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

November 20, 2018

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2018-Nov-20 (PDF)

L051 - Tue 20 Nov 2018 / Mar 20 nov 2018

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 20 November 2018 Mardi 20 novembre 2018

Notice of reasoned amendment

Orders of the Day

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

Loi sur l’énergie verte

Trans Day of Remembrance

Visitors

Woman Abuse Prevention Month

Introduction of Visitors

Trans Day of Remembrance / Journée du souvenir trans

Visitor

Oral Questions

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Taxation

Affaires francophones

Violence faite aux femmes / Violence against women

Cancer treatment

Red tape reduction

Ontario Place

Affaires francophones / Francophone affairs

Red tape reduction

Trans Day of Remembrance

Forest industry

Ethical standards

Ontario history

Poverty

Employment

Minimum wage

Visitors

Correction of record

Rectification au procès-verbal / Correction of record

Visitor

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Trans Day of Remembrance

National Child Day

Education funding

Attack in Egypt

Employment standards

Services for victims of violence / Services pour les victimes de violence

Long-term care

Emergency services

Prostate cancer

Health care

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs

Standing Committee on General Government

Introduction of Bills

Family Caregiver Day Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur les aidants naturels

Caregiver Recognition Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur la reconnaissance de l’apport des aidants naturels

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

National Child Day and Trans Day of Remembrance

Bullying Awareness and Prevention Week

National Child Day and Trans Day of Remembrance

National Child Day and Trans Day of Remembrance

Bullying Awareness and Prevention Week

National Child Day and Trans Day of Remembrance / Journée nationale de l’enfant et Journée du souvenir trans

Petitions

Curriculum

Employment standards

Mental health and addiction services

Employment standards

Curriculum

West Lincoln Memorial Hospital

Employment standards

Employment standards

Employment standards

Curriculum

Visitors

Orders of the Day

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

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Let us pause for a moment of silence for inner thought and personal reflection.

Prayers.

Notice of reasoned amendment

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I beg to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 71(c), the member for Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas has filed with the Clerk a reasoned amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill 57,

An Act to enact, amend and repeal various statutes. The order for second reading of Bill 57 may therefore not be called today.

Orders of the Day

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

Loi sur l’énergie verte

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 15, 2018, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 34,

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

Loi sur la protection de l’environnement, la

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

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

Mr. Daryl Kramp: I’m so pleased today to have the opportunity to speak about repealing this disastrous act. Like most of my colleagues, of course, I heard it at the doorsteps. I heard it over the phone. I heard it in the local hardware store from strangers and from friends alike. Yes, Mr. Speaker, of course, I heard it from my own family, from my wife, my mature daughters, sons-in-law and the whole motley crew—every one of them who talked about this so-called Green Energy Act—because they knew it was a fraud. They knew that it was not green. It did not do what it was intended to do.

But they did know that it stripped our local municipalities of their voices, because people had lost jobs and they had seen businesses close.

The Green Energy Act was the lead villain in a million Ontario households. It made hydro bills literally explode.

It led to the province dumping electricity below cost to these same neighbouring states adjacent to us, to whom we were losing jobs and industry because of exorbitant, high energy costs. Yes, unbelievably, we discounted our energy to our own competitors, while overcharging our own people—sheer lunacy. Unbelievable, but true.

You see, it wasn’t what it claimed to be, despite the endless propaganda that we heard. The reality is, it was a job killer, not the job creator that it was sold as.

It was a community disrupter. It crushed businesses that had lasted through wars and recessions—multi-generational businesses—and it shattered their dreams as it stole the jobs and forced people to leave their homes, and in many cases their friends and their family.

It gouged massive holes in the province’s finest farmland and filled each hole with 800 tonnes of reinforced concrete, destroying this farmland forever for future use. These hard concrete pods anchor monster wind turbines which produced power that wasn’t needed at extortionate prices that were paid whether there was wind or not. Truly, truly mind-boggling. It just made no sense whatsoever. To exacerbate the situation even further, all the construction roads into this farmland leading to each wind turbine destroyed more and more farmland.

I’m very, very familiar, of course, with migratory bird corridors in my area, such as across the bottom of my riding along the shores of the Bay of Quinte and Lake Ontario. The wind turbines literally kill anything and everything with wings, from the majestic white swans that brighten Ontario’s waterways with their fine-feathered families to the little bats, which the spinning blades both crush and implode with pressure pulses. So if you’re starting to see more and more of the dratted mosquitoes in the summer, it’s because all these bats aren’t there to feed on them.

These unneeded wind turbines have destroyed farmlands and the magical vistas across the province. They have created widespread problems and, so, so sadly, I’ve seen personally where they have pitted neighbour against neighbour—people who have been friends for their entire lifetime, generational friends, now split and divided in communities.

They forced us to build new gas plants to provide the backup needed, of course, when the wind stops blowing or the sun don’t shine. It cost much, much more than the value that they’ll ever create. We’re all strongly in favour of renewable energy and supporting our environment, but not at a cost that is out of proportion to the value.

In turn, they’ve destroyed families and finances. The Green Energy Act was, and is, a public policy catastrophe that has hurt more people than any other mistake by the preceding government, in my humble opinion; and believe me, they did make plenty. Indeed, if the Liberals ever wonder why they lost the election last June, the Green Energy Act, in my mind, was the biggest reason.

People have seen and been fed up with big-government arrogance and incompetence and that whole entire act by the ugliness that was perpetrated on the Ontario people, all in the pretext of caring for the environment, on which, quite frankly, it had very little impact. But they worked hard to keep its real impact hidden by glossy layers of public-relations spin, out and out myths and fabrications, and soul-crushing propaganda of which Joseph Goebbels would have been proud.

Yes, sadly—very sadly—the Liberals used schools to perpetrate and perpetuate their mythic claims of greening Ontario, even as they sent our green dollars down the drain. They used and abused the true value of our education professionals. They introduced curriculum packages that drilled deep into our unsuspecting families and softened us up as an innocent population for even more propaganda.

Yet, sadly, again, too, we find people who still don’t get it. They’ve never witnessed or seen the actual suffering. There are those who want to believe that covering wonderful farmland with solar panels and destroying Ontario’s food lands somehow isn’t a lie. Well, folks, if we lose our farms, if we lose the ability to feed ourselves, we lose our sovereignty as a province and as a nation.

That’s how deep and despairing the Green Energy Act has been to these same upcoming generations which will be forced to pay the billions of dollars borrowed by the Liberals. They will be forced to pay for power that we didn’t need that was paid for with money that we didn’t have, ultimately by citizens not yet born. So sad. And with what to show for it? Nothing, except—except—endless debt and devastation to both our natural wildlife and to human lives, and that doesn’t even add up the decades of lost opportunity costs involved with this—multi-billions of dollars.

As a result, they will continue to hold Ontario back from our destiny, the same way Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s flagrant disregard for the taxpayer from the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s created debt that crushed an entire Canadian generation. We tend to forget that until that time, Canada did not have an appreciable debt. Indeed, Trudeau’s debt bomb, again with nothing to show for it, tied up every Prime Minister, of various parties, until his son, of course, came along to rack up debt at an even faster pace. But that’s another Liberal horror story which Canadians will soon have to deal with on another level.

If it was just Liberal incompetence at play in the Green Energy Act, an internalized, anti-democratic, authoritarian impulse to force citizens to swallow strong medicine that should be good for them, this ugly story could be written as a parable. It could simply show what good intentions can produce when optimists aren’t tempered by realists. But we have seen that the story is far more sinister, as billions of dollars didn’t just inadvertently flow into Liberal pockets. This was a calculated fleecing of the public by the well-connected insiders.

Fortunately, we have a Liberal—I mean a legislative committee now, certainly not a Liberal group looking into it, but a legislative committee looking into these contracts and all the Liberal contacts and the henchmen and insiders that profited at every turn.

But with this repeal, we are taking away their hideout, we are removing their camouflage and we are showing how they misled and continue to mislead even, regrettably, after they’ve left office. But make no mistake, make no mistake, our government for the people is committed to removing every vestige of the complex of those acts, the schedules, the appendices and the rip-offs that the Liberals burrowed into Ontario’s past, present and our children’s future.

This bill represents a strong start, the repeal of it, but there is much, much more to be done and more that will be done by our government, both sooner and later, to remove the stench of exploitation and expropriation from our lands, our waters and our wallets. This again shows that when we committed on doorsteps across Ontario—and all the members on this side of the House and hopefully even some on the other side of the House—that we wanted to stop Ontario’s bleeding, the province’s bleeding, we actually meant it. We started with a totally, totally independent examination to ascertain the true status of Ontario’s finances. Yes, another promise made and another promise that we are keeping.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most despicable elements of the Green Energy Act conspiracy, as a former municipal parliamentarian myself, was its removal from residents from local municipalities of their right to local self-determination. “What local planning?” said the Liberals? “No, we’re going to impose this on them whether you like it or not,” they said, “whether wind turbine setbacks are appropriate or not, whether Ontario’s natural beauty and its local custodians are compromised or not. We don’t care. They don’t matter.”

Well, I can tell you, and I think most of my colleagues and certainly the electorate demonstrated on June 7, people across Ontario at angry town halls said no to the Liberals. But, of course, the Liberals just said, “Well, that’s tough,” and unfortunately too many members of the NDP simply played the role of cheerleaders during this process. The public was told that people in Toronto’s ivory towers knew best. But even that was sleight of hand, Mr. Speaker.

The real string-pullers were the Liberal insiders, cackling on their way to the bank, relishing the ill-gotten money they had created by self-serving legislation. The ivory towers were just a simple distraction. Well, how sad and how disappointing.

Local citizens had the right to protect their neighbourhoods before the Green Energy Act, but certainly not afterwards. That will change very soon with a government that is for the people, not the insiders.

Once again, Ontario’s new municipal councils—I congratulate all of those who were successful—and the voters who elected them will have their local say.

Let’s just climb down from above the treetop view that the birds see before they’re chopped up by these revolving windmills. Let’s look at what the green menace did to one Ontario family and their small business. This family lives in my riding, north of Highway 7, in one of the most rugged and beautiful lands in southern Ontario. They had a simple dream: They would open a foodservice place, a restaurant with food and service that was so good that they would keep customers coming back, and they would make new customers. They did it, to their credit. They laboured long and hard over three years.

They had the location, the menu, the reputation and the dream. The success was theirs at their doorstep because they were making, not a lot of money, but they were making money, enough just to earn a living, to start paying down their debt incurred to go into business, and to keep just three employees paid in addition to themselves. The restaurant was popular, it offered something not found nearby, and was by all local accounts a success. Their customers came from all over, from far and wide.

I happen to know the owner’s mother very well. I wanted to meet the daughter, the young woman whose dreams with her partner had built this success story. I had been in the hospitality business also, on the water, for over three decades, so I knew the business. I knew it was a good business, a healthy restaurant, when I saw it. This is what it was. I visited and I congratulated the owners, and they thanked me. They said they were very, very proud of what they and their staff had created. As well, they told me they had seen past summer staff earn the means to attend university.

I asked them about their upcoming plans, for no business owner can stand still. One must continuously tweak the business plan, no matter how good, and make decisions that will make a future difference. They told me, “We’re shutting down.” A successful business, doing well, is shutting down. They said, “We can’t afford to stay in business.” Quite naturally, I was shocked. They told me that when they started, their electricity bill in one year had been around $800 a month, but now their electricity bill was $2,400 a month, and they just couldn’t go on. They let their staff go.

They couldn’t serve the customers as they had done. If they kept going, they would just lose more money every day. It was a dead end.

That’s just one tragic story of the human damage inflicted by the Liberals and their Green Energy Act catastrophe—literally one of the thousands that I would imagine most members in here have heard. There, five people lost their jobs. A community lost a wonderful business. Municipal, provincial and federal taxes were lost. Suppliers lost a client. The public lost a reason to visit there. We all lost, all of us, as Ontario’s mosaic of hospitality and charm just took another hit, but not from a tornado or a bad storm or a forest fire, but from a government-inflicted, self-inflicted injury.

The members are here for a wide variety of reasons, most of them honourable and progressive, making a contribution to society and to the province of Ontario. I’ve often been asked why, at my tender age, I chose to run again for office. Mr. Speaker, this is really why; it’s the essence of it: Serious wrongs need to be righted regardless of where we stand on the political spectrum. What’s right is right and what’s wrong is wrong. I just couldn’t sit at home waiting for someone else to do the job. I had to put my community, my neighbours, my extended family, and my commitments sworn to Canada before anything else.

I know every one of my caucus colleagues feels the same way. We have a definitive sense of purpose and contribution. They saw this travesty unfold, and each of them left other lives to step forward, committed to the change that we’re undertaking today, and to the other changes, the righting the wrongs of the incompetence left by our predecessors.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is personal. I would hope it would be personal for every member here, because we all have our stories to tell regarding the benefits and the gains. Legislation is only good legislation if it accomplishes what it sets out to do. This did nothing to dramatically impact the environment, but the damage was literally unbelievable, so this is serious.

Now let’s just take a final look. The Green Energy Act has been omnipresent for the past nine years, making each of us pay at every turn. If you eat, you pay. If you sleep, you pay. If you drive, you pay. Even if you don’t drive, you still pay. The Green Energy Act’s drags on the economy don’t ever, ever stop. It will, has and will always continue.

The thing is, we have to shape the direction so there’s a positive return for all citizens that we represent. That’s why you can talk to every person in Ontario literally from all of our ridings. Regardless whether in an urban, rural or a cosmopolitan riding, and across genders and age gaps, you can find victims: someone who has paid dearly for this deception and this deceit.

I urge the members in the other parties—a lot of good, honourable, caring people and who are here, I would hope, for the right reasons as well; I urge the members in the other parties and the independents who still claim to actually have Liberal backgrounds to finally stop playing politics here. Let’s try to admit when we’ve made a mistake, when we were wrong on something, as has been so, so clearly demonstrated with this ill-fated—maybe well-intentioned, but ill-fated—and ill-managed Green Energy Act.

So, folks, let’s admit when we made a mistake. Let’s move on. Our government is committed to doing that, and I would hope, as hard as it may be for members of the opposition and/or particularly the past members who were the government at that point, that they have the courage, the capacity and the integrity to move beyond the disastrous mistakes that they have made because, folks, enough is enough. That’s why, today, we’re stopping this madness.

To make it very, very clear: We are stopping this madness and we are giving all the members an opportunity to put themselves on the record. Our votes on this issue will put us on the record. Are you for continuing down this road that was an unbelievable waste, probably one of the worst pieces of legislation ever perpetrated on a Legislature, or are you for it? Are you for the people or against the people?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Questions and comments? I recognize the member from Ottawa Centre.

Ms. Jill Andrew: Oh, I’ve got to be in my seat. Sorry about that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Well, okay. The member for Ottawa Centre stood up and then he sat down. Are we going to play musical chairs? Who’s going to do the questions and comments?

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): All right. The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Joel Harden: Thank you, Speaker, I apologize for the confusion.

I want to thank my friend from Hastings–Lennox and Addington for his passion. I’m from Ottawa Centre. That’s the riding I’m proud to represent, but I was born and raised in rural Ontario and I’m connected through Glengarry–Prescott–Russell folks to exactly the kinds of stories you talked about. However, this morning we’re going to have a disagreement about how to encourage renewable energy.

I want you to know, given what you said, that it happens in the urban setting too. One of the memorable moments of the election campaign for me was when we knocked on doors in community housing, particularly buildings powered by baseboard electrical heating, and I talked to people who lived on $1,100 or $1,000 a month about their hydro bills in the dead of winter. Given their apartments, which are like sieves that don’t retain energy at all—$200, $300 and in one case $340 a month in electricity costs. This isn’t Hydro One; this is Ottawa Hydro, which didn’t pass on the exorbitant increases we saw in rural parts of Ontario. It’s a problem, and I take the member’s point.

We set up an energy regime where people had to choose between eating and heating, and that’s not appropriate. That’s not the kind of Ontario I want to build. But this morning we are going to have a disagreement on what we decide to encourage in the future, because I think what we need to do in moving past previous errors is to not throw the baby out with the bathwater, necessarily.

We have to figure out a way that renewable energy can grow on a level that the fossil-fuel-based energy sources have grown for decades, because we do maintain a very ambitious subsidy regime for fossil fuels, but we don’t—and I take the member’s point—in a sane way, which is not punitive to ratepayers, encourage the growth of renewable energy.

So I think that’s the debate we’re going to have this morning: not for or against the people, but for or against a sane approach to renewable energy.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Questions and comments?

Mr. Parm Gill: I also want to take this opportunity, first and foremost, to thank my colleague from Hastings–Lennox and Addington for his superb and very passionate speech. I can tell you first-hand, having served with the honourable colleague federally, how passionate he is about serving his constituents and how passionate he is about some of these important issues that affect not only our province but, of course, our country and future generations. He did an amazing job highlighting many, many shortfalls in the Liberal piece of legislation that hurt, I would say, most, if not all, Ontario families—not just families, it hurt farmers, it hurt small businesses.

In my riding of Milton, I’ve got a significant portion which is basically comprised of a rural part of my riding. I can tell you, leading up to the election I was going around and talking to many of these farmers, especially the ones who live in rural parts of my riding, about how it negatively impacted them. It raised their electricity bills, in some cases, by not only hundreds but by thousands of dollars.

Understand, folks who live in the rural part of Ontario don’t necessarily have the luxury of using natural gas. They are dependent either on oil, propane or, for the most part, electricity. To upgrade some of those would also cost thousands of dollars, which they don’t necessarily have the means of doing.

So this is a huge burden, and I can tell you that we’re hearing lots of positive comments from my riding of Milton from my constituents, and they’re looking forward to the repeal of this Green Energy Act.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Questions and comments?

Ms. Jill Andrew: I just want to add to this debate on the government’s Bill 34, a bill which, as we know, as the official opposition and as Ontarians watching, is largely symbolic and really doesn’t actually do anything that’s profitable for our environment or for Ontarians, who are looking for evidence-based bills and decisions that actually make their lives better.

This doesn’t strengthen environmental protections. The bill does not address the real issues of privatization, which, as we know, seems to be the golden flower of the Progressive Conservatives—privatize, privatize, take away from the public, take away from Ontarians, take away from the residents of Toronto–St. Paul’s.

We support evidence-based renewable energy planning and approvals. This Bill 34 just isn’t evidence-based. So my thought this morning is: Bring it back to us after you’ve workshopped it a little better—that’s what I tell my students—because environment matters, it absolutely does. Right now we have an opportunity to put something else in place, something that’s actually working, something that actually supports Ontarians.

I’ve got a gentleman who came to see me the other day who suffers from environmental illness. His breathing—his body sometimes feels like it’s on fire.

We have to be careful of what we’re doing to our environment. We have to take issues like climate change seriously and we must put forth a plan that actually does something, that actually provides an alternative for positive, evidence-based green energy.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Questions and comments?

Mr. Vijay Thanigasalam: Today we are talking about the repealing of the Green Energy Act. Firstly, the Liberal Green Energy Act allowed energy rates to triple, drastically crippling our manufacturing sector, Mr. Speaker. Because of this Liberal act, thousands and thousands of jobs were lost in the province of Ontario. Unfortunately, it really hurt all Ontarians. The Green Energy Act made it so much harder for business in Ontario to stay in business. The people of Ontario lost thousands of jobs across Ontario because manufacturing plants were too expensive to operate in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, this government for the people is delivering on its promise to repeal the Green Energy Act, and our government is reducing Ontario’s skyrocketing hydro rates. One of the first actions that we took as a government was to cancel 758 expensive and wasteful energy projects as part of our plan to cut hydro rates by 12% for the people of Ontario. This will save $790 million for our electricity customers.

I urge the members of the House to support the Green Energy Repeal Act, 2018. Let’s ensure that future decisions on energy supply in this province are not driven by ideology but by what is best for the people of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): We’ll now return to the member from Hastings–Lennox and Addington for his two-minute

summary.

Mr. Daryl Kramp: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And yes, you do look fine sitting in that chair today, sir.

I certainly would like to thank all of the members who stood up today and offered comment with regard to my discussion: the member for Ottawa Centre—thank you; the member from Milton; the member for St. Paul’s; and the member for Scarborough–Rouge Park. It is from the dialogue that we have in the House here that hopefully we can find a way to move forward.

I sense a little bit of a spirit that most people recognized that what was there didn’t work. I would have a little bit more confidence in moving forward collectively; however, one of the challenges I have with the official opposition across on moving forward is that they so strongly supported the Green Energy Act in the first place. So I find that a little difficult, but I’m hoping we can get beyond that. As the story goes, bygones are bygones.

Let’s suggest that we’re all here for the right reason, to try to bring forth action that will—obviously here, there are two solitudes. The one solitude is definitely dealing with the environmental challenge. It’s clear, unambiguous—not a problem. When I say, “Not a problem,” it’s a huge problem; however, it’s not a problem with the recognition of the fact that we must move forward with it.

However, on the other side also, there has to be a proper way to do it, an effective way, a way that has the balance between affordability and effectiveness. I’m perpetually optimistic. I do believe that we, as members with the responsibility of finding solutions for the residents of Ontario, have to put our efforts into making that happen. So, I know that I—and we, as our government—are looking forward to continuing dialogue. Hopefully we can come up with that effective solution, but let’s get rid of the problem first.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Further debate? Are you on a point of order?

Mr. Robert Bailey: No, I was ready to speak.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): That’s okay, thank you.

Further debate? The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Joel Harden: I relish the opportunity to get up and speak to the bill that the government has put forward on repealing the Green Energy Act. Actually, as I said before, I really appreciate what my friend from Hastings–Lennox and Addington said. I am glad that there is an all-party recognition in this House that climate change is the issue of our era.

Often, when I talk to my kids and they ask me why I do this job, this is the first thing I tell them. I tell them, “Dad’s here in Toronto because I want you to have clean air, clean water and a job you can believe in—that you can work to make our society that much better.” The ball has been passed to a generation of legislators in this House and in every elected Legislature in the world to make sure we can do that.

I’m a writer. I’m an educator by trade, Speaker, and the best thing that ever happened to me in my career as an educator and a writer was when an editor put me on a deadline. Talk to anybody I’ve ever written for, and they’ll tell you the same thing about Harden: “Put that guy on a deadline; otherwise, bad things happen.”

And do you know what just happened to us on climate change, Speaker? The scientists who are engaged in climatology—measuring the impact of climate change—just put the world on a deadline. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change just put us on a 12-year deadline, the first three years of which are crucial if we’re to avert catastrophic impact from climate change. We’ve seen it in the province of Ontario.

We’ve debated it in this House—what’s happening up in northern Ontario with the floods, with the forest fires; the impacts that the insurance industry, which has been in this House, has told us about: $1.2 billion in the past year in climate change impacts, which they are ringing the alarm bells about, not just environmentalists from Ottawa Centre.

So this is a real thing, and we have a deadline in front of us. If there’s something that troubles me about this bill, it’s that it does a lot to take away what the government didn’t like about the previous approach to renewable energy, but I don’t see anything put in its place.

What I want to do this morning is not just criticize this bill—because I will be voting against it—but I want to suggest something that is perhaps within the government’s worldview that it could do, a regulatory change it could do, to empower the growth of renewable energy. It’s called virtual net metering. You can enable virtual net metering in the renewable energy industry, which will not repeat the failures of the Green Energy Act, which will not negotiate private, secret deals that are extremely expensive, that burden our electricity system.

You could do it in such a way that would actually embrace the Conservative Party’s history. The Conservative Party is the party that gave the province public hydro 100 years ago, because, specifically, it wanted to make sure that employers and citizens had affordable power. That’s the legacy of the Conservative Party, a legacy that I support. But in your approach to renewable energy, what I want to encourage you to consider this morning is that same idea through renewable energy, through a smart approach to growing renewable energy.

What I see in this bill, Speaker, is the disproportionate influence nuclear power and private fossil fuel power will have in the current regime put forward by this bill. I want to encourage you to take a different tack—amendments that I brought forward at the social policy committee that the member for Markham–Stouffville knows very well.

I also want to acknowledge not just that we have this existential crisis of climate change but that two thirds of our greenhouse gas emissions right now are coming from energy-related costs, whether it’s transportation or housing. The energy paradigm we embrace is going to be important, and how we encourage energy is also important.

I take the member’s point that the Green Energy Act was a top-down, secretive approach, which enabled vested interests to bid up the cost of electricity at the expense of the province. The private model didn’t work. I take your point. But we can look to other countries. We can look to Germany. We can look to Denmark. We can look to Norway. We can even look to India, at how they’re growing renewable energy, not from the top down but from the bottom up.

In fact, there’s a very interesting parallel going on worldwide right now as to the growth of renewable energy at a local, co-operative, non-profit level to the emergence of the Canadian health care system, because it came from the same place. When people in rural Saskatchewan wanted to figure out a way to get medical professionals into their community, they banded together and pooled their resources to bring nurses and doctors to their communities. That’s the origin of medicare in Saskatchewan. It’s the origin of medicare in our country: people coming together collectively, encouraged at a certain important scalable moment by the province of Saskatchewan and by the state of Canada.

Let’s talk about the kind of energy economy we have, let’s talk about the kind of energy economy we need, and let’s talk about how to get there. That’s what I want to talk about this morning.

What kind of energy economy do we have right now? At the moment, close to 60% of our energy needs are provided by one source: nuclear energy. I know my friend the member from Markham–Stouffville has talked about the fact this is fantastic because it’s emission-free and we can rely on this as a continued source of energy generation, going forward, because it doesn’t share the unfortunate outcomes of fossil-fuel-based energy generation.

But there is a problem. There are externalities, as economists like to say. There are outcomes to nuclear power. Increasingly, in the Ottawa Valley, we’re having this debate because there is a plan right now being proposed by the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories to entomb 50 years of nuclear waste in an above-ground cement facility right next to the Ottawa River, a source of drinking water for millions of people that already has seen detection of radionuclides in the water—at allowable levels, but detection of radionuclides in the river.

The community is up in arms, Speaker, just upriver from me, about this particular approach to creating a bunker that is seven stories high, the size of 70 NHL hockey rinks, to entomb decades of waste.

When you talk to municipal energy providers—again, not urban environmentalists, let me be clear, but municipal energy providers—they’re telling the government one particular thing about the future of energy generation. They want it to be less centralized around nuclear and more distributed. There are two reasons why: You give choice to consumers; you give them options, and you also distribute the generation of the energy system such that you have resiliency in critical moments.

I know whereof I speak. In the city of Ottawa, as the member for Nepean knows very well and as the government knows very well, we just had three tornadoes touch ground in September. There are two nodes going into Ottawa that feed Hydro One into Hydro Ottawa, and one of the tornadoes destroyed one of them. It blackened our city for three days. What happened in that context is a city debate started by the mayor’s office, first responders and all elected officials about an emergency readiness plan. What started in those conversations, I’m proud to say, is a discussion of how we could we be more resilient.

How could we be more self-reliant in the growth of renewable energy? Because what that would do was offer the city options beyond a crazed run for diesel-powered generators.

Renewable energy in Germany, in the Netherlands, in Denmark, in Norway and even in countries like India is being increasingly used to transition away from the dirtiest forms of energy, coal being the worst. So that’s what we have with the kind of energy economy we need. We can transition, Speaker, to an energy economy where, subsidy-free—and this is what I want to segue to—people at a local level can generate power.

I want to talk about the Ottawa Renewable Energy Co-operative, Speaker. This is an organization in my riding that has 750 members: 750 people who have pooled their retirement assets or their saving assets to generate over $7 million in investment in renewable energy. They, to me, are leaders worldwide. And how have they been able to do that? They’ve been able to do it because there’s an interest in Ottawa in investing in renewable energy. There’s an appetite for it in solarizing the rooftops of schools, hospitals, churches, and even in one path-breaking case, an Indigenous First Nation.

That’s what the Ottawa Renewable Energy Co-operative did with the Green Energy Act, to address the comments made by my friend earlier. There were some organizations in that earlier regime that attempted to take advantage of the FIT contracts to generate renewable energy at local benefit: an investment of $2.5 million, Speaker, in economic costs and employing local people.

To date, the energy economy we have, what it tends to do, because it’s centralized around certain nuclear generators, is that it takes jobs out of most local economies except those impacted by the nuclear plants. What renewable energy could do is give youth jobs, give people jobs. That’s what the Ottawa Renewable Energy Co-operative has, in fact, done.

The other organization I want to give some support to is the folks at Hydro Ottawa where I’m from. At Hydro Ottawa, they have an experiment right now called the GREAT-DR, and that’s science speak for distributed resource energy. What the folks at Hydro Ottawa are offering customers is an opportunity to invest in solar capacity with storage that’s intelligent, because what researchers are telling us is that energy use tends to be sparse and spiky. We don’t live in our homes all the time and power them for energy use.

It tends to spike at particular moments, particularly in the summer when air conditioning units are run province-wide. That’s when our need is highest. Well, it just so happens that’s when our solar capacity to produce energy is also highest.

The folks at Hydro Ottawa are looking to the future. They’ve created a pilot, with the support of the Ministry of Natural Resources, to think about, “What can we do in those off-peak moments, where someone who has solarized their house can share their energy with their neighbour?” When their personal electrical storage capacity is out, they could borrow from a neighbour down the road. Or this system can even intelligently, from Hydro Ottawa’s central office, detect if shutting your fridge or shutting your air conditioning system could advantage your energy generation. That’s how state of the art it is.

That’s the future. Electrifying systems of transport and creating resilient, distributed systems of energy—that’s the future.

The past, which I’m hearing increasingly from environmental watchdogs, is embracing centralized, wasteful forms of energy. The member mentioned it: Our nuclear energy regime wastes a terrific amount of energy because it only has one gear, full on or off. There are off-peak times when we sell our power to the United States for nothing—23% of the time when our nuclear power generators are firing and we’re distributing the excess energy to the United States, we’re essentially paying the United States customers to take our energy from us. That makes no sense.

Neither does it make sense to think about recommissioning or expanding energy sources which will create billion-dollar legacy costs down the road. That’s the investment capacity we need right now to empower organizations like the Ottawa Renewable Energy Co-operative and their counterparts. There are 10,000 people in the province of Ontario right now participating in energy co-operative generation.

I want to end by talking about that particular model. What my friends in government may have heard about already is the notion of net metering. When you solarize your apartment or your home or your business, you get a meter that’s specific to the generation of renewable energy. It rolls one way when you’re drawing from the grid, but if you’re generating enough power through your solar panels you can see the meter moving in the opposite direction because you’re now feeding energy back to the grid. That’s net metering, and that was to encourage people to embrace renewable energy.

What virtual net metering could do, if you listen to people in the renewable energy sector, which I have, is empower people to invest in renewable energy off-residence—a large collective solar farm, for example, on top of a hospital or school—and benefit electronically from that investment. The grid will detect your investment in that particular collective renewable energy project and reduce your bill accordingly. That’s the future. It’s happening in the United States.

They just had a major renewable energy conference here in Toronto, which my friend Janice Ashworth from the Ottawa Renewable Energy Co-operative attended. That’s what the state of Minnesota, that’s what the state of New York are doing right now: virtual net metering.

I caution the government—because this works within a market framework, and I can see how it could be embraced with a private model and getting private operators to rush in and provide renewable energy for people: If you embrace the private-provider approach, you’ll do exactly what the Liberal government did in potentially driving up costs massively. I would encourage my friends in government to embrace the history of their own party—public power—and to think about how with a co-operative and non-profit basis they could grow renewable energy faster, they could create local jobs and they could do it with absolutely no subsidy.

The testimony we heard at the social policy committee was very clear: The renewable energy industry is no longer in a start-up phase. It can produce energy cheaper and quicker than fossil fuel-based sources. Half the energy jobs in the United States right now are in the renewable energy industry.

Canada has decided to pitch its tent in the old energy world, and I have enormous sympathy for energy workers and resource-based communities that are in that particular bind. We have to figure out how they have a just transition from an earlier energy era to a new one. I have enormous sympathy for those communities, but as legislators we can’t look to the past. There’s no magical DeLorean we can jump into, powered by plutonium, that can take us to a renewable energy future. We have to make conscious decisions and conscious investments.

This is where Conservative friends of mine have often had a laugh about my own political beliefs and theirs: Sometimes government can get out of the way and allow local innovators, at a local, co-operative level, to show us what’s possible at a small scale, and then help them scale up. That’s the moment we’re in with renewable energy. But your bill, the renewable energy bill that you have before us today: What it will do is empower municipalities to say no to renewable energy projects.

But the minister still retains the right under this bill to override those municipalities, and the minister still has the ability—to my mind, misinformed about the possibilities of local co-operative renewable energy—to say no. What we need as a society, what energy workers and their families are telling me—whom I used to work for in a previous life—is that we need the growth of thousands of renewable energy jobs.

I would love to think of a government one day that didn’t do what our current federal government does: buy some unbelievably overpriced stranded asset, like the Kinder Morgan pipeline, for $4.6 billion, when a company bought it 13 years ago for south of $400 million. That is a terrible investment decision. What a government with vision would do is create a green new deal, with the promise of full employment for any graduate of a skilled trade program, of a college or university, to power the renewable energy economy.

The Building Trades Unions of Canada—the carpenters, the building trades workers—have released a report that shows that by 2050 there’s a potential to produce four million green jobs in building retrofits, in conservation-oriented strategies and in the growth of renewable energy. That’s the future.

Members on this side of the House are going to be voting against this bill not because we want to lock in the old private model; we’re voting against this bill because we want to see a government with more ambition on renewable energy, not to encourage the privatized model that wastes money and hurts people but to encourage the local co-operative model that echoes the paradigm of our medicare system. That’s our grandmothers and grandfathers—that’s the legacy they bequeathed to us. I’m encouraging our friends in government: Don’t squander that legacy.

Don’t say no to what happened before without offering us a plan for the future. We have yet, on this side of the House, to hear the government’s climate change plan. I’ve heard a lot about the ills of carbon taxes but have yet to see a plan to take us from A to B. What I’m encouraging you to consider is that there is a plan that is in front of us.

I want to end on a lighthearted note, if it’s okay. One of my favourite things that I like to read to my kids is the book Oh, the Places You’ll Go! by Dr. Seuss. My favourite passage reads the following:

You will come to a place

where the streets are not marked.

Some windows are lighted. But mostly they’re darked.

A place you could sprain both your elbow and chin!

Do you dare to stay out? Do you dare to go in?

How much can you lose? How much can you win?

And IF you go in, should you turn left or right ...

or right-and-three-quarters? Or, maybe, not quite?

Or go around back and sneak in from behind?

Simple it’s not, I’m afraid you will find,

for a mind-maker-upper to make up his mind.

You can get so confused and end up in

The Waiting Place ...

... for people just waiting.

Waiting for a train to go

or a bus to come, or a plane to go....

That’s not for you!

Somehow you’ll escape

all that waiting and staying

You’ll find the bright places

where Boom Bands are playing.

With banner flip-flapping,

once more you’ll ride high!

Ready for anything under the sky.

Ready because you’re that kind of a guy!

That’s the kind of vision we want to see on renewable energy, Speaker, and I encourage my friends to embrace it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Questions and comments?

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Good morning, everyone. I’m proud to stand here today in support of Bill 34, the Green Energy Repeal Act, introduced by the Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines.

I wanted to thank the member from Ottawa Centre for his very insightful comments; however, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully disagree with the premise of his entire statement.

The reality is, the Green Energy Act was designed in such a way that not only did it raise prices for everyone across Ontario, but it unfairly penalized people in rural areas. For example, in my riding of Carleton, there’s no public transportation. There’s no natural gas in a lot of places. So, with the Green Energy Act, everyone was being penalized, especially in those rural areas. We’re talking about people who are commuters. They are not polluters.

The repeal of the Green Energy Act allows Ontarians to go back to being able to live comfortably, to being able to afford paying for gas and using the additional money toward other life expenses, whether it’s putting it toward their children, whether it’s putting more money back in their pockets or their life savings.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this act. I am proud to stand here and say that Carleton and the people in Carleton are very happy that we are repealing the Green Energy Act. It can’t come soon enough. I would be happy to debate as long as possible, but again, we’re moving forward with this. Our government and our party campaigned on this in the election. This is what the people of Ontario want. They made that decision on June 7 with the resounding majority victory that our government had under the Premier.

Again, I am proud to support this bill, and I hope everyone, especially those on the other side, can support it as well.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Questions and comments?

M. Guy Bourgouin: Ça me fait plaisir aujourd’hui de me lever et puis de parler contre ce projet de loi de l’énergie verte. Comme mon collègue disait, on est contre le projet de loi. Ce n’est pas à cause qu’on supporte l’ancien programme des libéraux. Je peux vous dire que le programme qu’ils avaient instauré n’était définitivement pas le bon, et tout le monde en payait le prix.

Je sais que mon collègue a mentionné ma circonscription. Vous savez, dans ma circonscription de Mushkegowuk–James Bay, l’hiver, ça fait longtemps qu’il est arrivé. La température qu’on vit comme c’est là à Toronto est plutôt comme une température d’automne pour nous.

En cancellant des programmes comme l’énergie verte et puis en les remplaçant avec rien—c’est beau de dire que le programme ne fonctionnait pas, que le programme n’était pas bon ou que le programme ne répondait pas aux exigences ou à ce que le monde voulait voir dans un plan d’énergie. Mais de le remplacer avec rien n’est pas une solution non plus.

On n’a rien qu’à regarder dans ma circonscription. J’en ai parlé souvent dans cette Chambre, qu’il y a du monde à Mushkegowuk à chaque printemps, à cause que la planète se réchauffe, à qui on demande de s’exiler dans les communautés du Nord. Il faut répondre à ces problèmes-là et puis résoudre le problème de la planète.

De ne juste rien faire ou de dire que le programme des libéraux—taper sur la tête des libéraux, c’est bien fait de le faire, mais à la fin de la journée, il faut trouver un meilleur programme si on veut dire que le programme n’est pas bon. Tous les jours, je pense, dans ma circonscription, je peux vous dire que j’entends que le monde vient me voir pour leur revêtement ou leur isolation. Quand on pogne des moins 30 et moins 40, il faut trouver des solutions pour garder notre énergie, parce qu’on a bien des places où il n’y a pas de mazout—où on n’a rien que l’électricité, ce qui nous coûte une fortune.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Questions and comments?

Mr. Aris Babikian: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. I was quite pleased to hear my colleague from Ottawa Centre agree that “the Green Energy Act was a top-down, secretive approach.” That’s what we had been advocating for a long time.

What the former government did is not short of what the Communist Party in the former Soviet Union used to do when the politburo issued their edicts to the central and local governments to follow their instructions. That’s exactly what the former government did when they forced the local governments to accept this green energy plan, even without their consent or their residents’ consent.

The green energy plan is the worst con job that I have ever seen in the history of Ontario. The green energy plan did not benefit the environment, did not benefit the people of Ontario. It only benefited the Liberal insiders, who made billions of dollars from the secretive deals that they struck with the Liberal government.

When I talk with my colleagues around the world about energy and other issues related to energy, they are amazed that we are sending our surplus energy to California for free. When they suffer from a shortage of energy and they ask us to provide them with that energy, they are willing to buy it from us. So that’s why I’m standing here today in support of this bill, and I urge my colleagues on the opposition side to join us to eliminate this charade of the green energy bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Just before we continue with questions and comments, I see a former member in the gallery, Ms. Cheri DiNovo, who represented the riding of Parkdale–High Park in the 38th, 39th, 40th and 41st Legislatures. Nice to see you again, Cheri. Welcome back to Queen’s Park.

Questions and comments?

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: I’m honoured here to stand on behalf of the constituents of St. Catharines.

I know that our contractors and ratepayers were hurt after this government decided to scrap the Green Ontario Fund. I know that our green-conscious businesses were blindsided by the decision to end the cap-and-trade program.

Here before us we have another piece of legislation that does nothing for businesses. It does nothing to lower electricity rates for ordinary families. It does nothing to lower our carbon emissions.

What this bill will do is make it harder for businesses to gain approval for green energy projects. This bill threatens small rooftop projects, harming local engineers, workers and investors in the process. This bill will make it harder for farmers to earn some extra cash by having renewable projects on their properties.

This government has chosen to abdicate their responsibility to our environment and to our children. It has, through decisions like this bill, ensured that Ontarians and Ontario will be decades behind our neighbours in the economy of the future.

If you want to make Ontario a have-not province, there is no quicker way to do so than to ignore the fact that carbon-neutral is the future of global business. Whether we, in this House, like it or not, a carbon-neutral economy is the future, or there will be no future to have. That much is clear.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): We’ll return to the member from Ottawa Centre for his two-minute summation of what he has heard.

Mr. Joel Harden: I want to thank the members from Carleton, Mushkegowuk–James Bay, Scarborough–Agincourt and St. Catharines for your comments.

I detect some potential in this debate. I think there is some potential in this debate to move forward on local, co-operative approaches to generating renewable energy that will demonstrably help us.

As much as we would like to be persuaded that it could happen, Elon Musk is not going to save us. Technology won’t save us. Technology will play an important role in adapting to climate change, but we have to play a role in providing leadership in this very moment.

Ontario does not have a wealth problem. We have a wealth distribution problem. We have a lack of foresight in thinking about how we make investments now that will benefit us later. When I talk to retirees back in Ottawa Centre and around the province, they constantly tell me this: “Where is the vision that our generation had for public pensions and medicare and unemployment insurance, all the things that we gave your generation? Where is that vision now?”

That’s why I’m asking all of us across the aisle and in this place to consider what we will do to empower an energy economy now, in the short term, in the medium term, in the long term, to take us where we have to be, because we are on a 12-year deadline. That’s not hocus-pocus. That’s a fact.

If we want to park all of our interests in recommissioning and regenerating nuclear energy, and throwing out the old renewable energy regime without having anything new in place to demonstrably expand this particular sector, which could put hundreds of thousands of people back to work, we’re missing a huge opportunity. We’re missing an enormous opportunity.

Speaker, I’ve got a tinge of hope this morning after what I’ve heard. I think there’s something we could work on in the next few years to get choice back in the energy market that helps communities and doesn’t hurt them.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Further debate? I recognize, finally, the member who tried to jump the queue earlier: the member from Sarnia–Lambton.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a pleasure to see you in the chair. It looks like my time is limited this morning. I hope I get a chance to finish this.

It’s a privilege to rise in the Legislature to speak to Bill 34, the Green Energy Repeal Act.

We promised, Mr. Speaker, in the last election to be accountable to the people who pay their bills day in and day out. We promised to drive efficiencies in the electricity sector and to push energy costs down. More importantly, we promised to restore the public’s faith in our electricity system.

As a member who has had the good fortune and privilege to be elected and re-elected to this Legislature four times now, I’ve had the opportunity to speak to many bills over the years. Included in that list is the Green Energy and Green Economy Act, which I debated all the way back as far as March 9, 2009. Sadly, some of the remarks I made at the time turned out to be true, I’m sorry to say. Based on my view of the bill back then even, and what I’ve witnessed unfold over the last nine years, I couldn’t be happier that we’re today discussing the Green Energy Repeal Act. I think our Premier said it best when he said, “The party with the taxpayers’ money is over.”

I want to commend the new Minister of Energy, the honourable member from Kenora–Rainy River, on his quick work to bring forward this legislation on behalf of our government and the people.

Mr. Speaker, the previous government’s legislation was flawed from the start. Under that legislation, energy rates skyrocketed, hurting families and driving manufacturing jobs out of Ontario, and many out of my riding. I’ve mentioned this before but it bears mentioning again: As I said previously, I’ve been raising concerns about the rising cost of energy in this Legislature going all the way back over a decade now.

Here’s what I said when I spoke about the Liberals’ Green Energy and Green Economy Act back in 2009 during debate: I feel that this bill “will do nothing but impose new costs on the energy system and consumers, that what it in fact is going to do is create a new bureaucracy with very little accountability to both the ratepayers and to the Legislature.” I “also don’t believe that the government has really figured out how much this is going to cost consumers at the very end, and” I “believe that their initial estimates are way off.” That was 2009. It’s sad to say that I guess I was right in my remarks at the time.

I’ll just remind this House that the Minister of Energy at that time insisted that bills would only increase by about 1% per year as a result of the Green Energy and Green Economy Act. He, as we know, is not here now; he went on to other venues.

I think what we saw play out over the next eight years of Liberal government mismanagement was exactly what the members in the Ontario PC caucus were warning this Legislature about at the time. For many people in Ontario, the Green Energy Act had become a symbol of an inefficient and burdensome energy economy, representing some of the worst tendencies of a government that was out of touch. That’s why repealing it has been a key priority for our government, because that’s what the people elected us to do. That’s amazing—a government doing what it was elected to do.

That is why I’m extremely pleased that we have a government in place now in the province of Ontario that is delivering on its promise to repeal the Green Energy Act and reduce Ontario’s skyrocketing hydro rates. This is putting the brakes on additional projects that would add costs to electricity bills that the people of Ontario simply cannot afford. After years of skyrocketing electricity rates, hydro bills will finally start to come down.

Let’s be clear: The Green Energy Act helped Liberal insiders get rich while families across Ontario were forced to choose between heating their homes or putting food on their plates. What a sad commentary on the province of Ontario. Manufacturers, workers, small businesses, single mothers, struggling seniors and families—all of Ontario—everyone watched their hydro bills go through the roof.

I’m reminded of some of the questions that I posed to the previous government about the failing Green Energy Act and its disastrous impact. These are just a sample of the questions that I asked during question period. This doesn’t even scratch the surface of the thousands of letters, petitions, and emails that I and many other members, I’m sure from all sides, even the government of the day—which they would have got if they had wanted to pay attention to them.

In 2011, when the previous government was still boasting of the windfall of jobs that would be created by these green projects—I remember sitting right on that side when the minister at that time kept boasting about 50,000 jobs, blah, blah, blah—a lot of hot air. I asked the Liberal Minister of Energy at that time to explain why only 1% of the jobs that were promised in my riding had materialized. This was an example at the time: The minister at the time said that the Sarnia solar farm created 800 jobs, but solar panels for that site were manufactured in Ohio.

Only eight people worked at the solar farm at the time, and they were cutting the grass and doing maintenance work around there. That was a cause célèbre, to quote a word in the local media and the Toronto media at the time.

At the same time, communities like Sarnia–Lambton that rely on good jobs in the manufacturing sector saw businesses shut their doors and jobs lost while energy rates climbed to the highest levels in North America.

The Green Energy Act made it so much harder for businesses in Ontario to stay in business. The Liberals’ Green Energy Act led to the feed-in tariff program and skyrocketing electricity rates for Ontario families. Under the last government, energy rates tripled, hurting families and driving manufacturing jobs out of Ontario. Thousands of jobs were lost across Ontario. That’s why we took immediate action to cancel 758 needless, expensive energy projects.

Something I did want to get on the record is that in 2011, I also asked the previous Liberal government about why they stripped local municipalities, including those in my riding of Sarnia–Lambton, of all decision-making powers when it came to the placement of industrial wind turbines. This is probably the most important part of my speech. Lambton county was one of the first regions to declare themselves an unwilling host. Did that matter to the previous government and their supporters? No. The previous government shoved these wind and solar farms into the backyards of our communities that didn’t want them and made it plain that they didn’t want them.

I want to particularly get on the record and mention Mayor Lonny Napper of Plympton-Wyoming and his council who, along with a community organization called WAIT, We’re Against Industrial Turbines, fought long and hard to keep the wind turbines out of their municipality and were relatively successful. They do have a few in the corner, but those days are gone now.

I also want to mention Mayor Kevin Marriott and his council in my home township of Enniskillen, whose council also fought long and hard. They encouraged their ratepayers and their landowners to never sign any leases. That was what made them successful, I think, in that part of Ontario, because if you don’t sign a lease in the first place, these salespersons—and some other names you could use to describe them—can’t come in and force you, or tell you that your neighbour signed a lease so you’d better sign a lease and you’d better get on board. So I really applaud Enniskillen township and the other townships that caught on to what these wind energy companies, and solar as well, were doing.

Mayor Ian Veen of Oil Springs, a small municipality, also showed leadership on his council in this regard, and also Mayor Steve Arnold of one of the larger townships, St. Clair township, who also led in the resistance as well.

Unlike the previous government, Mr. Speaker, this government, the Doug Ford government, believes that the people of Ontario should have the final say about who gets to build what in their communities. I’m happy to say that with Bill 34, the trampling of local decision-making authority has come to an end. Promise made, promise kept. We’re restoring the ability of local communities to control where major facilities can be built. This is an important step. If a local municipality can say where a Tim Hortons is located or how many entrances it can have or some such business as that, why couldn’t you have some say over these major industrial wind turbines and solar plants?

I haven’t got quite to that page yet, but our municipality—I don’t want to sound like we didn’t take

part in renewable energy. We had more NUG plants, non-utility generators, in my riding than probably any place. Those are the gas-generating sectors—I see you nodding your head; you know what I’m talking about—who chase the load when the wind turbines or the sun doesn’t shine. We’ve got a number of them in my riding, at least half a dozen that I can think of.

We have a number of cogeneration facilities in my riding. Long before green energy and the Liberal government of the day came along, we had cogeneration plants. They became unaffordable to run almost, but they’re ready to go again. We also have the largest solar farm, at one time anyway, in North America—built on some of the best agricultural land. This was even before the Green Energy Act. It should never have happened. It’s there now, and they’re good operators; I don’t want to say they’re not. But, you know, that shouldn’t have happened. But they’re there.

So it’s not like we’re Neanderthals, dragging our knuckles along there, like some people like to imply. I think Sarnia–Lambton has done more than its share. We’re not against green energy. It had to be renewable and it had to be affordable and sustainable. The Liberal plan was not that. I heard someone say, and they used the term—I can’t remember—oh, that we were going to be a have-not province. Well, we already have have-not ratepayers in this province, and we are receiving a transfer of payments from other provinces.

For all those reasons—I think you’re getting ready to stand up and tell me I’m out of time. Is that—okay, well, I hope to get a chance to finish this speech some time in the near future, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Thank you, member from Sarnia–Lambton. Yes, you will have time the next time you’re in the House and this bill is up for debate. Unfortunately, at this point, we are out of time for further debate this morning.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): This House stands in recess until 10:30 and question period.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Trans Day of Remembrance

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Point of order: the member for London North Centre.

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: Speaker, I believe you’ll find that we have unanimous consent for a moment of silence on this International Trans Day of Remembrance for the thousands of trans, non-binary and two-spirited persons who have died due to transphobia.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for London North Centre is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to observe a moment of silence in remembrance of trans persons. Agreed? Agreed.

I would ask the House to rise and observe a moment of silence.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Let us always remember them. Thank you very much.

Visitors

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

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Thank you very much, Speaker, and I’d like to say thank you to the member for offering us that opportunity for the moment of silence. It was my intent to seek unanimous consent to have the pages distribute cards to members’ desks for Trans Day of Remembrance; however, I see a thoughtful colleague has already done that for us.

But as I stand here, I just wanted to recognize my friend and colleague, and I know you’ll introduce her later, Speaker: Cheri DiNovo, who I helped co-sponsor this piece of legislation with, so that we do have trans remembrance in the province of Ontario. Thank you very much, Cheri.

And, of course, our friend Susan Gapka is in the audience today, and I would simply be remiss if I didn’t also acknowledge Nathalie Des Rosiers from Ottawa–Vanier as the third co-sponsor for this legislation in the previous Parliament.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I want to thank the minister. It’s normally the purview of the Speaker to introduce former members, but sometimes the Speaker is pre-empted. But I do also want to welcome Cheri DiNovo, the NDP member from Parkdale–High Park in the 38th, 39th, 40th and 41st Parliaments. Once again, welcome back to the Ontario Legislature. We’re delighted that you’re here.

Woman Abuse Prevention Month

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Another point of order?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Thank you very much, Speaker. It’s a busy day for me. It’s also Woman Abuse Prevention Month, and I’m proud as women’s minister to welcome OAITH, the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses, during Woman Abuse Prevention Month and during their Wrapped in Courage campaign that they had here earlier this morning. They are here in the gallery today, but I would ask all members of the assembly who are wearing purple to join us on the grand staircase after question period for a photo. Thank you.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Of course we would now have our introduction of guests, but the member for Cambridge has a point of order, I think.

Mrs. Belinda Karahalios: I believe you’ll find that we have unanimous consent for members to wear purple scarves today as part of Wrapped in Courage, a campaign to honour victims of violence against women.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Cambridge is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to allow members to wear purple scarves in recognition of preventing violence against women. Agreed? Agreed.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I would like to introduce Dr. Murray Townsend from my riding of Perth–Wellington. Dr. Townsend is a chiropractor and he’s here with the OCA. They are having a reception in room 228.

I would also like to introduce members of Fertilizer Canada who are here today: Lindsay Kaspick, Catherine King, Don Kitson, Faical Lamrini, Bob McNaughton, Dan Mulder, Emily Pearce Rayner, Tamara Sealy, McKenzie Smith, Karen Stephenson and Allison Watcher. They are also having a reception in room 228 today at 5 o’clock.

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome my predecessor, the former MPP for Parkdale–High Park and my friend, Cheri DiNovo to the House.

Mrs. Robin Martin: I would like to take a moment to introduce Caroline Brereton, CEO of the Ontario Chiropractic Association; Dr. Ken Brough, Ontario Chiropractic Association board chair; Nancy Gale, vice-president, strategic communications and stakeholder management for the Ontario Chiropractic Association; Dr. Brian Gleberzon, Ontario Chiropractic Association board secretary and treasurer; Dr. Ayla Azad, Ontario Chiropractic Association past chair; and Lisa Morris, a patient who was treated through the Belleville primary care low-back pain program.

Again, a reminder that they’re having a lunch reception in room 228 for all members from 11:30 to 1:30; we certainly hope that all members are able to join.

Ms. Suze Morrison: I’d like to warmly welcome today members of the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses. Welcome to Queen’s Park. Specifically, I’d like to welcome Charlene Catchpole, the chair of OAITH, and Marlene Ham, the executive director.

I’d also like to welcome Susan Gapka, a long-time trans activist and proud resident of Toronto Centre. Welcome, Susan. Thank you so, so much.

Hon. Todd Smith: I’d like to welcome a very special guest from the Bay of Quinte—Belleville, to be specific. Sandy Watson-Moyles is here from Three Oaks women’s shelter and services. It’s so great to see you up there, Sandy. Thank you for everything you do.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I’d like to welcome my friend Thom Rolfe from Hiatus House in Windsor, a sanctuary for women and children fleeing domestic violence. Welcome back to Queen’s Park, Thom.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: I’m asking if we can have unanimous consent that I can ask a question on behalf of my colleague who’s not in the House this morning.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Orléans is seeking unanimous consent of the House to ask a question on behalf of a colleague who is not in the House this morning. Agreed? Agreed.

Ms. Jane McKenna: I wanted to introduce my daughter. Taylor McKenna from Ontario’s Nuclear Advantage is here today. It’s always lovely, when your children don’t live with you anymore, when they happen to pop by Queen’s Park and say hello.

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: I’d like to welcome the folks here from St. Catharines from Gillian’s Place: their executive director, Tanja Loeb. Thank you for coming. Welcome.

Mr. Stephen Crawford: I’m proud to introduce a lifelong entrepreneur, a good friend of mine, someone who’s very passionate about growing Ontario and getting the economy moving here, Mr. John Chisholm.

Ms. Sara Singh: Good morning. I’d like to introduce my fantastic team members: my constituency assistants Jesse Guy-Herman and Bhani Wadhwa; and also my Legislative Assembly assistant, Colleen Rodriguez.

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: It’s a pleasure to introduce some of the representatives from Fertilizer Canada today: Bob Adamson, Cam Baker, Suzanne Beattie, Steve Biggar, Colin Braithwaite, Giulia Brutesco, Meriem El Asraoui, Karim El Mansouri, Sarah Fedorchuk, Clyde Graham and Tom Houston. Please welcome all these good representatives here to Queen’s Park, and I ask you to join them at 5 o’clock in room 228 for a reception.

Ms. Jill Andrew: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to welcome my dear friend May Lui, whom I don’t see right now but I know she’s on her way; I saw her at the OAITH reception earlier this morning.

Also, I would welcome the Rev. Dr. Cheri DiNovo, a friend, a mentor, a role model, an icon politically, and my dear friend Susan Gapka as well.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I would like to welcome to the Legislature today the family of page Shlok Panchal from my riding: his father, Amish; his mother, Ranchana; and his brother Rhythm. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Miss Monique Taylor: It gives me great pleasure to welcome OAITH today, and the executive director of Hamilton Interval House, Nancy Smith. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Stephen Lecce: I feel like it’s leg day today, just given the up and down, but I want to welcome three colleagues who are here with us—I met with them this morning—from the Ontario Chiropractic Association, if I could add my voice: Caroline Brereton, the CEO; Dr. Azad, the past president; and Caroline Pinto. I want to thank you for sharing your priorities with the government and thank you for your time this morning.

Mr. Jeff Burch: I would like to welcome two Brock University students, Curtis Fric and Noah Nickle, who are here to deliver petitions on behalf of their fellow students.

Hon. John Yakabuski: It’s a pleasure to welcome to Queen’s Park this morning Ben Snair, who is a senior communications adviser in my office at the Ministry of Natural Resources. Ben, welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Rima Berns-McGown: It’s my pleasure to welcome Fatima Altaf, the coordinator with Social Action and Community Building and Ontario Campaign 2000, to Queen’s Park. Es salaam aleikum, Fatima.

Mr. Doug Downey: I would like to introduce two guests to the Legislature: Charles Wilson, a huge parliamentary procedure fan—yes, they exist—from Parry Sound–Muskoka; and Sangeeta Wylie, a dentist and actor. They’re friends of Clara Pasieka, who remains uncontested for best attendance in the members’ gallery. Welcome.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: I just want to recognize, from Barrie–Innisfil, Marlene Ham, who is here from OAITH—she’s the executive director—and Teresa MacLennan, the executive director of the Women and Children’s Shelter of Barrie. As well as—she doesn’t often get recognized, but Monica Stefanick, who’s our multimedia specialist, is always in the gallery taking wonderful photos of us, so thank you.

Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos: I would like to formally recognize and welcome two guests to the Legislature today: Cynthia Saxena and George Collins. George is a director of the Professional Engineers Government of Ontario, and Cynthia is a resident of my riding, Oakville North–Burlington, and a recent graduate from the University of Toronto, majoring in political science. She is attending question period at the Legislature for the first time today. Welcome.

Mr. Mike Harris: I would also like to welcome the members of Fertilizer Canada here today. I had a great meeting with them this morning.

I would also like to welcome, in the members’ gallery, my very hard-working legislative assistant, Jonathan Lesarge.

Mr. Dave Smith: I would like to welcome a fellow alumna of mine from Trent University, Emily McCullough, the brains behind everything I do. She is my executive assistant. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: As many members know, today is the international day of the child, and I’m pleased that I have a dozen or so young children in care who are joining me today for a round table, as well as Mary Ballantyne, who is the head of the Ontario Children’s Aid Society. I’m looking forward to having a robust discussion and continuing to be their strongest advocate.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to have to remind members that the introductions—we have allowed great latitude—are not supposed to be ministers’ statements or members’ statements, just introductions.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I would like to welcome this morning Howard Brown, who’s here for Professional Engineers Ontario. I’ll have a chance to see him this afternoon.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s my pleasure to introduce Mr. David Shiner, former Toronto city councillor, to Queen’s Park, as well as my legislative assistant, Daniel Paolini.

Hon. John Yakabuski: I would be remiss—he’s not here yet, but later today, my son Lucas will be coming to visit the Legislature, and I’m looking forward to that.

Ms. Natalia Kusendova: Bonjour, monsieur le Président. I would like to welcome my constituency caseworker, Ania Barycka, to the House. I would like to thank her for all of the wonderful work she’s doing on behalf of the constituents of Mississauga Centre.

Mr. Ross Romano: I would like to welcome to the House this morning my intern through the OLIP intern process, Ms. Janessa Duran, hiding in the back of the gallery there. She has the unfortunate experience of having to work with me. Thank you very much for being here today, Janessa.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to introduce in the legislative chamber today my recent addition, Andrew Esser, my legislative assistant at Queen’s Park.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I’ll have to borrow from our good friend from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek: To everyone else who’s in the Legislature today who hasn’t been introduced, welcome.

Mrs. Daisy Wai: I would like to introduce—a lot of you already know her as my legislative assistant, Maxine Young. She has been very helpful and very hard-working. I thank her for all of the great work.

Mr. John Vanthof: On behalf of the NDP caucus, I’d also like to welcome the fertilizer institute. I’ve had time in the last few minutes to figure out my order, so I’d like to talk to you after.

Hon. Laurie Scott: I’d like to welcome, from OAITH, which is here today for the Wrapped in Courage campaign, chair Charlene Catchpole and Marlene Ham, who is the executive director, and thank them for all of the work they’ve done over the many years. I’ve enjoyed working with you. Thank you very much to everyone here—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I think that concludes the time we have available this morning for introductions of guests.

Trans Day of Remembrance / Journée du souvenir trans

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I understand the member for Thornhill has a point of order.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I just want to remind everybody that at 1 o’clock, by the flagpole, we’re going to be commemorating the Trans Day of Remembrance.

Visitor

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Point of order?

Hon. Steve Clark: No, I want to introduce a guest, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Okay. This is the last one.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Steve Clark: Excellent. Thank you so much, Speaker. I love to be last.

I just want to introduce to the members of the Legislative Assembly Charlene Catchpole, who is the executive director of Interval House in my riding of Leeds–Grenville–Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I wish to clarify something. I’ve been advised that the Trans Day of Remembrance flag-raising is taking place this afternoon at 2 p.m. As Speaker of the Legislature, I will be present on behalf of the Legislative Assembly.

Oral Questions

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Ms. Sara Singh: My question is for the Acting Premier. In last week’s fall economic statement, the government announced their intention to review the Ontario Drug Benefit plan to find “efficiencies.” The Ontario Drug Benefit plan provides drug coverage to every senior in our province, as well as to people relying on disability supports and social assistance.

Can the Acting Premier tell us what drug benefits are planned for this cut?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: I want to thank you for the question, and I want to say how pleased we are to have presented A Plan for the People last week. In the plan—

Interjections: Prop.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Some people may call it a prop; we call it a very important document, a guideline, a blueprint to the future of the province of Ontario. This is a plan for the people that was—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I have to say, if you hold it up constantly, it has to be seen as a prop.

I would ask the minister to conclude his response.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: In A Plan for the People, which we presented in this Legislature last Thursday, there were $3.2 billion in savings that were found for the people of Ontario and $2.7 billion in money returned to the people of Ontario. For the first time, there is relief for families, for individuals and for businesses, and that reduced the deficit by $500 million, the $15-billion deficit that that Liberal government left.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Sara Singh: The fall economic statement promises to make health benefits more efficient and fiscally responsible. It goes on to state that the first target will be drug benefits. Seniors and people with disabilities in this province rely on those benefits, Speaker. What cost-cutting measures is the Premier planning for Ontario’s drug benefits?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Again, what our Premier has continually said is that not only have we found $3.2 billion in savings without any job losses—all of those are efficiencies, Speaker.

Let me take a moment to explain an efficiency. OHIP+ is a great example. The Liberal government that put OHIP+ in stated that anybody under 25 would have free drugs. We have gone in and improved that with an efficiency so that anybody under 25 first uses their parents’ or their own drug benefit. They still have the same coverage they had before our announcement. They saved $300 million in efficiencies and never lost a job. That’s what efficiencies are all about—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Hon. John Yakabuski: Efficiencies. You guys should try that sometime.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Member for King–Vaughan, come to order. Member for Waterloo, come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Waterloo, come to order. The member for King–Vaughan, come to order. The member for Windsor West, come to order. The Minister of Community Safety, come to order. The member for Niagara Falls, come to order. We’ve got a long way to go, folks.

Start the clock. Final supplementary.

Ms. Sara Singh: Families across this province have seen very clearly what Conservative efficiencies in health care mean: 28 closed hospitals and 6,000 fired nurses the last time they were in office.

The Premier says that the $3 billion in cuts in the fall economic statement are just a warm-up. Seniors and families that rely on drug benefits deserve some answers. What is the Premier planning to cut?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: We’re certainly cutting low-income workers’ taxes, down to zero. When you think about the Low-income Individuals and Families Tax Credit, Speaker, this is one of the most generous tax cuts for low-income workers in a generation; 1.1 million low-income workers will see their taxes reduced. If you are making $30,000 a year or less, you will pay no provincial income tax—zero, nada, niente.

Taxation

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is for the Acting Premier. The Premier says that he’s looking to squeeze every possible penny, even out of seniors who rely on drug benefits. He says no one will be spared as he searches for savings. But can he explain, or can the Acting Premier explain, how he found $275 million to give a tax break to himself and Ontario’s wealthiest?

Hon. Christine Elliott: The Minister of Finance.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: We made it very clear during the election that we would not implement any of the former government’s punitive tax increases, especially the increases on our low-income families. That’s why our government introduced one of the most generous tax cuts for low-income workers, as I said, in a generation. If you’re earning $30,000 per year or less, you will pay no personal income tax—zero. In fact, low-income taxpayers earning just over $30,000 will also receive a graduated income tax relief.

Speaker, this measure will provide relief to 1.1 million people in the province of Ontario who will have relief for families for the first time in a generation.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. John Vanthof: The Premier says that no one will be spared when it comes to government cuts. Now he’s looking at taking away from seniors who rely on drug benefits and from families tired of hallway care, but he gives himself and some of the wealthiest people in the province a tax cut. How does that make sense?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: I realize that the NDP don’t want to talk about the 1.1 million people who are going to have relief from their taxes. In fact, they have such a hard time with this, we’ll hear from the NDP member for Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas: “There’s a lot of talk now that you are talking about an income tax break, or zero income tax, for low-income people, but you’re talking about people who earn so little that they in fact don’t need a tax break.”

This member believes that people don’t need a tax break. Well, that amount of money that we’re investing in low-income families is $500 million that is being returned to low-income families. That’s the tax break that she’s talking about that she says they don’t deserve.

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. John Vanthof: The Minister of Finance protests a bit too much, because the high-income tax break that he’s giving the wealthiest is costing the province twice as much as what they’re saying they’re going to give the low-income people.

The Premier said that no one would be spared from cuts. But while he’s asking struggling seniors to brace for cuts to drug benefits, he’s handing himself and other wealthy Ontarians a tax break. If the Premier truly believes that no one should be spared in his quest for cuts, why is he sparing himself?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: The member from Timiskaming–Cochrane—fellow northerner, but I have to say your math is completely wrong. You have said numbers in this Legislature that simply do not add up. You are absolutely and unequivocally wrong in your math. That should come as no surprise, Speaker, for a party who told us that they had a $7-billion mistake in their own campaign budget, so we can understand.

It’s really disappointing that they feel that this $500-million investment in low-income families—that those families do not need a tax break. I’ve said this before and I’m going to say again how disappointing it is. The NDP deal in chaos; we deal in confidence. The NDP deals in resistance, and we will deal in results.

Affaires francophones

Ma question est simple : qu’est-ce qui a changé?

L’hon. Caroline Mulroney: Je remercie le député opposé pour sa question. Nous avons été élus avec un mandat très clair de trouver des moyens efficaces de livrer les services aux Ontariens. Le travail du commissaire, qui est important—la protection des droits linguistiques en Ontario—va continuer à être fait au sein du Bureau de l’Ombudsman. Depuis son indépendance cette année, son budget a plus que quadruplé.

Maintenant, au sein du Bureau de l’Ombudsman, l’ombudsman lui-même, en travaillant avec les gens du commissariat, va trouver des économies d’échelle, parce que nous avons été élus avec un mandat très clair d’essayer d’arrêter ces pratiques dispendieuses du gouvernement précédent, qui nous ont laissé un déficit de 15 milliards de dollars et une dette de 347 milliards de dollars. Ils nous demandent d’hypothéquer l’avenir de nos enfants et de nos petits-enfants, et nous allons arrêter de faire ça.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ma question est très simple : ce gouvernement va-t-il appuyer cette motion?

L’hon. Caroline Mulroney: C’est très clair que les droits linguistiques des minorités en Ontario vont continuer à être préservés ici en Ontario par le travail du Bureau de l’Ombudsman. Je demanderais au député opposé d’arrêter de mettre ces informations erronées dans les médias, et de corriger ses propos.

Nous reconnaissons l’importance de ce projet. C’est pourquoi nous avons passé beaucoup de temps à étudier pour trouver des moyens pour financer ce projet. Mais, malheureusement, avec le déficit de 15 milliards de dollars, une dette de 347 milliards de dollars—monsieur le Président, on dépense 12,5 milliards de dollars; on paye ça aux créanciers à l’extérieur de l’Ontario, à l’extérieur du Canada, au lieu d’investir ça ici au Canada et ici en Ontario. Alors, on arrête de faire ça, monsieur le Président. On est honnêtes. Quand on aura remis l’Ontario sur la voie de la prospérité, on va pouvoir revisiter ces projets très importants.

Violence faite aux femmes / Violence against women

M me Natalia Kusendova: Ma question est pour la ministre des Services à l’enfance et des Services sociaux et communautaires. Aujourd’hui, une femme sur trois subira des violences sexuelles au cours de sa vie.

Unfortunately, women from minority groups are much more likely to experience violence.

Indigenous women are three times more likely to be victims of a violent crime and to experience spousal violence than non-Indigenous women. Immigrant and refugee women are seen to be more vulnerable to violence due to language barriers, isolation from their family, precarious work and uncertain legal status. Women with disabilities are three times more likely to experience violence. Lesbian or bisexual women are three times more likely to report intimate-partner violence.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister please tell this House how diverse voices for women across this province will be included in the discussions about ending violence against women?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: To my colleague from Mississauga Centre—she has been a strong advocate for vulnerable women in this Legislature, asking the tough questions on human trafficking, sex trafficking of women and, of course, here today on violence against women. I really commend you for doing that. Thank you so much.

I’d also like to once again welcome those from OAITH who are today who are on the front lines, helping us with violence against women right throughout Ontario. The work that they’re doing is very much appreciated by me and my ministry.

Today, I had the opportunity to address with them and to announce that our government for the people will be engaging in consultations with the 48 existing violence against women coordinating committees across the province. They will help me integrate and improve services for women in Ontario who need it most. It is these front-line workers who we will be consulting with so that we can ensure that we get the most important services and most important wraparound programming to the women who need it most.

Unfortunately, the Ontario New Democratic Party doesn’t want to actually talk about the solution. They just want to complain.

I’d like to thank, again, the member from our government party for continually and consistently bringing up this very important issue.

I know that all members condemn violence against—

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

M me Natalia Kusendova: Je remercie la ministre pour sa réponse et pour avoir affirmé son engagement à écouter et à agir pour combattre la violence contre les femmes.

Mr. Speaker, too many women and girls experience violence in their lives, whether through spousal violence, sexual harassment or human trafficking. It is critical that services across our province are coordinated and all women who need assistance have access to emergency shelters, counselling, safety planning, transitional housing and referral services, and more.

Violence against women also has significant economic costs, estimated at $7.4 billion, which includes medical, legal, lost income and productivity costs.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister explain how the government will expand access to services for women who have experienced violence and assist front-line staff?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Earlier this morning, I was fortunate to be with OAITH and to announce that our government for the people will be investing $11.5 million in front-line supports to over 400 agencies throughout this great province so that we can protect more women.

Let me be perfectly clear, Speaker: I am so proud of the work that my colleague the Minister of Labour did previously in her role as our women’s critic, before we served in government.

I also want to single out a few men in our caucus who have inspired me day in and day out: our Minister of Natural Resources, who has stood up for women in rural communities right across this province; Randy Hillier, the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston; the Minister of Housing, who first ensured that there was a VAW centre in his home community of Brockville; and of course, my colleague Minister Todd Smith from economic development and trade, who ensured that I got to see Three Oaks in his community.

We need strong women supporting women. We also need strong men—

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

Interjections.

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

I say to all members of the House, it’s a little more difficult to watch the clock when there are constant outbursts from members in the House and I have to call them to order. We are trying to pay close attention to the clock.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Next question.

Cancer treatment

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le premier ministre.

When a loved one is fighting cancer, the last thing they should worry about is whether or not they can afford to pay for the treatment that works best for them. If the treatment is in the hospital, it is completely free. The minute you can be treated at home, you are on your own, you have to pay. People much prefer to be treated at home, and take-home cancer drugs are often the best treatment option. Yet Ontario refuses to cover take-home cancer medication.

Does the Premier agree that it is time to guarantee universal access to take-home cancer drugs?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: I thank the member opposite for the question.

I know there has been some discussion about this. Of course, people would rather be treated at home for cancer, as well as for many other illnesses and health problems. There are situations where a number of the take-home cancer drugs can be covered under policies. Other times, people have policies that cover them. Universal access is not necessary.

We make sure that people who are not able to pay for their own cancer drugs that aren’t covered by a policy can have access under the Trillium program and other programs. We don’t want anybody who has cancer to go without treatment—and that’s what we will make sure is covered. It’s not necessary to do it with a universal access program, per se.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: While the Premier and minister look for drug benefit cuts, cancer patients will tell them that the smartest savings comes from people moving out of the hospital when it isn’t the best treatment option. But our current system forces people to stay in the hospital if they cannot afford to pay for their take-home cancer drugs, even when this is not the best treatment option.

Tomorrow, we will be debating a motion calling on funding for take-home cancer drugs. Will the minister and the Premier support it?

Hon. Christine Elliott: In fact, I think it is important to note that Ontario spends close to $1 billion a year on cancer drugs and supportive therapies, including $543 million for take-home cancer drugs. So those cancer drugs are available for people who need them, and we will continue to do so. In fact, what we want to do is expand access, because we know there are many new cancer and other drugs coming onto the market. We want to expand the drugs that are available to people, including more and more personalized types of medications.

But as I indicated in my previous comments, it’s not necessary to have a universal access program as long as we have programs that make sure that people who are not able to afford them have them. We have that under the Ontario Drug Benefit program and the Ontario Trillium Benefit Program. So people need to be reassured that if they need take-home cancer remedies, they will get them.

Red tape reduction

Mr. Jim McDonell: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Farmers and food processors in my riding have been telling me that many of Ontario’s regulatory requirements are out of date, unnecessary and don’t provide any real protections for them. Red tape is costing our farmers their time and money and causing a lot of frustration that makes it more difficult for their businesses to get ahead.

Yesterday, the minister announced that his ministry is proposing to cut red tape and regulatory burdens for dairy and meat processors in the province. Can the minister please tell us what this government is doing to target costly and unnecessary red tape to help those in the agri-food sector, while maintaining rules to keep Ontarians and the foods they consume safe?

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: I want to thank the member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry for the important question.

As he mentioned, I want to assure everyone that our government, first and foremost, is committed to food safety and public safety. First, food processors play a key role in keeping our food safe. With the proposed regulations, food safety will stay top of mind.

Yesterday, I was pleased to announce that our government is proposing to cut red tape and regulatory burdens for dairy and meat processing in Ontario. I had the opportunity to tour a family-owned dairy processing facility yesterday in Mississauga, where I heard from the owners about red tape headaches and the cost of unnecessary regulations. If approved, the changes we are proposing will make it easier and faster for the agri-food companies to do business in Ontario.

I look forward to providing more details in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim McDonell: Thanks to the minister for his leadership in making life more affordable for those in the agri-food industry in Ontario. We know that this government is committed to cutting red tape and regulatory burdens for all businesses in Ontario to make them more competitive and to reduce operating costs across the board.

The proposed changes to both acts are simple and efficient steps. They are long overdue to help our agri-food sector, like those in the meat and dairy processing industries. Can the minister tell us how the proposed changes will help strengthen both our dairy and meat processing industries?

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: I thank the member for the supplementary question.

The proposed changes will allow meat processing plant operators to save $300 every three years by no longer needing to re-apply for the licence.

In another proposed change, owners who no longer want to operate meat plants will be able to voluntarily give up their licences, avoiding a number of current administrative hoops. Presently, if you have a meat-packing plant and you want to quit, you have to apply to get rid of the licence.

The proposed changes for dairy processors would amend requirements relating to receiving bays, plant ceiling heights and floor drains, which would reduce the costs for small dairy processors who currently can spend up to one third of their construction budget on updating building requirements. Requirements will be focused on ensuring food safety outcomes instead of prescriptive construction regulations.

We know how important these processors are, especially in rural communities, and our government is committed to ensuring their businesses can be competitive while following—

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

Ontario Place

Mr. Chris Glover: My question is to the Premier. Ontario Place was built and paid for by the people of Ontario to celebrate this great province of ours. After a public consultation process, Ontario Place is being renewed with the Bill Davis trail, with green spaces, with regular events, and with a beach with what I’ve been told is the cleanest water to swim in in the city of Toronto. However, last week the Premier tabled legislation to formally dissolve the Ontario Place board, giving him full control of this public asset.

The last time the Premier set his sights on Toronto’s waterfront was back when he was a city councillor. He met with developers to cook up a plan behind closed doors to sell off public land and to make way for a Ferris wheel and a mega mall. The Premier’s vision also included an NFL stadium on land controlled by Mario Cortellucci, who was the top fundraiser for Mayor Rob Ford.

Has the Premier or his staff had any discussion with developers or lobbyists about redeveloping Ontario Place, and, if so, what did they discuss?

Hon. Doug Ford: This is so dishonest. Minister of Tourism.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I have to ask the Premier to withdraw his unparliamentary remark.

Hon. Doug Ford: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for the question.

The government, as has been stated before, is committed to making Ontario Place a spectacular, world-class destination. As you will recall, it was a PC government under John Robarts that created Ontario Place, and it will be a place that the PC government ensures is a great tourist space for decades to come.

We look forward to working with the city of Toronto and the CNE for the future redevelopment of Ontario Place, and the government will explore the full development potential of the Ontario Place site. We look forward to providing more details as plans develop. Ontario Place, as it is, remains open for the public.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Chris Glover: Again to the Premier: When you say it’s open to the public, does it mean that it will remain in public hands? In 2013, the city of Toronto voted 40-4 to oppose a downtown Toronto casino. Not only would a casino cannibalize economic activity and suck the lifeblood out of downtown neighbourhoods; it would also take business away from the Woodbine casino.

Will the Premier assure us that plans for Ontario Place will never include a casino? Will there be a robust public consultation process involving the Ontario taxpayers, who paid for and own Ontario Place, or will the Premier cook up his own plans for this public asset with his friends in backrooms?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Thank you again for the supplemental question. Mr. Speaker, we’re going to ensure Ontario Place is updated to once again make it a world-class tourist destination. Many Ontarians of a certain generation share nostalgic memories of Ontario Place, and we have an incredible opportunity that we need to be bold and creative with. I know citizens across the province are as excited as I am as we embark on the development of this project. We’re exploring all opportunities, Mr. Speaker, to move forward with developing the site, including seeking bids globally. We look forward to providing more information as the plans develop.

Affaires francophones / Francophone affairs

Malheureusement pour les conservateurs, on est en train de répéter le désastre fait par la proposition de la fermeture de Montfort. Comment la ministre peut-elle détruire tous ces acquis sous prétexte d’économies de bouts de chandelle et, en plus, particulièrement, avoir le front de proposer au commissaire, un officier indépendant de l’Assemblée législative, un poste d’adjoint à l’ombudsman?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of francophone affairs.

L’hon. Caroline Mulroney: J’aimerais simplement rajouter quelques détails à la liste de choses que le gouvernement précédent a accomplies : une dette de 347 milliards de dollars, un déficit de 15 milliards de dollars et des paiements sur la dette de 12,5 milliards de dollars qu’on envoie aux créanciers.

M me Robin Martin: C’est incroyable.

L’hon. Caroline Mulroney: C’est incroyable, monsieur le Président, que le gouvernement précédent est complètement confortable d’hypothéquer l’avenir de nos enfants et de nos petits-enfants.

Monsieur le Président, nous n’avons pas les moyens, grâce aux dégâts qu’ils nous ont laissés.

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, come to order.

Start the clock. Supplementary.

M me Marie-France Lalonde: Beaucoup d’émotions en Chambre aujourd’hui.

Les conservateurs prétendent qu’ils n’ont pas assez d’argent pour une université francophone ici à Toronto, ou pour un projet pilote portant sur le revenu de base, ou pour l’Intervenant en faveur des enfants de l’Ontario. Mais ils ont assez de revenu pour faire sûr que le premier ministre et son entourage auront des allègements fiscaux significatifs. Monsieur le Président, c’est complètement ridicule.

J’imagine que la campagne fédérale du premier ministre de l’Ontario est légèrement déraillée en ce moment. J’espère que la ministre déléguée sait que lorsqu’on s’attaque à la francophonie en Ontario, on s’attaque non seulement à l’Ontario mais au Canada tout entier.

L’hon. Caroline Mulroney: J’aimerais demander à la députée opposée d’arrêter ces politiques de division. Nous ne sommes pas en train de nous attaquer à la francophonie ontarienne. Nous préservons les droits linguistiques en Ontario, et nous faisons exactement ce que les libéraux ne faisaient pas : on est honnête avec les Ontariens et les Franco-Ontariens. On leur dit qu’on ne peut pas financer cette université.

J’aimerais juste citer quelqu’un—et je vous demande pardon parce que j’ai la citation en anglais. Le député de Toronto–Danforth a dit l’année dernière :

“This government has been in power now, what, 14 years? .... When you bring something forward like this about six months before an election without the money really being in place—this is more exploratory than anything else—what you’re” really “doing is engaging”—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I apologize to the minister. Stop the clock.

Once again, I had to cut off the minister—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Interjections.

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

I apologize to the minister for having to cut her off, but I had to cut her off because of the noise from her colleagues. I could not hear what she was saying.

Start the clock. Next question.

Red tape reduction

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business reported that Ontario businesses in 2017 faced over $15 billion in red-tape costs. That’s more than twice as much as businesses in Quebec and three times as much as businesses in British Columbia.

Over the span of 15 years, the previous Liberal government strangled small businesses in Ontario with regulations, red tape and unnecessary burdens.

Last week, I was pleased to hear the Minister of Finance talk about the cost that overregulation has on Ontario’s job creators and small businesses in his fall economic statement.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, can the minister please expand on the work that our government for the people is doing to reduce red tape?

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks very much to the member from Carleton for the question this morning. This is a very important issue that we’re dealing with in reducing strangling red tape in Ontario. This is a file that’s been intriguing to me because this is where I started in 2011 after the election, as the critic responsible for small businesses and red tape reduction.

I said last week that it’s important to think of Bill 47 as just one part of the government’s strategy to make Ontario open for business, and there’s a lot more to come. Later today, we’ll begin third reading debate on Bill 47 in the House.

I can tell you as well, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian Centre for Economic Analysis estimated that the reforms in Bill 148 added $23 billion in costs over two years. It was a cinder block around the ankles of small businesses right across Ontario. We’re going to take this one step to eliminate red tape to ensure that these businesses don’t sink to the bottom.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Back to the minister: It’s encouraging to hear what our government is doing for small businesses across the province. Over 15 years, the last government doubled the amount of regulations in Ontario, and it did everything it could to put small businesses out of business.

Our government for the people understands that red tape and overregulation cost the average Ontario small business $33,000 per year. Mr. Speaker, through you: Can the minister please explain what our government is doing to reduce the more than 380,000 regulations plaguing small businesses in Ontario?

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks again to the member from Carleton—another great question.

As our finance minister pointed out in his speech last week in the Plan for the People, there are approximately 331 statutes, including 380,000 regulations, in Ontario. That amount of regulation overwhelmingly kills small businesses. That’s why we have a plan to reduce burdensome red tape and regulation by 25% by 2022.

We’re going to get that done, but we’re going to go even further than that. Last week, our government announced our intention to accelerate the depreciation of capital assets for small businesses. We’re hoping that the members of the NDP will support us in spite of them calling businesses “spiteful” in committee yesterday.

We’re also hoping that for once, we’ll get help from Justin Trudeau and the federal government to make Ontario’s small businesses work and make great businesses and good jobs here in Ontario.

Interjections.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s a spiteful piece of legislation.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Mr. Will Bouma: Really? Spiteful?

Ms. Catherine Fife: It is.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Windsor–Tecumseh will take down the sign. The member for Hamilton East–Stoney Creek will take down his sign. The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry will please come to order.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Next question.

Trans Day of Remembrance

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: My question is to the Premier. Today is Trans Day of Remembrance. This day memorializes those who have been murdered and who have died as a result of suicide and as a result of transphobia and anti-trans violence. Today is a sombre day, and we pay our deepest respects.

Speaker, will the Premier be at the Trans Day of Remembrance flag-raising this afternoon?

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

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I really want to say thank you to the member opposite for bringing forward this important question. I will be there today along with many members of the government caucus.

I am proud that I was one of three co-sponsors of the bill that made sure that today is recognized in the province of Ontario as transgender remembrance day, along with my colleague Nathalie Des Rosiers from Ottawa–Vanier in the Liberal caucus and the former MPP for Parkdale–High Park, Cheri DiNovo, who is here today. I am really proud of the work that we’ve done as an assembly, as well as the Deputy Premier’s role in bringing forward Toby’s Law into the province of Ontario.

We’ve come a long way. We have more to go. I look forward to standing with every single member in this Legislature today in condemning hate toward any group that is under-represented and any group that needs support. I’m happy to support the transgender community today and I will continue to support them as the minister responsible for LGBTQ issues.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: With all due respect to the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services, it’s not about you. We want to hear from the Premier.

By proclaiming November 20 each year as the Trans Day of Remembrance, the province of Ontario publicly mourns and honours the lives of those who might otherwise be forgotten and gives trans people and their allies a chance to stand together in vigil.

In past comments, the Premier stated that gender identity is nothing more than “liberal ideology” that should not be taught in schools. Trans and LGBQ2S students have been scrubbed from the Ontario curriculum—erased. The Premier’s earlier language is not only hurtful; it’s dangerous. Words matter. That sort of language encourages extreme views, even within the Premier’s own party.

Will the Premier unequivocally renounce his earlier comments and send a clear message to trans people on this significant day?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Thanks very much to the member from London North Centre for the question. I want to be very clear: The Premier yesterday stood unequivocally in support of the trans community and said so in his own words that he stands by this.

Earlier today during question period, my ministry, on behalf of our government for the people, put out a press release ensuring that we support the trans community.

My colleague the Minister of Education stood here yesterday and told you to your face that we stand with the trans community and that we’re proud to stand with the trans community and the LGBTQ community.

I will be very forceful in making sure that within my ministry we continue to place those supports as a priority for any under-represented group in the province of Ontario, particularly for the children that I represent.

Forest industry

Mr. Dave Smith: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. This past week, the minister travelled to Sault Ste. Marie and attended the first of many forestry round tables. I’m pleased to hear that our government for the people is committed to developing a sound, comprehensive forestry strategy that will help revitalize the forestry industry in Ontario. This is an initiative that northern Ontario needs and that hard-working forestry sector workers have been asking for. Thousands of people are employed in this industry, and it contributes $15.3 billion to our economy every year.

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to lessening the regulatory burdens imposed by the former Liberal government. Can the minister update the Legislature on his round table discussions about our plan, which prioritizes lifting regulatory burdens and cutting red tape?

Hon. John Yakabuski: I want to thank the member for his question. Yes, last week I had the opportunity to travel to Sault Ste. Marie for the first of many round tables that we’re having with forestry stakeholders to ask them about how our government can help them reach their potential and secure the Ontario jobs that are available in the forestry economy after so many years of being stifled by the previous Liberal government. The insights gathered through those meetings and those round tables will assist us in developing our forestry strategy, one that employs thousands of people across this province.

I want to thank all of the industry leaders who attended the round tables to give us their thoughts. It was a very, very productive session. I also want to thank those who have participated through written submissions and electronically, and encourage them to continue to send us those submissions as well, because that’s how we will make forestry the leader that it should be all across this great province under this Ford government.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Dave Smith: I’d like to thank the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry for that response. It’s great to hear that the round table session in Sault Ste. Marie was a huge success. I look forward to hearing more about the forestry discussion in the coming months.

Unlike the former Liberal government,