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

May 12, 2016

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-May-12 (PDF)

L173 - Thu 12 May 2016 / Jeu 12 mai 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 12 May 2016 Jeudi 12 mai 2016

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

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Health care funding

Hydro rates

Hospital funding

Hospital funding

Natural gas

Autism treatment

Research and innovation

Climate change

Climate change

Energy policies

Wind turbines

Northern health services

Land use planning

Decorum in chamber

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Royal Canadian Legion Branch 547

Autism treatment

Marie Perrotta

Manufacturing summit

Ronald McDonald House

Nursing Week

Senior citizens

Volunteers

Bladder cancer

Visitors

Introduction of Bills

Immunization of School Pupils Amendment Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant la

Loi sur l’immunisation des élèves

Visitor

Code of conduct

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Community Living Day / Journée de l’intégration communautaire

Petitions

Apraxia

Hospital funding

Water fluoridation

Automotive dealers

Autism treatment

Transports en commun

Hydro rates

Hospital funding

GO Transit

Health care funding

Ontario Northland Transportation Commission

Privatization of public assets

Private Members’ Public Business

Eating Disorders Awareness Week Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la Semaine de la sensibilisation aux troubles de l’alimentation

Pension plans

Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Keep our Roads Safer through the use of Intelligent Drive Technologies), 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant le Code de la route (sécurité routière accrue grâce à l’emploi de technologies de conduite intelligente)

Eating Disorders Awareness Week Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la Semaine de la sensibilisation aux troubles de l’alimentation

Pension plans

Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Keep our Roads Safer through the use of Intelligent Drive Technologies), 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant le Code de la route (sécurité routière accrue grâce à l’emploi de technologies de conduite intelligente)

Orders of the Day

Energy Statute Law Amendment Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant des lois sur l’énergie

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 11, 2016, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 172,

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

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further debate. The member from Kingston and the Islands.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m happy to rise in the House today and once again give my support to Bill 172, the Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act. Ontario is a province with one of the highest emission rates of greenhouse gases in Canada, and we have to tackle this generational problem head-on. While members opposite might point out that other jurisdictions in the world might pollute more, we do not feel that this is an excuse to sit back and wait as the environmental and economic costs of climate change continue to climb.

Forgive me, Speaker; I will be sharing my time with the member for Halton, the member for Ottawa South and the member for Burlington.

Ontario’s proposed approach to cap-and-trade strikes the right balance between reducing greenhouse gas pollution and fostering economic growth. I stand in support of this bill today, which listened to and considered all the concerns raised by various stakeholder groups and members from the parties opposite. Responding to their concerns throughout the committee process, this bill has been further strengthened to improve accountability and transparency, increase consideration for low-income households, enhance market integrity and protect personal information.

Today, I would like to focus specifically on two aspects of the bill: the protections it offers low-income households in our province, as well as the respect and acknowledgement that it provides to aboriginal communities. Protecting those who would face the most hardships due to the increased costs of climate change remains an important priority for this government. Together with the third party, we worked to bring forward motions that would require a climate change action plan to consider the impact of cap-and-trade on low-income households and assist them with Ontario’s transition to the low-carbon economy.

Everyone will benefit from a greener Ontario, and, with the appropriate safeguards in place, we will also ensure that the most vulnerable will not be disadvantaged.

Madam Speaker, I am also very proud that this bill acknowledges the special relationship that the First Nations and Métis communities have with the environment. Over the past two years, I have had the honour to meet with many First Nations communities across the province, and I’ve heard first-hand how deeply connected they are, both spiritually and culturally, to the land, water, air and animals. Our government has been committed to engaging in meaningful dialogue and recognizing the traditional territories of First Nations communities.

Building on this commitment, this bill includes a provision that requires the minister to consider any traditional ecological knowledge a First Nation or Métis community will offer in respect to that action plan. This bill also includes provisions that make it clear that nothing in the bill is intended to take away from the protections provided to aboriginal and treaty rights in the Canadian Constitution.

I’m also happy to note that we worked with a third party to strengthen the government’s accountability and reporting on our progress under the action plan. Amendments were made in committee to require that the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change publish a progress report every year rather than at least every five years. The long-term benefits of a clean and sustainable environment will ensure that all future generations will be able to enjoy everything that our province has to offer.

This bill allows Ontario to remain a leader in tackling climate change as it is only through decisive and affirmative action that we will be able to make a positive difference. This bill demonstrates Ontario’s commitment to meet its greenhouse gas emission reduction targets and to keep the global average temperature increase to less than two degrees Celsius.

Madam Speaker, I urge all members to support this bill today, as it is the right thing to do for the planet, for Ontario and for our children and grandchildren’s futures. Thank you. Merci. Meegwetch.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): The member from Ottawa South.

Mr. John Fraser: It’s a pleasure to stand today and speak to Bill 172, and to have the opportunity to do that.

Before I talk a little bit more about the bill and the importance of it, I think it’s important for us to underline the fact that climate change is a global problem. I heard the Leader of the Opposition in his questioning yesterday with regard to his criticism of the cap-and-trade program. What it reminded me of is the isolationist policy of the former federal government and the actual denial of climate change. To pretend that we can operate in isolation from the rest of the world is naive—maybe even more than naive; it’s wrong-headed.

The reality is that for the first day ever this year in China, they had a red-alert smog day. What that red-alert smog day means is, “Don’t go outside. It’s not safe. Don’t go outside.” I don’t think we can imagine that here. I know some of my colleagues whom have been to China—most recently the Deputy Premier, who I had a conversation with the other day about what it was like. The first thing she talked about was the air, and that they know. Leaders and governments know there. That’s top of mind for them. You can’t actually have an economy that functions well if you have an unhealthy population.

That’s why we need to do this, and that’s why we need to do this in concert with California and Quebec, because there will be a price on carbon. That price on carbon will increase as we go along. It will be a global market. It is a global challenge. We don’t have any other choice but to work with those people around us to make sure that we tackle this problem, because if we don’t, it’s going to have significant impacts on everybody in this world.

I do know that the bill did go through committee and that there was some substantial improvement. The official opposition is not supportive of it. They have another plan, which I believe is something that is vague. I don’t know if I would describe it as a plan. I think it got patched, or announced very quickly, very precipitously, to the surprise of many members on the other side.

I think that if you’re serious about climate change, if you recognize that it’s a reality, you have to recognize that it’s something that we do in concert with our partners in the rest of the world. That’s why the cap-and-trade program is key, I believe, to fighting climate change, not just in this province but globally.

To add a little bit more in terms of Ontario’s position in terms of cap-and-trade: We closed all the coal-fired generating plants. That is the single biggest drop in carbon in North America. What that has led to is an enormous savings in health care costs and enormous savings in terms of people’s individual lives, childhood asthma and illnesses. It’s the equivalent of taking five million cars off the road.

When you’re looking at cap-and-trade structure organizations, we benefit from what we have done by closing those coal plants. I don’t think we would have been there if the opposition were making decisions about what we’re going to do with coal. We’d still be burning coal. The reality is that, yes, if you stop burning coal, it will cost us more money. It has cost us more money, because we want energy security. But we’re going to reap the benefits of that, because the world is moving towards a carbon economy. Okay? That’s an important thing for us to remember, and I want to emphasize that we can’t do this in isolation.

I think that for the Leader of the Opposition to stand up and talk about the flow of money back and forth on one side is—I don’t think it’s naive. I don’t think it’s naive; I think it’s wrong-headed. It speaks to the lack of a plan, the lack of an understanding of what’s going on in the world today, and what I would describe as an isolationist policy, a policy which would see Ontario withdraw from the rest of the world. I feel it’s important to mention that, because I’ve heard the criticism from the other side.

I really strongly believe that what we’re doing here in terms of the investment that we’re going to make as a result of cap-and-trade, in connection with the rest of the world, is going to help us innovate, benefit and advance manufacturing.

One of the things we’ve done in terms of moving off of coal was to incent the construction of renewable energy here in the province of Ontario.

Interjection.

Mr. John Fraser: Thank you very much to the member from Sarnia. Thank you very much for your information. I think it’s an important thing to remember that the world is moving to a different kind of economy. If you take a look at what is happening in the United States and how they’re looking at moving off coal, how they’re looking at gaining renewables, the kind of investments that they’re making there, it’s very similar to what we saw in the auto sector over the years. We build cars and sell them south of the border.

So we’re going to build renewable energy, we’re going to create innovation, and we’re going to sell it south of the border and around the world. That’s what we’ve been doing, and they’re buying our products, as the Premier said.

Interjections.

Mr. John Fraser: Thank you very much. I was just checking to see who is—I didn’t want to run the clock on any of my colleagues, but they’re running a little late, so I’ll just keep running the clock. Getting back to what we were talking about, I’m going to go back to—

Interjection.

Mr. John Fraser: We were just talking about the auto industry; there we go. We were at the auto industry, and I was talking about how renewable energy and that innovation and that industry that we’re building there is very similar to what the auto industry has been about here. We are going to need a change. That’s part of cap-and-trade. It’s the kind of innovation that we’re going to bring to the auto industry, that we’re going to incent, that we’re going to do through the funds that we have, through cap-and-trade. I think those things are critical.

I don’t want to seem like I’m picking on the official opposition, but at the time of the great recession, they were against an investment in the auto industry. They were against us supporting the auto industry at a critical time. There were 400,000 jobs in Ontario that depended on that. That was a surprising thing, and that’s kind of an isolationist policy as well. I think it’s important to recognize that through green energy and what we’ve invested in renewables, we’re building an economy; we’re building an industry that is going to be critical in the world in the next 30, 40, 50 years.

We’re going to be the innovators. We’re going to be the people who build. We are going to be the people who bring this kind of technology to the rest of the world. That is what our investment has done and is what our investment will continue to do through cap-and-trade.

You know, one of the things that I think is important to recognize in this bill is that in this Legislature we often debate things that can be fairly short-term—in the space of five to 10 years or less. We’re making adjustments and changes to legislation to adapt to what things are like right now. But the work that’s really important is the work we do that looks 20, 30, 40 years down the road when we’re not around here, when most of us will be gone or close to going—our children, our grandchildren.

What this bill speaks to is a recognition that we have a responsibility to leave behind a world that’s livable and manageable, and a world in which people—our children and our children’s children—can thrive and prosper. That’s a collective responsibility we have here, and I’m very proud that the minister has put this bill forward, and congratulate him on it.

Anything we do in here will be the matter of some debate and the matter of some controversy. It will be the matter of some criticism and opposition, and that’s a good thing. That’s how you get good legislation. That’s how you get things through committee and make bills stronger. What I do want to emphasize, again, is to go back to the beginning of what I said: I don’t think Ontario can work in isolation from the rest of this world. That’s why I support Bill 172.

I thank you very much for your time, and I cede my time to the member for Burlington.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I recognize the member from Burlington.

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: Good morning, Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in the House this morning and join the member from Ottawa South and the member from Kingston on this critically important piece of legislation. I had the privilege of sitting in committee and working with colleagues to make sure that this legislation passes and has the kind of scrutiny and conversation that legislation of this import needs.

I think it is worth noting, though, and worth repeating, because there has been a lot of conversation in this House about how to tackle climate change, the most significant issue facing our planet. I think that’s well known, but we’re thinking about it, because it doesn’t just affect Ontario. We don’t live in a silo. We live in a global economy and a global climate. It’s changing, and it’s having significant and real impacts on the lives of people, not just in my community of Burlington or in our province or in our country, but around the globe.

It’s changes in weather patterns, temperature—it’s all of those things—and we cannot, because of the import of this issue, see it just through a lens that focuses uniquely on our own borders. This is an issue that really grabs us all and affects us all. We must—we must—work with other jurisdictions.

I had the privilege early in my career of working with the federal government to set up something called Sustainable Development Technology Canada. It is an organization that is thriving and continues to thrive because it is playing an important role in offering opportunities for really smart people who are developing technological and green technology solutions to help us as a country to not only combat climate change but also grow a significant

part in the economy.

When we were in committee, we heard that California, despite the most robust and strict regulations impacting climate change and vehicle emissions and that kind of thing—despite all of that—has the most robust manufacturing sector and leads the country in terms of green technologies and innovation. There’s that old saying about how necessity is the mother of invention. Well, we have arrived at necessity. We are beyond necessity now, where we’re seeing the changes in our climate and the devastating impacts of floods.

In my own community in Burlington in 2014, we had a once-in-100-year storm that devastated 3,100 homes and led to $80 million in insurance claims. It was huge. It was significant. It impacted people’s lives.

I can tell you that the residents of Burlington—our chamber of commerce has won national accolades for its action on climate change. It has been a leader in this regard. Businesses in my community are seized with this import and they’re actually in the vanguard and the forefront of technological innovations. There are companies like Terrapure, which are incredibly significant in the lives of companies who are trying to be successful in the new carbon economy.

Our government, through this legislation, is setting a long-term framework for climate change that is going to help companies like Terrapure and others like it to be more successful, to lead our globe in terms of innovative approaches.

We’re smart people here in Ontario. I have confidence in the ingenuity, the intelligence and the innovation capability of our manufacturers to make a difference in the lives of the people around the globe, in the lives of Canadians and to lead that technological innovation.

The framework that we are putting in place through our cap-and-trade system is going to encourage that kind of spirit of innovation and the very kind of innovation that not only creates green technology jobs and green economy jobs, but really helps our innovative Ontarians take the next level in terms of commercializing the very technologies that are going to change the lives of people around the globe.

I hope that everyone in this House is going to pass this legislation with a resounding yes, because it deserves it. Our economy needs it. Our environment needs it and our entrepreneurs need it too, Madam Speaker.

Thank you for this time. I appreciate it.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I recognize the member from Wellington–Halton Hills.

Mr. Ted Arnott: On a question and comment—I have, of course, because of the standing orders, two minutes now to ask questions or make comments on the speeches that were just offered.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments.

Mr. Ted Arnott: That’s right. Quite often in the context of these debates, members will stand up on questions and comments and just give a short, two-minute speech on their views and issues. But I want to engage the government members on the speeches that they gave, because I know they all gave speeches that they believe in, that they’re passionate about. They’re concerned about this issue.

I would ask them this question. I hope we’ll get an answer from whoever will respond on behalf of the government, that they will actually answer this question. That is, yesterday the Ontario Chamber of Commerce sent out a public message indicating that they are urging the government to delay the cap-and-trade plan for one year. They say, “The purpose for our calling for us to slow down before we hurry up here is to make sure we understand fully the unintended consequence or at least the cost-benefit analysis, and that ... we answer some of the questions that remain outstanding from the business community.” That is a quote from the chamber’s president and CEO, Allan O’Dette.

He’s saying that they can live with a program to deal with climate change, but they’re very concerned about rushing ahead and not having all the details. They also make the point that the government has yet to release an analysis of the economic impact of cap-and-trade, and businesses are still seeking details.

I would ask—one of the government members is going to respond eventually to this question: What do they think about this request from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce? Are they willing to support it? Do they recognize that there are thousands of businesses in the province of Ontario represented by the chamber of commerce, that jobs are at risk, and whether or not they would express support today for a one-year delay in the government’s cap-and-trade proposal?

I would ask that question of the government.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I recognize the member from Bramalea-Gore-Malton.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I’m honoured to join in the debate because climate change is really something that’s so crucially important for us to address. It’s a global initiative. We need to make sure that we have partners around the world, but it’s also something that we have a provincial obligation to take steps and to show leadership on.

Our position has been all along, when it comes to any initiative for preventing the increase in greenhouse gas emissions—whether it’s looking at reducing our carbon footprint or tackling issues of climate change—we need to have three principles in mind. Those are that the implementation of any legislation or any policy needs to be fair, needs to be transparent, and it needs to be effective.

These are three elements that can apply to any legislation but are particularly important for climate change. The reason is, if our policies are presented in a way that isn’t effective, then they do nothing to advance the goals of protecting our environment. Really, as a society, it’s something crucially important that we protect. This is literally our home, not only Ontario but Canada, North America and the entire world. We need to show leadership in how we provide effective stewardship of this resource, this planet, this home.

Transparency: With respect to initiatives, we need to ensure that whatever is going on is transparent; that the rules, the guidelines, the numbers—what are the targets and how much in terms of emissions are we actually reducing? We need to know those numbers so that there’s some transparency. Also, that transparency feeds back into effectiveness. Finally, fairness: The implementation of this legislation needs to be fair. It does not need to be burdensome on everyday people more than those who are the biggest polluters. It needs to be a balanced approach.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): The member from Newmarket–Aurora.

Mr. Chris Ballard: I’m quite delighted to be able to stand and give two minutes of comment on Bill 172, the cap-and-trade legislation. I wanted to start off by reinforcing a comment by the member from Ottawa South, who spoke at the beginning, about how the challenge of climate change is not one that occurs or obeys or listens to any political boundary. Climate change is a global issue. We cannot be isolationist in our approach. That’s why a made-in-Ontario solution that only applies to Ontario will not be successful.

I’m quite happy to see that we’re partnering with other states and other governments to build more of a national and, perhaps one day, international approach to solving the problem.

I’ve had the privilege, Madam Speaker, to work in parts of Canada that, 20 years ago, were being impacted by climate change. Working in the Far North in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon and seeing first-hand as long ago as 20 years that the climate in our Far North was changing: places like K’atlodeeche and Tsiigehtchic and Aklavik, where animals that had never been there before were able to overwinter because winters were not as severe as they once were, where words were having to be created in Gwich’in to address wasps and robins and thunderstorms—things that had never happened before.

It’s too big an issue to ignore, and I think we all agree on that. Our approach is a well-reasoned and rational approach to beginning to solve the problem.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Julia Munro: I’m pleased to have a couple of moments in which to add a few comments. I want to come back to the issue that the member from Wellington–Halton Hills referred to because, as the critic for the Ontario Registered Pension Plan, this is a déjà vu, where decisions had been made behind closed doors, largely, on the mechanics and the possible impacts of the ORPP in a manner similar to garner the concern that the chamber of commerce has voiced, not only back in the debate on the pension, but now we see exactly the same thing on cap-and-trade.

I think it should serve as a reminder to this government that there are many stakeholders when you are looking at making any kind of significant legislative changes. This is yet another one which has been done in a manner that has created more anxiety and more uncertainty, once again, on an ambitious initiative that the government has taken. A one-year delay was what the chamber was looking at with the pension plan. That’s what they’re looking at for this as well.

It should serve as a reminder to the government. We are in a democratic process. We do have to listen, we do have to understand a cost-benefit analysis, and we do have to look at the impacts on everyone.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I’m going to return back to the member from Ottawa South to wrap up.

Mr. John Fraser: It’s a pleasure to respond. Thanks to the members from Wellington–Halton Hills, Bramalea–Gore–Malton, Newmarket–Aurora and York–Simcoe.

I want to start with responding to the member from York–Simcoe. It’s interesting that the member would raise the issue of the ORPP, which I think is something that is also a responsibility of all of us in this Legislature: to look after the retirement income of the people who we represent 30 or 40 years from now. It’s kind of an interesting analogy. I know that the party opposite does not support the ORPP.

I think that’s wrong-headed. I think that our responsibility is to ensure that our children and our children’s children have a secure retirement. We can only do that if we take action now.

In regard to taking action now on Bill 172, I appreciate what the member from Wellington–Halton Hills had to say about the request from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. I would like to assure him that we are working with the Ontario Chamber of Commerce to phase in cap-and-trade. At the same time, we also have to give businesses some certainty, and we very much appreciate working with the Ontario Chamber of Commerce.

We did work with them on the HST, and it’s interesting that the members opposite—the party opposite—were not supportive of the chamber’s position at that time, which was the harmonization of taxes, which was going to benefit businesses and make things much simpler and really help our manufacturing sector.

I take that all with a grain of salt. We will continue to work with the Ontario chamber to make sure that Ontario’s businesses—we have one of the lowest combined corporate tax rates in North America—will continue to flourish. I think they would say, and they would agree, that we do live in a world. We can’t afford to be isolationists, and we have to work with the rest of the world to fight climate change.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Further debate?

Mr. Ted Arnott: I am very pleased and privileged to have this opportunity this morning to speak to third reading of Bill 172.

I want to begin by commending and congratulating our party’s critic for the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, the member for Huron–Bruce. She gave a one-hour speech yesterday in the Legislature to lead off our party’s response to the third reading debate of this important issue. She has worked very hard in the standing committee, dealing with the public hearings that took place as well as the clause-by-clause amendments. She has done an extraordinary job.

Of course, those of us who are in the caucus support her efforts. We want to express our appreciation to her for the work that she’s done. It’s not easy to stand up in this House and speak for an hour and engage the House fully; but I was here for her speech yesterday afternoon and I thought she did a remarkable job, such that I even asked her for a copy of it so I could review it in terms of my preparation for my remarks this morning.

I think it’s important to restate something that she said in her conclusion, because, again, she spoke for an hour, but her concluding comments, I thought, summed up very well the position of our caucus as well as many of her concerns. She said yesterday, “I’ve only outlined a few of the significant issues that the Ontario PC Party has pinpointed during the amendment process in committee and will continue to discuss as the Legislature proceeds through third reading. We’re confident that we performed our due diligence by voicing Ontarians’ concerns about this legislation.”

Just to digress, I would certainly confirm that statement. She has done an extraordinary job voicing the concerns of Ontarians and the people who are concerned about this bill.

“However, it should be clear from my remarks,” she said, “that we cannot support this bill as it moves forward. The PC Party of Ontario cannot prop up another massive taxation scheme that will only make life more expensive for Ontarians and more difficult for business. We’ve also made it clear that the Liberals should withdraw Bill 172 and develop a revenue-neutral model that protects taxpayers and is subject to rigorous, independent oversight.”

That summarizes in basically one sentence the position that has been taken by our caucus and our leader, the member for Simcoe North, who has outlined his views on this issue and taken a strong position too—not without controversy, but a strong position—saying we need to be willing to talk about a price on carbon, but it’s absolutely essential that it be revenue-neutral and not be a net tax increase on the people of Ontario, and whatever revenue needs to be open and transparent, not secretive.

The member for Huron–Bruce went on. She said: “Instead, our party remains committed to finding solutions that will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions while protecting our economy. We need to think creatively and innovatively.” I agree with that wholeheartedly. “We must consider a combination of measures, including different product standards, new technologies, transportation alternatives, fuel-switching incentives—i.e., geothermal, natural gas and retrofitting initiatives.”

Madam Chair, as you would know, a few years ago when our party was in government, we actually had a select committee on alternative fuels. They did good work, coming up with a report with significant recommendations for provincial government action. I think that report needs to be revisited again, obviously, and perhaps even updated, because many other technologies have come forward in the interval. But again, it’s something that we have talked about in the past.

The member for Huron–Bruce went on to conclude, “It’s amazing what industries are doing to reduce their emissions and make Ontario a more environmentally friendly place to live.” So she was acknowledging the work that industry has undertaken on its own. We know everyone who lives in Ontario is concerned about this issue, and the vast majority of businesses are responsible in taking their own proactive approaches to deal with emissions and try to reduce them.

She says, “This innovation is inspiring and will help Ontario grow into a greener, more affordable and more productive place to live. I look forward to helping make that a reality.” Again, that was the concluding comment by the member for Huron–Bruce. I thought those were very eloquent words and needed to be restated in this House.

As I said earlier, and as was restated by the member for York–Simcoe, there is news about this debate. Late yesterday, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce made a public statement, indicating that they were going to be making a public request of the government to have a one-year delay on the cap-and-trade implementation.

They indicated that they were very concerned, that there is not yet an economic analysis of the impact of cap-and-trade and that many of their members—and they represent thousands of businesses representing many hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, of jobs—are very concerned about this and want more details. Obviously, if indeed, as one of the government members just indicated, they are prepared to work with the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, which is what was said by the government member, surely they will want to ensure that businesses have the requisite details before they implement the plan.

That would be, I think, a fairly straightforward proposition, and I would urge the government at least to consider this one-year-delay request.

As the member for York–Simcoe pointed out in the past, when the Ontario Chamber of Commerce raised the request for a delay in the implementation of the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan, the government was apparently of the view that they had to listen to that and were prepared to work with the Ontario chamber. So we need to see the same co-operation here, and we would look forward to a response that is favourable.

I have actually—it was just posted on the website of the Chamber of Commerce just minutes ago, and my staff printed it off for me and brought it down here. The letter is dated actually today. It’s addressed to the Honourable Glen Murray, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, dated today from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, signed by president and CEO Allan O’Dette. I think this is very, very important information and is very relevant to this debate, Madam Speaker. So I’m going to inform the House of what is contained in the letter.

“Thank you for your continued engagement with Ontario businesses as you move ahead with the implementation of Ontario’s cap-and-trade system. As outlined in our 2015 report, Clean Profits, and subsequent submissions, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce (OCC) and the province’s business community understands the need to address climate change. If designed effectively, the cap-and-trade system presents significant economic and environmental opportunities for the province”—if designed effectively.

“Recently, the government introduced and received comments on Bill 172, Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act, 2016 and its associated regulations. We hope the business community’s feedback is taken into consideration as the government moves ahead with the implementation of its cap-and-trade system.” That statement says they’re not sure that their feedback has been taken into consideration, clearly.

The Ontario Chamber of Commerce “was encouraged by the greater level of specificity contained in Bill 172 surrounding cap-and-trade revenue. The creation of a separate greenhouse gas reduction account to hold these funds, more clarity around authorized expenditures from this account, and annual reporting requirements are all positive steps towards transparency.

“Despite these positive developments our members remain concerned with a number of aspects of the cap-and-trade system. We hope you will be able to provide greater clarity on these issues.

“

(1) What will be the economic impact of the cap-and-trade system?”

Clearly this is a very important question that needs to be asked and that has yet to be answered by the government. I digress somewhat from the text of the letter when I say that, but the fact is that the chamber of commerce is agreeing that there has not been an adequate economic impact analysis done. Surely that would be a prerequisite of introducing a policy such as this in today’s economy, you would think.

“In Clean Profits, we urged the government to conduct and publicly release the results of an economic analysis of the cap-and-trade system, including sector-level impacts. This information is essential to help businesses and consumers understand how they will be impacted by a price on carbon. In particular, sector-level information is important to inform non-covered businesses that will not be directly subject to the carbon price, as the specific impacts of cap-and-trade on their business can be more difficult to determine.

“We have not received any information regarding the projected economic impact of the cap-and-trade system in Ontario. We strongly urge the government to release the results of any analysis it may have undertaken as soon as possible, so that Ontario businesses can best prepare for the implementation of the new system.”

Again, I’ll digress from the letter, but what they’re saying is that if the government has done an economic impact analysis and they’re keeping it secret, that is unacceptable. I would submit that it is essential that if indeed the government has done an impact analysis, it has to be released. We need to know the details of what the impact of this is going to be. If they haven’t done an economic impact analysis, they are absolutely delinquent in terms of their administration of government and this issue. I submit to you, Madam Speaker, that most likely there has been an economic impact analysis that was prepared for cabinet, and it needs to be released into the public domain.

Again, back to the letter:

“

(2) How will cap-and-trade revenue be invested and administered?

“While Bill 172 sets the parameters whereby cap-and-trade revenue can be spent, questions remain about how these funds will actually be used and how the greenhouse gas reduction account will be administered.

“The OCC continues to emphasize the need for cap-and-trade revenue to be reinvested into the business community. Directing cap-and-trade revenue towards efforts that facilitate businesses’ transition to a lower-carbon economy, such as investments in low-carbon processes, technology, and other capital, will be essential for Ontario to meet the government’s ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets. Providing transitional funding will also be critical to help prevent carbon leakage, or the relocation of operations to jurisdictions with no greenhouse gas reduction policies.”

This is a very important point that they’re making. Obviously, if businesses have to transition, they need to be able to make those investments to ensure their emissions are reduced and reducing. If they have to compete with jurisdictions that have no greenhouse gas reduction policies, which they will, or that have different reduction policies, there has to be transition assistance; otherwise, we’re going to lose jobs. There’s no question about that.

Again, back to the letter:

“Currently, the mechanisms by which funds from the account will be distributed are unclear. Who will be eligible to receive this money? How could a business with a plan to reduce its carbon footprint access these funds? Which principles and criteria will be applied to evaluate and compare project proposals? How long will the application process take?

“If this revenue is to help Ontario drive emissions reductions, then it must be available from the beginning. To provide for a wide range of solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, access to this revenue should not be overly restrictive. We urge the government to finalize and communicate the details of revenue administration and distribution in advance of the launch of the cap-and-trade system, so that businesses are prepared to take advantage of this opportunity to reduce their carbon footprint quickly. Government should work with the business community to ensure that the mechanisms to access these funds are simple, fair, and transparent.”

Again, that speaks to their basic point, which is a request to delay the implementation for at least one year. If this is going to be meaningful, if indeed it’s going to be a successful policy, they need to work with business. This clearly indicates why.

Back to the letter:

“

(3) How, and when, will offsets be available?

“Bill 172 sets out the requirements for the registration of offsets, but contains few other details. MOECC,” the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, “notes in the proposed regulation document that a separate offsets regulation will be proposed later in 2016,” that being this year.

“Offset credits could play an important role in increasing the overall effectiveness of Ontario’s cap-and-trade system. Allowing covered entities to purchase offsets provides them with another vehicle to comply with their obligations under cap-and-trade, and can often be a lower-cost alternative. By allowing non-covered sectors to sell credits, an offset market can also provide an economic incentive for non-covered businesses to reduce their emissions. This expands the greenhouse gas-reducing potential of the cap-and-trade system.

“To play a role in cap-and-trade compliance, however, both covered entities and entities looking to sell offsets need much more information. How can offset projects be verified and registered? How can businesses buy and sell credits?

“As such, we request that the government finalize the details of offsets regulations and associated protocols as quickly as possible to coincide with the launch of the cap-and-trade system. If Ontario is to support a viable offsets market and drive further emissions reductions, credits must be available for covered entities to purchase soon after implementation. The OCC and our members would welcome an opportunity to work with you directly in the coming weeks.”

Question 4 that they are asking in this letter: “What will the cap-and-trade system look like after 2020?”

This is a very important question, too, Madam Speaker, because it speaks to the medium- and long-term effect of this policy, and obviously businesses are concerned about that because they think in term of the short term, the medium term and the long term. They have to make long-term plans in order to remain viable and profitable and to create the new jobs that we’re going to need today and in the future.

They say, “Certainty is essential to effective business planning and risk mitigation. Businesses in Ontario have little insight into what the design of Ontario’s cap-and-trade system will be after 2020. While we understand that the government is focused on getting the cap-and-trade system ready for a 2017 launch, post-2020 design elements are important considerations for businesses looking to make long-term investments in the province. In particular, many covered entities are wondering whether some free allowances will be carried over into future compliance periods. This has been done in other jurisdictions to maintain competitiveness and reduce carbon leakage.

“We urge the government to, where possible, increase the clarity of system design beyond the first compliance period.

“Overall, we continue to hear that businesses are feeling uncertain about the incoming cap-and-trade system and unprepared for its full implementation next year. To produce the most effective environmental and economic outcomes, it is important that government takes the time get the design of cap-and-trade right.” I agree wholeheartedly with that statement, Madam Speaker. “This was underscored at the OCC’s recent annual general meeting, where the Ontario chamber network voted to support the delay of cap-and-trade implementation to allow government and the business community more time to prepare.

As such, we encourage the government to consider delaying the implementation of the cap-and-trade system until 2018.

“The OCC and its membership understand the need to address climate change and will continue to contribute to this conversation. We welcome engagement with the Ontario government and the broader business community as government moves ahead with the implementation of the cap-and-trade system. Providing clarity on these and other questions will be essential to create a system that reduces emissions while fostering the conditions necessary for continued economic growth and prosperity.”

That is signed, as I said earlier, by Allan O’Dette, the president and CEO of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce.

Given that that’s new information relevant to this debate, I thought that it was important to highlight that. I wish I had more time. I’m running out of time and I had so much more to say.

I have to say something, though, that has concerned me for some time, and that is the fact of the provincial government’s efforts to paint the Conservative Party, in particular, as climate deniers. There has even been a statement made by one of the senior government ministers—it was made in this House some time ago—saying that no Conservative MPP, until very recently, had ever even acknowledged that climate change was a fact, or had ever even talked about it in the Ontario Legislature.

I wish to refer to Hansard, from the Ontario Legislature, dated October 5, 2006. That is almost 10 years ago. I was speaking in this House in response to a private member’s bill that was being brought forward at the time by the member for Ottawa–Orléans, Phil McNeely. We can use his name now that he’s retired from this place. He had something called

An Act to make April 21 Climate Change Awareness Day. This is, again, almost 10 years ago.

I spoke in favour of his bill, and in the context of my brief remarks, I said this: “I think it is fair to say that whether you look at it as climate change or global warming, it is a real concern of many people in the province of Ontario. Certainly, it’s a huge concern for many people in Waterloo–Wellington;”—that was my riding at the time—“I’m amongst those people. The preponderance of scientific evidence seems to suggest that human activity in recent years is at least accelerating this change, if not a contributing factor. Obviously, it’s something that we all have to be concerned about, all of us who care about the future. All of us should, obviously.

“As a father of three children, my wife and I are obviously very concerned about the world that our children and our grandchildren will inherit. All of us should share this concern and all of us should be part of the solution.”

I said that almost 10 years ago, so I was more than annoyed when I heard one of the government ministers indicate that no Conservative had ever acknowledged that this was an issue.

Tomorrow, I am meeting with a constituent by the name of Roger Gordon. I have written a number of e-mails and letters to the government on his behalf. He has his own company, and he calls it Green NH3. He has an ammonia-based fuel that he believes would represent a substantial solution to our energy challenge. I call attention to it because I’m going to be meeting with him again tomorrow. I would encourage the government to revisit the file that I brought to their attention about the potential for ammonia-based fuel.

I also want to use the one minute that I have left to call attention to the private member’s resolution that I introduced in the Legislature last fall. It was passed unanimously in this House during private members’ business to highlight the Wellington county Green Legacy Programme. For the 150th anniversary of the county of Wellington, they developed an ambitious plan to plant 150,000 trees in the county of Wellington as a celebration for the 150th anniversary. It seemed ambitious. The scope was very ambitious, as a matter of fact. Every year since then, they have planted more than 150,000 trees in the county of Wellington.

I am calling upon the provincial government to take the county of Wellington’s Green Legacy Programme province-wide and create an Ontario green legacy programme, with the ambitious goal of planting 150 million trees in the province of Ontario, harnessing the idealism and the volunteer spirit of Ontarians as a celebration for the 150th anniversary of the province of Ontario within a confederated Canada in 2017. I urge the government to embrace the plan.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Ms. Sarah Campbell: First, it needs to be stated that New Democrats support movement on climate change. We agree that it is an important issue facing our generation and facing the world today.

But one of the things that I have a difficult time with is that, for all the bluster of this government, like the Minister of the Environment saying things like how we have a huge historic challenge and millions of lives are at stake—you would think that this government would expand the scope, that they wouldn’t take one piece of legislation and tout it out like they’re the best things and they’re going to single-handedly solve the climate change crisis that we have, and they would look beyond that.

One of the things that was mentioned that I think needs to be mentioned again is some of the challenges that we have in our own province, in Ontario’s north.

We have northern indigenous communities, and this really needs to be stressed: They rely completely on diesel generation to power their entire communities. We know that this is something that is expensive. It’s unreliable. It’s unsafe for the people who have to maintain the roads, transport it, and we also know that it doesn’t meet demand. It’s not good for the environment.

The government knows this, and yet if we look to the most recent budget, this government’s 2016 budget, we see that when it comes to connecting these communities to our hydro grid, where they can have access to free-falling water, of which there is an abundance in northern Ontario, these First Nation communities are told that they need to work with like-minded proponents and come up with some kind of a compromise and do it on their own. How is that solving climate change? How is that being respectful of our citizens across this province? It is not.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Hon. David Zimmer: I do want to speak to this very important bill, and I want to speak to it from the point of view of First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities.

The previous speaker highlighted in her remarks the importance of this to our aboriginal communities, and I could not agree more. I have visited close to 70 of our First Nation communities in Ontario, and I’ve virtually visited all of the northern communities. I can tell you that at every visit, when we sit around the table in the band council office, one of the issues that is raised, among a plethora of other issues, front and centre is their concern about climate change, and then they tell me the practical effects of what is happening to them.

I will give you one example why climate change is so important for First Nation communities. The remote communities depend on something we describe as ice roads, which are put in as soon as the land freezes and lakes and rivers freeze. They can ship in the heavy-duty stuff that is needed in the communities that they can’t bring in in the summer. Traditionally in the past, the ice roads have lasted for three months, four months, somewhere in there—to ship in the heavy materials that they need for the rest of the season.

Now I’m told at these meetings that I go to that effectively the ice road season is reduced to about six weeks—maybe seven weeks. That has completely changed the

schedule of bringing in the heavy materials and other things that they need. There is a very practical way that climate change is affecting First Nations communities—four months to six or seven weeks.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I’m very pleased to add my comments to those that have been said here. I think that we all agree that we need to ensure that our earth is healthy. We need to have clean soil, we need to have clean air, we need to have clean water, and we need to do it within a framework of ensuring that future generations have a strong, robust economy here in Ontario and here in Canada.

I want to remind the members opposite that just because you say something doesn’t mean that it’s factually correct in terms of when you talk about how our side of the House feels about an issue. I invite the members opposite to come and meet with us—we’re available; I have coffee sometimes with some members from other parties—to understand our concerns that this has to be done in a manner that does not bankrupt the taxpayers of the province and does not drive business out of the province.

The figures that we are given—these are expert analyses that are being done, and that’s why we’re hearing from the chamber of commerce suggesting we delay the implementation of this bill—$300 million going out of the province to California with this cap-and-trade scheme, and $3 billion by 2030, per year. That $3 billion means that’s money that we don’t have for autism, that we don’t have for our education system and that we don’t have for health care.

I invite everybody in this House to speak to their constituents and the businesses in their constituencies and to really understand that it isn’t something that we do without considering the consequences to future generations and to all of us here. We want to have the best quality of life for everybody in the province.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people I represent to offer a couple of thoughts about Bill 172, the Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act. Certainly, there is no issue more critical than climate change to the future of our province, our country and our world, and no public policy debate more important than the one that we’re currently having on how to transition to a low-carbon economy and how to reduce greenhouse gases.

As my colleagues and I in the New Democratic caucus have emphasized repeatedly, the way that we do that has to be fair, it has to be effective and it has to be transparent. There are a number of stakeholders who have highlighted the fact that carbon pricing has a disproportionate impact on low-income people because of the amount of their income that they spend on energy: on home heating and on gas for their vehicles. Many low-income people are renters. They have no ability to reduce emissions in the way that we have. They can’t bring in energy efficiency upgrades. They have limited ability to reduce their consumption. We have to ensure that there is mitigation to lessen the impact.

We also have to ensure transparency. That’s not just our concern; that is a concern that has been identified by the Financial Accountability Officer of this Legislature. There are currently no assurances that the revenues that are generated by this cap-and-trade scheme will be dedicated to climate change action. There is the possibility that these revenues could flow into the general revenues of the province, which would reduce severely the government’s ability to actually have an impact on climate change.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I’m going to return back to the member from Wellington–Halton Hills to wrap up.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I want to thank the member for Kenora–Rainy River, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, the member for Thornhill and the member for London West for responding to my comments this morning on this important bill. I also want to express my appreciation to my staff who have helped me prepare for this speech today, and who help me in my Queen’s Park office.

My assistant, Dan Roest, who is my legislative assistant, does a great job, and also we have a volunteer in our office this week and next week who is a recent graduate of the public affairs and policy management program at Carleton University with a specialization in international studies—he told me that yesterday. His name is Tim McIntosh. Together they did some of the research to help remind me of the current issues, and were instrumental in helping me get this most recent information from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce to bring forward in the debate today.

In response to the statements that were made by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, I would say I agree that First Nations have obviously very, very significant interests in this issue and that we need to be cognizant of their concerns. In many cases they may be feeling the effects of climate change first, and most profoundly and immediately. I would acknowledge that and suggest that we need to ensure that we’re in constant communication with our First Nation community leadership and ensuring that they are a big part of the plan in terms of response.

I would also add my disappointment in the fact that the minister, who is a minister of the crown, absolutely made no reference to the Ontario Chamber of Commerce letter that I read. I know that the government perhaps hasn’t had a chance to respond. The letter is addressed to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, but at the same time, the cabinet has to take these views into consideration. Again, I would encourage them to listen to the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and one last push for my own idea of the Ontario green legacy program. I would urge the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry and the Minister of the Environment to get behind it and help me make this happen.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Further debate?

M me France Gélinas: I too had a speech prepared, but because of the comments that were made by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, I want to share with him what this really looks like. I’m going to talk to all of us about Mattagami First Nation. Mattagami First Nation is a small First Nation in my riding, in the northeast part of the province. They are located on Lake Mattagami, which is just gorgeous, with beautiful beaches and lots of fishing. They have a hatchery, Speaker, and you may be interested that there are presently three million little pickerels being grown in the hatchery, right there at Mattagami, run by the Mattagami First Nation.

But as far as opportunities are concerned, except for tourism and campers, it’s pretty limited. Mattagami is really, really close to Gogama, when you’re talking about the north. It’s still close to an hour’s drive, but in northern Ontario those distances are close. They were also affected by the big train derailment.

But, coming back to cap-and-trade, they, like every First Nation, have a duty to protect Mother Earth. They take that duty really seriously. The elders at Mattagami really looked at what Mother Earth will look like seven generations from now.

Then comes a request for proposal from the IESO. They are looking for about 200 megawatts of power; 75 megawatts is to be from hydroelectricity.

Mattagami, like many other First Nations, has a hard time getting power. They are at the end of a line that barely meets their needs, which means that there are constant power failures, very frequent power failures. In previous months, I have read into the record the number of times and the length of time that the power has gone off.

The request for proposals came out. IESO wanted 75 megawatts of hydro power. They put forward a fairly robust proposal for six megawatts. I realize that six megawatts is not going to change much in the scheme of things, but six megawatts will mean that those constant power failures will be addressed. It will mean that people will have enough electricity to start to put businesses together.

I can give you some ideas. There was an idea for a greenhouse. It’s really hard to get—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I’m just going to remind the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs that there’s no food in the House.

I return to the member from Nickel Belt.

M me France Gélinas: Mattagami First Nation, as I said, has the hatchery, but they would like to diversify. They would like to bolster up their economies and have opportunities, but in order to do this, they need stable electricity.

Have no fear, Speaker: Everybody in that part of my riding all have generators, but generators that use gas will be taxed heavily with cap-and-trade, gasoline that we already pay way too much for—and I will go into this a little bit later in my talk.

Coming back to Mattagami’s project: They answered the request for proposals from the IESO, putting forward their proposal for a six-megawatt project in partnership with OPG. They get this letter back from the IESO that tells them there was not sufficient capacity in the northeast area to accommodate the renewable project. Is it just me who thinks it’s a little bit weird that the IESO put out a request for proposals for that area, where we know there is lots of room on the grid because they are at the end of the grid and barely enough electricity makes it there, but they get an answer that says that there’s not sufficient capacity on the grid?

Now, when we started to look into this, we realize that other people from southern Ontario have guaranteed access to the grid. Those people will never come to Mattagami. Those people will never set up a six-megawatt program on a First Nation to make sure that this First Nation has reliable electricity, but that doesn’t matter. Part of the grid is reserved for big promises that have been made to big companies at the expense of First Nations, who need reliable electricity, just like the rest of us need reliable electricity. This boggles the mind.

We have the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs who stands up and says that everywhere he goes, First Nations talk about climate change. I agree with him; they do. They don’t use that language, but basically they want to protect Mother Earth for generations to come. Their elders at Mattagami had supported this green energy project, basically because it was going to help Mattagami have stable access to reliable electricity. It would decrease their dependency on generators, which use a ton of gasoline and produce a ton of pollution.

They know there is room on the grid and they are turned down by the IESO because of promises made to other people to gain access to the grid, while the people who are right here and want access to the grid cannot get it.

This is wrong. This is depriving this First Nation of economic opportunity. They had already started to have one of their members at the college in Timmins start to learn so that they would be ready for those jobs once the project was going to be built.

I will put into the record that Mr. Kamil Mina basically would like to have greenhouses so that the people of the northeast can grow some of their own fresh fruits and vegetables and, here again, fight climate change so that we don’t have to import all of our vegetables from down south. Why not produce some up north? The answer is quite simple. We don’t produce them up north because to heat the greenhouses would cost so much when you pay for diesel fuel and gas fuel to fuel generators. But once you have a run-of-the-river electrical project—six megawatts—that would be perfect.

That would have all the electricity needed so that we could make sure that the hatchery doesn’t run out of power in the worst of times and you lose three million little baby pickerel. You would make sure that some of the spinoff industry has a chance.

I’m going to read Kamil Mina’s letter into the record. It goes as follows:

“Farming is the ‘green mining’ of all times and is one of the most sustainable professions throughout history.

“Water and fertile soil are available in northern Ontario. However, air becomes colder for almost 240 days of heating during a typical year. The conventional solution was to grow food in all-glass greenhouses, but owners realized heating cost becomes a barrier for a sustainable business.”

That’s where we make the link to having this six megawatts of green energy from Mattagami First Nation, which would solve this problem.

The motivation behind designing and building an energy-efficient greenhouse includes the following:

(1) It would create production-type job opportunities for farmers, which they call greenhouse operators, to grow year-round local food, including vegetables and fruits, and also raise other small farm animals, such as chickens and rabbits, and eggs.

(2) It would create service-type job opportunities for electricians, HVAC technicians, builders and concrete form technicians to build these energy-efficient greenhouses.

(3) It would improve food security to ensure food is produced and consumed locally, with the option of exporting to other cities and locations, which is expected to generate revenue for the community.

(4) It would create independence in food production, where the community manages its own food production, processing and disposal.

(5) It would initiate other food-related industries, including food processing, packaging, transportation—all this on a local scale—distribution and waste disposal.

(6) Environmental benefits—where the greenhouse gas emissions are reduced, with the elimination of long-distance transportation to bring food.

(7) Other environmental benefits include a controlled environment, where there are no insects or small animals and birds that are allowed to enter, and no runoff of fertilizer or nitrogen compounds that are allowed to leave the greenhouse.

(8) They saw this as an educational benefit, where there could be a one-year program offered at community colleges. The college that was interested in that was Cambrian College in Sudbury. They would help students learn hands-on activities related to sustainable farming. Besides the understanding of concepts and theories behind these activities, graduates of those courses would be called greenhouse operators and they would get a certificate.

(9) They would develop year-round food production for the community.

(10) That would lead to lower food prices, as energy prices are reduced. Energy prices are due to heating, ventilation, lighting and transportation over long distances, where the Mattagami First Nation could supply that electricity.

I wanted to put that into the record because it’s all inter-linked. People in northern Ontario—I’ve run out of time, eh? Thank you, Speaker.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Seeing it is 10:15, we will recess the House until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise today to recognize a large group from Community Living Tillsonburg who are in here the Legislature today. In the gallery are Doug Cooper, Michael Kadey, Steven Hoffman, Della Derrough, Sandra Bray, Matt Hoogsteen, Shannon Schooley, Frank Benke, Bonnie Edwards, Jeanette Branton, Don Skiba, Rose Henry, Bryon Crossett, Kerry Schram, Connie Shuga, Jen Vandewalle, Crystal Saunders and Marty Graf. I want to welcome them here to Queen’s Park today.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Today is Community Living Ontario Day in the Legislature, and we will shortly be joined by the executive director, Chris Beesley, president Hélène Morin-Chain, and Ron Laroche, all from Community Living Ontario.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’m pleased to welcome everybody who is here for Community Living Day. This morning, I was pleased to meet with all the members that the minister mentioned, plus the director of policy, Gordon Kyle.

Miss Monique Taylor: On behalf of the member from Welland, I would like to introduce some folks who are here today from Community Living: Kerry Thomas, David Middleton, John Smith, Justin Marr and Dale Sheets. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Reza Moridi: It’s a great pleasure to welcome two interns from my office, Olivia Eng and Johnathan Wilkinson. Please join me in welcoming them.

Mr. Ted Arnott: We have a page here representing Wellington–Halton Hills. Her name is Samantha McPherson. She’s doing a great job. Her grandmother, Carolyn McPherson, is here as well as her grandfather, Dave Comfort. I want to welcome them as well to the Ontario Legislature.

Ms. Soo Wong: I’d like to introduce my friend and colleague in the Scarborough–Agincourt area, Councillor Jim Karygiannis, from the city of Toronto, who is visiting us today.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’d like to welcome to the House today the members from Walkerton Community Living, who are celebrating their 60th anniversary later this year: Linda Batte, Harry Woodward and Marion Last. They’re travelling with Carol Patterson.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s my pleasure to welcome my friend the president and CEO of the Greater Kitchener Waterloo Chamber of Commerce, Ian McLean, to Queen’s Park today. He’s not in the chamber, but we’ll be meeting with him and the Toronto Board of Trade later on today.

M me Marie-France Lalonde: Il me fait plaisir d’accueillir dans la Chambre des membres du réseau de développement économique de l’Ontario : Annick Schulz, Denis Laframboise, Pierre Tessier, Alain Brosius et Annie Dell. Bienvenue.

Mr. Robert Bailey: It’s my pleasure today to welcome to the Legislature Mr. Naushad Jamani, who is a vice-president of Nova Chemicals, olefins division. Joining him is Ken Faulkner, government relations director, Nova Chemicals. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Granville Anderson: I am honoured to welcome Nicky Jones, Jennifer Matthews, Samantha Murduff, Jennifer Mackay, Joe Crooks and Amanda Robinson from Community Living Durham North, who are here today. Welcome.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’m not sure if they’re in the gallery yet, but I’d like to welcome all the wonderful public elementary school teachers from Lambton Kent District School Board and the Thames Valley District School Board. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I’m delighted to have the parents of today’s page captain, Julia Melino—who is from my riding of Vaughan—here with us today. Ada and Dominic Melino are here with us in the gallery. Thank you very much for being here.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I’d like to welcome Hélène Morin-Chain from the North Bay Community Living, who I met with earlier today.

As well, I’d like to introduce, from the Near North District School Board, Judith Arai and Jan Heinonen.

Hon. Bill Mauro: I was unable to make the ETFO breakfast this morning, but I know we have two members of ETFO from Thunder Bay here today. I think they’re in the Legislature somewhere. I’d like to welcome a president at ETFO, Mike Judge, and the occasional teacher representative, Nancy Nix, both from ETFO.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I’d like to welcome Henry Boyd and Dave Burns from the Ontario Convenience Stores Association. We had a great meeting this morning. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Arthur Potts: I’d like to welcome Beaches–East York constituents Stewart Carley, his partner, Bill Polski, and their good friend Gord Hardy to Queen’s Park. Welcome.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I’d like to welcome today Don Seymour, the executive director from Addiction and Mental Health Services in Kingston, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington; and also, Debi Wells and Mike Lumb from the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s my pleasure to welcome Greg Weiler, president of ETFO for Waterloo region, and Nathan Core and Jenn Wallage, also from ETFO.

Mr. Yvan Baker: On behalf of my colleague Chris Ballard, the member for Newmarket–Aurora, I’d like to welcome three of his constituents: Ruth Groves, who’s a community development and campaign director with Community Living, and Andrea Sager and Emily Wierenga. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I’d like to welcome the folks from Community Living Campbellford/Brighton who are here today, and also welcome Dave Henderson from the Hastings and Prince Edward federation; Doug Thur, also from Hastings and Prince Edward; and from Kawartha Pine Ridge, Shirley Bell and Marsha Jones.

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I’d like to welcome to the House Margaret MacFarlane, president of ETFO Halton; and also Al Bero, president of ETFO Halton occasional teacher local; and Amy Korzack, who is with ETFO Halton. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: It gives me great pleasure to welcome the following ETFO leaders who represent teachers and early childhood educators who work and live in my riding of Davenport: Karen Brown Campbell, John Smith, Andy Lomnicki, Rob Fulford and Diego Olmedo. Welcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I welcome all our guests.

We have in the Speaker’s gallery today special guests: Mr. Pieter De Crem, the state secretary for foreign trade of Belgium. Mr. De Crem is accompanied by His Excellency Raoul Delcorde, the ambassador of Belgium to Canada, and—

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): —if I may, the rest of the staff.

On behalf of all members of this House, I express our sorrow and our outrage over the recent terrorist attacks in Belgium, and convey our love and support to the Belgian people. Welcome.

Oral Questions

Health care funding

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Acting Premier. Today I was saddened to read about the passing of Sharon Shamblaw. She recently lost her battle with cancer. As the London Free Press put it, “Her death came after long bureaucratic delays in approving a potentially life-saving bone marrow transplant in Buffalo, NY.” This is after Ontario did not have the capacity to meet the demand for transplants. As Ms. Shamblaw’s daughter said, “It was a matter of a week and she would have had a fighting shot.”

Mr. Speaker, Ms. Shamblaw deserved that fighting shot. It’s too late for Ms. Shamblaw, but will this government promise that not one more life will be lost because of bureaucratic red tape and delays waiting for transplants?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: First of all, let me express my sincere condolences to the family of Mrs. Shamblaw. It’s totally unacceptable to me that patients in this province should have to wait unacceptably long times for lifesaving procedures such as stem cell transplants. It was, regrettably, because of situations like the one experienced by this family that I was alerted to some of the challenges that we have in this province with regard to stem cell transplants. We, of course, announced additional funding in our budget to increase the capacity. We have already made some progress in reducing wait times. We’ve invested up to $100 million for out-of-country care.

I know that this is too late for this family and this remarkable individual—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Acting Premier: The government may say it’s unacceptable, but this just happened. It just happened. This is your health ministry. This is your government’s responsibility.

I learned that by the time the Buffalo transplant was approved by government officials and final tests were done, Ms. Shamblaw’s cancer, which was in remission, had returned, meaning the transplant was cancelled. It was decided the transplant was necessary, but it took 130 days to have the transplant approved: 130 days for a medically necessary transplant.

Here is the question that Ms. Shamblaw’s daughter asked. She asked it to the London media, and I’m going to raise it here today to the government. She asked, “You wouldn’t make somebody with a gunshot wound wait for surgery. Why are ... people waiting for transplants?” Why does Ontario not have the capacity to treat its own patients?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: As I mentioned, we’re investing an additional $30 million in increasing the capacity across the province. We’re strengthening the network, the three sites across this province in Hamilton, in Toronto and in Ottawa, that provide that support; there is a $100-million fund for out-of-country. We have recently, in fact, changed the guidelines where even those who have relapsed with their cancer will be eligible for both in-province and out-of-province care. We’re funding for a caregiver out of country to be provided alongside the transplant support.

We’ve increased our funding for allogeneic stem cell transplants in this province by some 600% over the last number of years. The capacity at locations like Mount Sinai has gone up by 25% in the last year. We’re making other changes to make sure that this lifesaving procedure is available.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Acting Premier: This happened in your city. This happened in London. It is happening across Ontario, and the government can say all their talking points they like. It’s not good enough. This happened in Ontario. As Ms. Shamblaw’s daughter Amanda said, “Things need to change.”

The status quo doesn’t work in Ontario. Things absolutely have to change. Saying what you did 15 years ago or 10 years ago or five years ago isn’t good enough. A life was at risk here. We don’t need focus groups; we don’t need panels or more bureaucracy. We need investment in patients. We need action before one more life is lost.

What will the government do to ensure another family doesn’t have to go through what the Shamblaw family had to endure?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Well, it is because I see this as unacceptable that we have acted. We acted in the budget with the $30 million. We’re adding a fourth site for stem cell transplants here in Toronto at Sunnybrook Hospital. We are changing the rules surrounding out-of-country care as well, and the options available for individuals on wait-lists in this province.

But the Leader of the Opposition needs to acknowledge and know as well that this is a procedure that, over recent years, has become available and become an option for many, many more people than previously it would have been available for.

That’s not an excuse for inaction. I have created a task force of clinical experts to do everything humanly possible to continue to reduce those wait times, to make sure that out-of-country is a viable option and provide the services that individuals in this province do deserve.

Hydro rates

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Acting Premier. Because this government has been signing contracts for power that we don’t need, Ontario has lost over $3.5 billion in power to other jurisdictions. We are subsidizing New York and Michigan, who gladly take our power for pennies on the dollar.

When did Ontario’s energy minister become the economic development minister for New York state? When did the Premier become the economic development minister for Michigan? Because that’s the effect of this government’s disastrous energy policies.

Why should Ontario’s businesses and families be subsidizing our competition in New York and Michigan?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I appreciate the question from the Leader of the Opposition.

Of course, that party was in power for a number of years, and the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Minister.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: —the Minister of Energy of the day was the—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean.

Minister?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I have a list in my head and I’m going to go through it, but if you want to keep adding your name, carry on.

The member from Simcoe–Grey, come to order; the member from Nepean–Carleton, come to order; the member from Leeds–Grenville, come to order; and the deputy House leader, come to order.

Minister.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: On December 11, 2001, the then-Minister of Energy said, with respect to import/ export of power, “Any power we sell to the US, to Quebec, to Manitoba, or power they sell us, is surplus power. It’s opportunity power. It’s pure profit, in terms that it’s power that otherwise”—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to be insistent. If it continues to happen and if I hear members’ names other than their riding or their title, I’ll start putting you on the list. It stops. Raise the level of respect, please.

You have one wrap-up sentence.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, there’s a trade in electricity among jurisdictions. The IESO will confirm that, last year, we made a net profit of $350 million—

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport, come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Oh, and if you’d like to try it again, you’ll get a second time.

Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Acting Premier: Although it’s humorous to hear the Minister of Energy try to explain why he is subsidizing businesses in New York and Michigan at the expense of Ontario, the reality is that the Premier is in Timmins today. In Timmins, the Premier is going to get an earful from municipal leaders who passed a resolution, saying that this government’s energy policies are disastrous in northern Ontario.

There is no doubt that she is hearing story after story about how out-of-control hydro rates have hurt businesses and families in northern Ontario. I’m sure that she will hear many people tell her how they were in disbelief—utter disbelief—when the Minister of Finance had the audacity to say that hydro rates were going down.

Will the government be making an announcement today in Timmins that, for hydro rates, there will be some relief for struggling northern communities? Or is today’s trip simply another photo op?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The level of understanding of the electricity sector by the Leader of the Opposition leaves a lot to be desired. Little does he know that for the industrial rates—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Finish, please.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Little does he know that the electricity rates for industrial customers in northern Ontario are among the lowest in North America. In fact—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ll do this all day.

The member from Nepean–Carleton, second time; Leader of the Opposition. Thank you.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, I was in Timmins several weeks ago to announce a program under the IEI Program, where the benefit went to two mining companies. They saved millions of dollars by participating in the IEI Program. The CEO of one of those was very, very congratulatory of our energy policies in northern Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary: the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Again to the Minister of Energy: I know that it’s highly unlikely that the minister will answer my question, but I do expect his response to be truthful and honest. As constituents of mine, the Koeslags have a cottage which is unused in the winter. Yet on April 3, 7 and 13 this year, they received three different hydro bills. One was for $112 for no power. One was for $116 for no power used. Both were estimates; however, their final bill was their actual bill. They used 20 cents of electricity, but the total cost had now jumped to $137. Three different bills; three different costs.

Speaker, will the minister tell us which other province charges $137 to deliver 20 cents of electricity and takes three times to get it right?

Interjections.

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

Before I turn to the minister, the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry will come to order. I have a good memory.

Finish, please.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Bob, you’re going to change the name to “Hydro Three.”

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, come to order. You can count all you want. I can jump to a warning. I can jump to naming, too. It’s my call, not yours.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, I will be the first to acknowledge that out of 4.6 million customers who are on the smart meters, and who are metered and who receive bills in that manner, there will be some cases where there are errors.

The member should know that Hydro One has a dedicated telephone line for members of provincial Parliament to call with specific questions where they have bills that appear to be not in accordance with what you might expect, Mr. Speaker. We also have a new Ombudsman who is available.

But most importantly, Mr. Speaker, the customer complaint service has improved dramatically at Hydro One. The stats will show that 90% of all—

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

New question.

Hospital funding

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Acting Premier. As we all know, Ontario is growing. There are nearly 14 million people who call Ontario home. In fact, there are 100,000 more people who live in Ontario today than this same time last year.

Peel is a perfect example of growth. We have record growth in Peel; however, funding across Ontario is not keeping up with inflation, nor is it keeping up with population growth.

Will the government do the right thing and ensure that hospital funding keeps up with both population growth as well as inflation?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I think the third party knows by now that we’ve increased our health care budget by approximately 2% this year in the recently passed budget. Of that, nearly a third, $345 million—in fact, the member from Renfrew just—I’ve obviously said it enough times that it has sunk in: more than a 2% investment in our hospitals on the operating side, which is quite separate, of course, from the capital investments; the $12 billion over the next 10 years; the $50 million of additional monies that we put into the renovations and the maintenance that are required by our hospitals each and every year.

But $345 million, a 2.1% increase in the line item, will do a lot of things for our hospitals—not just base funding, but it also will continue to reduce those wait times that were among the best in Canada.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Listen: Communities across Ontario are growing, and funding isn’t keeping up with that growth.

On top of that, the costs they face are going up, from medication to hydro bills. Those are going up with inflation, and funding is not keeping up with that. When costs go up and funding doesn’t, that’s a cut.

The government can deny it all they want, but the people see it when they go to hospitals and see that they’re waiting longer for services. They see it when they’re seeing services cut out of their communities. The government can deny it all they want, but can they take the first step towards fixing this problem and admit that they’re cutting hospital services in Ontario?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, we aren’t cutting services. Unlike the NDP when they were in government, who closed 24% of all the acute hospital beds in the province and closed 13% of all the mental health beds, we’re not doing that. We are maintaining and, in fact, improving services.

In fact, the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, ICES, reviewed what has resulted because of our funding changes, our focus on quality and our health system funding reform. They found, indeed, that the number of patients being seen has increased. They’re seeing the same or improved outcomes. They’re seeing that the readmission rates are remaining the same, but they’re seeing, importantly, that for things like urinary tract infections, pressure sores, falls and pneumonia, those important things that can happen in hospitals, we’ve seen improvements. The rates of those important indicators are going down.

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

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: There’s something very strange going on with the Liberals, and I think it requires a translator. So I’m going to do my best to translate for them:

“Optimizing an asset” translates to selling off an asset. “Open and transparent government”—that’s another good one—actually translates to making legislation in secret and deleting government records. The newest one, though, is the best one: “Transformation in health care” actually translates to firing nurses and cutting services in health care.

Interjection: You need a code book.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: That’s the code book. That’s the translation for the actual things that are going on.

Will the government admit that their plan for hospitals in Ontario just means less care for patients?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Well, talk about spin, Mr. Speaker.

The budget for the William Osler hospital in Brampton this year is going up by an additional $8.2 million. A little bit further to the west, Hamilton Health Sciences: Their budget is going up by $10.4 million. All across the province, as a result of a budget which they voted against, which resulted in a billion more dollars being spent on health care and a third of that being spent specifically on our hospital operating budgets—they voted against that, but we’re beginning to see the positive impact.

They don’t have to believe the government when we say the facts about 3,000 more nurses employed last year—an additional almost 8,000 nurses employed in our hospital sector over the last five years. That’s the College of Nurses of Ontario that is stating that fact.

Hospital funding

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: This question is to the Acting Premier again. The minister brought up health care in London. Let’s talk about London: St. Joseph’s Health Care London saw its budget cut by $8.5 million. Over the last four years, because of inflation, the costs have gone up by $7 million a year. That means, over four years, they’ve had to cut $36.5 million from hospital care in London. Next year, they’re going to face a $17-million gap in funding. They’re being forced to cut 60 positions and 12 beds.

That announcement came after the Liberal budget. Will the government stop cutting health services in London and across the province?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’m proud of the work that is being done in London, including at the London Health Sciences Centre—

Hon. Deborah Matthews: And St. Joe’s.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: —and, the member from London has just reminded me, at St. Joe’s as well.

London Health Sciences will be seeing, this year, an increase of $8.5 million to their budget. St. Joe’s, this year, will see an increase in their operating budget of $2.3 million. So perhaps the member opposite needs to actually go and talk to the administration at the hospital and talk to the CFOs to have an understanding of how we’re continuing to invest in our hospitals, whether for reducing the wait times in important facilities like the London Health Sciences or at St. Joe’s. But the funding to London has increased since we have come into office. At London Health Sciences: a 69% increase in their budget since 2003.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: That’s very interesting. We’ve spoken to and we’ve heard from London Health Sciences. Weeks after the Liberal budget, London Health Sciences said they would have to cut $20 million from their budget. So that just doesn’t add up. This is in the hometown of the Deputy Premier. The Deputy Premier, the head of the Treasury Board, who makes the funding decisions in Ontario, is cutting hospital care in London. It’s being cut at London Health Sciences; it’s being cut at St. Joseph’s.

Calling a cut a transformation may sound good in a Liberal press release, but a cut is still a cut. Will the government stop cutting health care and health services in London and across Ontario?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Well, a billion dollars more into our health care system, and the third party voted against that increase; $345 million more in our hospitals, and the NDP voted against that. Of course, in their last election campaign, they actually wanted to cut an additional $600 million from health care and education.

I just can’t understand how, on a platform like that, when we know that would have resulted in thousands of cuts, in drastic, draconian cuts to health care across this province—it really would have taken us back to the mid-1990s, when they closed all those hospital beds, when they fired 3,000 registered nurses, when they closed the mental health beds, when they cut funding to hospitals and cut funding to health care. We don’t want to go back to that era.

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

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I don’t think the people of Ontario appreciate, when we talk about cuts that are impacting them today, talking about what happened 25 years ago. But it’s fine; if you think that’s going to help your case, so be it.

The government’s cuts have real impacts. People in London are being treated in hospital conference rooms. People have had to sleep on the ER floor. When hospital funding doesn’t keep up, this is what happens. Will the government acknowledge that they’re cutting services, that they’re cutting health care in this province, and admit, first of all, to this cut, and then stop doing this and stop cutting health care services in our province?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: We are so deeply committed to improving the quality of health care for Ontarians and the positive outcomes that they’ve come to expect out of the health care system. We’re number one in almost every single indicator for wait times—the shortest wait times across the country. We have accommodated an increasing population, but we’re still seeing those positive outcomes—the reductions in readmission rates, the reductions in infections and things like falls and pneumonia, those important elements to a patient’s experience in the hospital environment. Those are decreasing.

The outcomes are what we should be focused on, and on so many measures across the province, we’re seeing improvements. We’re seeing reductions in the average length of stay for both medical and surgical admissions. We’re seeing that partly because we’re moving more care out into the community, into home care, into community care where people, quite frankly, would prefer to have it.

Natural gas

Mr. Robert Bailey: My question is to the Minister of the Environment this morning. A few weeks ago, at his Economic Club speech, the minister continued to make uninformed comments about Ontario’s future. He stated that he wants to remove natural gas from all Ontario homes and businesses, even though it will help produce skyrocketing hydro rates for those customers.

The industry and constituents are wondering if the minister truly thinks there’s no place for natural gas in Ontario’s homes and businesses. Why does the minister want to cancel plans to expand natural gas access to Ontarians?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: As the member knows, I am sure, 35% of our emissions come from transportation from vehicles and 20% of our emissions come from buildings, and that’s entirely natural gas. So we are working with Enbridge, with Union Gas, with the geothermal sector to improve the efficiency and, where we have better and more affordable technology for Ontarians, to switch those out.

I met with Al Monaco, the president of Enbridge, for over an hour. They are very engaged in recognizing that home heating in the future is going to have to come from sources other than natural gas. Natural gas is very important to rural Ontario for many industrial and commercial farm uses, and we have no intention of abandoning or reducing those investments.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert Bailey: He did mention the greenhouse gases, so he could pick up my bill, Bill 76, on the reduction of greenhouse gases if he wanted to.

The Premier put natural gas expansion in the mandate letters for the Ministers of Economic Development and also Energy. She put up $230 million in grants and loans for natural gas expansion in her budget, but the Minister of the Environment seems to not agree that natural gas should be in homes or businesses in southwestern Ontario, or all of Ontario, as far as that goes.

Will the minister tell us who is wrong: him or the Premier?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: This is a commitment that I and all of my colleagues in government support. We do not see any contradiction at all between reducing greenhouse gas emissions—and as a matter of fact, the member knows, because you and I have spoken personally about this, and I very much support your bill—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Through the Chair, please.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: —and I have on several occasions offered my personal support. So I am surprised to hear that you would characterize—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Chair, please.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: —the many conversations that you and I have had personally about supporting your bill as somehow a lack of support. I’m not sure what you thought the content of that conversation was about—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): For the third time, address the Chair.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: My apologies, Mr. Speaker.

This isn’t a mutually exclusive thing. In Toronto, where I live, my building and others in my neighbourhood don’t need to be running on natural gas. Those of us in the city can do things that folks in rural Ontario can’t do. When you have an all-of-Ontario, Ontario-first approach, you allow us to solve these problems.

I don’t need to drive a minivan. Some of my friends in the suburbs—

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

New question.

Autism treatment

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Organizations like Quickstart, who were at first supportive of the new autism plan, have now come out sounding the alarms. From the media release: “Quickstart does not support the removal of any child from the intensive therapy wait-list. These children and their parents have been waiting years for intensive therapy and they should receive it....”

It’s looking more and more like the only people not in opposition to this plan are the Liberals—experts, teachers, schools, parents, advocacy organizations, the provincial advocate, newspaper editorial boards and children themselves.

Deputy Premier, will you do the right thing? Will you ensure that kids over five are not removed from the IBI wait-list?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I think there are some things we can agree on. In all of our conversations on this side of the House or opposite, in meeting with the autism parent groups, the autism coalition, ONTABA, the behaviour analysis group, parents and so on—and, yes, the youth themselves, which is very important—I think everyone agrees on some things, and they are as follows: It’s unacceptable to leave these children on wait-lists for years. It’s unacceptable for them not to be in service. That’s exactly why we’re investing $333 million, on top of the $190 million a year, for this program and creating 16,000 new spaces.

It is important that we listen to all the voices. The Premier has been doing that. I’ve been doing it. Many members of this House have been doing that. We appreciate the input.

I look forward to a successful implementation where all families feel well supported and individual children’s needs are met.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Miss Monique Taylor: To the Deputy Premier: Families are tired of hearing the Premier and the minister saying that it’s either this new plan or kids are going to be forced to wait on the wait-list. That’s simply not true. This is about priorities. With the proper investment, this government could give all kids access to the intensive services they need.

It’s time to make this about children and not just about wait-lists. It’s time for this government to do the right thing. Municipalities have started passing resolutions urging this government to do the right thing and not force children over five off the IBI list.

Will the Deputy Premier listen? Will she do the right thing? Please don’t remove these kids from the therapy that they so desperately need.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I think another thing we can agree on is that it is the clinicians and the doctors and the experts who make decisions about the right kind of treatment for each individual child.

Children who are currently receiving IBI will continue to receive IBI. They will be assessed at their six-month window, as they always are, and at that point the clinician will decide on the intensity of the services going forward. Depending on where that child or youth is in the spectrum, they will get the intensity of the service they need. They may need to continue on IBI for a while. They may transition to the new, expanded program. The decision is guided by experts.

Those families can and will be supported by the service providers and my ministry.

Research and innovation

Mr. Arthur Potts: My question is to the Minister of Research and Innovation. Speaker, investing in research excellence and supporting an innovative, knowledge-based economy are key activities to supporting discoveries that bring tangible benefits to Ontarians and position Ontario as a leader in research commercialization. The difference between thriving and merely surviving in this competitive global economy is the priority we place on knowledge, creativity and innovation and how we bring these innovations to market.

I know the residents of Beaches–East York would appreciate hearing more about what this government is doing to support research and innovation in Ontario. Would the minister please inform the members of the House and cite recent examples that demonstrate how Ontario is supporting the many opportunities in this area of advanced technology and entrepreneurship, bringing Ontario into the 21st century?

Hon. Reza Moridi: I want to thank the member from Beaches–East York for that question.

This government has been and always will be dedicated to making sure that our province of Ontario is a global leader in research and innovation.

On Monday, Premier Wynne spoke at the annual Discovery conference in Toronto, and I had the opportunity to address about 3,000 delegates from all over the world on Tuesday.

Our government knows that if you want to commercialize good ideas, you need to offer a flexible network of support to our start-up companies and through an innovation continuum. That’s what we are doing through our world-class post-secondary education system, through support to organizations like the Ontario Centres of Excellence, and by instilling a culture of innovation at all levels of our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I’m very proud of the Ontario Centres of Excellence. They have put our province of Ontario and the city of Toronto on the map.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Arthur Potts: Thank you to the Minister of Research and Innovation for that answer and for the great work he is doing to foster innovation in Ontario.

I know that Ontario continues to support good jobs in emerging—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s enough.

Finish, please.

Mr. Arthur Potts: I know that Ontario continues to support good jobs in emerging sectors and in the knowledge-based economy. For example, we are now the top-performing province in Canada when it comes to innovation commercialization, and we are fifth globally. We feature an increasingly robust risk capital market that is such a critical part of growing early stage companies into high-growth, export-oriented firms. We are already second to Silicon Valley in the number of information and communication technology jobs and companies.

The people of Beaches–East York want to know how our government is continuing to introduce cutting-edge, strategic programs. Would the minister address some of the most recent programs our government has introduced to achieve this goal?

Hon. Reza Moridi: Again, I want to thank the member for that question. I want to assure the House that, despite our progress on various fronts in research and innovation and the commercialization of research, we know there’s so much work to do to take advantage of the opportunities that exist in our province and in the competitive global economy.

We just launched the $400-million Business Growth Initiative as part of our 2016 budget, which will help our small companies scale up and grow; accelerate our investments to kick-start an innovation-driven economy; and modernize our regulatory system to make it smarter and cut needless red tape.

Our Green Investment Fund, in the amount of a $325-million down payment on the province’s cap-and-trade program, thanks to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, will help us tackle climate change and support good jobs and grow our economy.

Our government is committed to helping our—

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

New question.

Climate change

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: My question is to the environment minister. The Liberals are in such a hurry to take more money out of the pockets of Ontario businesses and hard-working taxpayers that they haven’t even considered the economic impact of their reckless cap-and-tax scheme.

For nearly a year, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce has been pleading with the government to release its economic analysis, but the minister refuses to disclose any details whatsoever. The only information we have is from a candid moment with the minister last month when he said his cap-and-tax scheme is “going to cost the private sector.”

Will the minister listen to the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and reveal how much this scheme is going to cost business?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: In the business sector, we will see billions of dollars going into every single heavy industrial manufacturing sector. We’ve been working with Mr. Allan O’Dette today. We actually have already started investing. We have a great program, well-supported by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, called the smart green program, which is already funded and in which they are taking a leadership role in preparing industry and small business for a low-carbon economy. We have been meeting and consulting for two years, almost on a weekly basis, with business and industry.

Every question that Mr. O’Dette puts in his letter is a question that needs to be answered, and they’ll be answered in the action plan in a few weeks. He raises the issue of offsets. As you know, as members know, we have a joint procurement right now with Quebec, setting a Quebec-Ontario offset protocol of which Mr. O’Dette and others will be very involved in writing.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Again to the minister: It’s ridiculous to think the minister has no clue how much the Liberals’ reckless cap-and-tax scheme is going to cost Ontario businesses. What’s worse is that the minister routinely admits this tax scheme will lead to even more job losses. Of course, once again, he won’t say how much. But Ontario businesses want to know the truth, and that truth is that this tax scheme will hurt our economy. That’s why the Ontario Chamber of Commerce has called for the government to hit the pause button.

In the interests of protecting our economy, will the minister agree to the request made by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce to delay the start date for the cap-and-trade program until 2018?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Further delays or delays, period, would mean that the cost of the transition to Ontario businesses would be much higher.

But let’s just pause for a second, because what is the opposition proposing? They are suggesting to us, as the government, that it should be revenue-neutral, which would mean that there would be absolutely zero programs and zero funding to manage a transition to a low-carbon economy. There would also be capital outflow because we would not be able to leverage private sector dollars, which seems to be a concern of theirs, yet they have no answer to it.

The most troubling part of their position is that they want to de-link and not link with California and Quebec, which means that the price of carbon per tonne in Ontario would be astronomical and explosive and unaffordable for business.

They have no numbers backing up any of these, but we have been giving lots of numbers, and when the action plan comes out in a few weeks—a little patience—you’ll see all of the modelling that you would need to see on this. We will continue to work with Mr. O’Dette and our friends there—

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

New question.

Climate change

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, through you to the Deputy Premier: The NDP has long supported a cap-and-trade program that is fair, effective and transparent. Unfortunately, government members repeatedly voted down NDP amendments to strengthen their cap-and-trade bill, including one to give the Financial Accountability Officer access to the documents that would verify the effectiveness of the government’s climate change initiatives.

The member from Beaches–East York then tabled a much weaker amendment, telling us, “From our discussions with the Financial Accountability Office, this is what they are looking for.” On Tuesday, the FAO said the member from Beaches–East York had misrepresented his opinion. It was not what they were looking for.

Why is the government misrepresenting the transparency of its cap-and-trade bill?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to ask the member to withdraw because you can’t say indirectly what you’re implying directly. So I’m going to ask him to withdraw.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I do just want to preface my remarks by the incredibly constructive role that the member for Toronto–Danforth has taken in this. I really want to commend him and commend his party for their leadership.

Mr. Speaker, we actually—

Interjections.

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

The member from Huron–Bruce, second time, and you might get the warning if you want it. Just ask and I’ll give it to you right away.

Finish, please.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m glad you remember that.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I share the concern you have. This is a legal, constitutional, cabinet confidentiality issue. There are restrictions on access to government, and we have this often with table officers in the Parliament. My deputy is working quite carefully right now and very closely with the parliamentary budget officer, looking at different pathways, within the legal advice that we’ve gotten from the ministry and from the Attorney General’s office on limitations of access and the points of access.

It is not a concern that’s lost on us. We are continuing to work with him, but we are constrained by some legal opinions we have which we’re trying to resolve.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Lanark, come to order.

Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: The government promised that cap-and-trade funds would be spent transparently and effectively. This was something the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, amongst others, asked for. But then the government voted against nearly every NDP amendment that would ensure this.

For example, we don’t know if cap-and-trade funds will be spent only on new programs to reduce greenhouse gases. The government voted against an NDP amendment that would have made sure of this. As it is, the government can basically spend the cap-and-trade money on virtually anything it wants, including deficit reduction.

Will the government keep its own transparency promises, starting by giving the FAO access to all the documents that he requests?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I want to assure the member that I will work to ensure that, within the legal constraints and the rules that govern this Legislature and cabinet, we get to him as much information as is humanly possible. I totally agree with the principle you’re saying.

A government motion included an amendment that would inform the public of which entities have received free allowances and how they were received, which was asked for at committee.

We agreed with an NDP motion changing the reporting to every year from every five years, which aligns with the fact that I have to submit an expenditure plan and investment plan every single year and will report every single year—that a report on the minister’s evaluation to Treasury Board be included in the annual report and given to the FAO.

Another motion at committee sets a time requirement for the release of the annual report at the same time as the public accounts on the greenhouse gas reduction account.

I mentioned, the last time I spoke, a number of other measures.

We already have the highest standard in transparency. I agree with the member’s objective. I will work with him—

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

New question.

Energy policies

Mr. Granville Anderson: My question is to the Minister of Energy. In my riding, I hear from constituents, up to last Saturday, on the work of this government on the energy file. The constituents of Durham know how critical a clean, reliable energy system is to Ontario being a great place to live and work.

Wherever I go, I am proud to speak about the achievements we have made on our energy file. I tell constituents about $4.4 billion in health and environmental costs that we’re avoiding each year by completely ending the use of coal generation in Ontario. I speak about the smart investment in the nuclear industry and how this clean, safe energy source has brought significant economic benefits.

Minister, could you please tell the House what feedback you have received on the recent investments that our government has made?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I thank the member for the question. There’s a lot of good news that needs to be shared about energy in Ontario.

As announced this past December and January, Ontario Power Generation and Bruce Power will be refurbishing the nuclear reactors at Darlington and Bruce, securing 10,000 megawatts of affordable, reliable and emissions-free power.

The Conservative critic, the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, agrees. He said that “the recent agreement between Ontario and Bruce Power—to enable the refurbishment of the remaining six reactors at Bruce—certainly appears to be a good one.... The refurbishment agreement ensures we will have a stable supply of reliable, emission-free power for the next 60 years.”

And “ratepayers will benefit from the ... refurbishment because it will result in the province continuing to use nuclear as a source of reliable, cost-effective and emission-free source of electricity.”

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Granville Anderson: Since the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station is in the great riding of Durham, the economic and job creation benefits are also well celebrated by my constituents. Darlington’s nuclear refurbishment project will contribute $15 billion to Ontario’s gross domestic product and create up to 11,800 new jobs annually. The Bruce refurbishment project will generate 23,000 jobs and generate $6.3 million in annual economic benefits in communities throughout our great province.

Minister, there have been concerns raised on the cost of these refurbishments. To quote the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke: “Even though the PC caucus supports the refurbishment plan of the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station, we hope the Wynne government has done its due diligence to mitigate any cost overruns that would affect Ontario taxpayers.”

Minister, could you please explain what precautions are in place to ensure these projects meet their—

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

Minister?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I’d like to reassure the member from Pembroke-Renfrew. The nuclear refurbishment contracts are designed to protect the interests of Ontarians. The Darlington refurbishment

schedule will only proceed after the successful completion of the first of four units. We have built appropriate off-ramps, should operators be unable to deliver the projects on schedule—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, come to order.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: —and on budget, and enlisted an independent oversight adviser—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Renfrew, second time.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: —to monitor progress and spending. Also, the Bruce Power contracts ensures Bruce Power—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All right. I’ll pick you off one at a time: the member from Nipissing, second time; the member from Prince Edward–Hastings, second time. It’s never too late to get named.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, it’s never too late for the opposition to hear good news. Also, the Bruce Power contract ensures Bruce Power assumes full execution risk—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s not helpful.

Answer.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: —for any potential cost overruns or delays. Ontario has more than 180 companies across the province directly linked to the nuclear supply chain benefiting all Ontarians, and nuclear will remain—

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

New question.

Wind turbines

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is for the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. There’s a wind energy project that is under appeal in the city of Kawartha Lakes, near Bethany. After going through a time-consuming and expensive process with the Environmental Review Tribunal, now the Snowy Ridge project’s footprint is growing larger than what was already approved by this tribunal and the Ministry of the Environment. This expansion, however, did not have any public review or input. The modification report is 165 pages and the late expansion raises questions as to whether the company was working in good faith with the ministry and the tribunal.

Does the minister believe it is appropriate for the government to approve a project that puts out inaccurate and incomplete information?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: As I said to my friend from Sarnia–Lambton, whom I’ve been working with on his private member’s bill, I would be very happy to meet with you to go through it, talk about it and figure it out. I have to be very clear here. As some of the members opposite know, I play a different role, because these decisions are appealable to the Environmental Review Tribunal and some of th