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

November 15, 2018

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2018-Nov-15 (PDF)

L049 - Thu 15 Nov 2018 / Jeu 15 nov 2018

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 15 November 2018 Jeudi 15 novembre 2018

Orders of the Day

Green Energy Repeal Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 abrogeant la

Loi sur l’énergie verte

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Ethical standards

Ethical standards

Minimum wage

Minimum wage

Child advocate

Mental health and addiction services

Environmental protection

Public services

Public safety

Long-term care

Taxation

Labour dispute

Tourism

Tenant protection

Taxation

Arts and cultural funding

Natural gas

Notice of dissatisfaction

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Doctor shortage

Research and innovation

Crohn’s disease

Self-Employment for Persons with Disabilities program

Government’s record

Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences

Employment standards

Palliative care

Events in Sri Lanka

Protection for workers

Introduction of Bills

Restoring Trust, Transparency and Accountability Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 visant à rétablir la confiance, la transparence et la responsabilité

Visitor

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Economic outlook and fiscal review / Perspectives économiques et revue financière

Visitor

Petitions

Employment standards

Animal protection

Sport martial arts

Injured workers

Employment standards

Indigenous affairs

Employment standards

Public safety

Injured workers

Employment standards

Private Members’ Public Business

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

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

Broadband service

Terrorist Activities Sanctions Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 punissant de sanctions les activités terroristes

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

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

Broadband service

Terrorist Activities Sanctions Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 punissant de sanctions les activités terroristes

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Green Energy Repeal Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 abrogeant la

Loi sur l’énergie verte

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 14, 2018, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 34,

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

Loi sur la protection de l’environnement, la

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

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

Mr. Dave Smith: Back in the early 1990s, I had the opportunity to work for Ontario Hydro in the customer energy services department. It was the demand management division of Ontario Hydro. At the time, the Darlington nuclear plant was still under construction, so we had some concerns in the province over the amount of electricity generation that we had.

In customer energy services our mandate was to shift the electrical consumption from prime time off to a different time. It was about $3,200 per kilowatt to build new generation at the time, so we were looking to incentivize different companies and people to make that change, to shift past eight o’clock at night, and we were doing it in the neighbourhood of about $2,000 per kilowatt to do it.

We had some really interesting ways of changing that consumption. We wanted the total amount of electricity that was being used to remain the same; we just wanted to change the time of day that it was being used. One of the things that came out during that period of time was something called thermal cool storage. Now, anyone who has been in the restaurant industry is aware of how a fountain pop machine works: You plug it in, it has a cooling bank in there and, basically, it freezes an area and you run the pop through that to cool it. Thermal cool storage was basically the same concept.

You would use electricity in off-peak hours in a very large facility and you would warehouse, essentially, ice. With that ice, there would be a series of pipes that would run through it, and during the day, to cool your office building or your warehouse, you would run air through all of those pipes to cool it, then back into the warehouse.

It was a great way of taking a very large consumer who needed to cool a facility—a large facility—and move that consumption to a different time of the night. It worked really well because those large producers weren’t paying a peak consumption fee. Instead, it brought that down and it flattened their usage. It was one of the great ways at the time that we saw conservation.

The reason I bring this up is that the Green Energy Act, when it was first implemented, was done because we were trying to reduce the amount of electricity that was being used. We wanted to change, or Ontario wanted to change, the style of electrical generation, to move away from something that was a polluter and go to more green energy: solar power, wind, things like that. The focus, though, was taken away from changing people’s habits to making electricity a lot more expensive.

When they first came out with the FIT program, they were offering 81 cents per kilowatt to generate electricity with solar panels. At the time, we had just shifted to time-of-use rates and the retail price for electricity was around nine cents per kilowatt, so you had a deficit of 72 cents. Anyone who is in industry, anyone who is in business, anyone who didn’t take discovery math, would understand that purchasing at 81 cents and selling at nine cents is not an effective business model. What we ended up doing was that we put that burden on the people of Ontario.

The Liberals also introduced what they called their fair energy act, and they borrowed against the future of our children and our grandchildren to try to reduce the cost today. They gave all kinds of reasons why they did that to reduce the electrical cost, but the reality was that it was a poor decision that they had made. We have this sunk cost now that we’re stuck with, and we are all paying for it, because of the foolish decisions that were made.

I’m not suggesting that green energy is a bad thing, because green energy is not a bad thing. But everyone in industry, every business knows that there is a time to adopt technology and there’s a time to wait before you adopt technology. Ontario adopted a technology well before its time, and we’re paying the price for it today.

One resident in my riding, Kathy Katula, is a very nice lady. She has four children, three grandchildren. She’s not much older than I am. At a town hall meeting with Justin Trudeau in 2015, she stood up and talked about the carbon tax, and she used her electrical bill as an example. I’m going to give a quote from her: “Something is wrong now, Mr. Trudeau. My heat and hydro”—and she heats with electricity—“now cost me more than my mortgage. I ... work 75 hours a week, I stay and work 15 hours a day just so I don’t lose my home.”

She pays more for electricity than she does for her mortgage.

Another quote from her: “I make $50,000 a year.”

Interjection.

Mr. Dave Smith: It’s not, my NDP opponent across from me has just said, a living wage. Fifty thousand dollars a year is a living wage, but she is “living in energy poverty.”

The people of Ontario should not be struggling to make those choices between heating their home and feeding their family, yet we have a great example of someone who was. She worked hard to provide for her family, but she wasn’t able to because the cost of electricity was way too high.

The Green Energy Act added to hydro rates in a significant way. Prior to 2003, electrical rates in this province were among the lowest in North America. It provided a comparative advantage for our industry over other jurisdictions. Today, electrical rates are among the highest in North America. We have a vast rural part of this province that does not have access to things like natural gas. We’re trying to address that, but there’s still a large part of the province that has to heat with electricity, and they’re not able to pay those bills.

One of the things that’s really interesting, Mr. Speaker—Madam Speaker, I’m sorry. I’ll read another statistic. At the end of 2015, more than 565,000 customers in Ontario were behind on their hydro bills; $172 million is what they were behind. They were behind because the cost of electricity had tripled in that short period of time. Decisions were made for ideological reasons, not because it was in the best interest of the province, not because it was in the best interest of the people in this province.

Today we can generate more than 36,000 megawatts of electricity at any given time, but we consume only around 21,000 megawatts of electricity. That has been our peak consumption since 2009—14,000 megawatts more than what we need. Now, I mentioned earlier that in the 1990s, when I worked for customer energy services, we were building Darlington at the time. We had a surplus of about 3,500 megawatts at any given time. We now have a surplus of more than 14,000. Interestingly enough, about 7,000 megawatts are generated through solar power.

But solar-powered electricity, the Green Energy Act itself, that solar power represents almost a third of the cost of electricity, yet it’s only 11% of what is actually being used. That’s an unsustainable model. We find ourselves in a hole now; in a hole that we have to get out of.

Yesterday one of my NDP friends from across the way suggested that cancelling the Green Energy Act was not going to save anyone any money. I will go based on her theory that cancelling green energy is not going to save money, but I’m going to say one thing to that: When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you need to do is stop digging. Cancelling the Green Energy Act stops the digging. We’re not getting any deeper.

During the summer, we cancelled some renewable energy projects, saving Ontarians more than $700 million. Almost $800 million was saved by doing that. That’s a cost that would have been added on to people, that would have been digging the hole deeper. We’re not doing that. We’re making sure that people do not have to choose between heating their home and buying food; between heating their home and paying their mortgage; between keeping the lights on and being able to read. We can’t have a province where people cannot afford to live in their houses. That’s not what we’re here to do. We’re here to try to make life easier for everyone.

I talked a little bit about our peak capacity and our generation capacity. Now, I’ve heard people as well from the NDP say to me at different times, “Green energy is not polluting. It’s saving the environment.” I will agree with you there as well, that solar panels do not produce greenhouse gases once they have been produced. But they do when they’re being manufactured.

Here’s the problem I have with it: We produce about 7,000 megawatts of electricity through green energy, but we have 14,000 megawatts of surplus. We didn’t need to build a single solar farm, we did not need to erect a single windmill, and we would still have 7,000 more megawatts of electricity than what we can consume. The Green Energy Act was an ideological act put forward not because it was in the best interest of this province, not because it did anything for the environment—because it did not. We shut down all of the coal-fired plants. We did not need that electricity.

We did not have to replace it with something that was costing 81 cents per kilowatt to generate. It’s not sustainable. It’s not sustainable.

When they implemented the Green Energy Act, they didn’t take into account what the municipalities wanted. It was thrust upon them, and it was thrust upon mostly rural Ontario. The ideology that the Liberals had at the time—they were predominantly in the GTA. They wanted to make sure that someone else was paying the price and not their ridings. So they thrust it into other ridings, and they forced the municipalities to have it.

Let me tell you about my own riding: $38 million was spent refurbishing and improving the airport in Peterborough. We now have the largest runway between Pearson and Ottawa. It was done to enhance a lot of the businesses. It was done to bring industry into our area. But the arrogance of the Liberals: They decided to approve a windmill farm that would block aircraft from landing at the Peterborough airport that had just been expanded. We fought against the Liberals for a number of years, and they did make some concessions.

The problem is, the runway can sustain an Airbus A310—it’s long enough for it—but the turbulence caused by those windmills prevents an airplane of that size from landing in Peterborough.

It was not a wise decision. They did not take into account the needs of the municipality when they did that. In fact, they limited the municipality in what they could do. They took away opportunities for people in my riding by doing that, and there was no benefit to it—zero benefit. We did not need that electricity. We were already over capacity.

The Green Energy Act was also supposed to be about being green and looking after the environment. Madam Speaker, every time I drive into Queen’s Park, I come down Highway 115 and I enter the Oak Ridges moraine. The Oak Ridges moraine is a

section of this province that was set aside to protect it. Industry couldn’t build in that area, yet the Liberal government approved an industrial windmill farm where they laid massive concrete pads over top of green space, destroying a

section of the Oak Ridges moraine because of their ideology. They said this was about green energy, this was about saving the environment, and yet they destroyed a

section that had been set aside to protect the environment.

I don’t understand the logic behind that. They wiped out a

section of the Oak Ridges moraine. The people in that area did not want those windmills. They did not want that type of energy being generated there. They fought against it, but it fell on deaf ears, because the Liberals just did not care. Their interest was in their ideology.

Two concessions from my house is some of the best farmland in this province. I’m proud of the rural area that I live in. I’m proud of the farmers who are in my area. Farmland that has been farmed for more than 150 years has a proposal for solar to be placed on it. They’re going to pave over—they were going to pave over—prime agricultural land, farmland, to put up a solar farm. They’re closing a farm to do this. Luckily, it has been cancelled. They were planning to wipe out agricultural land.

There is nothing more green than a farm. Farmers look after their land, they look after the environment, because it’s their livelihood, yet the Liberals were planning on placing cement over top of prime agriculture and taking away that agriculture. It pitted a company against the residents in my area. The people in my area were very upset about it. They protested against it. There was meeting after meeting after meeting. There were discussions with the Liberal government, and it all fell to deaf ears. They weren’t interested in facts; they were only interested in their ideology.

Cancelling the Green Energy Act is the right decision to make. It stops digging that hole any deeper. It allows us, then, to make the changes that we need to make to start to reduce the electrical costs for the people in this province, to bring us back to a position where Ontario can truly be open for business again. It brings us back to a position where we can start to have that comparative advantage once more, so that businesses, so that industry, can thrive. If we don’t do this, we’re making the hole deeper. This is the right thing to do.

The previous Liberal government shoved wind and solar farms upon us, and they did it in a way that was not respectful of the people of this province. They did it in a way that did not consider the needs of the municipality. They did it in a way that appeased the voter base that they had in the urban centres that they had, and they pitted urban ridings against rural ridings. That’s not how you build a conducive province. That’s not how you lift the people of the province up. You lift the people up in this province by giving them opportunity, by making sure that tomorrow is better than today and the day after tomorrow is better than tomorrow was.

That’s what we’re doing. We’re building a better Ontario. We’re making Ontario open for business again. We made that promise to the people of this province and we are keeping that promise.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Questions and comments?

Mr. Jeff Burch: Thank you to the member from Peterborough–Kawartha. I’ll tell you, if I was a Conservative I’d be staying away from the whole topic of hydroelectricity, because I think we all know that it was the Conservative Party, the last Conservative government, that set the stage for privatization. They dismantled Ontario Hydro into three separate crown agencies to get it ready for privatization. They split it into generation, transmission and system management, and that was for the purpose of privatizing hydro.

Why is hydro expensive? Because it was privatized. So the root cause—all you have to do is get a big mirror and put it in front of you while you talk: That’s who is responsible for the rise in hydro prices. It’s the Conservative Party and the last Conservative government that set the stage for the privatization of hydro.

Another thing, Speaker, is that cancelling someone else’s plan for the environment is not having a plan. That’s just cancelling someone else’s plan. As I’ve said before, I don’t know how a member in this House, when the two greatest challenges we face as a society are income inequality and climate change—and they’ve failed hugely in their first 100 days on both.

Here we have climate change as the greatest challenge we face. How do you go home to your family and say, “I’m a member of provincial Parliament and we have no plan in the year 2018 for climate change”? No plan whatsoever. They keep saying, “Oh, we’re going to bring a plan forward.” Well, why didn’t they bring a plan forward before they cancelled the current plan, which, actually—as they know very well—had a number of good things in it, which my friend from Kingston is going to talk about, issues around the economic development potential that renewable power offers. Those are the things we should be talking—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Thank you. Further questions and comments?

Mrs. Nina Tangri: Today we’re talking about the repealing of the Green Energy Act. Firstly, the Liberal Green Energy Act allowed our energy rates to triple, drastically—drastically—crippling our manufacturing sector. Because of this, thousands and thousands of jobs were lost in the province of Ontario. I call this the “Liberal triple cripple,” Madam Speaker. Unfortunately, it really hurt all Ontarians.

Local communities lost the ability to control where facilities were being built. Our government will now restore and respect our local communities. The people of Ontario should decide. They should have the power to say no to these unneeded energy projects in their communities. But at the same time, we still promote efficient standards and energy conservation, which is so important for all of us here in Ontario. High energy prices have made it very, very difficult for many families now having to choose between eating and heating, and that should never have to be a choice or an option for all the people of Ontario.

In conclusion, we—our government for the people of Ontario—want to make sure that we do absolutely respect our local communities. We respect our businesses and our manufacturing sector. We are now open for business. We’re now bringing businesses to Ontario. Businesses are finally starting to expand and hire more people in much-better-paying jobs. That’s why I fully support cancelling what I call, again, the “Liberal triple cripple” Green Energy Act.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Ian Arthur: I just want to clarify a couple of things on the end of the speech from the member from Peterborough.

Disturbance of the ground on a solar farm is about 5%, and about 40% of the surface is over-sailed by the actual solar panels. Because of how they’re designed, they actually rotate so there’s never any single part of the ground underneath the solar farm that’s necessarily shaded all the time. This actually opens the door for some incredible dual-use purposes. Farmers, I think we can all agree, need as many forms of income as we can possibly give them. They are some of the hardest-working people in Ontario, and if we can give them a competitive advantage by building a solar farm that allows for grazing, that allows for growing, this is just smart design. This is saying we need both.

We need energy. We need our prime farmland to produce food. We can actually do both with a little bit of intelligent design. Now, I’m the first to admit that I don’t know that the Liberals’ design was particularly intelligent. I’m not going to defend all of those solar farms, but I think that it’s a baby-with-the-bathwater mentality. We are saying, “We don’t like badly designed technology, so let’s just not pursue that technology at all.” We can actually do both. I think that the future is in renewables and I think the future is in supporting our farmers. We can absolutely do both, Madam Speaker.

I would like to see a plan from this government where they pursue renewable energy, where they invest in where the future is inevitably going and where they continue to support farmers at the same time. Farmers need the extra income, and it’s very sad to hear the member from Peterborough against farmers earning that extra income.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Paul Calandra: I want to thank the member for his comments. He was bang-on on a lot of the comments, but ultimately, how can you not talk about what the NDP are saying here? They’re talking out of both sides of their mouth. They’re having such a difficult time talking about this.

They talk about the high cost of hydro, but what they’re doing by saying that they support the Green Energy Act is telling the people of Ontario that they actually want to increase their hydro rates going forward. That’s what they’re saying. They say that the Green Energy Act wasn’t a good act the way the Liberals did it, yet they voted for it. Not only did they vote for the Green Energy Act, they voted for 97% of everything that party did, and now they’re trying to say, “No, we didn’t support that.” Madam Speaker, they are all over the map.

I’m excited that the member for Kingston and the Islands is coming up next, because he’s going to talk about how the price of green energy has come down. He’s going to cite Bloomberg, but he’s not going to talk about the fact that Bloomberg has also said that if we brought in an Energy East pipeline and took oil from the west, we could bring down our cost of energy even more.

This party talks about farmers, yet it was Environmental Defence and the David Suzuki Foundation, two hyper-partisan organizations, that gleefully brought this policy forward, the Green Energy Act, which is responsible in my riding for evicting farmers.

They want green energy because they say the price has come down, but they still want to subsidize it. They talk about solar energy and they’re happy to pay 19 cents a kilowatt hour. They will talk about Alberta and Saskatchewan paying 3.5 cents, but they’re happy that Ontario will pay six cents for wind energy.

It’s not fair to the people of Ontario. What we’re saying to the people of Ontario is that if you want to put more money back in your pocket, if you want to bring jobs and investment back, then the best way to start to do that is to bring the cost of energy down. Repealing the Green Energy Act starts us on the right path, but we’re not done there—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Order.

I return to the member from Peterborough–Kawartha for his response.

Mr. Dave Smith: I’d like to thank the members from Niagara Centre, from Mississauga–Streetsville, from Kingston and the Islands and from Markham–Stouffville for their comments.

I’m going to address the gentleman from Kingston and the Islands first: Have you been to a solar farm? Have you seen that it’s only four and a half feet off the ground? My Ford 800 series tractor is six feet tall. I am 6 foot 3, almost 6 foot 4. Sitting on my tractor, I can’t get underneath one of the solar panels. Most farmers have tractors. In fact, I don’t know of a farmer who doesn’t have a tractor. They can’t take that tractor into the area where those solar panels are, so they can’t turn that land.

You could say that they could have something other than cash crops. Sure they could, but the farm that I’m talking in particular about was a corn farm. That corn farmer cannot grow corn, because corn is going to grow over six feet tall, which would then block, if he was able to plant it in the area of solar panels, the solar panels. However, as you said, the solar panels will turn so that they stay with the sun, so the corn can never grow to its proper height because it would be blocked constantly by those solar panels.

I admire that you’re trying to put forward an idea that might work, but it’s a vast project with a half-vast idea, unfortunately.

What we need to do is we need to get this province back in the position where it is the economic engine of this country. We know that agri-business right now makes up the largest portion of our GDP. Some 850,000 people work in agri-business. Paving over farmland is not an effective way of getting the environment back. It’s not an effective way of growing our economy, and that’s what we need to do.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Mr. Ian Arthur: Green energy is a topic I have followed for years, and I’m happy to be able to contribute to the debate on this bill. I very much appreciate the contributions to the debate that have come from both sides of the House so far, although in particular I would like to point to the member from Toronto–Danforth for his contribution.

Let me begin by saying that I believe the transition to green, renewable energy is both inevitable and ultimately good. Removing ourselves from this sector is short-sighted, both for our planet and for the good jobs needed to make Ontario thrive. Climate change is the single biggest threat faced by our province, our country and, in particular, will be felt by my millennial generation and those who come after us.

In light of some of the fearmongering that has been pursued by this government in relation to green energy, I think it’s important to outline a few facts about this sector. It is one of the fastest-growing industries on the planet. In January 2017, the World Economic Forum stated that solar and wind had become the cheapest form of new energy on the planet and that prices had continued to drop—55% in the last five months alone. Solar is now priced at 3 cents per kilowatt hour, and it’s projected to go to 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour in the next couple of years. Paired with storage, renewables is the future of generation and is unavoidable.

I’d like to draw attention to a piece of research by Morgan Stanley: “Numerous key markets recently reached an inflection point where renewables have become the cheapest form of new ... generation.”

It goes on to say that this is a “dynamic we see spreading to nearly every country we cover by 2020.” Let that sink in: In nearly every country, renewables will be the cheapest form of new energy by 2020. That’s just over a year away.

Here we are in Ontario. We got into green energy under the Liberals when it was unaffordable, and now we’re paying to get out of green energy when it is affordable so we can once again pay more for electricity. Electricity is measured in decades. We need to set ourselves up now for the future. We’re setting ourselves up to pay more. In what money-in-pockets, cost-saving world does this make sense?

The smart money—the money being spent by investors rather than that which is currently being wasted by this government fighting the inevitable, is moving into renewables. More than half of assets under management in Canada now consider sustainability, with assets in this area topping $2.1 trillion at the end of 2017. In the US, there is almost $12 trillion currently invested in sustainable growth areas. The area has grown 400% since 2010.

If this government cannot arrive at the same conclusion as funds like BlackRock, one is forced to wonder how deep in the sand they have managed to bury their heads. But when I think of how this government is gutting legislation left, centre and, actually, right, surprisingly, just a few scant weeks ago—they got rid of a lucrative market-based solution for fighting climate change—a market-based solution that was pioneered by Presidents Reagan and Bush. So I guess the answer is that it’s pretty deep in the sand indeed.

There is no doubt that the Liberal green energy plan was flawed and that energy costs in Ontario were too high. But to say, as this government so often has, that the high costs are solely the result of the Green Energy Act is a massive oversimplification that does not reflect the complexity of the disaster that the Liberal Party of Ontario so meticulously crafted. That system relied on ever-increasing amounts of private generation and distribution. The privatization of our distribution network, Hydro One, was the defining issue of the election for so many across this province.

The borrowing scheme concocted by the Ontario Liberals and adopted by this very government I stand across from now—once denounced and now embraced—will add billions to our debt, although they care little, as the burden of that debt will be primarily on the shoulders of the youngest in this chamber and across Ontario.

Yes, in the effort to kick-start the sector and place ourselves at the forefront of the green energy revolution that will inevitably happen, the Green Energy Act did increase our bills. But today, it’s important to understand that it is a small portion of our sector. It does account for a larger portion of what we pay. But we wanted to make sure that we were at the forefront of this growing area, and now we are backing out of it.

This act before us has become a political target. When one gets into the nuts and bolts of what Bill 34, the current legislation, does, one can see that the government understands this as well. The outcome of this bill is a politically motivated restructuring of policy so that it favours those whom this government deems to call friends. Put another way: This bill fails to address the shortcomings of the Liberal act and in so many respects worsens our province’s ability to provide affordable, sustainable energy in Ontario.

The previous Liberal government of the day decided to buy into technology at the very top of their cost curves, but the crux of the issue before us is why we would possibly back out now that those costs have moved in our favour. This government has decided to once again choose the more expensive option for power in our province. They have done this by keeping the worst aspects of the Green Energy Act by moving them into other acts, and by creating an uneven playing field that is tipped against green energy generation in Ontario.

The legislation does this in two ways. First, it states that renewables, and only renewable energy projects, must demonstrate demand before they can be pursued—demonstrate demand. This may be well and good, but I would question why this government is forcing this on green energy markets and not everyone else, and also, why the ability of the market shouldn’t just dictate the demand. To me, that sounds like rhetoric that should be coming from that side of the House.

Anyone wanting to build a gas plant, refurbish a nuclear plant or, God forbid, build another coal plant would have to provide no such justification to do so. It is almost as if this government knows the industry is moving towards full renewable generation and is looking for ways to protect the interests of those not involved in this wickedly growing

section of the world economy. This is a blatant attempt to alter and influence the functioning of the energy market beyond what the market would naturally dictate.

There is a second aspect that clearly and directly targets renewable energy, and that is the right of refusal, without appeal, given to municipalities with regard to green energy projects. I support giving municipalities more say in what happens in their jurisdictions, but I would ask why this government does not feel it necessary to give this same power to municipalities when it comes to gas, nuclear and coal. Why is it that the province is retaining the ability to force unwanted potential fossil fuel and nuclear generation projects onto the very municipalities they are claiming to be giving independence to?

The energy market should be competitive, cost-effective and open, but this legislation creates an investment environment that is anything but technology-agnostic.

These two items alone should indicate that the government is moving in the wrong direction. More importantly, they illustrate the stark contrast between the open-for-business rhetoric and the reality: the practical, on-the-ground outcomes of their legislation.

One does not have to look far outside our borders to see leadership in renewable energy. Headline after headline, study after study, and investment after investment all point to the remarkable future of green energy. Those who lead will thrive, while, under the mis-leadership of this government, we in Ontario will fall behind.

Some of the most recent headlines: Overseas, the city of Bristol has committed to becoming carbon-neutral by 2030. This just happened on Wednesday.

On November 7, New Zealand passed a bill banning new permits for offshore oil and gas exploration. Their prime minister stated, “We all signed up to the Paris agreement that said we’re moving towards carbon-neutrality, and now we need to act on it.” She states, “The whole world is going in this direction.”

I’m in the midst of drafting a letter to Prime Minister Ardern asking her to correct this statement with an asterisk for Ontario and the red US states. My, what company this government chooses to keep.

California, the fifth-largest economy in the world, has committed to 100% renewable energy by 2045. They have rewritten their building codes, requiring all new residential homes to come equipped with solar panels.

But this didn’t happen overnight. The state began investing years ago, when those technologies were more expensive, and now are reaping the benefits of that investment. Their transition was methodical, environmentally conscious and fiscally responsible. They arrived at their targets years ahead of schedule.

What California did to achieve this was to steadily raise its floor, looking higher and moving in a consistent direction. They provided a stable, predictable, long-term business environment which draws innovators and market risk-takers. Market dynamism eats targets for breakfast.

If only this government could find some actual business savvy rather than the rhetoric and slogan-filled prostration we hear every day, and provide the regulatory certainty needed for businesses to flourish in Ontario.

One of the most fascinating examples of intelligent renewable energy policy is the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia. Paired with a wind farm, this massive smart battery has demonstrated how a grid can be effectively managed with a very high share of wind and solar and do so faster, cleaner, and smarter than traditional technologies. Built in just 62 days, this has played a key role in managing peak demand while also earning money for the state where it is located. It has been so effective at generating revenue that it is projected to pay for itself in a few short years.

South Australia, based on the massive success of this project, aims to have shares of wind and solar, which are already at 50%, jump to 71% by 2021 and 100% by 2025.

Storage is key, and was a major missing part of the previous Liberal government’s legislation, but it’s not even touched on in this government’s legislation. May I remind the House that we currently pay 13 cents per kilowatt hour during peaks times and six cents at off-peak times. Imagine if there had been some foresight and we had invested in storage paired with renewable energy at three cents per kilowatt hour.

In Alberta, the government has just increased solar rebates for homeowners and not-for-profits. They have committed to issuing contracts so that 55% of the government’s energy needs are to be filled by solar, and these actions are creating jobs. The green energy sector has grown 500% in three years in Alberta. Alberta is now leading and getting good deals on large-scale renewable energy projects as well. Last December, a competitive supply auction gave the province wind energy at 3.7 cents per kilowatt hour. That’s 72% less than what we pay during peak times, and nearly half off the off-peak price in Ontario.

This success in securing good contracts on behalf of their citizens is not limited to Alberta. In Saskatchewan, the average bid for 29 projects competing for a licence to build was the same 3.7 cents. The average was 3.7 cents. The winning bid was dramatically below that.

It would seem that the government here in Ontario has no intention of being part of this cheap power. I must assume that this is either because they have no faith in their own ability to secure the sort of good contracts that our counterparts in other provinces are able to, or that they could secure cheap renewable contracts but are, in fact, protecting vested interests in expensive fossil fuel and nuclear-based generation, and they plan to do so on the backs of the hard-working people of Ontario with the tax dollars that they collect.

While renewables are projected to continue decreasing in cost, nuclear is set to increase to 16 cents per kilowatt hour in just a few short years. Think on that for a moment. A projection for wind and solar under three cents and a projection for nuclear for 16 cents: Which would you choose if you were trying to get a good deal for the people of Ontario?

Sadly, the actions being taken by this Conservative government will take its toll on the people of Ontario in many, many other ways. Wind energy investment in Ontario alone was responsible for 64,000 direct and indirect full-time-equivalent positions. Globally, 50% of growth in new power generation in 2017 was in renewable energy—50%. Why are we excluding ourselves from this market? We hear so often about the losses of manufacturing jobs, but the government must address the changing nature of manufacturing. These are global trends that this province cannot escape.

The manufacturing jobs of the future are in renewable energy, in the construction and operation of the future planetary energy system.

There are currently 26 facilities in Ontario that once built cars and trucks that were to be scrapped in 2008, but they’re still making things. The workers were retrained, they were rehired and now they are building solar panels and windmills. Manufacturing jobs—if you really want manufacturing jobs, they are in renewables. Invest in them, bring those jobs to Ontario, and make sure that we can grow and thrive as a province.

Furthermore, these jobs are often in rural and remote areas of the province, areas that need the sort of investment that comes from green energies. These projects, as we’ve just discussed, help farmers, with one estimate stating that 60% of the Ontario farming community actually has renewable energy on their properties and receives payment from it.

I think we can all agree that farming is a really hard job, so why is the government bent on not allowing the farms to benefit from energy generation and the income that comes with it? I don’t understand how this government does not see the growth potential this bill excludes us from. Global investments are being made in renewables. The sector is experiencing massive and increasing investment, and yet here in Ontario we are shutting the door on that very investment. This government has shown the world that this province does not have the stable regulatory environment needed for investments, and we will begin to feel the consequences of this exclusion.

Whenever someone feels a need to plant signs proclaiming something to the world, like those ridiculous “Open for Business” signs, something is fishy. Actions speak louder than words, and this government’s actions have done anything but open this province for business.

Action needs to be taken now. The IESO said that we will once again experience an electricity shortfall within the next five years—five years. We need to begin investing in the cheapest form of energy—which is renewables—now, so that we can meet our future demand. In the world of electricity planning, five years is not a very long time.

The good news is that solar and wind, if made in Ontario—creating manufacturing jobs in Ontario—have the fastest lead times of any electricity option available. And Canadians support renewables: 93% support solar; 86% support wind; 91% support hydro power. I guess the remainder is made up of folks like the outdated mayonnaise collection that was found on the cover of a recently published cover of Maclean’s magazine.

We need to take action because the health of our citizens is at risk. Emissions from natural gas combustion in Toronto are related to 23% of premature deaths and 20% of hospitalizations from air pollution in Toronto. Climate change is causing unprecedented increases in health costs as they relate to vector-borne diseases like West Nile and Lyme disease. Health outcomes are yet another reason to move away from fossil fuels and into renewable energies.

Investing in renewables is a key aspect of our obligation to fight climate change. If action is not taken, we will end up paying for our mistakes. The eastern Ontario drought of 2016 cost farmers millions. The flooding across our province cost huge amounts and the wildfires are going to cost even more.

This government ignores the need for decisive leadership in green energy technology and the battle against climate change at their own peril. This threat is existential. It transcends borders, and our response should transcend political boundaries.

It is mobilizing people across the planet and here in Canada. Just last week, tens of thousands took to the streets in Quebec demanding decisive action on climate change—50,000 people in Montreal alone, Madam Speaker; and 150,000 people signed a petition in one week in Quebec.

Climate change will be the defining issue of elections to come. It has affected and will continue to affect the people of Ontario in ever-increasing ways, and it will do so much to bring this government down, for you have chosen to land on the wrong side of history. This is the era of climate change and the battle for our planet. The numbers of youth and others who are joining this movement grow every day and their voices have moved from sounding the alarm to saying that we will not accept this prescribed future. This future that was defined by the old and wealthy will finally be defined by us.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Questions and comments?

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: I’m proud to rise here today to support Bill 34, the Green Energy Repeal Act, introduced by the Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines.

I’d like to read from an editorial in the Globe and Mail from December 2, 2015. It’s titled “Ontario’s Liberals Have Completely Broken the Electricity System.”

“Ontario’s Auditor General announced that, between 2006 and 2014, thanks to incompetence and mismanagement on the part of the province’s Liberal government, Ontarians overpaid for electricity to the tune of $37 billion. And over the next 18 years, consumers will be overpaying to the tune of another $133 billion.”

Madam Speaker, that’s $170 billion. That’s more than the GDP of most provinces in Canada. It’s more than the GDP of most countries in the world.

The Globe tried to put these numbers into context: “Electricity overpriced by $170 billion is equivalent to $12,326 in excess costs for every man, woman and child in Ontario. Over 27 years, that averages out to $457 per person” every year. For a typical family, “we’re talking about a power utility bill roughly $1,188 higher than it should be” every year.

“[T]his isn’t a $16 glass of orange juice. It’s you and your family buying 85 of these $16 glasses of orange juice this year and next year and every year after, forever.”

Madam Speaker, that was the energy policy of the previous Liberal government. I urge all members to join with me to support the Green Energy Repeal Act.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Questions and comments?

Mr. Joel Harden: Thank you, member from Kingston and the Islands, for that fantastic speech. I really hope our friends from the Conservative Party were listening, because there are nuggets in there that we can agree upon. We may not have the same political perspective, but hopefully we share an interest in math.

I’ve been hearing a lot about math, Madam Speaker, in this chamber lately. This government wants to mandate a math test on teachers. My brother is a teacher—he’s sitting in the members’ gallery right over there—and I wonder if we can entertain a quick math question in the one minute and 25 seconds I have left. My friends in the Conservative Party are all about fiscal prudence. They want to save the province money. That’s part of the understanding, at least that I have, of why they want to repeal the Green Energy Act.

At this moment right now, our reliance on centralized nuclear power costs—the member from Markham–Stouffville and I have jousted on this a little bit, but depending on whose numbers you believe—between six and eight cents a kilowatt hour. We could, right now, save the province of Ontario millions, perhaps a billion dollars, if we imported hydroelectricity from Quebec at a cost of five cents a kilowatt hour. So, Madam Speaker, what’s higher, six to eight cents a kilowatt hour, or five cents a kilowatt hour?

Now, I have a PhD in political science, not math, but I’m going to venture a guess that five cents is cheaper than six to eight cents, and I wonder why this government is resolutely saying no to the notion that a neighbouring jurisdiction to ours is prepared to give us hydroelectricity to help us deal with a sunset industry, the nuclear industry, which is what I want to talk about in the time I have later on this morning. We have to deal with the legacy that this is attaching to our province. If our friends are actually interested in saving the public money in the province of Ontario, let’s look at options that are very clear, very available and highly affordable.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Questions and comments?

Mr. Paul Calandra: Well, simply put, to the member opposite, the reason we’re not taking power from Quebec is because we actually don’t need the power from Quebec. Why would we put more debt on the backs of Ontario taxpayers and future generations for power that we don’t need? Look, in 2009, when the Liberals and the NDP and their friends with Environmental Defence and the David Suzuki Foundation were crafting this Green Energy Act, they told us that this would solve all the problems. It would give us abundant hydro power, it would be cheap, it would create lots of jobs, but more importantly, it would allow us to catch up to other jurisdictions—Europe—who are so far ahead of us.

And here we are, 10 years later, and apparently we still haven’t caught up. Renewables account for 10% of energy generation, but 40% of the global adjustment. The member talks about Alberta and Saskatchewan, how they’re at the forefront, creating manufacturing jobs. It’s down to 3.5 cents, maybe even less, I think he said, yet they did it without a green energy act, Madam Speaker. They did it without a green energy act.

The member talks about the jobs in manufacturing. It is uncontestable. Some 75,000 jobs were directly lost in manufacturing because of the high price of hydro in this province. That is an absolute fact. That doesn’t even account for the losses of jobs in the mining sector and other sectors of the economy, just in the manufacturing sector.

What the members opposite don’t seem to realize is that you do not build a climate change plan on the backs of energy ratepayers. You do not do that. They are twisting themselves into knots on this one. They want to keep the Green Energy Act, which is responsible for billions of dollars’ worth of debt. They want to keep subsidizing the industry, and what we’re saying is no. It has to stop. We have to put Ontario taxpayers first. That’s what this act does. If you truly want to respect taxpayers, bring the cost of hydroelectricity down across the board, bring back jobs to Ontario, then support ending the programs that cost this province billions of dollars.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: We heard the member opposite from Markham–Stouffville talk about the high price of hydro. I’d like him to take a look at an actual campaign platform. I know the Conservatives didn’t have one—not a fully costed one and not one that was presented to the public. But if you take a look at the NDP platform, that was one in which we suggested that the way to reduce hydro prices was to buy back hydro. We know that a publicly owned utility working in the best interests of the public—something that focuses on being cost-efficient and on cost savings for people, instead of privatization—would be something that this province needs.

We heard the member from Niagara Centre so eloquently speak about how the last Conservative government started breaking up the Ontario hydro system so that they could increase privatization. Privatization never benefits the people of Ontario. It means higher prices. It means less health and safety. It is a disaster. Time and time again, it is proven.

I’d also like to indicate to this House that we should be taking a look at the models from Sweden. Over in Sweden, they take and turn waste into energy. They incinerate their waste. In fact, in Helsingborg, they incinerate 700,000 tons of garbage per year and are able to turn that into heating and into electricity. This also reduces their reliance on landfills. We know that there is less methane gas put into the environment, which is 20 times more potent than carbon. In fact, only 1% of Sweden’s waste ends up in landfills.

Yet we have this government, which is so intent on moving backwards with—as the member from Kingston and the Islands also said, they’re more concerned about ridiculous signs than they are about the future of people in Ontario. I think it’s a disgrace, and I think we need to be thinking about what environment our children will be inheriting.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I return to—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Order, please. I return to the member for Kingston and the Islands for his response.

Mr. Ian Arthur: If this was simply the repeal of the Green Energy Act, I might actually struggle more with what I was going to say and how I was going to argue in this chamber. It may have been more like the outdated Drive Clean program, which you didn’t actually hear me speaking against.

But—this is the fundamental point of my argument—this is not just about the repeal of the Green Energy Act and the outdated preference it gave to the expense that was green energy in the past. This creates an uneven playing field for future renewables in Ontario. It is not just a repeal. It does more than simply getting rid of something. You have replaced it with something. You’ve replaced it with something that is going to block green energy from flourishing in Ontario, and that is short-sighted. That is going to exclude us from jobs, exclude us from investment and set us years behind the rest of the world.

Sadly, it will be long after this government’s time has come to an end that we will end up paying for the true cost of these incredibly poor decisions.

It is not a repeal. It is a repeal and a replacement with something that favours outdated technologies which cost a lot of money. It’s just mind-boggling to hear them speaking of cost savings and how green energy was so expensive and then to be faced with the cheapest possible form of new generation, which we are going to need within five years, and to push that aside and say, “Nah, we’re not going to do that.” To me, that points to the ideological part of this legislation, the part that really is driving it. It’s an ideological question, not a practical policy question, to save Ontario money.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I rise today to defend Ontario’s place in the fast-growing clean economy. The Ford government may be interested in building goofy signs that we’re open for business, but their actions actually tell a completely different story. Unfortunately, Bill 34 tells job creators in the clean economy that Ontario is closed for business to the fastest-growing sector in the global economy. The $26-trillion clean economy is an opportunity Ontario cannot close the door to.

Globally, two thirds of power generation investment last year was in renewable energy. China, believe it or not, led the way with 45% of solar installations in the world. The reason it’s happening is not necessarily because it’s green; it’s because it’s the lowest-cost option. Globally, more people now work in the renewable energy sector than in the oil and gas sector. Again, China is leading the way, believe it or not, with 3.5 million people employed in renewables.

Even in Canada, as we speak today, more people work in the renewable energy sector in Canada than work in the oil and gas sector. This is despite the fact the oil and gas sector has received, and continues to receive, billions of dollars in subsidies, and they’ve received those subsidies for decades now. Studies show that every dollar invested in renewable energy creates seven times more jobs than the same dollar—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): The House will come to order.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Stop the clock, please.

The members from Ottawa Centre and Markham-Stouffville will respect the fact that they are not indeed the speakers at this time. Thank you.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Come to order.

I return to the member from Guelph.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I appreciate that. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

For every dollar invested in renewable energy, you create seven times more jobs than the same dollar invested in the oil and gas sector. So I ask, why is the Premier closing the door to the clean economy in Ontario?

On behalf of my constituents in Guelph, I want to be on the record today that Guelph is open for business when it comes to the clean economy. Despite the Premier’s anti-clean-economy actions, I want investors and job creators around the world to know: Come to Guelph and invest.

Guelph city council has made a commitment to be carbon neutral by 2050. They’ve made a commitment that our city will be powered by 100% renewable energy by 2050. Guelph is skating to where the puck is going to be, not where it’s been. I believe we should follow the Great One’s ideas when it comes to economic investment. I want those same economic benefits to flow to communities all across Ontario.

Let’s be clear. The previous Liberal government made huge mistakes in the way they implemented the Green Energy Act. As a matter of fact, I was the first political party leader in Ontario, way back in 2010, to speak out against the way in which the Liberals were implementing the Green Energy Act.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Not true. I have a speech on it.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: No, no. I have a speech on it, too. Believe me, a lot of environmental groups called me and were very upset about my criticism of it, because I knew it would lead to problems further down the road.

Here’s the reality. The previous government bought a little bit of renewable energy at a really high price, but now that the price is really low, the current government is getting out of the game. This buy-high, sell-low strategy just doesn’t work. It doesn’t work for investing; it doesn’t work for economics.

I’m going to be voting against Bill 34, by the way. I’m mostly voting against it because it singles out, as the member from Kingston and the Islands pointed out, renewable energy to prove market demand and doesn’t apply it to any other source of energy. Why is the government targeting renewables and not looking at the big picture?

I know that the whips won’t allow you to vote against Bill 34, so I want to talk about two things that I’d ask the members opposite to consider as we move forward. First of all, make it clear to global investors that you may be opposed to the way in which the Liberals rolled out renewable energy, but you’re not opposed to renewable energy, period. Unfortunately, by targeting renewables, that’s the message you’re sending, and I don’t think we should send that message to global investors. If you could make that clear, I think that is critically important to say that publicly and be on the record.

The second thing I’m calling on the government to do is to conduct an independent public review of all sources of power generation, renewable and non-renewable. Include Quebec and Manitoba water power; include energy efficiency and conservation.

Over and over again, I asked the Liberal government to conduct an independent public review so we could have an honest conversation about energy prices in this province, so we could make a decision that puts the people of Ontario first instead of it being driven by ideology. I would ask the government to do that, because here’s the reality: When Darlington is rebuilt, you’re going to be looking at 16-cent-a-kilowatt-hour nuclear power. Guelph Solar tells me they can build solar now at eight cents a kilowatt hour; we can buy Quebec water power for five cents a kilowatt hour.

I don’t want to get into the details of that debate today, but I’m asking you: Conduct an independent public review so we can make an informed decision that benefits the people of Ontario moving forward.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Seeing the time on the clock, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1011 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Before I ask members to introduce their guests, I wish to introduce some guests of my own.

In the Speaker’s gallery today are John Armstrong, Stuart Moulton, Cindy Goldrick, Sabrina Francescut, Krista Crozier, Devon Blackburn and Steven Fischer. They are visiting Queen’s Park with the Ontario Kinesiology Association, reminding members about the importance of getting active. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

I should add that I had a meeting with them this morning, and we’re going to have a weekly bulletin available for members starting on Monday, hopefully, with some tips as to how we can all improve our health and our mental health.

Mr. Joel Harden: I’m very proud to introduce to the House today my brother Adam Davidson Harden, a teacher from the Limestone board in the great city of Kingston, and his friend Colin Carmichael, who was just elected as an education trustee in your riding, Minister Thompson, from the great area of Goderich. Welcome, both of you.

Hon. Todd Smith: I’d like to welcome two special guests from central Ontario. First of all, Doug Mitchell is joining us today. He is a retired school teacher, he is a real estate agent and he’s a two-time volunteer of the year in Haliburton. He’s here with his son, who’s a good boy himself, Kelly Mitchell. Welcome to Doug and Kelly Mitchell.

Hon. Greg Rickford: I’d like to introduce the youngest and best Progressive Conservative EDA president in this province, Eric Melillo from Kenora, Ontario. Welcome to this magnificent place.

Ms. Marit Stiles: It gives me great pleasure to introduce and welcome Matthew Hollingshead, a constituent of mine from the Regal Heights neighbourhood in Davenport and a staff member at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Stan Cho: Happy FES day to everybody this morning.

Regardless of political stripe, I think it’s incredible when Ontario’s youth get involved in the political process. Today, I am really happy to introduce the Ryerson Campus Conservatives who, over the last two years, have grown their membership from 14 members to over 100. With us today, we have Spencer Campbell, Eric Wang, Alexander Fogel, Sydney Perelmutter, Trisha Ordona, Konrad Gajewski, Jared Burke, Sarah Weaver, Colby Badhwar, Damian Rostoski and Priyank D’sa; as well as two executive members who were instrumental in my campaign, good friends Keyaan Nejad and Reese Nemeth. Thank you for being at Queen’s Park.

Mr. Daryl Kramp: Today I’d like to welcome a constituent of mine, a broadcaster extraordinaire, a long-time municipal politician and a tremendous contributing member of the community in the Belleville region, Jack Miller.

Mr. Mike Harris: I have a group of public policy and administration students that I’d like to welcome today from Seneca College, and also their professor and my former campaign manager, Jon Olinski.

Also, my case file manager in our constituency office is here today as well, Emily McLaughlin.

Mr. Parm Gill: I want to welcome grade 5 students from my riding of Milton. They attend Bruce Trail Public School and they will be joining us in the gallery shortly.

Mr. David Piccini: I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park today Shayne Fields from my riding and Eva Guta from Durham—Whitby, actually, Lorne’s riding. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

In addition, I would like to welcome a young Conservative activist and a big, big fan—probably one of the biggest—of our Premier, Doug Ford: Spencer Campbell.

Mr. Dave Smith: I’d like to welcome a friend of mine, Mr. Kelly Mitchell, and his father, Doug, to the Legislature today.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I, too, would like to welcome Krista Crozier, who is the incoming president of the Ontario Kinesiology Association, who also is from the great riding of Guelph. Welcome.

Hon. Todd Smith: I’d like to welcome my new executive assistant in Bay of Quinte, David Joyce, who is with us today; and also a long-time friend and colleague, Jack Miller. He’s already been introduced, but Jack spent many years on Belleville council, he’s been a long-time sports voice in the Quinte region and currently is the voice of the American Hockey League’s Belleville Senators. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I would like to welcome any of the other guests who haven’t been introduced.

Oral Questions

Ethical standards

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, media reports from last night have raised concerning questions about the Premier’s standards for cabinet ministers. According to multiple reports, a female staffer working for the then opposition Conservatives came forward with a complaint of sexual misconduct concerning the Minister of Finance.

According to one report, she was paid a financial settlement shortly thereafter and signed a non-disclosure agreement. Was the Premier aware of this and, if so, what action has he taken?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: There was a thorough third-party investigation. There wasn’t a shred of evidence whatsoever.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier stated emphatically this week that he has zero tolerance for sexual misconduct and that he will always act decisively to deal with it. Will the Premier allow for an independent investigation of these allegations? It seems to us—and others have said the same—that when there’s a non-disclosure agreement, there’s obviously something there that people don’t want to have disclosed.

I ask the Premier: Will he have an independent investigation called and ask the minister to step aside while it’s being conducted?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Leader of the Opposition: I have 100% confidence in Minister Fedeli. I stand beside him, shoulder to shoulder. He’s a man with honour. He has integrity.

Again, a third-party investigation took place, which the Leader of the Opposition was well aware of—just playing politics. But what I find ironic is that you would actually take a person who in my opinion has zero credibility, Patrick Brown, who lacks credibility—it’s shameful that the NDP are siding with someone who would go after and claim that one of our ministers, when she came out publicly and said that she had mental health issues—you would actually believe a person like that? You would actually take that person’s side? That’s disgusting. That is absolutely disgusting, that you would side with someone like Patrick Brown.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Last week, the Premier said that any staff person who comes forward will be protected and that he would take any allegations seriously.

Reports indicate that serious allegations have been made. Will the Premier allow for an independent investigation of these allegations and ask the minister to step aside while it’s being conducted?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: Serious allegations? Serious allegations from Patrick Brown? You’ve got to be kidding. With zero credibility? You actually have the nerve to come in here and throw these accusations? A person who attacks people who come out and say they have a mental illness issue—what message does that send across the province? What does it say when someone has the courage to come up and speak out? Why isn’t the Leader of the Opposition standing up and supporting our minister? That is absolutely disgusting.

I’ll tell you what Patrick Brown has done: He has brought a super-strong team together—even stronger. We’re even more united than we’ve ever been.

But, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition knows that there’s zero evidence—zero evidence. The media came out and said that there’s not a shred of evidence. I find it absolutely shameful and disgusting she would even bring this up in this—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Next question.

Ethical standards

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I want to return to the Premier concerning his expectations and standards for his cabinet team, and the message that that sends to the province. Over the last two weeks, there have been serious questions raised about how the Premier handles complaints of sexual misconduct.

As the Premier has stated, all complaints need to be dealt with seriously. They also need to be dealt with transparently. Why is the Premier unwilling to call for an independent investigation into these serious allegations?

Hon. Doug Ford: Again, in case the Leader of the Opposition didn’t hear me four other times, there was a thorough investigation—a thorough investigation, with zero evidence. And when the media even comes out yesterday and says there is no evidence—I’ll even listen to the media. For the Leader of the Opposition to bring this up in the House and start playing politics with someone’s life is pretty serious.

I stand shoulder to shoulder with my Minister of Finance. Every single day, I am proud that he’s there. I’m proud of the hard work he has done. He’s turning the province around.

I can’t wait, Mr. Speaker, to hear the fall economic statement about the mess that the NDP put us into and the Liberals put us into. We’re still going to be working through that. It’s shameful, disgusting, and you should be apologizing.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Two weeks ago, the Premier said that the member for Simcoe–Grey had left cabinet and the PC caucus for health reasons. Then it emerged that he, in fact, was asked to leave following an allegation of sexual misconduct. The Premier then claimed that he would take all allegations seriously and he urged people to come forward.

That seemed to be what happened in this case, but the Premier is saying that he refuses to take these particular allegations seriously. Why is the Premier refusing to call a transparent, independent investigation whereby the information is given to all people who are interested? This is the Minister of Finance that we’re talking about, Speaker.

Hon. Doug Ford: This just shows the lack of integrity in this House. It shows the lack of integrity through the leader of the NDP.

These accusations, again, that happened a long time ago, were thoroughly investigated by a third party. Zero evidence came out; there wasn’t a shred of evidence. Again, to politicize this—and listening to a guy like Patrick Brown? You’ve got to be kidding me. Someone who wants to attack someone and saying that they faked mental illness—you’ve got to think about that.

The Leader of the Opposition should look around this room. Maybe the other people have so-called faked it. That’s a serious, serious accusation.

You know something? You want to talk about credibility? There is no credibility on the other side—the opposition.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, over the last week, the Premier has been evasive about the standards that he expects from cabinet ministers and staff, but this is a serious allegation that requires a serious response. The allegation isn’t just one of sexual misconduct, but that the PC caucus used public dollars to buy someone’s silence.

Will the Premier allow for an independent investigation of these allegations—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I have to ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Withdraw.

The allegation isn’t just one of sexual misconduct but that public money was used to ensure that this information didn’t come to light.

Will the Premier allow for an independent investigation of these allegations and ask that the minister step aside while it’s being conducted?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: Again, the Minister of Finance has integrity. He’s a man with honour. He’s a man who is fighting day in and day out to clean up the mess that the NDP and the Liberals created in the last 15 years. The NDP voted 97% of the time with the Liberals to destroy this province, and I won’t stand here for a second and listen to the leader of the NDP throwing stones in a glass house. Patrick Brown has as much credibility as a rock.

Interjections.

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

I haven’t been counting the standing ovations, but there have been several so far. I will remind members that when the standing ovations occur, I sometimes can barely hear the member who has the floor. If I can’t hear the member who has the floor, I’ll have to stand up and interrupt them.

Start the clock. Next question.

Minimum wage

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier.

A single mom working full time for the minimum wage will lose almost $2,000 annually as a result of the Premier’s minimum wage freeze. Most people working for minimum wage don’t pay any taxes at all; they just don’t make enough money.

Does the Premier really expect that working mom and the other working people struggling to make ends meet on the minimum wage to believe that a tax cut will actually make up the difference?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: Actually, when I campaigned, I talked to hundreds and hundreds of businesses. The majority of them were small businesses. Over 80% of people are employed by small businesses. I heard over and over again that they were laying people off. From coffee shops to restaurants to hardware stores, they were getting rid of people. Tens of thousands of people lost their jobs under Bill 148.

What our government is going to do is we’re going to make sure we give a tax break—0% tax—to people making minimum wage.

I talked to thousands of people who got laid off. I went to universities. The students came up to me and said, “We aren’t being hired anymore.” We went to people with disabilities who said they’re no longer being hired. As a matter of fact, they’re being fired.

We’re going to turn the province around. This is going to create tens of thousands of jobs. We’re going to create an economic boom in this province. We’re going to create jobs in this—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, I talked to hundreds of moms and hundreds of workers who simply cannot make ends meet on the current minimum wage. People are here today from across Ontario to assert their right to basic dignity on the job, to take a paid day off when they get sick without having to pay a doctor for a doctor’s note, to be able to pay the bills with a livable minimum wage. It’s not much, but the Premier wants to take it away.

The majority of people earning minimum wage don’t even earn enough to pay taxes; that is a fact. But an increase in the minimum wage was going to make a real difference in their lives. The Premier’s wage freeze will take nearly $2,000 out of a full-time worker’s pocket. Instead of offering empty gimmicks, why doesn’t he just allow the minimum wage to increase to $15 an hour?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: I’d like to know what the Leader of the Opposition said to the thousands of single moms I met who don’t have a job because of Bill 148, the bill that they supported. They supported laying people off. That’s what they support. What are you going to say to the thousands of people who don’t have the money in their pocket, who don’t have the $2,000 or even $3,000?

We support the front-line people of this province. We support the hard-working people. That’s why they’re going to pay 0% tax. We’re going to create tens of thousands of jobs.

As you’ve seen, the unemployment rate is the lowest it’s been in decades under our administration, because companies feel confident. We’re creating an environment to create great-paying jobs. We’re going to have this province booming once again. We will be the rock of Canada.

Interjections.

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

Next question.

Minimum wage

Mr. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade.

First off, I’d like to congratulate the minister on the important legislative progress he’s made on the Making Ontario Open for Business Act as it heads to committee. On this side of the House, it’s clear that months and months of meetings with various stakeholders across this province, including job creators, workers and union leaders across Ontario led to the creation of this bill.

There also seems to be a lot of rhetoric on the other side, from the opposition, about this government’s commitment to one of the country’s highest minimum wages. Can the minister inform us how the history of debate on the minimum wage in this House has influenced government policy?

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks to the honourable member for the first good question of question period this morning.

It’s an honour to rise in the House to bring some attention to prior debate in this House on this issue. Here’s what the member of Timiskaming–Cochrane had to say about a rising minimum wage: “If you’re going to create jobs, let’s talk about the real issues. Minimum wage is one of them. But if you’re going to trumpet that the minimum wage is that much higher, let’s look at everything that is that much higher....

“We ... went from the lowest hydro costs to the highest hydro costs in the country.” Thank you, Liberal government supported by the NDP.

Not only are we committed to providing one of the highest minimum wages in the country, I want to be certain the member opposite realizes that we’re doing exactly what he was asking for. Our government for the people is making life more affordable. The same member said this: “And employers, many of them, rightfully so, are very worried,” and that’s a fact. We’re bringing predictability—

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

Mr. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: Thank you to the minister for informing us about what the official opposition had to say about minimum wage during previous debates.

It seems to me that the official opposition had some sage-like advice as to how to proceed with an increase to minimum wage. The members opposite should be happy that we took their recommendations on how to proceed. Debate in this House regularly influences government policy because it’s important that members be heard as voices of their constituents.

Does the minister have any more examples of how debate in this House influenced the government’s policy regarding Bill 47?

Hon. Todd Smith: Well, as a matter of fact, I do. Thanks again to the honourable member for the question.

It’s very inspiring to know that the government for the people is doing exactly what the members opposite have been asking about. The member for Niagara had this to say: “We also need a strong, practical plan to implement increasing the minimum wage. We need to make sure small business has the time to assess the wage increases and have their input heard.” That’s exactly what we did leading up to this bill. We’ve heard from countless job creators, workers and union leaders and even the opposition about minimum wage—we heard the member opposite loud and clear.

But I don’t want to leave anyone out. The member from Nickel Belt said, “If we were to increase to $14 an hour right now, a lot of those small businesses would not survive. Those people have come to see me. They have shown me the books.” Increases to minimum wage, Mr. Speaker, shouldn’t be about politics; they should be about stability for our job creators.

Child advocate

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is to the Premier. Ontario’s Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth provides independent, non-partisan oversight to the people of Ontario. The advocate’s job is to protect children and to be a watchdog on behalf of the children of this province and raise their voice to the government. Can the Premier confirm if he plans to scrap their office later today?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Children, Community and Social Services and women’s issues.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I do appreciate the opportunity, and I appreciate the question from the member opposite. We are going to continue to support children in this province. This is a very important portfolio that I’ve been privileged to have been assigned by the Premier of Ontario. We have been working with many members of the Legislative Assembly, including the independent officers of this House, and we will continue to work with those who want to seek to protect children in care, children in the justice system. I can assure everyone in this Legislature that the fiercest child advocate in this province will be me.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Miss Monique Taylor: I don’t think I know how to respond to that. I’m going to go back to the Premier, Speaker. The child advocate provides vital oversight. It is a voice for children in this province who so often don’t have one. The child advocate calls out governments when their policies harm innocent children. The fact that the Ford government wants to do away with their voice says something terrifying about the plans for this province for our most vulnerable children. How can the Premier possibly justify this decision?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Well, you know, I’m going to say thank you to the Premier. I’ve never worked with a leader who has been this attentive to the people of the province of Ontario, and, I can tell you, over the last 24 hours, personally attentive and supportive of me personally and our Minister of Finance. I can tell you something: If you want a fierce advocate in the province of Ontario, it’s Premier Doug Ford.

Mental health and addiction services

Ms. Lindsey Park: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. This government appreciates the importance of financial and social supports for those suffering from mental health issues. That’s why during the election we promised to prioritize fixing our mental health system. With one in five Ontarians affected by mental health, it’s clear that this is an issue that affects every person in this province and in my riding of Durham, either directly or indirectly.

Can the minister please inform the House of what our government is doing to address mental health in this province?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I’d like to thank the member from Durham very much for her question and for the continued great work that she’s doing in her riding. She was absolutely correct when she said that our government promised to make mental health and addictions a priority in the province of Ontario. That is why our government is committing to spend $3.8 billion over 10 years to finally—I say finally—develop and implement a comprehensive and connected mental health and addictions system in our province. This initiative will also include housing supports to further alleviate pressures on the system.

I envision an Ontario where patients don’t need to be in crisis to receive timely access to mental health and addictions treatment. The fact that we are so far from that reality is, quite frankly, shocking to me. We can do better, and we must do better. We will create a mental health and addictions care system that works for all of the people in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Lindsey Park: Thank you to the minister for that response. I’m proud that our government for the people is delivering on a clear promise that we made to the people of Ontario. Our government understands that front-line workers are the backbone of our health care system. They go above and beyond the call of duty every single day.

Speaker, our government appreciates Ontario’s front-line workers in our health care sector and will ensure that these hard-working Ontarians are supported with the resources necessary to succeed every day. Can the minister please tell the House how our government will ensure that funding will benefit those who need mental health and addiction services?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you again for the question. The Premier and I have committed to ensuring that each dollar goes directly to services that will make a significant impact for patients in this province. Our funding will go toward improving front-line care, reduced wait times and improved access to mental health and addictions services.

We know we need to work with our partners to find the right solutions. This includes organizations like the Canadian mental health organization, Children’s Mental Health Ontario, and Addictions and Mental Health Ontario. Our government is committed to building a comprehensive and connected mental health and addictions system that works for the people of Ontario.

Environmental protection

Mr. Ian Arthur: Mr. Speaker, my question, through you, is to the Premier. Today the media reported that the government intends to make cuts to the Office of the Environmental Commissioner and might even abolish that office altogether. Is the Premier firing the Environmental Commissioner? Or otherwise, what changes will he be imposing on her office?

Hon. Doug Ford: President of treasury.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for that question. I’m going to remind everyone in this House this is not the rumour economic statement; it is the fall economic statement.

We’ve been working hard since day one to restore trust in this province, to renew accountability, and to re-establish transparency—

Interjection.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: —which may be funny to the Leader of the Opposition, but which I think the rest of my caucus and the rest of Ontario take very seriously. Every action we take is about restoring fiscal planning so that we can provide and support the core services for not just this generation but also to support future generations, because that’s what we were elected to do.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Ian Arthur: It would be very easy to dispel a rumour with a simple answer.

The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario is an officer of the Legislature whose job it is to provide independent assessment of the state of Ontario’s environment. The commissioner administers the Environmental Bill of Rights, which guarantees the public’s right to be notified and consulted on government decisions. The commissioner’s most recent report flagged the potential loss of funding for the water protection act framework.

This is the same party that already brought us the Walkerton crisis and is currently being sued under the Environmental Bill of Rights. Is the Premier targeting the ECO because he does not want to answer to the public on his environmental record?

Interjections.

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

President of the Treasury Board.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: I would like to clarify to the member opposite that—and I’m sure he would agree—it would be unethical for us to front-run the fall economic statement. I welcome him to the House at 1 o’clock to hear all the facts.

I also want to acknowledge the great work that the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks is doing. He is a man full of integrity, who has been leading the charge, and we have full faith and confidence in him.

I also want to take this opportunity to stand shoulder to shoulder with the minister of many things, who has been brave through this period. Also, to the Minister of Finance: I’m wearing a yellow tie because we stand in solidarity. But I’ll go one more, Mr. Speaker: I’m wearing yellow socks.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Order. I need to hear the next member who has a question.

Start the clock. I recognize the member for Scarborough–Guildwood.

Public services

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: My question is to the Premier. Your government’s own research shows that investments of the past Liberal government that we were making in health care, education, justice and social services have aided this province. These investments provided much-needed services—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I apologize to the member for Scarborough–Guildwood. I’m going to give you extra time. The government has to come to order. I apologize once again.

The member for Scarborough–Guildwood.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: These investments provided much-needed services to the people of Ontario, like basic income, social supports, environmental protection, fair workplaces and even teaching things like consent, which we sorely need.

They were also made, according to the FAO, because Ontario had to catch up. This province was behind because of years of austerity that it was subject to under a previous Conservative government. Will your government’s economic statement bring back austerity measures and eliminate programs and services that the people of Ontario rely on?

Hon. Doug Ford: President of the Treasury Board.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Thank you to the member opposite for that question. Our government was elected because we said that we would do things differently than the previous Liberal government.

We need to reform public services that put reliability and the taxpayer at the centre of everything we do to get the finances in this province back in order. We need to reform public services in a way that puts reliability and the taxpayer at the centre. Every action that we take has been about responsible fiscal planning and a more sustainable government, precisely so that we can protect front-line services and jobs while investing in priorities for the people of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, I very much look forward, as I’m sure the whole House does, to hearing from the Minister of Finance at 1 o’clock. You’re all invited for the fall economic statement.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: Again to the Premier: You have to be clear and open with the people of Ontario about what this all means. In fact—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order on the government side.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: —promises will exacerbate the fiscal challenges that we face. In fact, we are at risk of losing the progress that we’ve made in this province.

Your government is here to make sure that all Ontarians have the health care, education, justice and social services that they depend on. I ask you again, Premier: Will your government continue to make investments in the services and supports that the people of Ontario rely on, or will you return to the austerity of the 1990s?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Thank you again to the member for that question. When she speaks about the path that we’ve inherited from the previous Liberal government, what she has done is that she has indebted the province not only for this generation but for future generations, and that’s what we’re going to fix.

Mr. Speaker, I find it very rich to hear about making things clear and open, as she says the previous Liberal government did. That’s why we had the commission of inquiry, which told us we don’t have a $6-billion deficit; we’ve got a $15-billion deficit. That’s why we did a line-by-line review that showed us that this province is falling behind every other province and is not protecting core services, let alone providing the funding for future services in health care and education, for bridges and tunnels. That’s what the people expect of us, and that’s what we will do.

Public safety

Mr. Dave Smith: My question today is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. People have continued to raise concerns with me over the province’s ability to ensure the safety and well-being of the public. Currently, individuals are sitting in foreign prisons, waiting to return to this province after fighting for terrorist groups such as ISIS and Hamas. This is simply unacceptable.

Justin Trudeau’s government has failed to act. We cannot stand by while convicted terrorists are waiting to return to Ontario. Ontarians who choose to participate in these barbaric acts of violence do not deserve to be welcomed back with open arms.

Minister, could you explain to the members of this Legislature what actions our government is taking to target those who choose to leave Ontario to commit these barbaric, heinous and indefensible crimes?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I would be happy to do that, but first I want to thank my colleague from Peterborough–Kawartha for introducing a private member’s bill that actually deals with this issue directly. The Terrorist Activities Sanctions Act will act where our federal government has let us down.

I can assure you that a Premier Ford-led government will have no welcome mat, no welcome home parade for people who choose to fight our allies and to hurt our great men and women who are working in uniform with our own citizens and the citizens of our allies. We will not be part of the charade of saying, “You are welcome back and there are no sanctions.”

We are taking definitive action on that, and I will speak to it in my supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Dave Smith: I thank the minister for her response.

Justin Trudeau’s public safety minister has attempted to express his lack of sympathy to those convicted terrorists who wish to return to Canada. We’ve heard only talk; we have seen absolutely no action from Justin Trudeau’s government.

Terrorists who have committed heinous crimes against their country and their province deserve to be severely punished for their actions. We simply cannot wait for Justin Trudeau to take action. The federal government has waited too long. Far too many Ontarians are concerned for their safety and the safety of their families.

To the minister: Could you please update the members of this Legislature on the steps our government for the people is taking to keep our communities safe from those who choose to leave Ontario and commit vicious and barbaric crimes?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: To my colleague, again, thank you so much. I think it’s an amazing opportunity we will have this afternoon to talk further about the details with your private member’s bill.

Just because the federal government hasn’t done their job—I can assure you we will do ours. When these terrorists choose to come back to Ontario, they are not going to be welcomed and they are, most importantly, not going to be getting any benefits from the government of Ontario.

The people of Ontario deserve to know that their safety is paramount to us. We will do that, and we will not be giving benefits to people who choose to do terrorist activities.

Long-term care

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. A freedom-of-information request at London Health Sciences Centre revealed that since 2014, 6,190 alternative-level-of-care patients have waited more than 100,000 days in the hospital. That’s the equivalent of almost 300 years.

These are often elderly and vulnerable people who could be discharged, but have nowhere to go. The result is so many patients being treated in the hallway that earlier this year, LHSC was forced to implement a hallway transfer protocol.

Speaker, Londoners deserve to know: What is the plan to address the shortage of beds not just in our hospitals, but in the community as well?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I can certainly agree with the member that the number of people who are alternate-level-of-care patients in our hospitals is not acceptable, but that is what we inherited after 15 years of the previous Liberal government, which, unfortunately, you propped up. That is not something that just happened overnight; that’s been growing and growing, and nothing has been done about it.

But we are going to do something about it. That was one of our central campaign promises, that we are going to end hallway health care. We promised, and we’re delivering on our promise, to create 15,000 long-term-care beds in the first five years and 30,000 in 10 years. We’ve already announced 6,000 beds that are already in the works and we’re working on that each and every day.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: The problem in London is getting worse: 621 alternative-level-of-care patients were at London Health Sciences Centre already by August this year.

So far, this government’s commitment to new long-term-care beds has come without firm timelines and with little transparency. We’ve heard an announcement about flu-surge funding, but none of the funding has been allocated to London.

After a decade of Liberal cuts, my community needs stable, permanent funding for hundreds of beds. We need beds in the hospital, we need beds in transitional care and we need beds in long-term care. Will this government commit today to sustainable, long-term funding to fix London’s hallway health care crisis?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Everything that we have announced so far has been absolutely open and transparent and will continue to be. We’ve already announced 6,000 beds that are in production. They’re actively working on that.

There are no firm timelines because it depends on production, what is actually being done in each individual project, but I can assure you that they will be in operation as soon as possible, because we know that there are already over 30,000 people, not just in the London area but across the entire province, who are waiting for long-term-care beds to be created. That is something that we are looking at each and every day in the Ministry of Health. We’re not waiting six months or any long period of time to create those beds.

As soon as applications are ready, we take a look at whether there’s a need in the area, where the other locations are and whether they’re introducing innovation and what the project is that they’re introducing. We are applying the correct objective criteria to each application and we are moving on it as soon as we can every day.

Taxation

Mrs. Amy Fee: My question is for the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. This morning, the people in Ontario awoke to the lowest gas prices that we have seen in over a year. The people in my riding of Kitchener South–Hespeler were lined up this morning to fill up their tanks, knowing that every cent counts. This is proof that the people of Ontario need these kinds of savings.

It has been made clear, though, that the Trudeau Liberals plan to implement a carbon tax on the people of Ontario. Can the minister please tell members of this Legislature how the elimination of the cap-and-trade carbon tax is saving the people of Ontario and my riding money?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler: Thank you for her question. It’s a very timely question. Ontarians did wake up to some of the lowest gas prices that they’ve seen in a very long time. On Bayly in Ajax it was $1.11. I heard from a number of my colleagues that in their ridings the prices were lower as well.

Of course, this is in part due to the elimination of the previous Liberal government’s cap-and-trade program that has saved families 4.3 cents a litre, 5.7 cents a litre for diesel. Mr. Speaker, this is going to save families $264 a year. This is money back in Ontario families’ pockets. It’s just the beginning for a government that appreciates that families come first, communities come first. People need more money.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mrs. Amy Fee: Mr. Speaker, first I’d like to thank the member for the answer to that question and all the work he is doing for the people of Ontario.

The Trudeau government continues to suggest that a price on carbon is apparently the best solution to reduce emissions. They suggest that returning the funds back to the people of Ontario will in turn make this move less impactful; however, we’ve learned that this carbon pricing is also going to be subject to GST, a cost that would then not be returned to the people of Ontario.

Just yesterday, the federal Minister of Environment indicated that this was just the starting point and that even more targets will be looked at later. How much can we expect Ontarians to pay before it is enough? Can the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks tell us what the Trudeau carbon tax will actually cost Ontarians?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member: We can. For months now the federal government has been asked how much their carbon tax will cost and they’ve given no answer. Fortunately, because of the FAO’s report, we know that $648 is the price per family of this carbon tax in 2022. To put that in terms of the price of gasoline, that’s another 35 cents a litre, so on today’s price in Ajax, the families there would be paying $1.50 a litre.

The member is quite correct, though. The federal minister said, “That’s just the beginning; let’s get this in place and then we’ll raise the price”—perhaps as high as the NDP members have talked about, the highest carbon tax in the world, $150 a tonne. That would mean gasoline in Ajax would be over $2 a litre today. That’s the price of an NDP solution. That will be the price of the federal government’s solution.

Doug Ford and our government here will protect families—

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Next question.

Labour dispute

Ms. Judith Monteith-Farrell: My question is for the Premier.

The nurses at Thunder Bay District Board of Health are still on strike. I asked the Minister of Health two weeks ago what your government was doing to resolve it, but the strike continues, leaving my community without these vital front-line workers.

I think of Kayla, a nurse who works in the Healthy Babies Healthy Children program. She works with families with children from prenatal to age six, to support their growth and development. She supports new parents, doing home visits and phone calls and check-ins. For many new parents, nurses like Kayla are the only support they have. Kayla is just asking for a fair collective agreement from her employer so they can get back to work improving the health of my community.

What is the government doing to resolve this strike immediately?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you very much for the question.

Of course, this is something that the ministry is not able to get directly involved in. I know this has been going on for some time. We hope that an agreement can be reached that’s satisfactory to both parties as soon as possible. We are following it closely because, of course, patient care is our first and foremost consideration.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Judith Monteith-Farrell: To the Premier: These public health nurses have been on strike for over a month. It is time for this government to do more than deflect the problem, because the work they do is so important.

One of the people on strike is a street nurse. Her name is Shelley. She goes out in the community to meet people where they live, in their homes or shelters or on the streets. She protects her community from infectious disease outbreaks like TB, HIV and STDs, and from blood-borne infections. The work she does also reduces hospital wait times. She can’t do her work now, and that puts our community at risk.

What will this government do to encourage this employer to negotiate a fair collective agreement so nurses like Shelley can get back to work protecting our community?

Hon. Christine Elliott: We certainly appreciate the work that the nurses are doing across the province of Ontario. It is important and vital care they provide.

Safety of patients, of course, is first and foremost so we are following closely, but I’m sure that you would not expect us to interfere in those negotiations. That is something that is beyond the mandate of the ministry. We respect the conversations that are going on and the negotiations that are going on. We do hope that they will come to a resolution sooner rather than later so that the nurses can continue to provide the excellent quality care they provide in the community.

Tourism

Mr. Michael Parsa: My question is for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport. Minister, I was thrilled to learn that you travelled to Sault Ste. Marie this week to meet with tourism operators in northern Ontario regarding consultations for Ontario’s brand new tourism strategy.

While northern Ontario already plays a critical role in opening Ontario for business, this government aims to bolster tourism in the region. This goal is a genuine effort to revitalize and support northern Ontario’s economy.

Would the minister be able to update the House on his visit to Sault Ste. Marie and the importance of this initiative in the north?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Thank you to the member for Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill for this question.

Once again, I would like to acknowledge the terrific work of my predecessor, Minister Jones, in laying the foundation for a very successful summit. The previous minister had announced her province-wide tourism consultations at the Tourism Industry Association of Ontario summit last month in Windsor. I was grateful to continue the work by visiting the Soo earlier this week.

While I was there, I had a chance to attend the Destination Northern Ontario AGM and the Algoma Kinniwabi Travel Association AGM. I also toured the Machine Shop and the Canadian Bushplane Heritage Centre. It was a very productive trip and a very interesting one, where I got a chance to hear from local tourism operators.

I look forward to, in supplementary, answering some more questions.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Parsa: Through you, Speaker, to the minister: Thank you very much for that great response, and thanks for the work that you have already begun.

I’m glad to hear that your trip in northern Ontario was productive and will undoubtedly have benefits to the community in the short and long term.

It’s also encouraging to hear that our government is actively listening to the experts and front-line workers as to how we can strengthen tourism in Ontario’s north. Minister, I’m sure I can speak for all members when I say this: I am glad that we are going to take steps to make the tourism sector more vibrant across this province. While the former Liberal government failed to recognize the importance of tourism in northern Ontario, this government fully acknowledges it.

Through you, Speaker, to the minister: Can the minister tell us just how important the tourism sector is to the north?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Once again, thank you to my colleague for the question. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that this government is committed to creating the environment for business to succeed in the province. Tourism accounts for 4% of the GDP of the province. That’s more than agriculture, mining and forestry combined. It’s an industry that supports over 390,000 jobs here in Ontario and generates $34 billion in economic activity. I know northern Ontario welcomes 8.2 million visitors who spend $1.5 billion annually.

One out of every four businesses in the north is tourism-related. The tourism industry is the largest employer of youth in the north, and with all the beautiful landscapes and vibrant outdoor activities, it is limitless in terms of potential. We believe in—

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

Tenant protection

Ms. Jessica Bell: My question is to the Acting Premier. In March, Kwame Amoah was illegally evicted from his home in my riding. His new landlord forcibly removed him, his four roommates and their belongings onto the street. Despite the police charging the landlord with assault and despite the Landlord and Tenant Board ruling that it was an illegal eviction, Kwame has been unable to return home. He is now living in a homeless shelter, and his mental health is suffering.

Acting Premier, what is your plan to stop illegal evictions and help renters keep their homes?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Steve Clark: I want to thank the honourable member for the question. It’s a very serious situation, and I know all members of the House and our municipal partners are very concerned with the level of housing and social housing opportunities we have in Ontario. I think we can all agree, Speaker, that in the greater Toronto and Hamilton areas we’re in a crisis when it comes to the supply of housing.

I think it is very important to all the members of the House, no matter what political stripe, that we put a plan in place to deal with that serious supply problem. There are a number of varied crisis situations we have and I know that as the weather gets colder, some of those situations get even more critical. I think our government always looks at it with a lens of, how can we co-operate? How can we work with our 47 service managers, our two Indigenous program administrators, the private sector and the public sector? I’ll say more in the supplementary, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Jessica Bell: My question is back to the Acting Premier. This isn’t just about supply and community housing. Kwame’s experience is part of a very scary trend. There has been a 100% increase in the number of applications to evict renters for reasons other than non-payment of rent. Once you are evicted, it is very difficult to find an affordable apartment in this city. The vacancy rate in Toronto is the lowest in 16 years and the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment is now the highest in Canada. The Landlord and Tenant Board is simply not doing enough to help people who are facing illegal eviction.

Acting Premier, what is this government going to do to stop these growing trends, which have good tenants facing homelessness?

Hon. Steve Clark: Again, thank you for the question. There needs to be a lot of work done in our system, Speaker. There’s no doubt about it. The Landlord and Tenant Board, and some of the issues that the member was speaking about—there do need to be more resources and I’m working with the Attorney General on that issue.

In terms of housing supply, I appreciate her comments. There are many partners in this, Speaker. While I’m very pleased that the federal government has a renewed interest on the housing file, I think there are many things we can do. I think we can streamline the situation. I think we can work across sectors.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s back-end-loaded. You’ve tied yourself to their plan.

Hon. Steve Clark: Rather than heckle me from the opposition benches—I think this is a non-partisan issue. I think we can all work together. It doesn’t matter whether it’s the municipal government, whether it’s the federal government, whether it is our private-sector partners, whether it’s our program admins. We all need to work together to ensure that the system is transformed and that we create more supply. That’s the bottom line, Speaker.

Taxation

Mr. Deepak Anand: My question is to the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.

Minister, last week the Trudeau government announced their plan to stop co-operating with our government and not distribute the $420 million owed to Ontario families from Ontario’s Low Carbon Economy Fund, and instead gave it to organizations and programs of their choice. Their reasoning: citing our government’s unwillingness to co-operate with the federal government and for keeping our promise to the people of Ontario to scrap the ineffective cap-and-trade carbon tax. It’s unbelievable.

Can the minister speak to the work our government is doing to stand up for hard-working Ontario families?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member for Mississauga–Malton: Thank you for that question. Our government was elected on a promise to get rid of the cap-and-trade program and to fight the Trudeau carbon tax. The federal Minister of Environment has talked about co-operation. The federal Minister of Environment has said that she wants to collaborate and work with us. But that, so far, has gotten her ripping money out of Ontario. That has also got them imposing a tax that they know that Ontarians don’t want.

What else has the federal government’s approach gotten them? A year ago, there was one province opposed to the federal government climate plan. Today, after the election in New Brunswick, there are now six—six governments across the country, six governments representing a majority of Canadians who understand that a carbon tax is bad for families and doesn’t help the environment. We’re taking steps—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Deepak Anand: Thank you, Minister. Thank you for your response, thank you for your leadership and thank you for standing up for the people of Ontario in combating this job-killing, ineffective carbon tax.

We have heard over and over again in this Legislature from the members—not only us but from all parties—that life is unaffordable for Ontarians. Yet yesterday, the sole Green MPP, the member from Guelph, called a press conference to advocate for a policy that would push the price of carbon so high that it would force people to surrender their cars.

Can the minister promise the people of Ontario that we will respect their mandate and not betray our promise to oppose a carbon tax, and highlight what our made-in-Ontario plan will include?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member: Thank you for that question. Our government is going to bring forward a plan on the environment, a plan that supports families and a plan that’s balanced in terms of the environment and also the economy.

He’s quite right. The member of the Green Party did propose a plan yesterday, and he proposed a number of solutions. I thanked him, both personally and on Twitter, for many of the suggestions—many of the suggestions that are added to the 5,000 suggestions that we’ve already received through our consultation, which, by the way, is still available until this Friday at the climate change website.

Despite the entreaties of the leader of the Green Party, we will not break our solemn vow to the people of Ontario. We will not bring back a job-killing, regressive carbon tax that punishes families.

Arts and cultural funding

Ms. Jill Andrew: My question is to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

In August 2018, the government cut $500,000 of programming funds promised to Sistema Toronto. Sistema Toronto provides “musical and intellectual opportunities to children in vulnerable communities.” Sistema supports marginalized children in social, emotional and academic development through access to musical instruments and music education.

Minister, Kathleen Wynne and the Liberals shouldn’t have used children as political pawns, but now this minister is in the position to do the right thing by these children.

On behalf of children, families and young artists, will this government reverse its callous decision and reinstate the funding promised to Sistema Toronto: yes or no?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Thank you for that question. With a core focus on physical activity, Ontario’s after-school programs provide no-cost or low-cost fun, safe and supervised activities to over 21,000 students in grades 1 to 12 during the school year at over 400 program sites in priority neighbourhoods across the province. Applications to expand the program are not being considered at this time.

We appreciate the work of the Sistema Toronto program and its accomplishments in providing after-school music education in priority neighbourhoods. The Sistema program does not meet the core physical activity programming requirement of Ontario’s after-school programs funded by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. The Ontario government is currently supporting Sistema Toronto through a three-year Ontario Trillium Foundation grant.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Jill Andrew: Thank you for the non-response, Minister. Glad to see that the arts don’t mean anything to the government.

Anyway, Sistema delivers positive results for the families living—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I apologize to the member. The government side will come to order.

I’ll give the member extra time.

Ms. Jill Andrew: It delivers positive results for the families living in communities struggling with some of the highest child poverty rates in Toronto. Kids participating in Sistema Toronto’s programs are more likely to achieve higher test scores, putting them on a path to better results in school.

Arts education programs and reducing barriers to participating in the arts build healthy and vital communities, particularly when we encourage the artistic talents of our young kids. So I ask, what other funding cuts to the arts and initiatives that support arts education programs can we expect from this government?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Just to be clear, our ministry has approved support to over 120 organizations to deliver no-cost or low-cost, fun, safe activities to more than 21,000 students. These programs will be delivered at over 400 sites in high-priority neighbourhoods across Ontario.

Just to be clear, a few hours before the election was called, the previous Liberal minister signed a letter promising Sistema half a million dollars. The Liberal minister knew no paperwork had been submitted and no money was budgeted. The Liberals didn’t even bother to tell Sistema they didn’t meet the qualifications their own government set for after-school programs. Sistema deserves an apology from the previous Liberal government.

Our government was—

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

Natural gas

Mr. Will Bouma: To our Minister of Infrastructure: Access to affordable energy is vital to the future prosperity of our province. Families depend on natural gas as a more affordable source of energy to heat their homes, power their tools and keep their businesses open. Speaker, natural gas is bountiful in Ontario, yet many Ontarians, especially in rural or remote parts of our province, do not have access to this commodity.

Can the minister outline our ambitious plan to leverage the private sector to deliver natural gas to tens of thousands of Ontarians?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: I want to thank the member from Brantford–Brant for his strong advocacy in calling on our government to expand natural gas across rural and northern communities.

Mr. Speaker, we made two commitments during the campaign. One was to open Ontario for business. The second was to lower energy bills for families, for businesses and for everyone across the province.

Our legislation that’s working its way through the Legislature right now, Mr. Speaker, will enable the private sector to expand natural gas to 78 new communities in the province of Ontario. That means that nearly 35,000 new households in Ontario will be able to save up to $2,500 per year in energy costs.

Mr. Speaker, I’m proud to say: Promise made, promise kept.

Notice of dissatisfaction

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Pursuant to standing order 38(a), the member for University–Rosedale has given notice of her dissatisfaction with the answer to her question given by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing concerning illegal evictions. This matter will be debated Tuesday at 6 p.m.

There being no deferred votes, this House stands recessed until 1 p.m.

The House recessed from 1140 to 1300.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Dave Smith: I would like to introduce an amazing woman from our province, someone who has had to deal with something that none of us in this Legislature should ever have to deal with: Ms. Maureen Basnicki. Her husband, Ken, was killed in the north tower on September