basket case financially.

The children’s activity tax credit is useful to a lot of mothers and fathers I represent in Riverside South and in Barrhaven. They apply it to their children’s piano lessons and hockey fees, and even to help them tutor as their children progress, sometimes making an otherwise unaffordable activity accessible to that family.

Even Dalton McGuinty, when he brought in the single largest sales tax increase in Ontario’s history, the HST, brought in the tax credit and said, “This is one more way that we can help parents pay for those costs associated with raising healthy, active ... kids.” And now you’re going to cut it when you bring in the single largest gas tax increase in Ontario’s history. What have you got against the next generation?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I want the next generation to be at its very best. That’s why we are making dramatic changes to student assistance in this province.

You know, the member opposite doesn’t get to say “spend more” and “spend less” at the same time. You just don’t get to have it both ways—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We promised the people of Ontario that we were going to go through all of the expenditures in government, and we were going to look at what was working and what wasn’t.

If you look, for example, at the Healthy Homes Renovation Tax Credit, what has happened is that that credit has had significantly lower take-up than we had anticipated and doesn’t provide support to low-income seniors. That’s what it was intended to do. That’s not what it does, so we’re not going to continue with that.

For the research and development tax credit, we’re actually reinvesting the savings from those tax changes into new targeted investments.

So we’ve made decisions based on evidence—

Mr. Steve Clark: Scandals, waste and mismanagement.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Leeds–Grenville, second time.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —so that we can get the outcomes that we know are needed, whether it’s for seniors or low-income families who need support for tuition—

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

New question.

Education funding

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: My question is to the Minister of Education. Last week’s budget clearly indicates that the government isn’t spending $430 million already allocated for education. The minister claims that this is not a cut to education.

Well, Speaker, Ontario families know that less money spent on education amounts to a cut, and cuts always drastically impact our most vulnerable students. The result: Schools in Belleville, Milton and London that provide specialized supports to some of our most vulnerable students with exceptional learning and developmental needs may be forced to close.

Speaker, on this side of the House we believe all children deserve equal access to education. Why is this Minister of Education making life harder for our most vulnerable students?

Hon. Liz Sandals: There are a couple of different issues getting mixed about here. Let’s talk a little bit about provincial schools for a minute, and then we’ll go back to the whole issue of cuts.

Number one, there’s no change in funding, in this budget, that we’ve made to provincial schools. But what we have discovered when we look at the data is that some of the provincial schools have very low enrolment. Some, like the provincial school for the blind in your hometown of Brantford, have a lot of students. The schools for the deaf in Milton and Belleville have quite healthy enrolment. But we have other provincial schools where there are only 11 children left in attendance. We have another provincial school where there are only 19, and the projections for next year are even lower.

At that point, we have a responsibility to look at the programs and figure out how we can best deliver programs for the sake of the children. It has nothing to do with money.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Again to the minister: The minister should know that decreased enrolment does not mean decreased needs. Ontario families are tired of hearing this government scapegoating their underfunding of education, while our most vulnerable students pay the price. This government is taking real dollars out of education and real kids are being impacted.

The potential closure of provincial demonstration schools for students with severe learning disabilities, as well as schools for the deaf, means our most vulnerable kids will be left with few options to gain equal access to an education. We’ve received emails and phone calls from children with unique needs. They are begging this government to not close institutions designed to help them succeed.

Will the minister finally admit that pulling $430 million from education is not in the best interests of students?

Hon. Liz Sandals: In fact, Speaker, we haven’t pulled $430 million out of education funding. If you look at our funding, we have increased funding by $8.1 billion, and that continues to be true.

If you look at the budget documents, you will find that the increase in the budget in my ministry has been 1.2%, on average, each and every year. That’s what the budget document says. That will continue to be the case. We are increasing the funding for education.

For example, she’s trying to tell us that we cut the money last year for schools. Do you know what we did in this year in which we cut money, according to her? We spent $498 million for 30 new schools and for 26 additions and renovations—

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

New question.

Affordable housing

It is my understanding that the minister will develop a new, portable housing benefit which will transform the social housing system. Will the minister explain what this new benefit is and how it will improve the social housing system for my constituents?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the honourable member for the question.

I’m tremendously excited about the infusion of $178 million in new funding in the budget to support housing subsidies and supports.

Regarding the portable housing benefit, the member is right: Once developed, this benefit could have a huge impact in improving the efficiency of social housing in Ontario. At present, Ontarians in need of housing assistance rely on various programs across the province, but this assistance is usually tied to a particular unit. Through a portable housing benefit, support funds would be tied to an eligible household and not to a specific housing unit. This means that when a person moves, the benefits would move with them. This will mean more consistent support and more choice for people in need, as well as more flexibility for those who deliver social and affordable housing.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: I know constituents in Mississauga–Brampton South who rely on housing assistance, as well as our municipal partners, will appreciate this modern, cost-effective way to address the province’s affordable housing challenge.

I have read in the budget that our government has also committed to run a pilot project that will provide this portable housing benefit to those who flee domestic violence. It is a priority for our government that women in Ontario feel safe in their homes and throughout their communities. Through you, Mr. Speaker, will the minister share with this House how this model of housing assistance will help survivors of domestic violence?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Violence against women is a serious problem that cannot and will not be tolerated in Ontario. That’s why our government is taking this action, building on existing efforts to combat gender-based violence as coordinated by the minister responsible for women’s issues. Our government will invest $2.4 million this year in a pilot version of this new portable housing benefit that will focus on those fleeing domestic violence.

We know that these survivors have an acute need for emergency housing. In providing this benefit to survivors, we’re empowering them to make safe living choices with peace of mind that their housing assistance will travel with them wherever they need to go. This is a good step forward, one we’re proud of and one we’re going to pilot. We’re going to evaluate it and see if it has implications for a broader system across Ontario.

Assistance to farmers

Mr. Toby Barrett: To the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs: I see agriculture is mentioned in the budget papers. It’s on page 346, the last page, explaining that after all these years, value-added agriculture is still being assessed at the high-tax, industrial rate.

Where is the assistance for rural natural gas expansion, other than expanding the tax on it? How are far-flung residents of rural and northern Ontario going to deal with the new taxes and fees on home heating and gasoline?

Further to action on climate change, six ministries now have a line item listed as Green Investment Fund initiatives, but not OMAFRA. Farmers also want to help out on climate change. Why has the minister excluded farming from the Green Investment Fund?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank the member from Haldimand–Norfolk this morning for asking a question about agriculture. I mean, we’re very pleased that the finance minister mentioned agriculture several times throughout his budget speech that he delivered last Thursday.

We do know that farmers across the province of Ontario, 52,000 family farms, over 30,000 of them are involved in voluntary environmental farm plans. They will be a significant player as this government reaches its targets for GHGs. We know that Don McCabe, the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture—we look forward to taking those investments that will be generated through our auction of credits to put back into agriculture, which is leading the way and is a real leader in Ontario’s economy today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Toby Barrett: Well, here’s something else we do know: The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs has cut his budget by close to $28 million. That’s a $28-million cut to one of the smallest ministries.

How will this budget cut help farms and agribusinesses that are not getting their requested farm industrial rate for electricity? How will this budget cut help employers and employees who did not request the added costs, fees and taxes on agribusiness? Speaker, the agriculture minister cut his budget from $943 million to $916 million, close to a $28-million cut on this minister’s watch. Why is this?

We know he’s not renewing the $10-million Local Food Fund.

Interjections.

Mr. Toby Barrett: What other agri-food programs will this minister—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Sir, could I—I’m standing. The deputy House leader is warned.

You have one wrap-up for your question.

Mr. Toby Barrett: Thank you, Speaker.

We know you’re not renewing the $10-million Local Food Fund. What other ag and food programs will this minister now be eliminating?

Hon. Jeff Leal: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the supplementary. Just to provide some education to my friend from Haldimand–Norfolk, the great food fund has been moved over to the greenbelt foundation, and the greenbelt foundation, of course, will be used to fund those projects that are just so important to distribute local food in the province of Ontario—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Huron–Bruce, come to order.

Hon. Jeff Leal: With regards, I think the member should take the time to read the budget. The Green Investment Fund is just one tool to help businesses transition to lower GHG emissions right across the province of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, the proof is in the number.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, second time.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I had the opportunity back in 2006 to look at the Tory ag budgets. From 1995 to—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m standing. Stop the clock. I remind the minister, when I stand, you sit.

The second thing is—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m not finished yet; I still have some other people I have to get. The member from Huron–Bruce, second time. If it continues, these shots back and forth, I’ll go.

New question.

Water quality

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre. Members of the NDP have repeatedly raised in this chamber the ongoing and appalling mercury exposure experienced by the Grassy Narrows First Nation people. In 2012 the Premier said she would rebuild the relationship to the community, yet in 2014 elder Steve Fobister, the former chief of Grassy Narrows First Nation, went on a hunger strike right here on the front lawn. Then, again, this government said they would act, but right now, as we speak, the community feels that they have to appeal to the United Nations for help.

Speaker, my question is simple: When will the people of Grassy Narrows have safe drinking water?

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

Hon. David Zimmer: Thank you for that question. We take the issues at Grassy Narrows, the mercury pollution, very seriously. I met with Chief Fobister last summer and had a very detailed conversation with him about this issue. I have been to Grassy Narrows to speak with the chief and his community and tour the area.

As a result of that, we’ve set up a number of working groups. We are working with the federal and the First Nation partners to make real progress in dealing with this. In particular, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs represents the province on the Ontario-Grassy Narrows nation working group. It’s a cross-ministry team. It consists of members of the Ministry of Health and members of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change.

We’ve also engaged with the new federal government, which is very anxious to work with the province and Grassy Narrows to resolve this issue in a way that the federal government has never participated before.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: It has been half a century. The health effects of mercury poisoning are well known. They are horrific and they are affecting so many people in Grassy Narrows. The residents of Grassy Narrows are Ontarians like you and I, Speaker. They deserve safe drinking water. They should not have to go to Geneva, Switzerland, and talk to the United Nations to gain respect for this basic human right.

Hon. David Zimmer: Thank you for that question.

One of the ways in which we’re dealing with this problem is to review how the Mercury Disability Board works and how it conducts its analysis of the problem, how it determines what assistance it’s going to provide and so on. I committed to Chief Fobister last summer that I would visit, and I did that, and as a result of that visit, we have set up a process to review how the Mercury Disability Board goes about its work.

We are engaging the best experts that we can. We are working with the Grassy Narrows First Nation. We are working with the relevant ministries in Ontario and, now, with the federal government. The vehicle of the Mercury Disability Board is one of the key pieces with which we can deal with this problem, by looking at the effects of the poisoning and solutions.

Economic development

Mr. Yvan Baker: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure. Minister, one of the issues that comes up the most at the doors in my community is the issue of our economy and jobs. As you know, I have a business background, and so we’ve spent a lot of time talking with you and your staff about this issue and how we can grow our economy.

Last week, we highlighted that we’re on the heels of seven years of economic growth in this province. We’ve seen over 600,000 jobs created since the depths of the recession, and with a lot of anticipated growth coming forward in our economy.

In last week’s budget, we introduced measures to preserve and grow the economy. We’re doing things like making record investments in infrastructure, reducing the regulatory burdens on businesses, and we’re maintaining a low corporate tax environment that will continue to attract investment. These things benefit business, they benefit job creation, they benefit our economy and they benefit the prosperity that the people of my community enjoy.

Minister, many of my constituents are excited about this, but they’re also concerned about the volatility in the fu