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

August 8, 2018

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2018-Aug-08 (PDF)

L016 - Wed 8 Aug 2018 / Mer 8 aoû 2018

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 8 August 2018 Mercredi 8 août 2018

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

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Social assistance

Social assistance

Curriculum

Beverage alcohol sales

Social assistance

Beverage alcohol sales

Beverage alcohol sales

Social assistance

Seniors

Social assistance

Taxation

Mercury poisoning

Taxation

Mining industry

Etobicoke Centre nomination

Members’ Statements

School facilities

Social assistance

George Harvey Crowell

Social assistance

Government’s record

Introduction of Bills

Waterways Analysis Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur l’analyse des cours d’eau

Zebra Mussel Study Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur l’étude des moules zébrées

Petitions

School boards

Curriculum

Municipal elections

Employment standards

Indigenous affairs

Employment standards

Indigenous affairs

Wearing of poppies

Social assistance

Celiac disease

Orders of the Day

Better Local Government Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur l’amélioration des administrations locales

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on August 7, 2018, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 4,

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

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Further debate? I recognize the member for Ottawa West–Nepean.

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to rise today to address Bill 4, the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act.

In 1894, the western world was in the grips of a great environmental and health crisis. It was known at the time as the great horse manure crisis of 1894. You see, in major western cities like London and New York the streets were becoming inundated with heaps upon heaps of horse feces. Some estimates put the amount of dung in these streets at as high as nine feet. For reference, Mr. Speaker, I stand at a poky five foot eight.

This manure was polluting the air and the water and causing panic on the long-term health and environmental implications it would bring to its people. Many of the politicians of the day cried daily for quick government action and intervention. Some called for the taxation of horses. Others demanded stronger manure regulations. Every politician had a solution to this great environmental crisis.

None of these solutions, however, took into account a fundamental truth of the time: Horses were essential to the economic fortune of these societies. They were literally powering humanity forward. This left the world at a seeming impasse, unable to solve this conundrum. In the end, Mr. Speaker, the solution came, unsurprisingly, not from politicians or policy-makers. The solution came from a man named Henry Ford who in 1908 launched his Model T automobile. In a few short years, horses had almost completely been replaced by automobiles.

The market had stepped in. Mr. Ford found a better, more efficient way to move humanity forward. The value of horses plummeted and so too did their use and their fecal matter. The great horse manure apocalypse had been averted, and politicians didn’t have to raise a finger.

Some might wonder why I am sharing this story, Mr. Speaker. How does this little piece of history relate to the bill at hand today?

The story of the great horse manure crisis has played out again and again in the course of human history, and it is playing out again today as humanity faces down the challenges of climate change. Many advocates for more radical environmental policies would have us believe that the solutions to climate change are simple and universally recognized. This is, of course, a fallacy.

You see, Mr. Speaker, the debate over climate change is actually two separate discussions entirely. The first, largely accepted based on available evidence, is that the planet is undergoing a period of climate change. The second, plagued with much more uncertainty, is over the economic impacts of these changes and how to mitigate those. This second debate, for all the ranting and ravings of some, is where uncertainty in the academic and policy community resides.

Like the great horse manure crisis, many politicians and policy-makers claim to have all the answers. The former government, for example, put forward a plan to tax carbon by putting a price on it. This was meant to satisfy the federal government’s draconian mandate to provinces that they must tax carbon, a foolish and short-sighted policy. By making carbon-emitting more expensive, the former government hoped that it would reduce our use of fossil fuels.

Unfortunately, this doesn’t take into account the tremendously important role that these energy sector companies are playing in moving humanity forward. Like those who wanted to tax the use of horses, it doesn’t solve the problem.

The opposition knows this but appears hell-bent on pursuing an irresponsible policy that will hurt everyday Ontarians. Our PC government under Premier Doug Ford knows better. We believe in responsibly targeting our environmental problems with evidence-driven solutions that take into account the important role of the market and the needs of regular people like you and I.

Evidence is at the core of this debate, Mr. Speaker. Time and time again, studies are showing that carbon pricing will not actually impact emissions anywhere near enough to make an actual marked impact. In fact, some studies have suggested that here in Canada, we would need a carbon price north of $160 per metric tonne. For reference, BC currently prices it at $30 per metric tonne; $160 would represent a 450% increase to even come close to meeting some of the internationally desired levels. Ontarians can’t afford this kind of policy.

Let’s be clear, Mr. Speaker: This cost is paid for by you and I and everyone else in Ontario. Each of us sees these increases in our gas prices, the cost of heating our homes and the cost of buying everyday goods like groceries. Make no mistake, it is a tax that hurts everyone.

Beyond this, Ontarians understand that carbon taxes like this one hurt our large and small businesses’ ability to trade effectively. As competing jurisdictions seek to lower their taxes, in order to become more competitive Ontario cannot be sidelined by government strictures. We need to do everything in our power to make sure that our small businesses can compete on a level playing field so that they can continue to create jobs here at home.

As we all know, small business is the number one job creator here in this province. As Premier Ford has said on many occasions, we here in the PC Party are committed to ensuring that Ontario is open for business. Moreover, Ontarians know that the revenues earned from these carbon taxes are simply being used by irresponsible governments to spend more money that we can’t afford—a favourite policy prescription of the opposition.

If the debt left behind by the previous administration is anything to go by, it’s no wonder they were desperate to take in more of our cash by any means necessary. We believe that governments shouldn’t force taxpayers to bail them out of their failed policies. Instead, we believe in making the prudent and responsible decisions needed to get our finances back in order without hurting consumers.

So let’s recap: This carbon pricing policy doesn’t solve the problem, takes more money from our pockets and hurts our ability to trade competitively. Sounds like a lose-lose-lose to me. So why pursue this policy? Philip Cross of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute has a theory. He has suggested that governments are pursuing these policies as a feel-good measure. In fact, he went as far as to say that carbon taxes are the “equivalent of buying a papal indulgence to alleviate our collective conscience with a largely symbolic gesture....”

Well, Mr. Speaker, that’s not good enough for this government.

Through this bill, we are introducing legislation to wind down Ontario’s cap-and-trade system and move us out of this failed enterprise. It’s the responsible thing to do. By doing this, we are going to return money back into the pockets of hard-working Ontario families. In fact, it’s expected that the average Ontario family will save, on average, $260 per year. This, on top of an average saving at the gas pumps of 10 cents a litre.

Having travelled around my great riding of Ottawa West–Nepean, I met hundreds of people who shared their stories with me of how life was getting more unaffordable. As we promised in the election, we are taking quick action to solve that problem. We’re making sure that we’re lowering the cost of government. That’s extra money that a family can use to put a bit more food on the table, take their kids to summer camp or spend an afternoon with Grandma and Grandpa. Promise made, promise kept.

This government will never introduce symbolic virtue-signalling policies that accomplish little and make life more unaffordable for Ontarians. We will fight for the people. Instead, we will work hand in hand with industry partners to develop collaborative, market-driven strategies that will solve the important environmental challenges facing us today, and these will be evidence-based solutions.

We don’t have to look far. All around us, innovation is flourishing. In Australia and next door in Saskatchewan, pioneering research into carbon capture technology is presenting one path forward to responsibly develop our natural resources. Companies are leading the charge. Elsewhere, visionary inventors like Elon Musk at Tesla are pushing the boundaries on new technologies such as new solar batteries that will solve the problems of energy storage and make solar power a viable, efficient and affordable alternative to other energy sources.

The world around us is abuzz with ideas; from the labs of Waterloo to the tech centres of west Ottawa, our bright and resilient people are working to find that next frontier. So let’s not move backwards, Mr. Speaker. Let’s keep our eye ever focused on the future.

In the words of Henry Ford, “If everyone is moving forward together, then success takes care of itself.”

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you very much.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Are you sharing? You didn’t say.

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: I’m splitting my time with—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): No. We have to move to questions and comments.

I recognize the member from Algoma–Manitoulin.

Mr. Michael Mantha: I was listening very closely to the opening statement the member from Ottawa West–Nepean was giving us. I almost feel like walking over there and giving him a shovel because a lot of what I heard smelled and sounded like horse manure.

If we’re going to be doing something here in Ontario, and if they are claiming to be the party of small business, then I’ve got a couple of questions for them. What about Wikwemikong First Nation? What about Dubois Construction up in Elliot Lake? What about the many other small businesses that are being affected? What about the investments that they’ve made into their business to go out and seek the training, make the investments, create jobs and do the orders through manufacturing windows, insulation, roofing and all of those other opportunities and spinoff jobs?

What about the marketing plan that Wikwemikong had prepared in order to sell their pelletization plant and to mass produce wood pellets across northern Ontario? What about those jobs? What about those individuals? Don’t they matter? Aren’t they small businesses? Aren’t they the backbone of Ontario?

I heard some of his statements. In this wind-down of cap-and-trade, I can almost assure you, Speaker—and you would probably know this—with the reduction in gas prices, how long do you think it’s going to take big business friends, oil companies, to move in on the reduction of that 10 cents? How long do you think it’s going to take them to come in and swallow up that profit margin? I don’t think it’s going to be very long.

This is a wrong-headed direction that this government is taking in our province, and they are eliminating a lot of jobs in Ontario. If they are going to say that they’re the party of small business, prove it and show it.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Continuing along, further questions and comments?

Mrs. Robin Martin: I want to say thank you to my friend from Ottawa West–Nepean. I thought that was a brilliant presentation. I really enjoyed it. I really think the use of a story, especially one that actually happened in history, to emphasize what’s happening and what’s going on, was brilliant and cut through some of the noise around these issues to show us what we’re really talking about. I thought it was brilliant—graphic in some ways, but very good.

I agree with my friend that, frankly, we know from historical examples that this kind of reaction is just a little bit of running around saying, “The sky is falling. The sky is falling.” The sky is not falling. Solutions for environmental problems, by and large, throughout history, have come from businesses who are not held back, who are allowed to innovate. They come up with the solutions. I think it is the height of human hubris to think that we here have the answers to all the questions, just like the politicians in the days before Henry Ford thought that they had the answers, and yet the solution came from business. I really enjoyed that presentation.

I do feel like now we are kind of piling up manure, if you will, on this front. A lot of people are saying a lot of things that just have no bearing on reality. I thought your presentation very much brought us back to reality. I think we can take from this story where we should be going, which is to let businesses succeed in innovating to help us get out of the climate issues that we find ourselves in. That is what this government will do. I thank you very much.

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

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I’ve only been here for five years, but I must say, I’ve never heard so much horse manure, talk about manure, in my five years of being here.

I want to thank the member for Ottawa West–Nepean for trying, in his way, to draw a linkage between Henry Ford and Premier Ford—although, again, that is a bit of a stretch there, a bit of manure scent to raise the flowers on that one.

Henry Ford, as you know, came up with a more efficient way of transportation. We’re still waiting to see what method the Ford plan, the Premier’s plan, will be to replace the flawed Liberal cap-and-trade plan to fight air pollution and greenhouse gases. I heard the member say that they don’t have all the answers; I agree, but we’d like to see some of the answers. We’d like to know what plan, what cost, what targets are going to be set, how the targets are changed, and what evidence is going to be used.

The member for Ottawa West–Nepean said that Premier Ford had a better idea. Well, what idea? You would think his job one would be transparency, but we don’t know what the plan is, just like we didn’t know—five million people in Ontario did not know—during the election campaign that, if elected, Premier Ford was going to tamper with and hinder their municipal elections. Five million people—nobody was up front with them.

Nobody told them, “When we’re elected, we’re going to impact your municipal campaigns.” Five million people, more than a third of the entire population of the province, were kept in the dark that the Conservatives were going to impact the municipal election. That’s not transparency.

This Conservative plan is not transparent; it’s horse manure.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I’m going to ask the member to withdraw.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Withdraw, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you.

Further questions and comments?

Ms. Jane McKenna: I’d also like to reiterate what the member from Eglinton–Lawrence said about how there’s nothing like a storytelling person, the member from Ottawa West–Nepean, bringing the whole story back to what the reality is here in Ontario. So thank you so much for your speech.

I’m delighted to stand here today to speak briefly in support of the government’s Cap and Trade Cancellation Act. The legislation will end the practice of overpaying for fuel to drive our cars and natural gas to heat our homes. It will eliminate the unfair and regressive tax that made life more unaffordable for middle- and lower-income Ontarians. It is anticipated, but I’ll reiterate it again, that Ontario households will save approximately $260 annually. In addition, the orderly rollback of cap-and-trade is an important first step in bringing gas prices down. We promised a gas price reduction of 10 cents per litre, and we are planning to keep that promise. Promise made, promise kept.

This is great news for Ontario, Speaker. This legislation will also reduce the tax burden on businesses. We want to help businesses grow, create jobs and compete in the global economy. In fact, we anticipate the creation of an estimated 14,000 jobs.

The Cap and Trade Cancellation Act will also set regulations for a compensation framework through which the government will be offering some support to eligible participants in the cap-and-trade program. Specifically, we want to minimize the cost impact to companies that have purchased emissions allowances but not yet passed the costs on to consumers. This is the right thing to do.

I’m pleased to see that the proposed legislation requires government to prepare and publish a climate change plan and to set targets for reducing the amount of greenhouse gas emissions in Ontario. We will be developing a new plan in the weeks ahead that will address Ontario’s significant environmental priorities. Stay tuned, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Now we return to the member from Ottawa West–Nepean for final comments.

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: I would like to thank the member for Eglinton–Lawrence and the member from Burlington for their comments. That was very kind and I look forward to sharing many other stories in the years ahead.

To the members opposite, I would simply say that I am proud to be down in the muck getting things done while they pursue pie-in-the-sky policies that are so far detached from reality.

This policy of cap-and-trade that the former government introduced seems part of a long history of theirs of introducing symbolic environmental policies that don’t really take into account everyday Ontarians. For example, let’s take a look at their disastrous hydro plan. They went forward in building all of these renewable sources of energy here in Ontario while just across the river from my riding, in Quebec, there is a large source of clean, emissions-free energy in hydro power that they’re currently selling to the New England states at a fraction of the cost that we’re paying.

Mr. Speaker, I have no problems with renewable energy. Renewable energy has tremendous potential to help us move forward in the right environment. But there is no reason whatsoever to build those sources of energy here in Ontario when we have a cheaper, more affordable and equally clean power source across the river. The only thing that it served to accomplish was to increase hydro rates on Ontario families, just like this cap-and-trade policy has increased taxes on Ontario families. Our PC government, is going to work hard to make sure that we’re making life more affordable for every single Ontarian, because that’s what we were elected for. Promises made, promises kept.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate? I recognize the member from Windsor–Tecumseh.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Thank you, Speaker. Again, it’s a pleasure and an honour to be called upon by you to stand in this House and to speak on behalf of the good people of my riding of Windsor–Tecumseh.

Bill 4, the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, comes as no surprise. It was something the Conservatives campaigned on—unlike the out-of-the-blue, let’s-cut-Toronto-city-council-in-half bill, which was never mentioned during the Ford Conservative campaign by any of their candidates or their leader. It was one of those hidden surprises we’re just now learning about, the hidden agenda tucked up the Premier’s sleeve, the magician just waiting for the chance to pull out his little rabbits, to the delight of his friends and supporters.

What also comes as a surprise, and not a pleasant one to the business community, is that Bill 4 is structured in such a way as to prevent them from recovering the investments they’ve already made. It also restricts them from going to the courts to seek damages against the Ford Conservatives.

Speaker, just for the sake of argument, reverse the table-setting here for a moment. If a New Democratic government brought out legislation such as this, tearing up contracts, passing laws that you couldn’t sue us for doing so, we’d be called communist or something.

But here, it’s a pro-business government, supposedly, waging war on corporations that follow the rules and invest in ways to eliminate global warming: contracts ripped up; investors told, “Tough luck” and “Don’t waste your time going to a judge and crying about it because we’ve covered our backsides and we’ve put a clause in here that says, ‘Uh-uh, sorry about your luck, but you can’t do that.’ Too bad, so sad, now move along folks. There’s nothing to see here. No crime has been committed. It’s the law of the land. There’s a new sheriff in town. Get out of Dodge. It’s a Ford Nation.

Now we have a majority; we’ll do what we want. We can break promises about keeping the experiment on the basic income project and roll back a planned increase to people who are on disability support and general assistance because we hold the most seats in this House. Yes, our campaign for the people did not include the people who need our help the most. The little people in Ford Nation are out of luck. Too bad, so sad.”

Speaker, I wish I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard someone in this House say, “For the people.”

Interjections: For the people.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Thank you. I’d have enough money to buy a round of government-subsidized loonie beer down at my local Legion hall, Branch 255, in Olde Riverside.

There is such a thing as copyright infringement. I mention this as there is a used car dealership in my riding—and you know it, Speaker—at Tecumseh and Jefferson. It’s been there for way more than 10 years, on Tecumseh Road at Jefferson. The signs have been up for years: “Donny for the People.” That’s right. Donny Rezoski sells used cars. “For the People” has been his slogan for 10 years or more. So I cringe when I hear my PC friends who were elected just a couple of months ago using Donny’s well-established and well-known slogan.

I trust Donny. I’d buy a used car from Donny. I’m not so sure I’d buy a used car from a Premier who has adopted Donny’s slogan instead of dreaming up an original one of his own.

Words matter. Promises matter. Being crystal clear with the voters while campaigning matters. That’s why it scares me to think of buying a used car from a Premier who wasn’t crystal clear about cutting the size of Toronto city council in half or preventing people in Peel region and York and Muskoka and Niagara from electing a chair of their regional government. This was campaign by stealth. Nobody was up front about this. Nobody went door to door saying this was what they were going to do. Would you buy a used car from someone who hid the facts, who wasn’t up front with you, the people? The Premier wasn’t for the people in this case.

Early on, the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services challenged the opposition; she asked, “Are you with us or against us?” Speaker, are the Conservatives with the people or against the people? They’re certainly not for all the people in Ontario.

When it comes to this bill kneecapping the cap-and-trade legislation, they were up front with us. They campaigned on it. They were very proud of it. So I guess they weren’t so proud of some of the rest of their early-days agenda—not a word from any of them on the doorstep about ending the guaranteed income experiment, not a word about not providing the poorest of the poor with a budgeted 3% increase, not a word about cutting the number of municipal candidates at Toronto city hall in half. There’s nothing to be proud of there—no process to follow.

This is all about process. This is all about credibility. Who would you trust when it comes to buying a used car: the salesperson who is up front with you, or the one with page after page of small print, too small to mention during the sales pitch, too small to put into the campaign literature? We learn by our mistakes, but it is so hard to regain someone’s trust after you’ve blindsided them big time.

Inquiring minds want to know: What is the Ford plan to replace this bill? They say they’ll set targets to lower greenhouse gases, but they’ve already fired Ontario’s chief scientist. Who will they consult with on their new targets? How much will their plan cost the people of Ontario, how much in legal fees, as they fight the federal government? How will the minister report to this House and to the people in this province on his success or lack thereof on meeting these invisible targets? What rationale will he use to amend his targets when he fails to meet them? What’s the plan? Where is the plan? Much like a real platform the Premier ran on, it doesn’t exist.

Peter Pan lived in Neverland and he and Wendy and Tinker Bell had pixie dust to spread around and create a bit of magic. We’re still waiting for the pixie dust here. Where’s the beef?

Just like the used car salespeople, they say, “Trust us. We wouldn’t sell you anything we wouldn’t buy ourselves.” But they’re not Donny Rezoski, whose used car slogan has been “For the People” for the past 10 years. They haven’t earned our trust because of their broken promises and their campaign by stealth, this bait-and-switch early-days agenda.

Speaker, five million people weren’t told that their municipal elections would be impacted if they voted for the Conservatives—five million when you add up the population in Toronto, in Peel, in York, in Muskoka and in Niagara; five million people out of a population of about 13 million and a bit. It boggles the mind how you can say, “We’re for the people,” when you don’t let the people know what your agenda is, when you hide the facts from the people of Ontario. How can you expect to earn credibility with the people who didn’t know what they were voting for? Is there a do-over?

The people who voted for the Conservative Party the last time, more than a third of the people in Ontario, did not know what they were voting for. They liked the slogan, “For the People,” but they didn’t know that the people were being kept in the dark. A third of the people in Ontario did not know that their municipal elections would be impacted, that they would lose their democratic right to elect as many councillors in Toronto as they saw fit that they needed to do—and as the regional chairs.

The last Liberal government consulted; we had public hearings. I was there on the committee when people came in and told us what they wanted. The decision was made and, God bless me, the Conservatives voted in favour of having elected regional chairs. That was just a few short months ago. During the campaign, you didn’t hear a word about not keeping their promise, not standing up for the votes they just cast. They didn’t go to the people. Even though the slogan was “For the People,” they didn’t go to the same people and say, “By the way, just wait until we get in. Boy, have we got a surprise for you. We’ve got a couple of rabbits up our sleeve.”

You know, Speaker, this is not the right thing to do. It’s not the right way to start off a new government. It’s not the right way to say to the people of Ontario, “Trust us.” Because right now, trust is shattered. The people who were on the basic income project—every time they say “Promise made, promise kept,” this is an ice pick in the eye, this is a stab in the heart. Their promise was not kept; their promise was broken. The Premier said during the campaign that he would keep the experiment. The minister liked it. All of a sudden, they don’t.

So they’re not for the people. They may say they’re for the people. Don’t buy a used car from this crowd. This crowd has got small print. This crowd are not to be trusted because they kept us in the dark about all the impacts they’re having on this province. I’m not doom and gloom, I’m not a scaremonger, but it’s going to get a lot worse before the tide turns and it gets any better.

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

Mr. Ross Romano: In the short time I have I want to respond to some of the comments made by the member opposite. I want to thank him for his comments.

Starting off, cap-and-trade, Bill 4: There is no doubt that the people of Ontario do not want a carbon tax; they do not want to see cap-and-trade. It is clear from the results of the election and it’s clear based on common sense—simple common sense.

When the idea of the Green Energy Act and taxing carbon and all of that area was proposed, we in Ontario produced more power than we used—we produced more than we used. In theory, the idea was not all that bad, but the problem was that when Justin Trudeau said, “All right, provinces, we’re going to have a carbon tax”—it wasn’t up to all of the Premiers across this country to say, “All right, you said, ‘Jump,’ we’re going to say, ‘How high?’” That’s not the way democracy works in this country.

It was up to the Premiers of the province to look at things and say, “How are we, in our respective governments within each jurisdiction, going to implement a carbon tax that meets the federal standards?”—if that was the process they were going to follow—or, “How can we do it in an effective and efficient way?”

Cap-and-trade was not effective or efficient, and it did not help us be competitive in this province. Something better was called for, and that is precisely what we are doing. We received that mandate.

Now, in my last 10 seconds, I want to say this: Just because you have an election promise to get rid of cap-and-trade and you don’t have a promise to get rid of councillors doesn’t mean that you’re not working for the people. In fact, the people are clearly demonstrating they support what we are doing.

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

Mr. Jeff Burch: This is clearly a government with absolutely no plan. They have no environmental policy. They didn’t have an environmental policy during the election; they don’t have an environmental policy now. They never had one. How can you be a government of the largest province in Canada and not have an environmental policy, an environmental plan?

Mr. Lorne Coe: We have a plan.

Mr. Jeff Burch: There is no plan. There is no environmental plan.

You have climate change, you have forest fires out of control, you have problems all over the world—and you have a government with no environmental plan. It’s absolutely ridiculous. The only plan they do have is to get rid of a former government’s plan, and to go to court and cost taxpayers $30 million, Mr. Speaker, in a wasted lawsuit. That’s the plan: to waste $30 million. What kind of an environmental plan is that?

This government and this party, who are supposed to be for small business—there are small businesses all over the province, there are small businesses in Niagara, windows and doors, construction businesses, that have hired employees, that have expended money, and now they’ve had to cancel their contracts, they’ve had to lay off employees. What kind of a small business party is this?

Talk to the chamber of commerce: There are thousands of businesses all over Ontario that have had to lay off employees because this government has cancelled contracts that people have gone into in good faith through the green program. If this government was responsible, what they would have done is honour those contracts first, and then cancel the program. But instead you’ve left small businesses out in the dark.

This is not a party of small business. It’s a party of broken promises.

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

Mrs. Belinda Karahalios: It is a pleasure to speak here again this morning. Thank you to my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie and the members opposite for your comments.

“No plan”—I had to chuckle when I heard you say that, simply because I suspect the only plan that the NDP would support would be a plan that includes increased taxes, or more taxes—because tax is your game.

And you speak about small businesses and the chamber of commerce; when I went out, I spoke with my local chamber of commerce, I spoke with businesses who are part of that chamber of commerce. A lot of them were afraid of what would have happened on June 7 if the members opposite had won, because they did not feel supported by their plan.

The PC government that was formed on June 7 supports the small business community. We keep our promises for the people and we support promises for the people—

Interjections.

Mrs. Belinda Karahalios: Excuse me.

We kept our promises regarding scrapping the cap-and-trade, reducing the gas prices, helping our small business community. We trust our small business community.

By adding the cap-and-trade, all we’ve done is ask the business community to take away money that they’ve taken in, that they’ve brought in—money that they would have used to add to their green initiatives. We were asking them to give that to the government instead. We were not supporting our small businesses with the cap-and-trade.

So, to the member opposite: If you’re so interested in helping small business, maybe you should vote for Bill 4 because what it’s going to do is help our small business community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this time to speak.

Again: promise made, promise kept. I’m very proud to be part of this government.

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

M. Guy Bourgouin: Ça me fait toujours un plaisir de me lever pour parler, aussi, pour ma circonscription de Mushkegowuk–Baie James.

Mon confrère de Windsor–Tecumseh, je pense qu’il a tapé la tête du clou avec son marteau, parce que je pense que quand on parle de transparence, de confiance et puis de crédibilité—je ne suis pas sûr qu’on peut dire ça du gouvernement dans ce point ici.

J’ai parlé avec du monde dans ma circonscription à propos de la cancellation du « cap-and-trade. » Ils me disent, « Guy, sans que la poussière commence à tomber, on réalise qu’on a perdu beaucoup de choses. On dit beaucoup de choses. » J’ai dit, « Qu’est-ce que tu veux dire? » « Bien, écoute, moi, j’ai acheté une voiture qui était à moitié électrique, et puis aujourd’hui, il n’y a plus de subvention pour ça. » Je lui ai dit, « C’est en plein ça. »

Durant ma campagne, j’ai été dans une école où il n’y avait rien qu’une classe qui avait l’air conditionné. Les 100 millions que vous avez coupés—et puis, on se pète les bretelles : « Il faut protéger les étudiants. » C’est drôle que vous ne vous les pétez pas aujourd’hui. Pourquoi? Vous avez cancellé les 100 millions qui affectaient toutes les écoles dans les circonscriptions qui avaient besoin de ces rénovations-là. On ne vous a pas entendu parler pour les élèves dans ce cas-ci; mais seulement quand c’est venu à la grève, pour éroder les droits des travailleurs.

On dit, « un gouvernement pour le peuple. » Un gouvernement du peuple, c’est de la transparence. La transparence, dans ce cas, je ne suis pas sûr qu’il y en a, parce qu’on peut voir que le plan—on ne l’a pas vu encore, votre plan. On aimerait bien le voir pour être capable de le critiquer encore plus, mais comme c’est maintenant, on ne l’a pas vu encore.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Now I return to the member from Windsor–Tecumseh for final comments.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: To my friend from Sault Ste. Marie saying people didn’t want a carbon tax—I didn’t know it was a tax, but if he says so—I wasn’t trying to defend the Liberal plan; I think it was flawed. But what is your plan? How much is it going to cost? What are the targets you’re going to set? We don’t know.

I wrote down a quote that you used: “not the way democracy works.” Democracy works when you tell the people up front what you’re going to do. In this case, you said that you’re going to get rid of this plan. I agree with that. But all the other stuff you’re doing that you weren’t transparent about, how you didn’t tell five million people that you were going to impact their municipal elections—that’s not how democracy is supposed to work.

My friend from Niagara Centre said that you guys don’t have an environmental plan. I heard one of the ministers in the front row—I won’t say which one—say, “We had a plan: to win.” And that’s okay. You won. Congratulations, you won. But you did it by stealth; you did it by a hidden agenda; you did it without telling five million people in Ontario that you were going to impact their municipal elections—you didn’t do that.

You’ve been breaking promises. You’re breaking promises to the poorest of the poor in Ontario on the guaranteed Basic Income Pilot project. You’re not giving the poorest of the poor a 3% raise.

The member from Cambridge said that she talked to the small business community. You didn’t tell them you were going to rip up contracts. You didn’t tell them you were going to pass laws that say, “You can’t sue us. Ha ha, we’ve covered our backsides. You can’t sue us when we rip—and you’re not going to get a penny back on your investments.” You did not tell the people in the small business community in Cambridge any of that.

My friend from Mushkegowuk–James Bay said that it’s about trust and credibility. It’s all about trust and credibility. When you do what you’ve done with your hidden agenda, you’ve lost your trust, you’ve lost your credibility; and when you’ve lost it, it will take forever to get it back.

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

Mr. Deepak Anand: It’s been a pleasure listening to everybody on Bill 4. Mr. Speaker, it’s my pleasure to discuss Bill 4 as well,

an act to prepare for a solid climate change plan, providing for the wind-down of the cap-and-trade program and repealing the Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act of 2016.

Just a few short weeks ago, our government was given a clear mandate to put people first and make life more affordable for Ontario families. I’m glad to announce again that Ontario’s carbon tax era is over and the conclusion of cap-and-trade is a key step toward fulfilling the government’s commitment to reduce gas prices by 10 cents. That’s making life more affordable, but the benefits don’t stop here.

In addition to saving families money, the elimination of the cap-and-trade carbon tax will remove a cost burden from Ontario businesses. It will allow them to grow, create jobs and compete with global competition. We’re looking forward to our slogan, “For the businesses.”

Mr. Percy Hatfield: It isn’t, “For the people”?

Mr. Deepak Anand: We are for the people as well, but we want to tell them that we’re open for business.

Cap-and-trade took effect on July 1. The regulation was intended to set an overall legal limit on greenhouse gas emissions in a certain time period. It provided incentives to purchase electric zero-emission vehicles. But it also created another government burden, and that increased the cost of living in Ontario.

Our job in the House is very simple. It is to make the lives of our constituents easier and affordable.

The cap-and-trade regulation was an expensive program. We already know it only produced 20% results. A simple question we asked: “What on earth?” There’s a program, and we know it’s not working—just producing 20% results. Before installing the regulation, the previous government knew that it would inevitably increase the price of goods and services across Ontario. A complicated program that was neither transparent nor revenue neutral, it gathered billions of dollars and was an opportunity for the previous government to dispense free allowances and provide more capital to their projects and, more often, their favourite projects.

The government of Ontario can still provide incentives to reduce greenhouse emissions without imposing another tax. In practice, the regulation did not achieve a more equitable and sustainable economy. Instead, it was leading to higher prices and more taxes, and we all know about it.

The cap-and-trade system encourages short-term solutions—it’s a bandage—while delaying fundamental problems, and the fundamental problems are what we need to take care of. This broken regulation is a short-term cash grab and does not translate into an environmentally effective outcome over a long period. I look forward to brainstorming with my fellow colleagues on both sides, making sure we end the regime of this regressive tax.

We also believe that climate change is a very important issue. It’s something we will never take lightly. Once passed, the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act will repeal the cap-and-trade legislation, extinguish allowances, protect taxpayers from further costs and set out regulation-making authority for a compensation framework.

We are determined to find alternate solutions, moving forward, for a cleaner future. We believe green energy will arise in Ontario without the expense of the taxpayer. I’d like to add here: As a chemical engineer, I am passionate about a better environment, better than what we inherited. I am committed to working with the ministry to find sustainable solutions. I believe that together we will find effective and progressive methods of ensuring the health and safety of our delicate environment. We are not against the environment.

Ontario is a world leader in innovative technology. If we talk about Ontario’s clean-tech companies, we are number one. We have companies that are helping organizations and communities around the world, not just in Ontario, providing them with efficient solutions to tough environmental challenges. From mitigating the impacts of climate change to delivering clean energy and clean drinking water, Ontario’s clean-tech industry is at the forefront of sustainable development.

Talking about sustainable development, I’d like to mention and thank the member from Ottawa West–Nepean, who talked about sustainable innovations. That’s what we’re talking about in Ontario with our government.

I want to share with you some of the leading clean-tech companies in Ontario. Silfab Solar is a Mississauga-based company that produce high-efficiency photoelectric modular cells for solar power generation. Pond Technologies in Markham is a venture-based company that utilizes microalgae to convert carbon dioxide emissions of major industrial emitters into biofuel through the process of photosynthesis, and ultimately, into bio-oil and biodiesel. This is how we’re taking care of the environment.

Another example is Aslan Technologies. It is a Burlington-based design and manufacturing company serving the chemical, water and waste water treatment industries. The president of Aslan has referred to Ontario as the “Silicon Valley” of water technology.

Clearly, Ontario has set the bar and we will continue to work for innovative ventures.

A recent poll in February indicates that 70% of Ontarians think taking action to solve climate change is a high priority, and it is one of our priorities to ensure the long-term prosperity of this great province, but without damaging our economy, without burning the people of Ontario. We are moving forward with the wind-down of the cap-and-trade program and repealing the Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act of 2016. We will—and we promise—deliver real action on reducing emissions, cleaning our streets and conservation, while providing clean air and water.

We promised to relieve families from undue hardship, and our government was given a clear objective to put the people first. Once passed, we all know Bill 4 will save families an average of $260 per year, including cheaper gas prices and lower energy bills. We’ve all heard it many, many times, but I’d like to echo it one more time, Mr. Speaker. We made this promise to the people of Ontario—promise made, promise kept.

Not only this, Mr. Speaker, Ontario is estimated to create 14,000 jobs, and I’m glad to say that Ontario is back in business. We are one step closer to fulfilling our commitment to the people of Ontario. Our mission to stimulate the economy starts now and here.

I’d like to thank the Minister of the Environment, Rod Phillips, who has worked tirelessly on this historic bill. Not only him—everyone in our caucus is proud of our government, and proud of what we’re doing right now. Moving forward, Ontario will be more competitive and stronger than ever.

Together, I believe that we’ll find a better solution for a better environment rather than taxing the consumer through control and discipline. As Canadians, it is vital we take advantage of our resources while constantly innovating. This is an important issue to address and that’s why we’re making it a priority today. It is our commitment to put into place a more effective plan—a plan to address the environmental challenges we face while respecting the taxpayer.

I look forward to working with my fellow members to address these issues and come up with valuable solutions.

And I’d like to add here, Mr. Speaker, that ever since we started to come back to the House, every time I go to meet people over the weekend, they are appreciating what we’re doing. They’re actually asking how quickly we can do it. And they’re amazed by how quickly we’ve done it.

I believe we are on the right track. We promised the people of Ontario that we’re going to make life more affordable and that’s what we’re doing. Promise made, promise kept—and soon, we’re going to call it promise made, promise kept, promise delivered.

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

Mr. Percy Hatfield: As I say, every time I hear “promise made, promise kept,” the poorest of the poor in Ontario feel it in their heart, feel it in their eyes. And promise made, promise broken when it comes to the experiment on the basic income social services project and when it comes to an expected 3% increase being rolled back to 1.5%. Every time you say it, you are telling the poorest of the poor in Ontario, “Whoops, we don’t mean you. We’re talking about our rich friends.”

Look, climate change is real, as the member said. Last night in Toronto, the power was out for a couple of hours and torrential rains hit. You can’t put up with this unless you have a real plan for protecting the environment. Stripping away the Liberal plan is one thing; it was a flawed plan. But what is your plan? Be transparent about it. What is going to be the cost? What are the targets you’re going to set? How are you going to adjust those targets? Who are the scientists who are going to advise you on this plan? You’ve already fired Ontario’s chief scientist.

I heard another slogan. I heard “For the People” and now I’m hearing “For the Business.” But you don’t go to the business community and say, “We’re going to tear up contracts. We’re going to pass legislation that allows us to tear up contracts, and when we tear up these contracts, we’re going to have other clauses in there that say you can’t sue us.

You’re not going to get your money back, because we’re for the people, except not for the business people whose contracts we tear up, and not for the business people who can’t recover their costs because we put a clause in there that says, ‘Too bad, so sad, you’re not going to get your money back.’ All you did was follow Ontario’s laws, but we’re changing the laws.”

You didn’t tell the people when you said you’re going to get rid of cap-and-trade, “We’re going to rip up the contracts that are there now and not give you a dime for your investment.” Five million people didn’t know you were going to impact their municipal elections. You’re not transparent.

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

Mr. Doug Downey: Thank you to the member from Mississauga–Malton.

I guess to work in reverse on who is going to advise and where are these smart people we’re going to find, you’re sitting right beside a chemical engineer with an MBA from Schulich. That’s a good place to start. We have such talent on the government side of this House, in the government ranks. There are some really smart people who have thought about how things work.

The people do feel it. They physically feel what we’re doing when we’re cancelling the carbon tax—they’re feeling the weight off their shoulders—because the carbon tax is simply a gathering of money with no purpose. It was going into a pot and it was being a slush fund for the former government, propped up by the opposition. It is really unfortunate that people equate the taking of money out of the economy with actually doing something. It’s motion without action. It’s not helpful. It’s oppressive to our system, and we heard this from businesses.

I didn’t just talk to members of the chamber of commerce; I used to be the president of a chamber of commerce and so I know how the small businesses are struggling. They’re knocking at our doors saying, “You need to help us. I’m on the edge.” People don’t understand how on the edge some companies are, and this tax, which is money out of their pocket—which is money out of the pocket of consumers, because they have to pass it on; they have families to feed, themselves.

I’m sure the member from Mississauga–Malton is hearing the same things at the doors. He has several significant companies, both large and small, mom-and-pop companies and multinationals, and they’re all saying the same thing: “Taxing me and putting it into a pot as a slush fund is not helping anybody. It’s oppressive.”

So, Mr. Speaker, I don’t know how the NDP reconciled propping up the Liberals at the time with that and then condemning us for getting us back on the right track. I’d be interested in their ideas on this, but we’ll hear more later.

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

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: Climate change is real. You should come and visit my communities up north. Kashechewan, these First Nations communities, every spring—it used to be occasional but now it’s every spring—have to be uprooted from their communities. They’re scattered. They come to Kapuskasing and they go into different communities. We were there, with my colleague Gilles Bisson, and they asked us directly, “Would you come and live here? Would you bring your family to my community?” And we had to be honest. We had to say, “No, because it’s unsafe.”

It’s unsafe because climate change is here. It affects us. We can say, “Oh, the tax, the tax,” but what’s your plan? These people want to know what your plan is—and so do we—because they’re affected directly.

Interjection.

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: They may have voted—no, I don’t think they voted for you because I’m standing right here, okay?

The reality is they have to be dislodged from their communities year after year, which is unfair. Bring us a plan. They need transparency. We want to see your plan, because forest fires and flooding exist—and I can tell you, in my riding, more, ever since climate change has been increasing. We can say, “Oh, the tax, the tax,” but the reality is, it hits the people. We need to see the plan and you need to be transparent on it.

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

Mr. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: I want to thank my colleague from Mississauga–Malton for his comments.

Let’s be clear once again. We know climate change exists. No one denies it. We know it’s here. But the solution to every problem is not to tax. We made a promise to the people when we were campaigning, when we were knocking on doors, to make life more affordable. When I was knocking on doors in Brampton South, that was one of the main concerns. People cannot afford life, the day-to-day activities—the single mothers, the hard-working mothers and fathers who are just trying to put their kids through school.

That’s why our government made a commitment, a promise to scrap the carbon tax, and that’s exactly what we did. We’re delivering relief to the hard-working families of Ontario: some $260 back in their pockets so they can take their kids out to dinner; they can go out and watch some movies with their families. That’s exactly what this government has been doing.

We called back this Legislature just so we could get back to work. We rolled up our sleeves and we put the taxpayers first. We made sure that we run an efficient and effective government because, for the last 15 years, there’s been so much mismanagement, so many scandals, and the taxpayers have been left without anything.

When I was knocking on doors, one of the things that I heard the most was that there is absolutely no faith left in our public institutions. That’s exactly what we have focused on: restoring that faith for those individuals who are working hard, who are paying their tax dollars, ensuring that they get their fair share and that we, as a government, respect the money that they are putting into our hands.

I want to thank the member once again and—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you very much.

Back to the member from Mississauga–Malton for final comments.

Mr. Deepak Anand: First of all, I’d like to thank the member from Barrie for the wonderful comments. Thank you, members opposite, from Windsor–Tecumseh and the member from James Bay—and my neighbour is always with me. Thank you for that. Thank you to the member from Brampton South, my neighbour.

All of us are saying exactly the same thing. We’re not saying anything different. We’re talking about helping out the people, helping the economy—

Mr. Bill Walker: For the people.

Mr. Deepak Anand: For the people.

Mr. Speaker, our government was elected on a very simple promise: to be for the people. That’s what we’re doing. During our campaign, during our election time and even after the election, one question kept coming to me, and I’m pretty sure it was coming to all of us. People were asking, “How are you going to put people first? How are you going to make life more affordable for me and my family?”

We do understand the challenges that climate change presents, but a regressive tax is not the solution. The people of my riding and the people of Ontario have made it clear to me and to all of us that they don’t want an unfair tax that puts the burden on their families and small business.

Mr. Speaker, I’d like to talk about a vicious cycle. What’s happening is, once we put a tax on somebody, we create more burden on them. The cost of living goes up. The cost of producing goods goes up. What happens is, people can’t afford it. Once they can’t afford it, they cannot do—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you very much.

Further debate?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’m going to start my time in this debate, and unfortunately, we’re going to run out of time and we’ll have to continue later.

I just want to start out with a basic debunking of the myth the government’s trying to create around cap-and-trade. They’re arguing that this is strictly a carbon tax, and there’s nothing that could be stranger or further from the truth. There are two different systems. There is a carbon tax, which two of our provinces currently do, and the federal government is interested in doing—which I think, on all sides of the House, we don’t support. We don’t think a carbon tax is the way to go because a carbon tax means it’s the public that’s going to pay.

If you have a carbon tax, that means you and I and our neighbours are going to pay more for everything in order to raise money to have programs to allow for the mitigation of pollution. That’s one way to do it and that’s not the way we want to go.

The alternate is the cap-and-trade system. The cap-and-trade system, simply put, says that those who pollute will pay, and the money we raise from those who are polluting will then be given to those people who are trying to reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere or into the water. That could be, in the case of an individual homeowner, replacing your windows, putting in a new furnace, insulating your house. It may be any of those things. If you’re a manufacturer or a small company of some type, it might be investing in technology that reduces your emissions into the atmosphere.

So the money that is raised by way of cap-and-trade is not strictly a tax. What it does is, it raises money from those people who pollute and it transfers the money to those people who are going to reduce emissions. The net effect is, we reduce emissions into the atmosphere.

Therefore, for the government, and the Conservatives in the last election, to make the argument that this is strictly a carbon tax I think is a bit of bait and switch. It was a bit of trying to get people’s minds over here believing that it was some kind of a big tax that was coming your way instead of really what it is: It’s about making polluters pay. So when the government says, “We’re for the people,” the people that they’re talking about are polluters. They’re not talking about you and I and our neighbours; they’re talking about polluters—because who in the end is going to pay now that the government has decided that it’s going to get rid of cap-and-trade rather than fix it?

We agree, as New Democrats, that there are parts of the cap-and-trade system that had to be fixed. We can agree on some of those, but what the government is essentially doing is saying, “We’re going to get rid of cap-and-trade.” By getting rid of cap-and-trade, now you lose the money that is paid by the polluters in order to have others lessen their emissions into the atmosphere.

My friend the member from Mushkegowuk–James Bay raised the story of schools in his riding, where only one classroom in the whole building has air conditioning. Some of the money from cap-and-trade was going to go to that school in order to provide air conditioning for the rest of the classrooms. That was the net benefit of what cap-and-trade did.

The government is trying to argue that this was strictly a tax. In my view, that’s a false argument. This is a plan by which you reduce carbon emissions. So it leaves you with the question that has been raised on this side of the House: What is your plan?

There are only three ways that you can move on greenhouse emissions: You can go by way of a carbon tax, which we don’t favour on either side of the House; you can go cap-and-trade, which we think is a compromise, where at least the polluter pays, those polluting are the ones who pay to reduce the emissions, and the benefactors at the end are the people; or you’re going to regulate the economy and what it is that you can emit into the atmosphere.

I have a bit of a hard time believing that a Conservative government is going to do anything major when it comes to changing the regulations and laws when it comes to how much you can emit into the atmosphere—because what is real is that climate change is here. Look outside. We’re getting record temperatures that we’ve never seen the world over year after year.

My good friend from Mushkegowuk–James Bay talks about communities like Kashechewan that are now being evacuated every year because the breakup on the Albany River is pretty severe compared to what it used to be. We used to have a longer thaw period in the spring. It was very well managed, to a certain degree, by nature. Now we have this quick unthaw, and we have the bunching up of the ice that builds up a big dam of water on the Albany River and we end up flooding communities like Kashechewan or Fort Albany and others, and other coastal communities.

So clearly, climate change is here, and the government has to be coming clean: What is your plan? What are you going to do to reduce carbon emissions in our atmosphere as a jurisdiction here in Ontario that will add to a greener planet, that will add to our responsibilities of meeting the Paris accord? What I hear this government saying is, “We’re the ostrich party. Climate change isn’t here, and like a bunch of ostriches, we’re going to stick our heads in the sand and hope that it all goes away in the next four years.” Well, let me tell you, climate change is here. It’s happening. It’s the world over.

We’re seeing record temperatures. We’re seeing higher waters. We see islands in the Pacific that are being evacuated because they can’t live on the islands because of the water levels coming up in certain places, like the Seychelles. Clearly, there’s something happening in our atmosphere, and this government tends to act like an ostrich and say that it’s not happening.

I hear members get up and say, “Yes, there is climate change,” but they have no approach, no plan in order to deal with how you mitigate climate change. Either we’re going to be contributing to the solution, or we’re going to be perpetuating the problem. It sounds to me that this government wants to stand on the side of perpetuating the problem rather than trying to deal with it.

You had to make a choice. If like us, like New Democrats, you don’t agree with a carbon tax, then you either have to regulate the polluters, which you’re not prepared to do, or you have to have a cap-and-trade system in order to get the polluters to pay for the mitigation that happens by others who are willing to invest to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I think we’re almost close to that time. I will just allow you to do your job at this point.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Well, thank you very much. You do have time left on the clock, and we will have an opportunity for questions and comments at the next appropriate opportunity for you.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Now it is 10:15, and this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

M. Gilles Bisson: J’ai le plaisir de vous introduire à deux personnages qui sont spéciaux à notre coeur dans la famille, ma nièce et mon neveu : Jonathan Beauchamp, qui est ici à l’Université de Toronto comme prof, et sa soeur, Émilie, qui est à Londres en Angleterre et qui travaille dans le domaine de l’environnement. J’aimerais avoir le plaisir de leur dire bienvenue à notre Assemblée législative.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Good morning, Speaker. I’d like to introduce, from FirstOntario Credit Union, Mr. Kelly Harris.

Mr. Paul Miller: It’s my pleasure to introduce some special guests. We have two from the UK and four from New Jersey. They’re all from the Butt family.

Zahid Butt is the president of my Hamilton East–Stoney Creek riding association. We have with him Shahid Butt, Abdullah Butt, Usama Butt, Fahd Butt, Souban Butt, Shafiq Butt and, most importantly, my wife, Carole Paikin-Miller.

Mr. Toby Barrett: I wish to introduce a long-time friend, an associate of many here in the House and a constituent of the Honourable Michael Tibollo. I’d like to introduce Gabe Spoletini.

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Good morning, everyone. I’d like to welcome Dr. Michael Kirlew, physician for Wapekeka First Nation in Sioux Lookout, and also his daughters Naomi and Liana.

Also, as a First Nations person of this land, I’d like to welcome all MPPs to this land.

Mrs. Amy Fee: I’d like to welcome four different people today who are here from OPSWA, which is the Ontario Personal Support Workers Association. We have Ian DaSilva, Miranda Ferrier and Thia Stephens. Both Miranda and Thia are members in my riding, from Kitchener South–Hespeler.

I’d also like to welcome Janet MacDougall from Yes I Can.

Mr. Chris Glover: I’d like to welcome Nancy Trendoff, my constituency assistant; Kelly Whetter, who is the mother of a son who was lost to gun violence in the city; Elizabeth Correia, who is a youth counsellor; Stacey King, who is the mother of the three girls who were injured in the playground shooting in Scarborough earlier this summer; Patrick Knight, who is a TDSB principal and the principal of the Toronto West Detention Centre; Louis March from the Zero Gun Violence Movement; Kathleen McDevitt, whose son lost his best friend to gun violence; Munira Abukar, who is a community worker; and Gary Pieters, who is a community activist.

Hon. Rod Phillips: It’s a pleasure today to introduce one of my constituents from Ajax, Bob Broadstock, to the Legislature. Bob is a breeder, owner and trainer, and president of the Quarter Racing Owners of Ontario, which is dedicated to supporting the long-term sustainability of Ontario’s horse racing. I welcome him here today.

Hon. Christine Elliott: I’d like to introduce Mr. Neal Roberts, who is the chief of the Middlesex-London Paramedic Service and also the president of the Ontario Association of Paramedic Chiefs. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Judith Monteith-Farrell: I’d like to introduce my daughter Eve Farrell and her partner, Mike Holm, who are visiting from Kingston today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Roman Baber: It’s a pleasure to introduce a constituent, a mentor and a friend. Mr. Arthur Downes, in the east gallery, served on close to a dozen hospital boards in Ontario and also served the people of Ontario as a justice of the peace from 1978 to 1997. Today also marks his 91st birthday. Welcome and happy birthday, Your Worship.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’d like to welcome Michael Hampton and David Cherkewski from Hamilton. They’ll be joined by a number of other Hamiltonians this morning. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: It’s an honour to introduce my good friend, a small business owner and constituent from Brampton South, T. J. Saggu, and his son Khushwant Saggu. He’s also the owner of Ultra-Modern Medical clinics in Brampton and Milton.

Mrs. Nina Tangri: It is my pleasure this morning—joining us from the Philippine consulate office we have the consul general, Rosalita Prospero; senior trade commissioner Maria Alvero; consul Edna May Lazaro; trade assistant Roselle Corro and trade assistant Giannina Uy.

I would also like to introduce a team from Jollibee, a famous Philippine restaurant chain, which now has two locations in Ontario: vice-president Maribeth dela Cruz, Michelle Alino, Agnes Delos Santos, Madel Longa and Cherryl Pascua.

Also, we have the former federal candidate for Mississauga Centre, Julius Tiangson, and Vincent Ching visiting, from the Philippines. Welcome to the Legislature, everyone.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: It’s my pleasure to give a warm welcome to Deirdre Pike, member of the operational steering committee, and Tom Cooper, director of the Hamilton Roundtable for Poverty Reduction. They are with us this morning.

I would also like to join the member from this morning to welcome Gary Pieters, Patrick Knight, Munira Abukar, Louis March and all the members who are here talking about such a very important issue.

Welcome, Deirdre; nice to see you.

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: I’d like to recognize a former member who’s in the House. Phil Gillies is joining us today, a former minister and member for Brant, if I’m not mistaken. Phil was one of the early supporters in my campaign. Welcome, Phil.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Indeed, we welcome Phil Gillies, who was the MPP for the riding of Brantford in the 32nd and 33rd Parliaments.

Oral Questions

Social assistance

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Day after day, this Premier is making decisions that make life harder and more expensive for working families and for the most vulnerable people in our communities. Slashing the social assistance increase and cancelling the Basic Income Pilot doesn’t help people. It keeps folks trapped in poverty. Why is this Premier cutting supports that the most vulnerable families depend upon?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, it’s funny how the Leader of the Opposition has come down here, day after day after day, talking about the Wynne Liberal legacy that she propped up for 15 years. That put us in debt $340 billion—the highest taxes in Canada, the highest hydro rates anywhere in North America. The Leader of the Opposition continues, day after day, telling the people of Ontario how she wants to have the highest carbon taxes anywhere in Canada, the highest gas prices anywhere in Canada. Talk about taking care of the most needy—that’s not part of what she really believes in. She believes in raising taxes.

The people on social assistance actually pay energy costs. I met with Elsie yesterday in Belleville, and on her cheque—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, I can tell you what’s not funny around here, and that’s the wrong-headed priorities of this Premier.

I’m incredibly worried about what this Premier’s cuts mean to the most vulnerable people across Ontario. Cutting social assistance and cancelling the Basic Income Pilot means that more people will be forced to go to food banks, more people will be at risk of homelessness and more people will struggle to survive in dire poverty.

As of Monday, 15,000 people have signed a petition calling on this Premier to reverse course and save the Basic Income Pilot project, like he promised to do during the campaign. Will this Premier listen, or will he continue to hurt the lowest-income people in Ontario?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I’ll carry on about Elsie. I met Elsie in Belleville. Elsie is on social assistance. She showed me her paycheque and there was a $139 energy cost. I told her that we’re going to increase her payments by 1.5%. Then I asked Elsie, “What’s 12% of $139?” We came up with a figure that’s actually higher than 1.5%. Elsie had a car outside, and I told Elsie that her gas prices, once we scrap the cap-and-trade, are going down 10 cents per litre. So once I explained to Elsie that if you add up everything—

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

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, I’m incredibly proud to welcome almost 30 people from my city of Hamilton who are participating in the Basic Income Pilot project. They’re here with their families, friends and local advocates. They’re here with one message for the Premier of this province: Slashing social assistance and cancelling basic income is absolutely the wrong thing to do because it hurts thousands of people across Ontario. In fact, it’s bullying the most vulnerable people in our province.

How can this Premier look people in the eye and rip away the supports that these folks need to get out of poverty and get their lives back on track?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is using the same math as she did during the election—skewing the numbers of $5 billion.

Let me tell the people on social assistance that they’re going to have a 1.5% increase, they’re going to have lower energy costs, they’re going to have lower gas costs.

And my friends, do you know what they want more than anything? They want a good-paying job. We’re going to provide them with a good-paying job. We’re going to get the economy booming once again here in Ontario until less people are on social assistance. In the last 15 years, Mr. Speaker, people on social assistance has increased 55%.

The basic guaranteed income program that the Leader of the Opposition is talking about would cost the province $17 billion. But I know the Leader of the Opposition thinks money grows on trees down here—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you, Premier. Take your seat, please.

Interjections.

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

Next question.

Social assistance

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier, whose government, last time they were in office, reduced social assistance by almost 23%, driving people into the deepest poverty that we’ve seen in this province over the last 15 years because the Liberals didn’t fix it.

Today we have somebody from Hamilton named Tim with us. Here’s what basic income means to Tim. It means he can finally buy healthy food. He can finally afford to take the bus to get to his doctors’ appointments. He can finally save up first and last months’ rent so that he can actually find housing that’s safe, clean and where he doesn’t have to live in fear.

Why is this Premier ripping basic income away from Tim and hundreds of people like him?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: We’re going to make Tim and people like Tim have a better life, because we’re going to increase their assistance by 1.5%. Again, we’re going to lower Tim’s energy costs by 12%. And if Tim drives a car, or any of Tim’s friends—

Ms. Catherine Fife: He doesn’t drive a car. He’s on social assistance.

Hon. Doug Ford: It’s amazing how they’re out of tune.

Elsie drove a car. Elsie drove a car, and a lot of people on social assistance drive a car. They’ve got to put gas in their tanks, just like you. If it was up to the Leader of the Opposition, she’d have the highest gas prices in North America.

Let’s not forget that the Leader of the Opposition sat down here for years and years propping up the Wynne Liberals, propping up the high carbon tax, propping up high taxes, propping up high gas prices—tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Members will please take their seats. The House will come to order.

Start the clock. Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Tim is not alone. Every one of the basic income participants here today has a story about how basic income has helped improve their lives. Many of these stories are being published in news sources across the province from the many communities that have Basic Income Pilot programs running.

But this Premier doesn’t want to hear those stories, Speaker. He refuses to accept the fact that income security helps families out of poverty. That’s what income security does; it helps people get out of poverty. It helps them live healthier lives. It gives people hope—hope that they can actually have a life that gets better. That’s what it does.

Will the Premier admit that he shut down basic income before seeing the results because he doesn’t want to see that it actually works?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: Do you know what helps people like Tim? People like Tim—

Interjection: Buck-a-beer.

Hon. Doug Ford: Oh, I forgot. People like Tim aren’t allowed to have beer. I’m sorry; you’re right.

What helps people like Tim is a good-paying job. What helps people like Tim is reducing their hydro costs. What helps people like Tim is getting the economy going until once he gets a job and he does have a car, he’ll have 10 cents a litre less when he goes to the gas pumps.

I would like to ask the Leader of the Opposition through you, Mr. Speaker: Where is she getting the $17 billion? I guess the same place they’re getting—when it comes to the highest carbon tax, the highest gas prices, the highest hydro rates, guess what? There’s only one person who pays the bills in Ontario, and that’s the taxpayer.

We’re going to stand up for the people.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Final supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It may be information to this Premier, but some of the people on the pilot project are actually recipients of the Ontario Disability Support Program as well, Speaker. I don’t know whether they’re going to be having the opportunity to get the kind of jobs that the Premier is talking about.

What he should also recognize is that this pilot project is about bringing information on which to make decisions. I guess he doesn’t want the facts. He doesn’t want the information on which to make proper decisions because he’s got the wrong priorities.

This Premier has the wrong priorities, and we see it in decision after decision that he is making. He’s choosing to put the health of students at risk just to please his radical social conservative friends. He’s choosing to cut $330 million from mental health every year, making wait-lists even longer. Now he’s choosing to slash the social assistance increase, cancel the basic income program and take money away from the most vulnerable people in Ontario. Why is the health and well-being of Ontarians so incredibly low on this Premier’s priority list?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: Again, the Leader of the Opposition is too busy defending the Wynne Liberals. We just had an election and the people spoke loud and clear here in Ontario. They’re tired of the policies of the Wynne Liberals. They’re tired of the NDP propping them up for the last 15 years. They’re tired of having the largest subnational debt in the entire world. They’re tired of paying $12 billion a year in servicing that debt. Mr. Speaker, just imagine how many people we can help if we didn’t have to pay $12 billion a year in debt.

My friends, we’re going to lower taxes. I know you don’t like lowering taxes. We’re going to lower gas prices. We’re going to scrap the cap-and-trade to reduce gas prices by 10 cents a litre. And we’re going to create great-paying jobs.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Members will take their seats.

Interjections.

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

Mr. Michael Coteau: The arrogance.

Hon. Doug Ford: Is that the Liberals calling us arrogant?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Premier will come to order. The member for Niagara West will come to order. The member for Don Valley East will come to order.

Mr. Michael Coteau: Act like ministers.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Don Valley East will come to order.

Restart the clock. New question?

Curriculum

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. The Premier’s plan to rip up the sexual health curriculum puts students at risk. That’s according to parents, educators and dozens of school boards across Ontario. Yesterday, nearly 1,800 health care professionals called on the Premier to restore the updated health curriculum in its entirety. Anything less will put children in harm’s way and deny kids the information they deserve about consent, cyberbullying, gender identity and same-sex families.

Will the Premier finally do the right thing, listen to health care professionals and restore the updated health curriculum for this September?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Leader of the Opposition: I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to keep pounding away about the sex ed. But the Leader of the Opposition is forgetting about the most critical thing in education: Half our students are failing math. We’re going to make sure our students aren’t on the bottom tier. By the way, Mr. Speaker, we have the lowest math scores in all of Canada. We’re going to make sure that our students have the highest math scores in all of Canada.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: By dragging students back to the 1998 curriculum, this Premier is scrubbing same-sex families, gender identity and consent out of our classrooms. And unfortunately, the Deputy Premier is playing along with the Premier’s dangerous plan. She said that if kids want to talk about those issues, it won’t happen in the classroom under the 1998 curriculum; it should happen in private, behind closed doors.

Does the Premier agree with his Deputy Premier that questions about same-sex families, gender identity and consent should be put back in the closet instead of being welcomed in all of Ontario’s classrooms?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Education.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Speaker, through you to the Leader of the Opposition: I have to tell you that we are going to be listening this fall. I can’t wait to go out and embark on the consultations that not only will touch on sex ed, but as the Premier just said, we’re going to be listening to how we can move forward and prop our students up and prepare them for the realities of today—and improve math scores, for example. They should be absolutely hanging their heads that they do not agree with us that we need to improve math scores in this province.

So I can’t wait to kick off—

Ms. Catherine Fife: They can do addition and learn about consent at the same time.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Waterloo will come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Davenport will come to order.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: —this comprehensive consultation where, yes, we will be respecting parents and we will be respecting people who want to raise their voice to help us put our students back on a path to a successful career, because we know that over the last 15 years, it went in the opposite direction.

Beverage alcohol sales

Mr. Mike Harris: My question is for the Minister of Finance. But, before I ask my question, I would like to wish him a happy birthday today.

It was truly heartening to see you, the Premier and our government House leader fulfilling yet another election campaign promise yesterday. This is truly a mark of a government for the people. I know that as you have travelled across the province over the past weeks and months, you have been getting the same question over and over again: “When are you bringing buck-a-beer back to Ontario?”

Mr. Speaker, can the minister please tell the House more about how he has been fulfilling this promise and saving money for the beer consumers of Ontario?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: I want to thank my fellow North Bayite for the question on my plenty-ninth birthday.

We promised during the election campaign that we would bring back buck-a-beer to Ontario. Starting this Labour Day weekend, we’re going to deliver buck-a-beer to Ontario. Promise made, promise kept.

It was truly a pleasure to be with the Premier and the government House leader in his riding yesterday to launch the Premier’s buck-a-beer challenge. By encouraging competition in Ontario’s brewing industry, opportunities will be created for value-priced beer products, and in doing so, keep more money in the pockets of consumers.

Starting August 27, brewers across Ontario will have the choice—it’s their choice—to lower prices to $1 for any beer under 5.6% alcohol volume.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Mike Harris: Back to the minister: I would like to thank the minister for his response. It is encouraging to hear that not only will buck-a-beer be in place for the Labour Day long weekend but it may create new business opportunities for Ontario brewers as well.

Under Premier Ford, Ontario is certainly open for business. It is hard to understand how the previous Liberal government banned buck-a-beer, to the detriment of our consumers’ choice and making people pay more for their beer.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister please explain how it got to this point and why we need to bring buck-a-beer back to Ontario?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Again, thank you for the question.

Let’s review the actions of the previous government: Before 2008, buck-a-beer was popular with both consumers and brewers. Speaker, it was a win-win. The Liberals then added a layer of red tape when they raised the minimum beer price and made buck-a-beer illegal. That was bad for fostering competition and bad for the consumers who had to pay a larger price. But as of August 27, brewers will now have the choice to sell beer for $1 again. This comes with no financial subsidy.

Let me stress once again, we are doing this smartly and responsibly. We remain unwavering in our commitment to road safety and responsibility. We are going to trust consumers to make mature and responsible decisions, but there is zero tolerance for those who do not.

Social assistance

Mr. Chris Glover: My question is for the Premier. The connection between poverty and gun violence is indisputable. Today, community members and mothers of children injured or lost to gun violence came to Queen’s Park to speak about how chronically low-income communities suffer from higher rates of violence and homicide. They want the Premier to take concrete steps towards alleviating poverty, beginning by reversing his cuts to social assistance and his cancellation of the Basic Income Pilot.

Will the Premier listen to those families who have first-hand lived experience and reverse his decisions?

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

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Thank you to the member for his question and the linkage and the importance for us to have a serious conversation in this province about poverty.

One in seven people live in poverty in this province, which is why we have decided to ensure that we have a better system across all ministries to support those who are living in vulnerable circumstances.

For 15 years, we’ve had a patchwork, disjointed system that wasn’t lifting people up. In fact, it was trapping them further into poverty—

Ms. Andrea Horwath: After you drove them into deeper poverty.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Leader of the Opposition, please come to order.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: What we have said is that we’re going to pause the Liberal plan, raise rates across the board in social assistance by 1.5%, and we will ethically and compassionately, with a lengthy runway, wind down the basic income program.

Let me be perfectly clear: We take this issue very seriously. We’re going to make life more affordable for all Ontarians, including those who are in vulnerable circumstances, and they will always have a champion in me.

Interjections.

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

Restart the clock. Supplementary?

Mr. Chris Glover: We can only begin to tackle gun violence once we’ve tackled poverty as its root cause. People in our communities are living in poverty because of already too low social assistance rates that keep them there.

The people who came to speak today at Queen’s Park are asking for respect for people living on low incomes. They want to be consulted—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Premier will come to order. The Leader of the Opposition will come to order.

Mr. Chris Glover: They want to be consulted about decisions that impact them—

Interjection.

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

Mr. Chris Glover: —such as the cuts to social assistance and the cancellation of the basic income program.

Will the Premier put a stop to his cuts until he has properly consulted with those who are living in poverty in this province?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Again, I want to say thank you to the honourable member for his question. I don’t agree with the premise.

We are raising rates by 1.5% across the board for social assistance in Ontario Works and Ontario disability support. We have said that we will come back on November 8 with a plan after 100 days of consultation; that’s 93 days from now.

We are making sure, for the first time in 15 years, that the people who are responsible for basic income, poverty reduction, ODSP and Ontario Works are sitting around the same table—for the first time in 15 years—so we can ensure that there is going to be a plan in place for Ontario’s most vulnerable people so we can lift them up, get them a job if they can and, if they can’t, provide them with the best supports we possibly can.

We want to make life more affordable for people; they want to continue with a broken system. I’m not having any of that.

Beverage alcohol sales

Ms. Donna Skelly: My question is for the Minister of Government and Consumer Services. Yesterday, our government for the people fulfilled yet another campaign promise, announcing that buck-a-beer will again be a reality in Ontario. Promise made, promise kept. Effective August 27, brewers right across Ontario will have the opportunity to sell beer for $1 if they so choose.

Minister, I know you have long supported Ontario’s brewing industry. Can you speak about why the Premier’s challenge is such an important step forward?

Hon. Todd Smith: What a great question this morning.

Yesterday, I was really pleased to have the Premier and the finance minister in my home riding in Prince Edward county to make a very-good-news announcement for the people of Ontario.

Yesterday, the Premier put out the challenge to every brewer, big and small, to lower their price of a beer to $1. Nobody’s being forced to lower their prices. I’m looking forward, and I know the Premier’s looking forward, to seeing which brewers take the plunge here on his challenge. It’s our belief with our government that providing choice and competition results in benefits for consumers and people keeping more money in their pockets.

We were elected on a plan to reduce red tape. We were elected on a plan to put the people of Ontario first. We promised to bring buck-a-beer back to Ontario. And I’m really happy to say that we’re lowering the cost of hydro, we’re lowering the cost of gas and we’re lowering the cost of beer.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Supplementary.

Ms. Donna Skelly: Back to the minister: Not more than a decade ago, buck-a-beer was a huge hit in Ontario, including in my hometown of Hamilton. Consumers and brewers alike loved it. They loved it in Hamilton.

But then the Liberals and their friends wanted their cut, and they raised the minimum beer price in Ontario. They created another piece of red tape that actually made buck-a-beer illegal.

Minister, can you please tell the House how buck-a-beer can be beneficial once again, for both Ontario beer drinkers and Ontario brewers?

Hon. Todd Smith: It has been a busy summer for the new government here in Ontario. We’ve accomplished a lot already. Again, we’ve lowered the price of electricity, we got kids back to school at York University this fall and we dealt with another campaign promise yesterday, making sure that we can lower the cost of beer to a buck a beer for the people of Ontario.

It was an honour yesterday to have the Premier and the member from Nipissing, the birthday boy, with me in Prince Edward county to announce that we’re bringing back buck-a-beer. Our government encourages brewers to lower their prices to the newly reduced price floor through the Premier’s buck-a-beer challenge, effective August 27.

I am proud to be a part of a government that’s taking steps to allow people to keep more of their money. That’s what they promised they could do, to keep more of their money, and we’re delivering on that promise.

We’re going to do this smartly and responsibly, Mr. Speaker. Our commitment to road safety is unwavering. We trust Ontario beer drinkers and other consumers to make smart, mature and—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Members will take their seats.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Premier will come to order. The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. I need to be able to hear the questions and the responses.

Beverage alcohol sales

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday’s announcement that the government will now be going into the beer subsidy business just shows how backwards this government’s priorities are. Ontarians expect their government to get on with the hard work of making life better for families—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I apologize to the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane. The government side has to come to order. I can’t hear him.

Mr. John Vanthof: That means making investments in mental health services, not slashing them by $335 million a year. That means fixing our crumbling schools, not cutting $100 million from school repairs. Why is this government choosing to spend public money to subsidize beer corporations while slashing planned social assistance increases for Ontario’s most vulnerable citizens?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: First of all, there is no financial subsidy. I don’t understand why the member doesn’t take yes for an answer. We have told them that buck-a-beer is a simple change of the Liberal law that increased the floor price to $1.25. We are reducing the floor price and allowing the beer companies to simply sell beer for a buck. There is no financial subsidy for these companies.

What I can tell you, Speaker, is that we’re bringing real relief for families. This is yet another promise that’s made for the people. This is one of the issues that I’ll address in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. John Vanthof: In what alternate universe is providing free advertising and premium shelf space not a subsidy? The only breweries that can afford to produce $1 beer will be large multinational corporations that can lower quality to access your government subsidies. That is putting Ontario’s small and craft brewers at risk. They will now have to compete with cheap government-subsidized beer.

Why is this government spending public money to subsidize cheap beer at the expense of Ontario’s craft brewers?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Finance, response?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, I do not understand why the member cannot appreciate that there is no subsidy in this. This is lowering the floor of beer prices from $1.25 to $1. They just will not take yes for an answer.

They just will not take yes for an answer.

What this government is also doing is scrapping cap-and-trade, lowering the corporate tax rate from 11.5% to 10.5% and lowering middle-income taxes by 20%. We’re cutting hydro rates by 12%. These are all of the issues that are meant to bring real relief and real prosperity for the people.

This is a plan for the people. If the members of the opposition do not want to accept the facts—I realize the facts don’t fit with this beautiful narrative—

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

The member for Don Valley East.

Social assistance

Mr. Michael Coteau: My question is to the Premier. Recently, I had the opportunity to sit down with a group of young individuals who are receiving support from social services. I asked them a question: If they could change anything in relation to that program, what would it be? I remember clearly a young man saying to me that he wished he could just keep a little bit more of his money. He felt discouraged that if he earned anything over $200, the government would take 50% of that money.

Premier, you decided to cancel the planned earning exemption increase that would allow people on social assistance to earn $400 rather than the current $200. I believe that one of the best ways to get people back into the workforce is to provide an incentive. Premier, why did you decide to cancel a program that would help people get back into the workforce?

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

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I thank the honourable member for his question.

Look, we chose a path a week ago today to hit the pause button on a disjointed patchwork set of policies by the previous administration. He is the previous minister and he would know that. What we have said instead is that we are going to put forward a 1.5% across-the-board increase in social assistance, and we will, over the next 93 days—it was 100 days last week—come forward with a credible plan with all of the different people who were part of his former ministry, and now part of mine, so that we can start to lift people up and we can ensure that they take home more of their hard-earned money and increase their ability to get jobs.

That’s what our plan is about. That’s what we’re going to do. We’re going to restore dignity in the system, we’re going to restore confidence in the system and we’re going to try to lift up those one in seven people who are living in poverty right now in the province of Ontario.

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

Mr. Michael Coteau: Premier, this was another promise made and another promise broken by your minister. When you cancelled the Basic Income Pilot, you sent a clear message to Ontarians. You sent a message that Doug Ford—sorry, the Premier—and the Conservatives are against better health outcomes, getting people back to work faster and helping people find homes. Instead, the government would rather use money to subsidize the Premier’s very own partisan news channel.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister explain why her party—

Interjections.

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

Restart. The member should put his question.

Mr. Michael Coteau: Minister, can you explain why your party’s talk is cheaper than your buck-a-beer?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I find it a bit rich that the member opposite, who used to be the Minister of Community and Social Services, would sit in this House today and ask a question on the Basic Income Pilot project, because I’ll tell you what my ministry told me yesterday: Not once did that member ask for a briefing on basic income security when he was the minister. Never once did he ask how much the pilot project was—$150 million. Never once did he ask how many people were not compliant—25%.

And never once did he ask what a Basic Income Pilot project would be if it were extended—that’s $17 billion; a 7% increase in the HST. That’s what he’s doing to the vulnerable. That’s what he’s doing to the poor.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. The member for Don Valley East must come to order. The government side must come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Premier will come to order. The member for Don Valley East—

Interjection.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Don Valley East will withdraw.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Don Valley East is warned.

Next question.

Seniors

Mrs. Gila Martow: My question is to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport. I frequently get letters and phone calls in my riding of Thornhill from seniors. When I first moved to Thornhill 30 years ago it was mostly young families, but now we have so many great seniors living in our riding and they’re quite unaware of the initiatives to help them stay in shape. I think that there’s a lot more that we could do to help our seniors stay healthy, both physically and mentally. Could the minister share with us what programs are in place to keep all the great seniors in all of our ridings healthy and engaged?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: To my friend and colleague, thank you for the question.

One of these is the province-wide active living fairs. Active living fairs bring seniors and caregivers together to connect and learn about key issues that affect their health and well-being. They also share information about available supports and programs. Fairs occur in seniors’ centres and include rural, francophone and Indigenous seniors. This year, 70 active living fairs and six regional workshops will be delivered through our partnership with the Older Adult Centres’ Association of Ontario. I encourage you to visit oacao.org to find a seniors’ fair near you.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mrs. Gila Martow: Again to the minister: I want to really thank the minister for all this information. I know many seniors in my riding are anxious to take

part in many of the programs, like the active living fairs that were just described. However I’m sure all members of the House would agree with me when I say that there’s a lot more that we can do in order to support all the great seniors all across our province of Ontario. Could the minister tell us what else is being done to promote activities that help keep our seniors active and reduce social isolation?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister, response?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I’m happy to, Speaker. Through the Ontario sport and rec fund we are supporting 45 projects through Active for Life recreation. These programs give seniors more opportunity to stay fit and connected in their communities. Just recently, the Muskoka Lawn Bowling Club was awarded funding through this program to expand their lawn bowling program for seniors.

Another program that promotes active living for seniors is the Ontario senior games. The Ontario 55+ games are a celebration of active living hosted throughout the year, alternating between winter and summer. This coming weekend 1,400 participants from across Ontario will come to Mississauga to participate in the Ontario 55+ games. I’d like to wish all the competitors all the best of luck at the games this weekend.

These are just a few examples of some of the ways that our government is encouraging active, healthy living for seniors across Ontario.

Social assistance

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is for the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services. The minister acts as if all that’s needed for Basic Income Pilot participants is to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and they’ll be set. But many of those participants were on long-term disability, unable to work like other Ontarians, and that will still be true the day after this minister ends the Basic Income Pilot. The income security road map recommended a 5% increase to ODSP. The previous government committed to 3%, but this government slashed even that in half.

Today I will be tabling a motion calling on the government to reverse this wrong-headed decision. Will the minister do the right thing, support my motion, stop the cuts to social assistance and reverse the decision to cancel the Basic Income Pilot project?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Thanks very much to the member for her question; I’ll look forward to seeing what the motion actually stands for.

But I guess I have to once again reject the premise of the question, because we have not slashed anything. We are coming forward with a 1.5% across-the-board increase September 1. We’ve also said we will compassionately, in a lengthy time frame, wind down the Basic Income Pilot project.

I just wanted to point out, to begin with, the basic income research project is failing, and it’s plain and simple. The Liberal government had difficulty signing people up for this approach. Now a sizable number, over 25%, have either dropped out or were failing to meet their obligations such as filing their taxes. It calls into question whether the $150 million being spent is actually going to be with valid research.

Speaker, where I come from, $150 million is a lot of money. What we want to do in 93 days is come back with a plan that will lift more people up and support those who need it most.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Miss Monique Taylor: David Cherkewski had been on disability benefits for 15 years due to mental illness, where he, as he put it, barely survived. Then he joined the Basic Income Pilot. David was able to buy fresh fruit and find affordable housing, and was even looking to start a co-op for people with disabilities.

Without the basic income, those basics like fresh fruits, those plans like the co-op, are gone, replaced with a cut by half of the scheduled 3% increase to disability benefits that David was barely surviving on.

What does the minister have to say to David?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Thanks very much to the member opposite.

I would like to say to David that we want to hear him. We want to hear his stories. We want to see how we can best support him when we come forward with our plan in 93 days.

But I again reject the premise. There is no slash. There is no cut. It is a 1.5% increase across the board. We’re hitting the pause button on a disjointed, fragmented approach that was taken by the previous Liberal government and we’re going to make sure that all of the various areas within my ministry are talking to one another for the first time in 15 years so we can have better outcomes for people like David.

My staff are in the galleries today. If anyone who is on the Basic Income Pilot project wants to speak with them, we’re happy to do that. We want to hear their stories.

But let me be perfectly clear: What the member opposite actually wants is a $17-billion program that would increase the HST by 7%. A 20% HST in the province of Ontario would damage the people of this province further.

Taxation

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: My question is for the Attorney General. Last week the government announced its intentions to take the next step in its fight against the federal government’s plan to impose an unaffordable carbon tax on the people of Ontario. Mr. Speaker, I can’t tell you how pleased I was to see the minister and her colleagues stand and announce that our government will be seeking an opinion from the Ontario Court of Appeal on whether or not the federal carbon tax is unconstitutional in whole or in part.

I know that for the people of my riding, who have felt the burden of Liberal taxes for far too long, this is welcome news. I also know that last month the Premier announced that Ontario will be supporting Saskatchewan’s challenge of the federal carbon tax in their Court of Appeal.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the Attorney General: Can she tell us, the House, why Ontario is launching a separate challenge—

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

The Attorney General.

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I’m happy to answer the member’s question.

Our government was given a mandate by the people of Ontario to make life more affordable and to stand up for what matters to them. This means challenging the Trudeau Liberals’ carbon tax. We are using every tool available to us to do so.

By participating in both our own Court of Appeal challenge and supporting Saskatchewan’s challenge, we are working in tandem to ensure that both challenges proceed efficiently and affordably while allowing the courts the ability to consider all arguments regarding the validity of the federal carbon tax.

As I said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, anywhere the carbon tax is being challenged, we want to be part of that fight. Our aim is simple but will mean a great deal for the people who have struggled under Liberal taxes for more than a decade. We want to see money put back in the pockets of taxpayers and to deliver real tax relief for Ontario families and small businesses.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: It’s clear to me, Mr. Speaker, that the government is taking its commitment to the people of Ontario very seriously. I know the people of my riding will be pleased to know that their government is working hard on their behalf, and I know that they will be even more pleased when we win this challenge for them.

We know that the federal government is already having second thoughts about their carbon tax, as evidenced by news reports last week that they were scaling back the scope of it. This is certainly heartening news for provinces opposed to this unaffordable tax, which is why I’m wondering if the minister can speak a bit about what happens if other provinces would like to join our challenge, and what our basis is in filing it.

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: I thank the member for the supplementary question. As the Attorney General, I wouldn’t bring forward a case that I didn’t have confidence in. I also hope that it serves as an inspiration to others who may also be questioning the validity of the Trudeau Liberals’ carbon tax.

In filing our challenge, Mr. Speaker, Ontario’s position is clear: This is an unconstitutional tax that will do nothing but drive up the cost of goods and services that Ontarians rely on every day. By putting forward this challenge, we are working hard to stand up for the people of Ontario and make life more affordable in this province again.

While it is up to the courts to decide who may participate in Ontario’s challenge, it is our commitment that anywhere the federal carbon tax is being challenged, we want to be part of that fight.

Mercury poisoning

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Speaker.

Remarks in Oji-Cree.

My question is to the Minister of Indigenous Affairs. The people of Grassy Narrows and Wabaseemoong, the first peoples of this land, have reached an agreement with the provincial government: $85 million was put in trust to go towards cleaning the river of the mercury that has been poisoning the people in these communities.

The Premier, during the campaign, said that his government would clean up the river and the land as quickly as possible and ensure everyone gets high-quality care. What has the government done to fulfill this commitment?

Hon. Greg Rickford: I thank the member for his question.

Every Ontario resident deserves to have access to safe, clean drinking water. We will work closely with those Indigenous communities, Grassy Narrows and Wabaseemoong—two communities I’m intimately familiar with—and the opportunity to correct that wrong, Mr. Speaker.

We’ll also be working and challenging our federal government partners to make sure that those two communities have safe drinking water. The federal government must step up to ensure that every Ontario resident can count on this government for that commitment.

As the member of provincial Parliament for Grassy Narrows and Wabaseemoong should know, I have been involved in this file for a very long time. We take it very seriously and we hope to protect, defend and deliver a solution for these two communities.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Back to the Minister of Indigenous Affairs: When a promise is made to First Nations people, the first peoples of this land, it has to be kept.

What contact has the Premier made with the chief and council of Grassy Narrows and Wabaseemoong? When can they expect the cleanup of the river and the land with the mercury contamination? Will the Premier, as the New Democrats had committed, contribute to a mercury treatment centre for the people in these communities?

Hon. Greg Rickford: Mr. Speaker, as I previously stated, we’re committed to safe, clean drinking water in those two communities, as we are for every community across Ontario. We’re also committed to ensuring that those two communities have the same kind of economic opportunities moving forward as other communities. There are mining exploration activities immediately in the region, and we want those communities to have increased prosperity, to have access to jobs, and to have access to the kinds of things that many other Ontarians have come to expect.

Moving forward, Mr. Speaker, I can assure this member that I’ve met with senior officials in my department. We’ve discussed the opportunity here to correct and fix that problem. We’re committed to it for the benefit not only of those communities but the people in our vast and beautiful region of Kenora–Rainy River.

Taxation

Ms. Lindsey Park: My question is for the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. We heard over and over again on the campaign trail for the last year that businesses and families did not want the Liberals’ cap-and-trade scheme. The Liberals said that their cap-and-trade scheme collected dollars from Ontarians that would spawn a new economy. Speaker, as our government winds down the cap-and-trade program, the vice-president of corporate strategy at Toyota had some choice parting words for the program.

He said, “If you build up consumer demand solely based on how many thousands of dollars the government can give you to encourage you to buy a car, that to me doesn’t sound like a terribly sustainable business model.” Speaker, we couldn’t agree more with his assessment.

Can the Minister of the Environment confirm to this House that the days of the cap-and-trade scheme stifling the businesses of Ontario are over?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Through you, Mr. Speaker, thank you to the member for Durham. She puts a great deal of time and effort into supporting her constituents, and this is just one example. As Bill 4 is debated in this House this week, I’d also like to thank the members from Carleton, Kitchener–Conestoga, Ottawa West–Nepean and Mississauga–Malton, who are speaking on behalf of their constituents about this job-killing tax.

We know now that the cap-and-trade carbon tax was a job killer and we know that it did very little to affect greenhouse gas emissions. The Auditor General has stated that it would cost Ontario consumers over $8 billion and do very little to assist in reducing emissions, which is why I know that Ontarians support getting rid of this job-killing tax.

In addition to saving families money, as the member mentioned, job creators are making it clear that it is good for them. That’s good for their competition and good for jobs in Ontario. It’s anticipated that the cancellation of the cap-and-trade carbon tax and our gas tax cut will mean 14,000 new jobs for Ontario. This legislation is great news for Ontario and Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Lindsey Park: Speaker, I thank the minister, through you, for his answer. Still to him: We know that getting rid of the Liberals’ cap-and-trade scheme is only part of the picture. That’s because the federal government still seems content with charging ahead with their own plan to impose their carbon tax on the people of Ontario. While the National Post proclaimed that “the Liberals were in retreat over their climate plan,” and the Toronto Star wrote that “Trudeau and his ministers are busy managing ... what looks like a big climbdown,” the threat of the federal Liberals’ carbon tax is still very real.

Speaker, Ontarians have not asked us to get rid of the cap-and-trade scheme only to have a carbon tax forced on them by another level of government. Can the Minister of the Environment tell this Legislature what he’s doing to ensure that the people of Ontario are not further burdened by—

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

Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member: Last week, my colleague the Attorney General announced that we would be using the courts. We have made it clear that this government will do everything in its power to stop the Trudeau government carbon tax. We promised the people of Ontario we’d take immediate action on cutting gas prices, on helping job creators, and that’s what we’re doing.

Mr. Speaker, in today’s National Post, a fine publication, the president’s fellow at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy, Jack Mintz, wrote: “Despite the appeal among” many “policy elites for carbon taxation,” carbon taxation does “not satisfy the smell test for voters.”

Mr. Speaker, know that, and we know that the voters have given us a strong mandate as a result of that.

So I repeat: This government will do everything in its power to stop the Trudeau carbon tax. We know it’s not good for jobs. We know it’s not good for families. That’s why we’re fighting it, and we’re going to win.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Members will take their seats.

Restart the clock. Next question: The member for Toronto–Danforth.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Thank you, Speaker. My question is to the Premier. Did the Premier, directly or indirectly, attempt to recruit or encourage anyone to run against Patrick Brown for Peel regional chair prior to cancelling the election?

Hon. Doug Ford: The Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Hon. Steve Clark: Speaker, through you to the member: Again—two days in a row—I’m very disappointed in this experienced member for the tone of his question and the content.

We made it very clear with the Better Local Government Act that we were going to make some changes—

Interjections.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Again to the Premier: Were there steps taken before he put this policy forward that would have shaped that election? Did he bring forward the cancellation of the election because he did not like those who were running in it?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): That’s essentially the same question. We will move on.

Next question.

Mining industry

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is to the Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines and Indigenous Affairs.

Ontario is a leader in mineral exploration and production. In fact, Toronto is the mining finance capital of the world, with 2017 alone increasing revenues of $8.5 billion in new equity capital for mining according to the Toronto Stock Exchange.

Later this week, the minister will be attending the 2018 Energy and Mines Ministers’ Conference in Iqaluit, Nunavut. Can the minister explain how the mining industry will continue to attract investments in Ontario and how the ministers’ conference will help highlight Ontario’s leadership in this crucial sector?

Hon. Greg Rickford: What a timely and pertinent question from the member for Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound.

I’m so looking forward to going up to Iqaluit to finally—perhaps for the first time in a generation—celebrate the Ontario advantage that we see just on the horizon and how it’s going to positively affect Ontario’s mining sector. Ontario is a world leader in mineral exploration, development and production. We seek to re-establish Ontario’s energy advantage that once made us a proud economic engine of this country and support real mining activity.

He’s right. Toronto is the undisputed finance capital of the world when it comes to mining: $9.9 billion worth of minerals, and 22% of Canada’s total mineral production occurs right here in Ontario. Currently, Ontario expenditures are approximately $526 million, but the confidence from investors in this government’s plan for Ontario will see that rise to more than $600 million. That’s going—

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

Supplementary question?

Mr. Bill Walker: Thank you to the minister for his leadership on this file.

Further to m