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

March 2, 2016

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-Mar-02 (PDF)

L144 - Wed 2 Mar 2016 / Mer 2 mar 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 2 March 2016 Mercredi 2 mars 2016

Orders of the Day

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

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Energy policies

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Ontario budget

Goodwill Industries

Job creation

Social assistance

Human trafficking

Ring of Fire

Aboriginal affairs

ServiceOntario

GO Transit

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Municipal finances

Hospital funding

Answers to written questions

Visitors

Deferred Votes

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Renewable energy

Driver licences

Government and community services fair

Public health

Easter

Lieutenant Governor’s Ontario Heritage Awards

Spread the Word to End the Word

Family Day / Jour de la Famille

International Women’s Day

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills

Introduction of Bills

Corporation of the Municipality of Huron Shores and Thessalon First Nation Act (Tax Relief), 2016

Petitions

Health care funding

Way-finding signs

Lung health

Health care funding

Health care funding

Public transit

Hydro rates

Privatization of public assets

Lung health

Health care funding

Hospital funding

Lung health

Health care funding

Orders of the Day

Jobs for Today and Tomorrow Act (Budget Measures), 2016 / Loi de 2016 favorisant la création d’emplois pour aujourd’hui et demain (mesures budgétaires)

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 1, 2016, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 172,

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

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further debate?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Speaker, I’m pleased today to lend my voice to Bill 172, the Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act. We need to focus today on a credible plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change, as we all know, is a serious challenge that we all want to address. That’s why Ontarians across the province are already taking individual action to reduce their carbon footprint. Speaker, many have made their homes more energy efficient already, some have purchased hybrid cars, and others have invested in new, clean technologies that will transition Ontario into a low-carbon economy.

Clearly, the people of Ontario are willing to do their part, but unfortunately the Liberals are using this goodwill to introduce cap-and-trade. Again, Speaker, I want to emphasize that I do not think it’s acceptable that Liberals are using Ontarians’ goodwill, and use the environment as an excuse, to introduce their cash grab cap-and-trade. It has proven to be an ineffective tool to reduce emissions, and we’ve seen that in Europe already. The fact of the matter is that it greatly increases costs for families and businesses. When we already have driven out many manufacturers to our neighbouring states, this is a huge concern that must be addressed.

Specifically, we know that cap-and-trade will increase the cost of gas, groceries and home heating for families. It will put good, well-paying jobs at risk in our manufacturing sector, and it will shut out investment in new industries and facilities in our province.

We have met with many stakeholders, and they have told us they have been waiting for a cue from Ontario one way or the other, which will be the tipping point for whether they choose to invest in Ontario or run away from Ontario. I’m afraid the latter is probably what’s going to be happening.

As I said before, Speaker, the Liberals’ cap-and-trade scheme is a cash grab in the name of the environment, plain and simple. It puts a new tax on gasoline and home heating to raise revenue for the government, not to protect the environment. Again, the tax on gas and the increase in home heating is solely to raise revenue for the government to use at its will. It has absolutely nothing to do with protecting the environment.

Speaker, you don’t have to take my word for it. I can back my words up with those of someone else. Just listen to what former finance minister Greg Sorbara had to say recently on The Agenda with Steve Paikin last week. Sorbara said that once the government sells its “imaginary product called carbon credits,” it will raise prices for “virtually every product” that Ontarians buy. I’m going to repeat that: Greg Sorbara said that once the government sells its “imaginary product called carbon credits,” prices for “virtually every product” in Ontario will increase.

He wasn’t afraid to tell it the way it is. Sorbara said, “Although the minister said there are no tax increases, the fact is that there’s a $1.9-billion increase—I call it a flow-through tax—that will ultimately affect consumers.... It’s interesting to raise money and say, at the same time, you’re not raising taxes.” Speaker, it’s high time this government is honest and tells the truth to Ontarians.

I always find it interesting when a Liberal is willing to point out the spin of his former colleagues.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I could quote a few Conservatives.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: The facts are—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Let’s start off this morning with—

Hon. David Zimmer: Good morning.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Good morning.

I’d like to see less talk across the floor and more through the Speaker. If you have a point of order that’s in order—

Hon. Jeff Leal: I sincerely apologize.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thanks.

Let’s start off on a good foot today. I don’t want to have to go that way. Thanks.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Just yesterday, my colleague from York–Simcoe, when debating Bill 151, the Waste-Free Ontario Act, said that a good way to start cutting down on waste is limiting the amount of bureaucracy this government has grown.

Coming back to this particular situation in Bill 172, the facts are that the Liberals’ cap-and-trade scheme puts a new tax on gasoline and home heating, which will ultimately create excessive new bureaucracy. In fact, Mr. Sorbara highlighted this very concern last week when he said, “Cap-and-trade requires a very significant bureaucracy. And this government has a very large bureaucracy. The last thing it needs is to add hundreds of people to the offices around Queen’s Park to deal with cap-and-trade.” Speaker, you won’t be surprised when I say that I couldn’t agree more with that statement. You and I both know that we need to limit the size of government, not increase it.

Worst of all, cap-and-trade has proven to be an ineffective tool to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Again, Sorbara called his own party out for moving forward with cap-and-trade, saying, “There’s no evidence, anywhere in the world, that the cap-and-trade system actually does work ... to significantly reduce carbon emissions.” Again, Mr. Sorbara said, “There’s no evidence, anywhere in the world, that the cap-and-trade system actually does work ... to ... reduce carbon emissions. Until I see that evidence, I have to be a little bit skeptical about the whole scheme.” That’s right: Mr.

Sorbara called the Liberal cap-and-trade initiative a scheme. He also went on to say that it’s going to bring more money to the government to use as it will.

It’s absolutely stunning that senior members of the Liberal Party don’t even agree with the direction this government is taking. This policy direction is truly a major disappointment, and it is going to be a very sad legacy for Premier Wynne and her cabinet. Four years away from Ontario’s 2020 emissions target, this government had a chance. They had a chance to introduce a credible plan to tackle climate change. But the Liberals have chosen to do the opposite, protecting their own pockets and cash flow.

Unlike British Columbia, the government’s cap-and-trade scheme lacks accountability and creates a new slush fund that can be used to finance Liberal pet projects. Just think: If they had reined in their mismanagement, reined in their scandals and reined in their waste, we wouldn’t have to be in this position. We could have had a well-thought-out, credible approach to addressing climate change.

The manner in which this government is acting is flat-out wrong. To raise money in the name of the environment is unacceptable. What is even more unacceptable is to use the money raised in the name of the environment for covering their butts to pay for years of Liberal scandal, waste and mismanagement, as I’ve mentioned before. With this government’s track record, we know we cannot trust the Liberals to prioritize the environment over their spending addiction.

Ontarians expect and deserve a government that will take climate change seriously, and they deserve a government that will take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while protecting taxpayers and our economy. I will cover the problems with the Liberal scheme in greater detail in my speech, but let’s talk about consumers right now. I would like to go over the costs this plan will create.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Are we all done now? Good. Quiet: That’s good. Continue.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I would like to go over the costs this plan will create for consumers and businesses. In reading the government’s budget document, it’s clear that the Liberals have not provided a fair picture of the long-term costs of their cap-and-trade scheme. Last week, I was telling people: You have to focus on the long term. When the Premier spoke about minimal charges, the reality is that that was for the first year or two. It’s unacceptable to mislead Ontarians in that manner.

Since 2003, the cost of electricity has gone up 375%, and now we have 570,000 households living in energy poverty in this province. Apparently, that is still not enough, because cap-and-trade will raise the cost of the natural gas component of our power supply, and that will be reflected in our hydro bills. If you heat your home with natural gas, those bills will also increase. By 2025, some analysts project gasoline costs will increase by $400 a year and natural gas costs will increase by $475 annually. Think about those families.

Think about the families who want to send their kids to camp or register them for hockey or for dance. That money means a lot. I dare say, I worry a lot about our seniors on fixed incomes. How are they going to manage this increase? The total bill amount of household energy bills, including electricity, gasoline and natural gas, could increase by as much as $1,500 a year, in addition to the existing scheduled increase for electricity.

The impact on businesses is even more alarming. For a medium-sized business, analysts are projecting increases in natural gas and electricity costs ranging from $120,000 to $1 million. With those excessive new costs, businesses will be forced to lay off workers; and with every lost job, there’s a family who has lost their livelihood. That’s what this is boiling down to. How many more Ontario households will be driven into energy poverty by these increases? Many businesses will not be able to absorb that level of increase for energy.

To survive, they will have to pass those costs on to consumers, resulting in an escalating decline in our standard of living. It is clear that the Liberals have not thought about this scheme’s long-term impact on energy costs. They haven’t even thought about the impact on our industry. They haven’t thought about its effect on our border economy and our competitiveness within the North American marketplace.

The only thing the Liberals care about is the revenue the scheme will generate. And it will generate a lot. The Liberals plan to rake in $1.9 billion a year in new money. Yes, you heard that correctly. They plan to raise $1.9 billion, which they then can spend on whatever they choose. We know the Liberals’ motive behind cap-and-trade is all about the money, no matter what they say.

But there is also a secondary Liberal motive, and that’s public relations. Now, let’s talk about the Liberal PR stunt for a moment. The government rushed to table Bill 172 and panicked to release its cap-and-trade regulation, all so that Kathleen Wynne and Glen Murray could pat themselves on the back at the photo op this week in Vancouver. The Liberals disregarded the concerns and economic advice of industry just so they could have their cap-and-trade scheme released in time for the First Ministers’ meeting.

Ontario PCs focus on environmental results, and in focusing on environmental results, we will keep life affordable for families and businesses. Unfortunately, the Liberals’ focus is taking more money from Ontarians and setting up PR stunts to garner media attention. We all have seen recently how media stunts can go awry. Do these sound like priorities of a government that is serious about addressing climate change and protecting our economy?

I think that members participating in this debate know my opinion. If the Liberals were serious about climate change, they would be focused on measures that can produce results, not setting up a stock market for carbon.

Let’s talk about what really matters here. In the spirit of protecting the environment, we must look at innovation. To effectively reduce emissions, the PC Party of Ontario understands that we must advance innovation, increase energy efficiency and improve energy conservation. That means investing in transit, modernizing buildings and working with industry to develop realistic improvements to production processes. Unlike cap-and-trade, these are all proven ways to substantially reduce emissions.

There are jurisdictions around the world that are doing amazing things in terms of developing environmentally friendly urban plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but I’ll get to that in a moment.

With the PC Party of Ontario, technological advancement has always been our party’s approach. For one, I would like to remind members opposite that it was the former PC government that started the phase-out of coal in Ontario. I’ve spoken about it many times. Elizabeth Witmer, a Huron county native, started that ball rolling.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I don’t know if the member from Newmarket–Aurora is talking to his phone. I hear a constant mumble coming from him. If you could keep it down, I’d appreciate it.

Mr. Chris Ballard: I’ll dial it down.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Our focus on advancing innovation underpinned our efforts. Speaker, let’s be clear: Without our leadership on the phase-out of coal, the Liberals would have failed to take any action in this area. In fact, one of the reasons that the Liberals chose to follow our strong leadership on the environment is because the Harper government gave them nearly $600 million.

Laughter.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Yes, Speaker, you heard it right. They may laugh about it, but we actually will never step away from that. I know that members opposite don’t like to acknowledge these facts—just listen to them right now—because they begin to expose the very thin veneer of celebrated Liberal myths. But let’s be clear for the record: The Liberals continued the coal phase-out that the former PC government started because of the $600-million investment from the Harper government.

When I reflect on this history, I think of the famous quote by John Adams: “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

The important point is that the Ontario PCs have always understood that it is the government’s responsibility to have a credible plan to reduce emissions while protecting taxpayers. And, unlike the Liberals, our focus is on advancing innovation, increasing efficiency and conserving energy, not raising energy costs and taxes for hard-working Ontarians.

I mentioned the opportunity to attend the climate summit in Paris. When I walked around the pavilions where jurisdictions from around the world were showcasing their approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, something was evident. It popped out, and I couldn’t let go of it: Ontario—this Premier—likes to pretend that they’re leading the way, and unfortunately we are so far behind. The event showcased tech innovations that are on the markets today or should be invested in that make a greater contribution to cutting emissions than cap-and-trade will.

The failure of government to take questions at the press conference when the MOU was signed with Manitoba was actually a sad day—for me, anyway. It’s interesting that the three provinces—Ontario, Manitoba and Quebec—hosted a media event where they were going to celebrate the signing of the MOU. As quickly as they came on the stage, they were escorted off without any questions. I would dare say that one of the reasons is that when I was visiting with colleagues and visiting with other jurisdictions—other countries—they were asking, “Why is Ontario following through and going with a cap-and-trade scheme? Don’t you know how it has resulted in Europe?”

Speaker, in case you don’t know, the European cap-and-trade system was absolutely polluted with fraud. The targets were mis-set and it was an absolute failure. It raised a flag, and many people that I spoke to were shaking their heads as to why Ontario would follow through and not learn from their mistakes. So the discussions, as I said, were quite interesting in Paris.

I think we need to focus in on what really matters. Again, that comes back to being fair to Ontario taxpayers and Ontario businesses, all the while focusing on the innovation and the technology we need, and a sincere commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Let’s talk about the trading scheme again. I think it’s worthwhile to talk about some of the problems that actually exist within cap-and-trade markets, as I alluded to just moments ago.

Many of you will remember the Chicago Climate Exchange, which traded greenhouse gas emission allowances from 2003 to 2010. By 2008, the Chicago Climate Exchange was trading 10 million tonnes of carbon allowances monthly, and the price of offsets rose to $7.40. However, a year later, due to a lack of activity in US carbon markets, the price of a metric tonne of carbon fell from over $7 down to 10 cents. The exchange was closed in 2010.

The other cap-and-trade system that has experienced a litany of problems, as I alluded to, is Europe’s emissions trading system. Shortly after the ETS started up in 2005, problems with permits led to a collapse in prices, which resulted in a drop in value to close to zero. Disturbingly, some of these industries and manufacturers, which had received free allowances from the government, raised the price of their products as though they had actually incurred costs. The government ended up distributing so many free permits that the price of carbon dropped again, making it cheaper for companies to purchase offsets than to make emission reductions.

A significant source of instability in the ETS has been fraud. A recent audit of that system revealed that attempts to prevent fraudulent activity in the market are still inadequate. Critics suggest that the ETS has been a costly exercise which has done little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The price of permits has dropped from €30 to less than €5 due to permits that were given for activities that did not really reduce emissions, security breaches and phony credits. Interpol has even charged a major financial institution with involvement in carbon permit fraud, and investigators estimate that billions of euros have been lost due to this activity.

Speaker, given the Liberals’ history of waste and mismanagement, how can we trust them to operate such a complex initiative? I’ll let you ponder that for a second, as I wet my whistle here.

We’ve seen time and again that they take from Peter to give to Paul. They introduce a tax in the name of health, and where did that money go? Directly into coffers. We have proof and so many reasons why we can’t trust this government.

Let’s talk about Liberal targets as well. Speaker, it might be helpful to review the position of Canada and Ontario with regard to greenhouse gas emissions.

Approximately 80% of greenhouse gas emissions from human sources comes from the burning of fossil fuels and various industrial processes, like driving vehicles, electricity production, heating and cooling of buildings, and transportation of goods. While global emissions have been growing, the bulk of that growth has been in emerging markets and developing nations. Canada produces 1.6% of global emissions. Due to increasing emissions levels from these developing countries, Canada’s percentage share of global emissions is expected to decline.

Again, to the members opposite: I ask you to really listen here. Canada produces 1.6% of global emissions, and because of what has already happened and because other countries have greater targets to achieve, Canada’s percentage of shared global emissions is expected to decline.

Realistically, we live in a large country, often with long driving distances between cities and without a great deal of public transport outside of major urban areas.

I can’t help but reflect back on last Thursday and some of the media coverage that the budget received. Specifically, Global News did a good job of challenging the finance minister on his thoughts. It’s quite interesting when a finance minister, a senior cabinet minister, so clearly has a disconnect with the rest of Ontario, when he would submit to the reporter, Alan Carter, that life is going to be easier because of cap-and-trade, because we’re going to encourage people to use public transit. We’re going to get people off the roads. Realistically—

Mr. Todd Smith: Naive.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Naive, or just totally wrong, because outside of the GTHA, north of Highway 7, how many of us have communities that have the opportunity to utilize public transit?

Then let’s talk about heating homes. We need to heat our homes six to seven months of the year, and in the summer, we use air conditioning. Driving, heating and cooling are the necessities of life.

Ontario produces 23.5% of Canada’s total emissions. Now, let’s not forget that Canada’s total share of global emissions is only 1.6%, and Ontario produces 23.5% of that small percentage. So what does that mean? It means that Ontario’s global share of greenhouse gas emissions is about 0.38%. That’s right, Speaker—less than half a percentage point, and look at what it’s going to cost Ontarians and Ontario businesses. This government is just rubbing its hands, waiting eagerly to rake in the $1.9 billion, because we have 0.38% of greenhouse gas emissions at the global level.

Considering that Ontario’s economy has always had a strong manufacturing and industrial sector and that we live in a climate which requires energy-intensive heating and cooling, I feel that it’s important to keep that 0.38% figure in mind.

Going through the Liberal government’s climate change strategy, which outlined the government’s vision and objectives with regard to mitigating climate change, I gave a great deal of thought to the emission reduction targets of 37% below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. The question in my mind is this: Are these realistic goals, and what would be the cost, both economic and social, to achieve them?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Stretch goals.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Yes. Are they realistic, or are they just stretch goals, as my colleague from Peel-Dufferin suggested?

Mr. Speaker, there is a great danger in setting arbitrary goals when dealing with energy and economic matters, because energy is the lifeblood of an economy. A reliable, affordable and sufficient supply of energy is inextricably linked with economic sustainability. Industry, manufacturers and businesses provide employment which in turn supports our hospitals, schools, health care system and social agencies. We must be clear here: It would take a technological transformation of our society to reach the Liberal goals.

That means our focus must be on innovation and not the cash grab that they have introduced through their cap-and-trade scheme. Without realistic and affordable developments to change how we heat and cool our homes and power our vehicles, given current technology, achieving these targets would literally bring our economy to a standstill, or require a massive wealth transfer to purchase carbon allowances from outside of our province, or perhaps a combination of both of those two scenarios.

Ontarians are rightly questioning whether the proposed cap-and-trade scheme is the most effective method of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and if it is a responsible use of scarce taxpayer dollars. Yes, I’m sure you would agree, Speaker, that tax dollars are very scarce here in Ontario, and we do need to use them responsibly and wisely. I’m going to talk in a moment about how cap-and-trade is not a wise use of those dollars.

Cap-and-trade around the world has been proven to be ineffective. Between 2005 and 2013, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick achieved the largest emissions reductions of all Canadian provinces, without the use of carbon pricing. Experts have been clear that the price for carbon needed to meet future emission targets and change consumption patterns would have to be much higher than what is being proposed.

For example, Mr. Paul Boothe, a member of the Ecofiscal Commission, recently stated that in order for Canada to meet the greenhouse gas reduction targets that it agreed to at the Paris summit, a carbon tax of $150 to $200 would be needed. So it appears that these initial costs that we heard about last week, the cost increases on gasoline and natural gas, are just the tip of the iceberg.

At this point, Speaker, I would also like to recognize Ms. Aldyen Donnelly, the president of WDA Consulting, for the excellent

article she has published on this topic. Ms. Donnelly has advised both industry and governments on emission reduction strategies. Ms. Donnelly’s observation on cap-and-trade programs is that they are “inefficient and regressive” and allow governments to “pick corporate winners and losers.” Where have we seen that before? Just think of their dismal green energy failure. It’s a very concerning situation when it’s almost like déjà vu or Groundhog Day. Here we go again, with the Liberal government setting themselves up to pick corporate winners and losers.

I’d like to paraphrase a statement from Ms. Donnelly that is especially pertinent to the proposed Liberal cap-and-trade program, stating that “carbon/energy taxes translate into green goods-producing job growth is ... a myth.” That sounds very similar to Mr. Greg Sorbara’s comments earlier. She went on to say that 100% of the job growth in carbon/high-energy-dominated jurisdictions has been in the public sector, as goods-producing jobs flee. Again, 100% of job growth in carbon/high-energy-dominated jurisdictions has been in the public sector, as goods-producing jobs flee.

We’ve talked about the leakage. We’ve talked about how we’re nervous that this Liberal cap-and-trade scheme will drive business to our neighbouring states. Unfortunately, if they stay the route, that’s exactly what’s going to happen here in Ontario. In looking at existing cap-and-trade markets, other analysts have noted that cap-and-trade has not so far proven to be an efficient means to reduce emissions. Reductions have been achieved through economic downturns, technological advances, product standards, changes to alternate fuels and energy-intensive industry moving to other jurisdictions—and there’s that leakage that I spoke about.

At the end of the day, the Liberal government’s cap-and-trade approach appears to be more about raising government revenues and economic control than making meaningful progress towards lowering greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating climate change. The purpose of Bill 172 is to establish a price on carbon by means of a cap-and-trade program that will change the behaviour of everyone across the province and allow Ontario to link to Quebec and California in the Western Climate Initiative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The government of Ontario “envisions, by 2050, a thriving society generating fewer or zero greenhouse gas emissions. Businesses and innovators will be creating world-leading low-carbon technologies and products that drive new economic growth, productivity and job creation.”

Mr. Speaker, before we begin to even talk about zero emissions, perhaps we should examine some mundane realities. It’s no secret that this Liberal government has increased Ontario’s debt to over $300 billion. I believe this past Thursday we heard it was going to be $308 billion—unacceptable. The province’s fiscal situation is dire. We no longer have the luxury of stretch goals. They have to be let go of. We don’t have the luxury of stretch goals, wasteful spending or implementing costly initiatives without clear, empirical evidence that the program is fact-based, will fulfill its mandate and that benchmarks will be met in an efficient, cost-effective manner.

Ontarians have a right to expect that—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Yes, hi. If you want to have an ongoing conversation, you might want to take it outside—the member from Etobicoke Centre. Please. Actually, there were only four people that weren’t involved in a conversation. It’s getting tough to even hear the speaker when she’s speaking.

Thanks so much.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Thank you, Speaker.

Again, the province’s fiscal situation is dire, and Ontarians have a right to expect that a bill which will impose additional financial burdens will be thoroughly vetted with regard to costs and benefits and that it is in the public interest to proceed. There’s no more meat on the bones, so to speak.

If the Liberal government is going to introduce a cap-and-trade scheme to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, then they had better be clear about the long-term costs of this program and exactly what tangible emission reductions will be realized. We’ve had enough of their stretch goals.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Okay. I’ve asked you three times. I can hear everything you guys are saying, just about. Why are you so loud? Can’t you just take it outside, the three of you? A lot of times you people yell to each other rather than go and sit beside each other. I’m sorry you’re disappointed, but I’ve got a job to do.

Continue.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: If the Liberal government is going to introduce a cap-and-trade scheme to reduce emissions, they had better be clear about the long-term costs. We want to know exactly the cost of this program, exactly what tangible emission reductions will be realized, or if Ontario will meet its targets mainly through purchasing carbon allowances from its partners in the Western Climate Initiative.

Let’s talk about buying emission reductions. Ontario’s emission target for 2020 is 150 megatonnes, yet the province’s emissions are expected to reach 168 megatonnes. To achieve Ontario’s targets, emissions will have to fall to 110 megatonnes by 2030 and 35 megatonnes by 2050.

Dave Sawyer of EnviroEconomics projects a gap of 18 megatonnes in Ontario’s 2020 target of 15% below 1990. In order to close that gap, Mr. Sawyer’s analysis projects that Ontario emitters would have to purchase 11.5 megatonnes of allowances from Western Climate Initiative partners. Some of what we’re hearing is that many of those credits will have to be purchased from California in US dollars. Does that make any sense?

Ontario could reduce the other 6.5 megatonnes at the WCI allowance price in 2020 of C$17.16 per tonne. The cost for the Ontario 6.5-megatonne abatement would be approximately $55 million, and the cost for Ontario emitters to purchase the 11.5 megatonnes of carbon allowances from the WCI initiative partners would be worth $205 million.

The EnviroEconomics analysis assumed a coverage of 85% of Ontario’s emissions in 2020 while the Liberal announcement puts the figure at 82%. The government expects revenues of $1.9 billion in the first year: 60% of this $1.9 billion would come from transportation and 27% from buildings. EnviroEconomics estimates auction revenue to be approximately eight times greater than the actual cost of emission reductions. So the total cost for Ontario to close the 18-megatonne gap to achieve its 2020 target would be $261 million.

Let’s look at these carbon allowances. Large emitters in Ontario are paying $205 million to help Ontario achieve its 2020 target. According to Ms. Donnelly, there have been concerns raised about California’s carbon market with regard to the high number of free allowances distributed, accounting practices and the actual reduction value of the carbon allowance. Due to these concerns, none of the other US states that participated in the Western Climate Initiative have linked their emissions trading markets to California.

If Ontario emitters are planning to buy these California allowances, do these allowances represent meaningful emission reductions or meaningless paper proxies? Why should Ontarians send their money to another jurisdiction to reduce emissions there? Surely, the public would prefer that their tax dollars be spent on environmental initiatives right here within the province of Ontario.

Speaker, we should think carefully about the beneficial environmental improvements that $261 million could fund in Ontario, or what cleaner technology upgrades Ontario companies could afford to install with that money—technology that would make an actual reduction in greenhouse gases.

The other problem with California carbon allowances is that they are not recognized by the US Environmental Protection Agency due to the double-counting of reductions. Ms. Donnelly correctly raises the question that when the Environmental Protection Agency sets out greenhouse gas emission tariffs on imports from Quebec and Ontario, will the EPA recognize carbon allowances that Quebec and Ontario bought from California, when the EPA doesn’t accept their reduction claims in the US?

There are so many questions, and in meeting with stakeholders, the issue of the higher number of free allowances given to large California emitters has been raised. Industry and manufacturers are concerned that the carbon allowances that they buy from California emitters were given to them free by the government. Not only do these allowances not represent an actual emissions reduction; this imbalance puts Ontario industry at a competitive disadvantage.

For example, in California, natural gas distributors receive free allowances that they must use to assist their customers with cost increases, which helps protect smaller natural gas users who have no other fuel options. The natural gas industry in Ontario, conversely, is concerned that they are not receiving initial free allowances like their counterparts in Quebec and California. If there is not a level playing field in this province, how can our natural gas industry remain competitive?

Other issues raised by stakeholders are that volatility in the regulations and the price of carbon will create an uncertain climate for investment. Industry stakeholders have been clear that they are concerned at the speed in which this cap-and-trade scheme is being moved forward, and the difficulty in complying with regulations, oversight enforcement and reporting mechanisms. While some large emitters will receive free carbon allowances and will be able to afford the administrative cost of compliance, these extra costs will become one more regulatory burden for small to medium-sized businesses.

Many of these same small and medium-sized businesses, which provide 88% of the province’s jobs, may not have viable options for switching fuel or cutting back on transportation costs. The cost of compliance with cap-and-trade will remove capital from businesses that may have been used to expand the operation or hire new staff.

While the government—the Liberal government in particular—will wax poetic about all the new clean technology and alternate energy jobs this cap-and-trade system will provide, I think a healthy dose of skepticism is warranted. Again, we can’t trust them to get it right. We heard claims from the Liberals about how the HST and the Green Energy Act would create 165,000 jobs, and we all know how that has turned out. Despite previous unsuccessful attempts at social engineering, the Liberal government is once again aiming to change everyone’s behaviour via this cap-and-trade scheme. However, analysts have been clear that the price of carbon would have to be very high in order to effect change.

As I unfortunately hear so often from my constituents, an alarming number of Ontario residents and businesses are struggling to make ends meet. I’m sure we all have constituents who have come to us with that problem and that concern. When a bill is introduced that will increase costs for Ontarians even further, as legislators we have a duty right here in this House to review that measure very carefully to see if increasing the financial burden on residents and businesses is absolutely necessary, and if it is, to minimize costs where we can and to make sure we’re giving the best value for their tax dollars. But this Liberal government, time and again, has not done that.

The one thing I do not understand is that despite the public being very vocal that rising energy costs are causing undue hardships to both families and businesses, the Liberal government has once again introduced a measure that will increase the cost of electricity, heating and gasoline. If ratepayers cannot afford their electricity costs now, logically it follows that they won’t be able to afford the increases this government has announced as of last week, and natural gas or gasoline either. This magical thinking, these stretch goals that bring the government to think Ontarians can continue to absorb endless costs and increases, have got to end.

Now let’s talk specifically about Bill 172. With all of these concerns in mind, we have to drill down on this particular bill. Some observers of this issue may feel like they’re having a little déjà vu, or, as I said or alluded to earlier, watching the movie Groundhog Day. They may ask, “Didn’t the Liberal government champion a cap-and-trade scheme in the middle of a recession seven years ago?” The answer is: Yes, they did. In fact, the Liberals passed amendments to the Environmental Protection Act in 2009 under Bill 185 to set up a cap-and-trade scheme.

Then they established reporting regulations for greenhouse gas emissions. At that time, we were told that this bill was vital and that the Liberals would be setting up cap-and-trade any day. That was 2009.

In fact, the former Liberal environment minister said during debate, “Bill 185 is a critical piece of legislation that, if passed, would allow us to create a ... cap-and-trade system for Ontario that could link to other emerging North American systems.” Well, Speaker, it appears Bill 185 wasn’t such a critical piece of legislation after all. Out of fear of collapsing Ontario’s economy after the great recession, the Liberals shelved their emissions-trading law and waited for a more opportune time to lock the province into the scheme.

With the law on the books it was left to collect dust for a few years, but with the reporting regulations in place everyone assumed it was only a matter of time until the Liberals imposed their cap-and-trade scheme.

But that wasn’t the case. The Liberals missed the 2012 start date for the Western Climate Initiative, and they didn’t say a word. Why was that? A minority government, perhaps? But I’d look at my colleagues who were elected in 2011. Our party asked questions about the scheme, but the Liberals pretended that it was a figment of our imagination; that is, until last year when it became politically advantageous for the Premier to, once again, push cap-and-trade.

The Premier stood in front of the cameras—yet another photo op in April 2015—to proclaim she was going to introduce cap-and-trade for our children and grandchildren. Never mind the skyrocketing hydro; forget about the increased cost of living; and, according to the Premier, leave the province’s $300-billion debt to the next generation.

It’s not really hard to see why the Liberals have this arrogant perspective. They have grown so out of touch with ordinary Ontarians that they can’t understand the priorities of families who are struggling to make ends meet and who are sometimes left scrounging for some extra cash just to pay the next heating or electricity bill. They can’t understand that the increased hydro rates are leaving seniors with fixed incomes in the cold during the winter. These are our realities in our ridings.

As I said earlier, Speaker, the only things that matter to this Premier and this government are taking more money out of Ontarians’ pockets and smiling for the cameras at a good photo op. The Premier herself admitted that cap-and-trade is just about the money when, last year, in April 2015, I was standing there and she arrogantly challenged the media to “go ahead and call it a tax.” We just shook our heads.

The troubling

part is that this tax is about to become a reality very soon. Here we are debating Bill 172 seven years after the government passed its first cap-and-trade legislation, yet the speakers want you to believe they’re sincere when they say they need to scrap the old cap-and-trade law to replace it with a new one. Is this government saying that they failed with the first law? We know they failed with many other initiatives. Or is this government’s true motivation to pass a new cap-and-trade law that could be used, as I said, as a PR document to peddle the Liberals’ latest spin?

I think the answer is that the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change needs to be honest and truthful, not only with this House but Ontario’s people as well.

Let’s talk about the regulatory scheme. The old cap-and-trade law and Bill 172 share one distinct feature: Virtually every pertinent detail is left to regulation. All we know from reading Bill 172 is that the Liberals design the system, set the rules, select the participants, appoint the officials and, of course, pick the winners and losers, just like their failed green energy scheme. Because everything is left to regulation, the government at any time could change the structure of the scheme, the trading rules, the reporting requirements or the powers of the minister to intervene in the carbon market—all dangerous red flags right there.

To quell opposition, the Liberals have doled out free allowances to certain sectors while only targeting the natural gas and petroleum industries with excessive new compliance costs. Still, industries that have bought into the cap-and-trade need to see it for what it really is.

The Liberal scheme is a Trojan Horse under the banner of a market-driven solution. It’s a Trojan Horse. Does everybody know and recall the story about the Trojan Horse? Once it opens up, it’ll be nothing more than command-and-control economics. This is a very dangerous path that this Liberal government has chosen to put Ontario on, and I am very concerned about the future for taxpayers, our seniors on fixed income and the next generation.

The government will create onerous new rules for the industry that, if broken, will result in severe penalties. Like any command-and-control structure, we know that the game will be rigged. Those who will stand to benefit are the Liberals and their friends, as I’ve alluded to before, just like their green energy scheme. It’s very frustrating and maddening.

In terms of administration, of course, the two groups that stand to lose are Ontario taxpayers and manufacturers, as I’ve mentioned before. And there are no signs that this government will do anything to prevent excessive increases to natural gas, fuel and electricity bills. Why would the Liberals care in the first place? After all, they need $300 million just to set up cap-and-trade, and that doesn’t even account for the scheme’s operational costs.

The Liberals have provided estimates. We know that the environment ministry will need a department of staff to pore over registration, reporting and verification data from the companies that are in the system. Of course, part of the funding for these services will be from general revenue and part will be from administrative fees. How much will the fees be? We don’t know, Speaker. How many fees will there be? Yet again, we don’t know, and that’s because, again, the Liberals have not released the regulations to the public.

Let’s talk about enforcement. As I said before, we don’t know much about the real meat on the bones, but unlike Bill 151, the Liberals are relying on existing enforcement officers rather than creating a whole new branch of cap-and-trade cops. Bill 151 is creating a whole new team of “waste cops” but, with regard to cap-and-trade, they are keeping the enforcement close at hand. Speaker, I must say it’s always a pleasant surprise to see when the Liberals don’t include provisions that attempt to create an entirely new enforcement branch for one proposed law.

Bill 172 contains stiff penalties for serious offences like fraud, market manipulation and insider trading. These offences, which are rampant in other cap-and-trade markets around the world, must be dealt with swiftly and harshly, but prevention is also the key. One way to prevent these offences is to deter people. Another, and I believe the better, way to prevent these crimes is not to set up a cap-and-trade market in the first place.

There are much simpler pricing systems, and do you know what? The Liberals have completely overlooked them. They are so ingrained, as I said. They first set up their mechanism legislation in 2009. They were not interested in any other pricing system. They totally ignored all the aggregated comments that were generated through climate change consultations last winter. Every consultation I attended—and I attended four and I read the reports from the other three—the general consensus, by the people attending them, was that perhaps a carbon tax was a better place to land.

But the Liberals, knowing what they needed, knowing that they were cash-strapped, knowing that they had to get their hands on dollars in a quick way, continued to favour their cap-and-trade scheme. We all know that simple pricing systems are easier to enforce, require less administration, and don’t create a system that can be easily gamed by fraudsters. Again, the Liberals set their stake in the sand in 2009, and here we are dealing with it today in 2016.

In terms of penalties Bill 172 also covers administrative infractions, which one would assume would be failures to submit reporting or registration information. But of course, Ontario businesses don’t know what would be considered an administrative contravention because—you guessed it—we’re still waiting for yet another regulation to define exactly what that means. All we know from the bill is that individuals can face fines up to $1 million and that they are subject to absolute liability. Again, for everyone who’s listening, because this

part is important, individuals can face fines up to $1 million and they are subject to absolute liability.

Speaker, I just want to make sure everyone is clear on what “absolute liability” is. Subsection 54(10) says that a person must pay an administrative penalty applies “even if,

“(

a) the person took all reasonable steps to prevent the contravention; or

“(

b) at the time of the contravention, the person had an honest and reasonable belief in a mistaken set of facts that, if true, would have rendered the contravention innocent.”

Speaker, could you imagine, if you had a business that was about to be regulated under this proposed law, that even though you do your best to comply, even if you’re honest, even if you took all reasonable steps forward, you’re guilty? That’s a daunting standard to set for this industry, in this province. The minister should clarify this section, and how the regulation will work, as soon as possible.

Now let’s talk about the greenhouse gas reduction account. Of course, there’s total immunity for the government, just like there’s total discretion for the minister on how to spend the $1.9 billion created from the cap-and-trade every year. This is the part of the proposed act that I have a lot of trouble with. According to Bill 172, the money from emissions trading will flow into general revenue, and the amounts will be recorded in the Liberals’ GHG reduction account, or slush fund. The environment minister then has the authority to decide which programs and projects will receive funding from the amounts recorded in this account.

Speaker, the government has said it is going to use cap-and-trade revenues to cover its $325-million spending spree on the Green Investment Fund, but we all know it will be used for much more than just this. The Liberals will rake in cap-and-trade money and use it to pay for years of government waste and a long list of Liberal pet projects.

In

schedule 1, there is a lot to be said, so I’d like to speak a little bit more about my concerns about what projects the Liberals intend to fund with the cap-and-trade money.

Schedule 1 has them all set out.

There are segments of

schedule 1 that truly are alarming. It states that projects which reduce greenhouse gases may be funded, in whole or in part, from this account. It then lists different types of projects that would qualify: “The production or installation of renewable, low-carbon, carbon-free ... energy.” It sounds like more turbines, perhaps.

“The research, development ... of technologies that eliminate or reduce” the use of greenhouse-gas-emitting fuels: It will be interesting to see where that lands.

Another segment is, “Distributed renewable energy generation and ... technologies to support load-shifting, energy storage, net metering and other measures to eliminate the need for grid-based electricity during natural gas peaking.”

Honestly, Speaker. Apparently, this Liberal government did not learn anything from the economic and technical chaos unleashed on this province through their Green Energy Act. In Bill 172, the government is planning to double down with another ill-advised energy scheme. Instead of private companies borrowing capital and building energy projects, it appears the Liberal government will be using the revenue extracted from Ontarians through the increases in gasoline, natural gas, and goods and services to fund renewable energy initiatives.

If these types of projects were cost-effective, the private sector would already be investing in them. Why does the government have to dabble? If they were cost-effective, market-driven initiatives would be leading the way with private investment. In terms of emissions, will these technologies ever recover the emissions required to construct them? A quick Google search provides an extensive list of renewable energy firms which have gone bankrupt as soon as their government subsidies ran out. It is a sad state of affairs.

Now we have 570,000 households living in energy poverty in this province. I question whether Ontario ratepayers can afford more expensive, subsidized power, especially as our electricity supply is about 80% emissions-free already.

This

section of

schedule 1, combined with Bill 135, which transfers independent planning and procurement authority from the IESO, and the transmission approval from the Ontario Energy Board, to the Minister of Energy, is bound to cause further instability in the energy sector.

As we all read in the Financial Post, Ontario is the most indebted sub-sovereign borrower in the world. We most certainly do not have money to waste on unproven generation sources which will not be able to power a modern industrialized society.

Let’s talk about agriculture for a second as well. I’m proud that my riding is a breadbasket for Ontario, and I’m concerned about the impact that this Liberal scheme will have on our agricultural industry.

As I reflect on it, I’d like to share with you a few lines from a press release my office received back on December 18 from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture that I think perfectly highlights the concerns I’ve been hearing from our farming community.

“New regulations to reduce emissions mean carbon will have a price tag at the farm. That means farmers could see the cost of inputs rise as additional charges are added to things like electricity, steel, concrete and fertilizers, where emissions arise from their production.

“Agriculture must be recognized for the existing efforts made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through carbon sequestration with no-till practices, feeding regimes for ruminants, and fertilizer management. Ontario farmers could see future opportunities in carbon credits, offsetting emissions from other companies producing greenhouse gases....

“Farmers need to be consulted and engaged to reach transparency and equity.”

If this government truly wants to take action on climate change, they should be looking to those who depend on the earth for their livelihoods for solutions. They must recognize the efforts that Ontario farmers have made to be good stewards of the land and allow them to work with businesses to offset their carbon emissions. This is especially important when you consider the benefits that their efforts are bringing to our economy.

According to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, in the greater Golden Horseshoe area alone, the industry supplies $1.6 billion in environmental benefits per year, including absorption of carbon pollution, water filtration, protection against erosion, and runoff control. If this government isn’t already looking into opportunities that the agricultural community can afford industry in offsetting carbon emissions with figures like these, they need to consult more.

Another issue with this proposed legislation is the government’s underdeveloped plan to accredit offsets. Offset credits are intended to give emitters an opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The government has offered little explanation about how it intends on structuring the allocation of offsets.

I’m very concerned about this whole Bill 172. It’s just a reason to set up and support the Liberal slush fund. After all, it doesn’t make business sense to promote green initiatives if the government might only credit them in the future.

And, as always, there is the question of cost. What will be the costs associated with the regulation of offsets and of the cap-and-trade scheme more broadly? Will the government need to train new employees? Will businesses have to cut jobs to hire someone familiar with this complicated system? How will the government find the financial resources to train or hire qualified employees? The government has yet to answer any of these questions. This lack of transparency will only serve to diminish investor confidence in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I want to thank the member from Huron–Bruce for her extensive speech on this matter and her canvassing of a wide variety of issues.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Do you agree with any of it?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I have to say that there are a number of things that I disagree with with regard to the member’s commentary. I also have to say—and don’t think less of me, Speaker—that I agree with some of what she has to say. Occasionally, I agree with the Liberals. Don’t think less of me for that. That’s just the way life is sometimes.

I think that the member from Huron–Bruce was correct in saying that the bulk of the reductions that are needed in Ontario with regard to action on climate change will come from investment in energy efficiency; on dealing with sprawl; investing in transit; and making investments in, and drawing products from, innovative activities.

Where I disagree with the member—I’ll start with the line of argument she was using about the small percentage of global emissions that come from Canada and from Ontario. That is an argument that can be used, frankly, around the world to take no action. If you’re operating a factory in Shenzhen, China, you could say, “My factory’s small; its total impact on the world is vanishingly small. We shouldn’t be taking any action.”

If you go past a polluted stream and you throw in a bucket of paint, that bucket of paint is not going to change that stream; it’s still polluted, but it is wrong to throw in that bucket of paint. Our contribution may be small compared to the world as a whole, but each small contribution changes the world’s climate and threatens the stability of our society and our environment.

I was a bit confused by the member saying that cap-and-trade was a market mechanism and was command and control. I think you’ve got to pick one of those.

There will be other comments as time goes on.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Arthur Potts: I’m delighted for this opportunity to respond to the member from Huron–Bruce—a wonderful community up there. I get up there often. I used to fly-fish the Maitland River when I had time—and Benmiller Inn. It’s a beautiful part of the country. I appreciate very much the extensive analysis she has done on the bill. I know that’s her role as the critic for the party, and it’s very important to have heard some of the materials coming from her.

I particularly want to focus on what I thought I was hearing early in her speech, which was a bit on the Conservative plan. I remember her saying, “The Conservative plan is”—and as I went to get a piece of paper to start writing it down, that was the end of it. I’ll have to go back to Hansard tomorrow, maybe just to review what the Conservative plan is because it was so very, very short and sweet. We are hoping to get more details on what they think they would do that was somewhat different, as they’re certainly not in that speech I got from the critic today.

I want to focus a little bit on this concept of her concern about fraud and how it may be identified in other markets in Europe particularly, the early adopters of cap-and-trade systems. The world has learned from mistakes that were made in how to set up the proper initiatives to cover off fraud. We’re very clear that, as a result of what we know—and we are setting up very strict oversight rules for the cap-and-trade market that will guard against fraudulent behaviour.

We’re working very closely with the Western Climate Initiative, an agency that helps to monitor and put the systems in place; that is consistent with what they’re doing in California, which is consistent with what they’re doing in Quebec. It’s extraordinarily important that we recognize that. I agree with the member from Toronto–Danforth.

This whole notion that we are only a small piece of the puzzle, that we shouldn’t do anything but throw our hands up in the air, and we have to understand that we think globally but we act locally, and every individual can do their part and by doing their part send a signal to the neighbour, the people down the street and the country next door to do their part—it’s absolutely critical that we not use a de minimis argument like: We’re only a little part of the problem; therefore, we should do nothing.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s a pleasure to stand in this House and actually speak to Bill 172, the Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act.

First of all, I want to commend our critic from Huron–Bruce. She takes her role as our critic for the environment and climate change very, very seriously. She researches, she delves into things, and she’s got backbone, and that’s one of the things I truly appreciate about her efforts in our caucus. When we talk about proper consultation—I was touching base with her earlier, and I asked, “So, how much consultation has the government done on this?” She told me: “Listen, do you know what? They don’t listen to the recommendations and the consultations. They just have their minds set, and that’s the way they want to go.”

I heard earlier a member’s comment about, “Oh, the Conservative plan”—and then stop there. The fact of the matter is: They’re the government. They’re the ones that are supposed to be coming up with the ideas, recommendations and suggestions, but they do that by effectively listening to people throughout the province. They’re not doing that. They have their minds set, and this is the direction they’re going to go. As far as I’m concerned, they just don’t have a credible plan to tackle climate change.

One of the other things that I’m kind of concerned about is that they like to throw out what I call shiny objects. They get people chasing shiny objects to distract them or detract from the real message.

The last thing that I want to simply talk about here is the fact that they are requiring natural gas and petroleum industries to purchase all their emission allowances during the first compliance period. That’s why the cost of natural gas, gasoline, diesel and propane are going to go up. I’m concerned because Union Gas is in my area, and that’s going to affect a big company, a big employer in Chatham–Kent–Essex.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Miss Monique Taylor: I’m pleased to have a moment to thank the member from Huron–Bruce for her very intensive report. She is the critic for this portfolio, and as a Conservative, she would put forward their branding and the way that they feel about cap-and-trade.

New Democrats support cap-and-trade, but we find a lot of errors—not errors; a lot of difficulty with the bill and concerns that it would have on the affected people. We need to make sure that the bill is fair, that people can afford their Union Gas bill when it comes into their home, that an increase on them when they are already struggling paycheque-to-paycheque, month-to-month to get those bills paid is difficult. I’ve heard from a lot of people in my community about the increase of gas at the pump. The prices were just starting to come down.

People were starting to be able to breathe a little easier with the price of gasoline, and now there’s a 4.3% increase on every litre. It’s a huge chunk, again, being put into taxes.

We are also concerned about where these dollars are going to go. It’s a lot of money that’s going to be going into the provincial coffers. Where is that money going to go? Is it going to be designated completely for climate change and environment? We’re not sure, so we’re concerned about the fairness and we’re concerned about the transparency and where that’s going to happen.

I’ve also read concerns about the Environmental Commissioner being let in on initiatives and what’s happening; there are no regulations to make sure that they are being brought in. That’s a huge concern. We need to make sure that our Environmental Commissioner is on top of this also.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Huron–Bruce has two minutes.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Thank you, Speaker. I appreciate the comments from my colleagues from Toronto–Danforth, Beaches–East York, Chatham–Kent–Essex and Hamilton Mountain. We all have to home in on one thing: We have to do right by the Ontario taxpayer. No matter what partisan flavours would like to paint us differently, we all want to do our part to protect the environment, but all the while, we can’t take Ontarians for granted, because their pockets are becoming lighter and lighter.

I believe, honestly, that Ontarians want to do their part to reduce emissions. Again, Ontario’s total global greenhouse gas emission is less than half a percentage point, and in no way should my comments be misconstrued to mean we can’t do better. We all can do better because we care about the environment. My point is that less than half a percentage point should not be generating $1.9 billion in a slush fund for Liberals to use for pet projects, for Liberals to fill their coffers because of their mismanagement and waste. That’s what’s unacceptable. They are raising $1.9 billion on the backs of Ontarians, and they’re also using their plan for a PR stunt. It’s unacceptable.

Ontarians deserve to know the truth. Our party will go forward in an honest matter. We’ll listen to our stakeholders, because we need a credible plan. We need to embrace innovation. We need to allow industry to lead the way. Our party doesn’t ever want to see industry chased out of the province. In the manner in which this government has set up their cap-and-trade scheme, Ontarians are going to be poorer and we’re going to lose more jobs because industry is going to choose to relocate elsewhere. That is an absolute shame.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It being close to 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to welcome Mr. Lorne Given from the town of Petrolia, joining us in the west members’ gallery this morning. Thank you.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: I would like to welcome to the assembly the parents of page Luke Bentley and two of my constituents from Barrie: Michael Bentley and Michelle Legault.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It is my great pleasure to introduce my brother, who is a teacher from the Toronto District School Board. He is with some students today: Klara Billa, Jaelynn Edwards, Claire Melanson, Kayenne Sin-Lu, Aphrodite Szalontay and Cassandra Sukraj.

If I can brag a little bit, my brother’s students—their artwork is displayed downstairs in the Legislature here, so they’re here to check out their artwork. And, if you’ll indulge me, I would also like to wish my brother a happy birthday.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: I’d like to welcome, in the east members’ gallery, visiting from Victoria, BC, my high school classmate Maxine Charlesworth and her husband, Derek Reimer.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I notice in the gallery Rob MacIsaac, the head of Hamilton Health Sciences, with a couple of friends who were here for this morning’s breakfast on health research. Welcome.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: Further to that, we did have members of the Council of Academic Hospitals of Ontario visiting us today. I’d like to introduce Karen Michell, who is the executive director; Barry McLellan, who is CEO of Sunnybrook; Robert MacIsaac, CEO of Hamilton Health Sciences; and Bernard Leduc, who is CEO of Hôpital Montfort. Thank you very much for visiting us.

Ms. Harinder Malhi: I would like to introduce somebody in the gallery. Jashun is a volunteer in my constituency office. She’s also pursing post-graduate studies in public administration, so she wanted to come and find out what question period was like.

Hon. Bill Mauro: I was also this morning at the breakfast for the Council of Academic Hospitals of Ontario. From Thunder Bay and the Thunder Bay Regional Research Institute this morning, Dr. Reznik and Janet Northan, doing great work at Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, creating a knowledge-based economy in northern Ontario. I welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Oral Questions

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Premier. The seniors’ advocacy group CARP has said that the government’s changes to the seniors’ drug benefit will “have a significant negative impact on many seniors.” Because of that, I have a simple yes-or-no question. Will the government reverse their plan to nearly double the deductible on seniors paying for their medications: yes or no?

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you, Speaker, and good morning. When it comes to supporting seniors, this budget has a tremendous number of initiatives. I know the Minister of Health is going to want to speak to the specific issue that the Leader of the Opposition has raised, but let’s just take a look at some of the things that we are doing to support—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I gave it a short moment to see if it could take care of itself.

Carry on, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: —an additional $250 million to expand capacity in home and community care; $75 million over three years to expand community-based hospice and palliative care.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Dufferin–Caledon.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We’re expanding access to the low-income seniors benefit to 170,000 more seniors. We’re making the shingles vaccine free. We’re removing the debt retirement charge, and that saves seniors on average $70 a year. There are many more.

I look forward to the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Acting Premier: I appreciate her talking points on this file, but the reality is that on Monday the leader of the third party raised a valid concern about how this affects seniors, and you brushed it aside. You didn’t give it a real answer. The government simply used a smoke-and-mirrors approach to hide the fact that seniors and the care they need and the medications they need are being diminished.

Now the Liberals have actually admitted that maybe they “didn’t get it right”; that the change is now “out for consultation.” It shouldn’t have needed any more consultation. The Liberals ignored the entire pre-budget hearings—the entire process—and they didn’t use common sense.

My question is: How out of touch is this government? How out of touch is this Liberal Party when they thought a senior making $19,500 was rich? This government is clueless.

Interjections.

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

Deputy Premier?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, let me go to other aspects of the CARP response to our budget. The leader of the official opposition focused on one comment, and we welcome the comments from CARP. But they also welcomed the Ontario government’s recognition of the special needs of those with dementia and other neurological conditions—they congratulated us for those investments—by investing $10 million in Behavioural Supports Ontario. CARP also welcomes that the shingles vaccine will now be covered for seniors between the ages of 65 and 70, saving them approximately $170.

But I find it rich coming from the leader of the official opposition, who for nine years was part of a government that—he never stood up for Ontario—decreased the Canada Health Transfer to Ontario. He never represented the needs of the people of this—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. The next one will get my attention.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Simcoe–Grey; the member for Prince Edward–Hastings.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Acting Premier: Seniors already have a tough time in this province because of what this government has done. This government has cut residency spots when 800,000 Ontarians can’t find a family doctor. Seniors can’t find a family physician. Now seniors are having a tougher time accessing physiotherapy. This comes because the government cut $50 million from seniors’ physiotherapy. One in 10 seniors already don’t fill their prescriptions because of the cost that prohibits it. And now the government has just made medication twice as expensive for so many seniors.

My question is: When will this government stop their attack on Ontario’s seniors?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I don’t think anybody’s buying that argument, Mr. Speaker.

The reality is that 170,000 more low-income seniors will pay no annual deductible. They’ll go from paying $100 deductible annually to zero dollars. That’s 170,000, for a total of almost 500,000. Ontarians are—

Mr. John Yakabuski: And how many seniors are in this province?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Ninety-two per cent get a hike.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I’m not going to be bouncing up and down. The last two rounds were not acceptable, and I’m going to say now that I’ve been tempted—and I’ll leave this for you to decide: Do we move right to warnings or naming? It’s got to stop. I want to hear everybody when they’re standing.

Minister?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, seniors in Ontario will continue to have the most generous and the lowest out-of-pocket expenses for prescription drugs in all of Canada. On average, the out-of-pocket is $277 for Ontarians. The next closest province is more than $600 per senior for their out-of-pocket expenses.

Energy policies

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Acting Premier. Since I can’t get a straight answer on cuts to medications for seniors, let’s try something else. Ontario’s budget is still missing a credible plan to have affordable and competitive energy. The PC caucus had a simple ask: We wanted a plan to have affordable energy in the province of Ontario. The Liberal response was to offer $2 a month as a rebate. This does nothing for a senior who has an $800 hydro bill.

Mr. Speaker, is this government, is this Liberal Party embarrassed that their idea of energy relief is giving a toonie to Ontarians who are flooded by your cost because you’ve made a mess of the energy sector?

Interjections.

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

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Of course, we on this side are anxiously awaiting their plan to reduce energy costs, Speaker. That seems to have been missing in action.

You know, the Leader of the Opposition—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All right. We’re moving to warnings, and I’ll give them out.

Carry on.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Leader of the Opposition called us “clueless.” Do you think it’s clueless to offer free tuition to kids in low-income families and reduce tuition costs for middle-income families? Do you think that’s clueless? Do you think it’s clueless to spend $160 billion on infrastructure? That’s 110,000 jobs a year. Do you think that’s clueless? Do you think it’s clueless to add—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would not take that chance.

To the Chair, please. Finish.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, do they think it’s clueless to lower parking fees for 900,000 patients and visitors? Do they think it’s clueless to fund the shingles vaccine? Do they think it’s clueless to invest $100 million to help homeowners lower their—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, back to the Acting Premier: My question was on energy; I’d appreciate an answer on energy.

Not only did this budget do nothing to make energy more affordable; this budget did nothing to rein in the executive salaries at Hydro One that are completely out of touch with the rest of Canada. After this budget, the combined salaries of six hydro executives in four other provinces are still less than the $4-million gold-plated paycheque you gave the CEO of Hydro One. After this budget, the CEO will still make twice as much as the three highest-paid executives at British Columbia Hydro.

Why didn’t this budget rein in the lavish paycheques for your Hydro One execs?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Speaker, the question is premised on electricity prices and the level of electricity prices. Some of the examples that have been used of large numbers of monthly payments are true bills. They’re typically in the rural and northern communities.

In our budget, access to natural gas infrastructure, we acknowledge, is crucial to the long-term economic fortunes of rural and northern Ontario. To mitigate prices, we’ve got a plan to take natural gas into rural and northern communities. The budget has a $200-million loan program to expand natural gas. It proposes a $30-million Natural Gas Economic Development Grant for rural communities.

Mr. Speaker, Union Gas, at the present time, has 11 applications before the Ontario Energy Board to bring natural gas to rural communities.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings is warned.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, back to the Acting Premier and the Minister of Energy: What in the world does that have to do with the Hydro One salaries? I’d just appreciate an answer for once in this building. It would be nice. It would be kind if the government could respond with an answer.

There is no plan for affordable energy. There is no plan to rein in Hydro One CEO salaries. There is no plan to stop the fire sale of Hydro One. This budget does nothing to recoup—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Finance is warned.

Carry on.

Mr. Patrick Brown: This budget does nothing to recoup the billions of dollars you’re giving away to our competitors because of your contracts. You’re actually giving to our competitors.

The Premier says, “What is the cost of doing nothing?” Well, the cost of doing nothing is that families are paying $1,000 more a year because of your government. My question is, will you do something? Will you actually do something on the energy sector? Ontarians can’t afford these exorbitant—

Interjections.

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

Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I’ve indicated in this House over the last week or two that the average daily price for electricity in—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m only going to give you what you want. The member from Simcoe–Grey is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The average daily residential price in Ontario is $5. We have taken additional steps for the rural communities. The rural and remote electricity rate protection program is a rate equalization program that benefits rural and remote residential and farm customers, since the cost of distributing power to remote areas is much higher than in the urban areas. The program helps to offset the higher costs of providing service to customers in those areas.

Hydro One has also launched a conservation program of heat pumps. They subsidize the costs, which will lower costs in rural areas by $800 to $1,500 a year.

We’re taking action. We’re acknowledging the challenge in the rural and remote areas, and we’re—

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

New question.

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Telling a senior living on $19,500 that the cost of their medication is going to double overnight is wrong.

Now the Premier says she’s open to changing her plan to nearly double prescription costs for most seniors. Being open is a good thing, but being open to a change and actually making that change are very different things. Let’s be clear: Will the Liberal government commit to changing their plan today?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: The Premier has been clear that we will be sure to get this right for all seniors. We’re bringing 170,000 of the lowest-income seniors into a situation where they go from $100 deductible each year to zero dollars deductible. I hope that’s something, even though they haven’t referenced or mentioned it, that even the NDP can support.

The Premier was also absolutely clear, as we put this forward for discussion and consultation, that there will be regulations required and that we’ll be sure to get it right. If changes need to be made, we’ll make those changes.

But it’s important, and I plead for the third party to at least acknowledge the added value, the important impact that this is going to have, for the poorest of the poor, that they used to care about. The 170,000 new individuals—that will be almost half a million seniors—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: The seniors of this province are pleading with this government not to increase their drug costs. You don’t need a panel of experts to tell you that forcing seniors living on $19,500 to pay nearly twice as much for their medication is the wrong decision.

The Premier says she agrees but she needs a consultation. Does the Liberal government really need a consultation to tell them that it’s not fair to make struggling seniors pay even more for their medication?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Let’s look at some of the comparisons across the country, and what this province has done for our seniors when it comes to out-of-pocket drug costs.

In Ontario, it’s $277. That’s the average cost to a senior for the out-of-pocket prescription drug costs, apart from what the government provides for them. If we go to the province furthest west, in British Columbia, $615 is the average annual out-of-pocket cost for our seniors. Alberta is $613—an NDP government. Saskatchewan is $884 for the annual out-of-pocket expenses. Manitoba is $982. Quebec is $698. Here in Ontario, the average out-of-pocket cost for a senior—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Timmins–James Bay is warned.

You have a 10-second wrap-up.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: We have the most generous prescription drug program in the entire country for seniors. There’s no other province that comes even close. The next province—

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

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Thursday’s budget gave Ontario seniors a shock. For most of them, their drug costs are going to nearly double this summer. For seniors living on a fixed income, this creates chaos. For a struggling senior, these costs could mean the difference between paying for rent or paying for their heating bill.

The Premier says she’s consulting and that she’s open to changes, but she won’t say for sure if she’s actually willing to make those changes at the end of the day, and these are still costs that are going to seriously affect seniors.

Will the Liberal government be clear today that they’re fixing the Premier’s mistakes and tell Ontarians that they’ll see a new plan that will not attack seniors?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I am surprised, because at one moment, the member of the third party said that we need to consult more, and now he’s suggesting that we not consult with seniors, that we not consult with their advocacy groups, that we not consult with Ontarians to make sure that we’ve got this absolutely right and that it works for all seniors.

I think that most seniors would agree that bringing 170,000 of the lowest-income seniors into that range where they pay absolutely no annual deductible is a good thing. We want to make sure that we’ve got it right for all seniors, and frankly, I think that the old NDP would have supported this. The new NDP, unfortunately, doesn’t want consultations. They don’t appreciate the 170,000 who no longer have to pay any annual deductible.

Ontario budget

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: The next question, again, is to the Deputy Premier. The Premier’s plan to double the costs of medication for seniors was a mistake. It’s a good thing that the Premier acknowledges that was a mistake and is working towards correcting it.

But we’re hearing the government is also quietly making some changes to the tuition plan, saying it was their plan all along to tie grants to increasing tuitions, as well as to inflation.

What other mistakes does the Liberal government see in their budget and which of these mistakes will they be correcting?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I look up at the gallery, I look at the kids who join us in the Legislature every day, and we have an important message for those kids now that we could not give those kids before this budget. The message we can give kids now is that your job is to work hard, get the marks and get admitted into post-secondary education. You no longer need to worry about the financial barriers—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): My operation in terms of this chair applies to everybody.

Finish, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: This change is absolutely transformational. It tears down a barrier that kids in low-income families and kids in moderate-income families have faced since the beginning of post-secondary education, and that is the financial barrier. Kids now can succeed based on their willingness to work hard. We will make sure that money will never, ever stand in the way of students achieving their full potential.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Selling Hydro One is also a mistake; everyone knows it. Given that the Premier says that she may fix her mistake on the seniors’ drug costs, will the Liberal government commit to correcting this mistake and not sell off our public asset?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The old NDP would have been applauding this budget. This budget contains investments that the old NDP would have been standing up and saying, “Well done. This reflects our values.” Whether it’s more investments in hospice and palliative care, whether it’s removing the financial barrier for post-secondary education, whether it’s investing in hospices and—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Windsor–Tecumseh is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We’re proud of this budget. We think we’ve made the right investments that will improve the lives of people in this province. It’s a budget that creates jobs. It’s a budget that demonstrates strong fiscal management. We’ve worked hard to arrive at this, and overwhelmingly, people are saying, “You’re making changes we never thought you’d be able to make.”

Speaker, the NDP should get on board with us and support this budget.

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

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I know that some of the old Liberals in this House remember when they spoke against the privatization of Hydro One—an interesting point you raise.

Let me tell you why, Mr. Speaker, this budget is so horrible and why the NDP will proudly vote against it: It’s a mistake to slash $430 million from education; it’s a mistake to slash $50 million from post-secondary and training; it’s a mistake to slash $1.2 billion from about everything else; and it’s a mistake not to cap tuition fees.

This budget is a colossal mistake. Will the Liberal government admit that their budget is full of mistakes and commit to addressing those mistakes today?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, this budget makes some really important investments that are no mistakes at all. Are you saying it’s a mistake to increase funding for autism—

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: —by $355 million, Speaker? Are you saying it’s a mistake to build 20 more hospices and support that community care? Are you saying it’s a mistake—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m sorry. Third person; to the Chair. Thank you.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: It’s astonishing to me that they think it’s a mistake to remove the financial barrier to post-secondary education. You would think, Speaker, that that would have been a core value of the NDP. On that item alone, they should be applauding this budget. It’s very disappointing that they have sunk into partisanship to attack this budget, which is a superb budget.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Goodwill Industries

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services of this old Liberal government. The bankruptcy of Goodwill Toronto is leaving hundreds out of work. Many wonder if they will ever see the severance pay owed to them. Yet last year, the government doled out $4 million to Goodwill, including nearly $1.7 million from MCSS. What do they have to show for it, besides the $230,000 CEO salary? That money, like the millions and millions blown in the SAMS fiasco, is gone—gone, with zero accountability and no consequences.

My question is this: Does it surprise the minister to know that, as far as taxpayers are concerned, the Liberals have abused all of their goodwill?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Of course, we, on this side of the House, take employment supports for those with disabilities extremely seriously. So, of course, we were shocked when we all read about what happened at Goodwill Toronto.

I’d like to tell the member opposite that, since then, we have reached out to every one of our clients served by Goodwill to determine how best to support each individual and minimize disruption. We have now made sure that many of these individuals have new employment supports because, of course, our ministry provided funding to Goodwill to support individuals with a disability, including developmental disabilities, to find employment in their communities locally.

I will, in the supplementary, give a little more detail in terms of our funding arrangement with Goodwill.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I hope this minister is listening to people who tell her what is really going on. Media quoted Goodwill insiders who said that MCSS funding was improperly diverted, leaving disabled clients without proper staff or resources. Executives, according to the Toronto Sun report, expensed things like car washes “with no apparent checks and balances,” and staff didn’t get the training they needed.

The minister needs to tell us why she rewarded such dysfunction with millions of dollars. Why didn’t the minister hold this CEO accountable? Why did the minister treat the CEO with the same kid gloves they used with Chris Mazza at Ornge?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Of course, Goodwill’s funding was provided on a monthly basis. As soon as the ministry became aware of the program closure, all payments were stopped. We will be working through the bankruptcy process to recover any funds owed to the ministry. Of course, our focus at this time is to help our clients transition.

I can assure the member opposite that any unused funds will be returned throughout this process. Our ministry does ensure that an agency is always in compliance. We looked very closely at the 2014-15 commitments and we discovered at that time, through our very detailed transfer payment process, that the agency was in compliance, and I want to assure the member that we will be diligent in recovering any unused funds.

Job creation

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Last week, the government introduced its 2016 budget: fewer jobs for today and tomorrow. That’s a fair statement. The government has admitted, in black and white, that job projections are down by 60,000, and according to the Financial Accountability Officer, Ontario’s total employment for 2015 matched the weakest annual job gains since the recession.

Minister, this question is for the Ontarians who have left the job market discouraged, for the Ontarians who are struggling to find work, and for the Ontarians who are about to begin their careers. Where is this government’s job creation strategy?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I’m going to allow my colleague to do the supplementary. Let’s be clear: Ontario and Ontarians—the people of Ontario, the businesses of Ontario—because of the work we’ve done to stimulate economic growth and partner with business, have created over 608,000 net new jobs since the recession.

Furthermore, we’re aiming to add 320,000 more new jobs over the next 36 months, bringing us to over 900,000 net new jobs. In the last eight weeks, we’ve added 50,000 new jobs, outpacing all of Canada. Our growth has outpaced the United States in percentage growth as well. We’re proud of Ontarians. We support the people of Ontario, as should the NDP.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: New Democrats believe that Ontarians deserve a secure job that can actually support a family, but this budget fails miserably on job creation. This budget doesn’t address, for example, the fact that so many Ontarians across this province are working multiple jobs just to make ends meet. It also doesn’t talk about the fact that, for nearly two years straight, Windsor has remained among the top two cities with the highest unemployment rate in the country. It has also conveniently left out the fact that for 144 months straight, Ontario’s youth unemployment rate has beat the national number. That is not a record to be proud of.

Minister, what’s this government’s response to the thousands of Ontarians that it has clearly left behind?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Mr. Speaker, anybody listening to that rhetoric has got to wonder what the NDP is looking at when it comes to the health of our economy. They’ve got to wonder what economists they’re consulting when they say that we’re not gaining in jobs. The finance minister is absolutely right: 608,300 net new jobs since the global recession. That’s only number one in the country. It’s one of the leading jurisdictions in the industrialized world when it comes to job creation.

How many of those jobs are full-time? How about: 100% of those jobs are full-time. How many of those jobs are higher-income jobs? How about 75% of those jobs being in sectors that are higher income?

Let’s stick to the facts: We’re creating jobs; we’re creating good jobs. We’re creating jobs right across this province.

Social assistance

Mr. Granville Anderson: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. As the minister knows, Ontario’s social assistance programs are critical to our poverty reduction goals to support the most vulnerable members of our society. Maintaining an effective social safety net is one part of our government’s broader effort to reduce poverty and ensure that we have an inclusive society and economy.

I have heard from single mothers in Bowmanville who struggle with child support and feel that they need more assistance. They have told me that the system can be complex to navigate for those who need it. In last week’s budget, our government announced an income security reform process. Could the minister tell me more about her ministry’s work to reform the income security system for vulnerable Ontarians?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and to the member from Durham for that question.

Part of my mandate as Minister of Community and Social Services is to reform social assistance. Over the past year, my ministry has had ongoing discussions with stakeholders, experts and those on the front line. They told us that it’s important to expand reform to include aspects of the wider income security system. We listened, and we will be engaging stakeholders in the coming year to develop an action plan for more comprehensive reform.

The plan will be informed by client experiences and a basic income pilot project, among other things. We will also engage with First Nations, Inuit and Métis nations to ensure we have had an inclusive process.

As we develop this action plan, we will continue to take important immediate steps to improve income security, such as ending the full clawback of child support from social assistance.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Granville Anderson: Thank you to the minister for sharing information about this important plan to improve our income security system for vulnerable Ontarians. It is vital that we reduce barriers to ensure we have a fair, adequate and accessible income security system that is simpler for Ontarians who are facing challenges in their lives.

We know that some of those Ontarians facing challenges are single parents and their children who receive social assistance. Families in Courtice and Port Perry have come to my office concerned about what is available to them and what we are going to do for them. The minister just mentioned ending the clawback of child support for social assistance recipients. Could the minister please share more information with me and my constituents about this important challenge to social assistance?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: We know that children in single-parent families are disproportionately and more profoundly affected by poverty. As part of our government’s commitment to combatting child poverty, as outlined in our 2016 budget, my ministry will be ending the full clawback of child support for social assistant recipients. Currently, families receiving child support have their social assistance benefit reduced by the full amount of child support they receive. This means that families on social assistance are no better off when they receive child support, and the parent responsible for making payments may feel little incentive to pay.

We would like to see a full exemption of child support for social assistance recipients, but it is important that we get the opinions we need on how best to solve the problem here in Ontario. What we know is that families who receive child support will see a positive change by this time next year.

Human trafficking

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is for the Acting Premier. In last week’s budget, the only mention of human trafficking was the reannouncement of funding to address violence against indigenous women, an effort that is long overdue. But there is no new funding for more dedicated officers to investigate human trafficking, no new funding for dedicated crown attorneys to prosecute this disgusting crime, and no new funding for victims’ services within that massive $134-billion budget.

This government says human trafficking is a crisis. This government says that combatting this crime is a priority. This crime is stealing the innocence of our young women. Mr. Speaker, why is this government forcing the girl next door to continue to live in this nightmare?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister responsible for women’s issues.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, a colleague in Durham region with me, for raising this important topic again. I want to also thank her for her work on the select committee on violence and harassment against women. I was very pleased that she was supportive of our Walking Together strategy that the Premier and I announced last week, a $100-million investment to end violence against aboriginal women and girls.

But she’s absolutely right: That’s only part of the story. Human trafficking is a serious issue. It’s a significant priority for our government. That’s why the Premier asked the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services and I to spearhead additional work in human trafficking to build on the investments we’ve already made, and to bring that strategy forward this June.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Laurie Scott: The Liberal government didn’t address human trafficking enough in their budget. They didn’t put it in Bill 132. How much longer do these victims and survivors have to wait?

We’ve learned from the experts that a trafficker can make over $250,000 in a year from one victim. That’s roughly $5,000 a week from a single person. During the time that a trafficker makes $5,000 in one week from one victim, this government has invested zero to combat this deplorable crime.

The Premier admitted that driving up drug costs for seniors was a mistake, so will the government admit that they got this one wrong and redirect resources to combat human trafficking today?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: We are actually continuing to invest in dealing with this despicable topic of human trafficking. We will invest over $9 million over the next three years in our language interpreter program services. We provided $225,000 in funding to the White Ribbon Campaign to develop and promote resources that engage young men in ending human trafficking. I could go on and on about a number of investments across ministries beyond my Ontario Women’s Directorate.

We fund a victim’s helpline service through, I believe, community services and corrections. We have provided additional money to help young people in shelters be aware of human trafficking conditions and to try to prevent that. We have more money for sexual violence programs across the province, and we’ll continue to work with all the stakeholders in bringing forward a more robust human trafficking strategy—

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

New question.

Ring of Fire

Mr. Michael Mantha: My question is to the Acting Premier. For over eight years, we have heard this government say that the Ring of Fire is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Year after year, we hear them make big promises; all have come back empty. This government, which claims to be committed to this project, continues to stand by and watch all companies leave and halt operations.

My question is, when they say “once in a lifetime,” whose lifetime are you talking about?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Hon. David Zimmer: I’m happy to respond to this question. For several years, our government has been laying the groundwork to drive smart, sustainable and collaborative development in the region of the Ring of Fire. We realize the full potential of the Ring of Fire, but it is an extremely complex undertaking that all parties have to be involved in.

We’re supporting sustainable development in the Ring of Fire. Significant progress has been made. To date, our government has established a Ring of Fire Infrastructure Development Corp. We’ve made a $1-billion commitment to develop transportation infrastructure in the region, and it was recently reiterated in our budget. We have reached a historic regional framework agreement with the Matawa First Nations that lays—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We were doing quite well, but it’s never too late to get another warning or, for those that have gotten warnings, to get named. I’m not playing and it’s not a roll of the dice. I’ll do what I need to do if you don’t.

Finish, please.

Hon. David Zimmer: The regional framework agreement lays the groundwork for future discussions with the Matawa First Nations. And just this past spring, we announced a joint investment with the federal government of more than—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Mantha: Once again to the Acting Premier: Once again, we hear this government reannounce an old 2014 promise to invest $1 billion in the Ring of Fire. It’s clear that this is a copy-and-paste budget. This government continues to dangle this $1-billion announcement over the heads of industry, northerners and First Nations without actually saying when it will give it. This project is dependent on transportation, infrastructure, electricity prices, environmental guidelines and leadership by this government, but they have failed on all accounts.

My question is: Will this government give a definite answer on when they will make good on this commitment, or will they wait to reannounce it again at campaign time?

Hon. David Zimmer: As I said before, we’ve invested $785,000 to enable the Ring of Fire nations to complete a community service corridor study. That’s one of the first steps to establishing a transportation corridor. Just this past June, the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change approved various amendments with respect to terms of reference for the environmental assessment for Noront’s Eagle’s Nest project in the Ring of Fire.

We are serious about moving forward with the Ring of Fire. The PC party has not been engaged in this issue. The former federal PC party was not engaged in this issue. When Ontario put up $1 billion for the road corridor, the federal government ponied up a measly $23 million. The Leader of the Opposition was a member of that party—

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

Interjections.

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

New question.

Aboriginal affairs

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: My question is for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Ontario is home to a large, important indigenous population, but as we all know, this vital community faces many challenges and needs our support. That’s why—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Look, this is going both sides. When somebody asks a question here, I’m hearing heckling from the same side that’s asking the question, and I’m hearing heckling from the same side as the person asking the question and giving the answer. Please.

Finish, please.

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That’s why, in our 2016 Ontario budget our government announced significant investments in important initiatives for First Nations, Métis and Inuit people in Ontario to support these communities. In fact, the Premier also announced a bold new strategy to end violence against aboriginal women before heading to the National Roundtable on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women.

Can the minister please elaborate on these important announcements and their significance?

Hon. David Zimmer: This budget was a good-news budget for our First Nation communities. We have committed ourselves in this budget to a positive, collaborative relationship with Ontario First Nations.

Here are some of the things that we’ve done in the budget: The 2016 budget invests $100 million over three years to fund a long-term strategy to end violence against indigenous women. The budget also provides another $97 million to improve access to very high-quality, post-secondary education and training opportunities; $5 million of this investment is for post-secondary education and training at the province’s nine aboriginal institutes. There’s a further $13 million for First Nation green energy projects specifically aimed at eliminating the evil of diesel in our northern remote communities.

This is good news for First Nations. This is evidence of our commitment—

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I’m glad to hear that the minister is working hard for Ontario’s indigenous peoples, and I thank him for his tireless efforts. Our government is taking significant steps to improve outcomes for indigenous people in this province, and I’m proud to be a part of that.

Last week, Minister Zimmer, Minister MacCharles and the Premier were in Winnipeg for the second National Roundtable on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women. Statistics show that in Ontario, indigenous women are three times more likely to experience violence than other women, and they are three times more likely to be murdered. This is unacceptable. The numbers are troubling, and they need to change. That’s why the Premier recently announced our strategy to end violence against indigenous women and mandatory indigenous cultural competency training for the Ontario public service.

Can the minister please tell us more about what the budget does for indigenous peoples?

Hon. David Zimmer: The budget provides $100 million to develop a strategy against violence against aboriginal women and girls. I was with the Premier and Minister MacCharles in Winnipeg on Thursday and Friday. Ontario, in front of our other provincial colleagues—and the federal minister was there and the Premier of Manitoba. We presented our Ontario strategy, Walking Together. It was discussed at length at the meeting on Friday. It was incredibly well received by our provincial counterparts and the federal government.

There is much detail in this document. The document is entitled Walking Together: Ontario’s Long-Term Strategy to End Violence Against Indigenous Women. It was very well received. Ontario has exercised a leadership role, the Premier has exercised a leadership role, and all of the other provinces and the federal government have recognized—

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

New question.

ServiceOntario

Mr. Jim McDonell: To the Minister of Government and Consumer Services: In your budget, you plan to bring a digital-by-default philosophy to ServiceOntario and raise service fees, but the uptake in digital services by Ontarians hasn’t progressed between 2012 and 2015, staying flat at 30%. We know where this leads: higher fees for everyone and an additional cost and inconvenience for constituents such as seniors, disabled Ontarians, Ontarians on fixed incomes, or those who don’t have the knowledge, the confidence or the ability to operate a computer.

Will the minister commit to ensuring that seniors, disabled Ontarians, those on social assistance and other Ontarians who need to visit a counter in person will be able to access quality, courteous, timely and helpful service without a cost penalty?

Hon. David Orazietti: I certainly appreciate the question from the member opposite. ServiceOntario is committed to the highest-quality standards of service for Ontarians, and has been for many, many years. As you know, the average wait time is less than 15 minutes at ServiceOntario, and the number of services that we are continuing to provide online continues to be expanded while we continue to protect front-counter services. We have approximately 300 locations across the province. We continue to build the platform to make it easier and more timely for people to access services.

In the budget, we committed to transforming the health application for health cards. You’ll be able to renew your health card online through ServiceOntario moving forward. We think that’s great news for Ontarians. We’re going to continue to make services more accessible for Ontarians as we continue to move forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim McDonell: Back to the minister: Your government is making everything more expensive—driving, camping, fishing, hunting, heating, filling prescriptions, charities, and even dying, with your new estate taxes. If it exists, you bilk Ontarians for it. The government’s record is of higher prices for everything and less access to services to show for it.

Why does this government insist on making life more inconvenient and more expensive for all Ontarians, especially those like seniors, the disabled and the poor—those who can least afford it?

Hon. David Orazietti: The member is being a bit selective here in his questioning. I think when you talk about eliminating things like Drive Clean and free shingles vaccines and whatnot, there are a number of initiatives in the budget that are helping to support consumers across the province.

The member needs to understand that the services that we continue to provide, we do so in a timely way and in an efficient way, putting more services online, making them more accessible and continuing to make it more convenient and more affordable, quite frankly, for all Ontarians to access services in our ministry.

GO Transit

Mr. Wayne Gates: My question today is to the Minister of Transportation. The 2016 budget mentioned GO to Niagara. Like everyone in the Niagara region, I was happy—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You won’t know. Thank you.

Member?

Mr. Wayne Gates: I was happy to see that. This project is extremely important for the people of my riding and all of Niagara. This was a positive step forward and highlights the hard work that the local mayors, councillors, regional chair and the member for St. Catharines have done to put Niagara GO on the radar of our government.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I think there are ways in which we can continue now.

Please finish.

Mr. Wayne Gates: The expansion of GO train service to Niagara is not about scoring political points. Unfortunately, without firm commitments to a timeline, the people of Niagara still cannot be sure when expanded GO service will come to Niagara Falls.

Minister, does your government have a time frame for expanding GO train service all the way to Niagara Falls?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I want to begin by thanking the member from Niagara Falls for the question. I know that he has already said it, but I think it does bear repeating because it’s important to recognize that not just over the last few months, not just over the last couple of years, but throughout his entire career here in this chamber, the member from St. Catharines has been a consistent advocate for more for Niagara region. Specifically, he’s been a staunch champion to extend GO train service down to Niagara region.

Applause.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I believe that member deserves a very vigorous round of applause for his continued advocacy.

Speaker, the member from Niagara Falls is 100% right in mentioning that on page 71, in fact, of Ontario budget 2016, we say specifically, “Subject to agreement with freight rail partners,” we will see “two-way, all-day rail services on the Kitchener and Milton GO corridors, and extension of GO rail service” to both Niagara and Bowmanville.

I would say to the member opposite that the Ministry of Transportation and Metrolinx will continue to work with the municipalities—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Wayne Gates: For more than two years, I have talked about the importance of expanding GO to Niagara. The Premier herself called it one of her “top priorities” nearly two years ago.

This is important: Expansion of GO train service would have a positive economic impact of $195 million for Niagara and create 2,400 new full-time jobs in Niagara resulting from transit operations, and 1,200 much-needed additional full-time construction jobs to implement daily GO service.

Without a firm timeline, the municipalities of Niagara region, which are all united behind this project, cannot make plans to take full advantage of the economic benefits GO service expansion will provide. Will you commit today to a timeline for two-way, all-day GO to Niagara Falls? I’ve already read the budget. Can you commit to the time frame today?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Again, I thank the member from Niagara Falls for the question. I certainly look forward to continuing to work with the member from St. Catharines and with all of the municipalities to make sure that we go forward, that we negotiate, that we do the deal that is required in order to make this extension a reality. That’s a commitment I’m happy to give that member and every member in this Legislature as it relates to all of the transportation items that are contained in Ontario budget 2016.

I think what’s probably most important, if I could be helpful and provide some advice to my friend across the way as he and his colleagues consider budget 2016 in the coming days and weeks: I sincerely hope, because I know he’s a champion for Niagara Falls, that he will encourage his leader and his caucus colleagues to support Ontario budget 2016 so that we can deliver on its full promise for the people of Ontario.

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: My question is to the Associate Minister of Finance. Minister, I was pleased to see the budget reaffirm our government’s commitment to enhancing retirement security. I know that residents in my riding of Burlington are pleased to see our government taking a leadership role on this issue.

In fact, together with the minister, just last year we hosted a round table in Burlington on the ORPP with local businesses and social planning groups, and, because we are a young Liberal government that is investing in the future of our young people, they were there too. Why is that? Because they care about their future and they are concerned about it.

People in my riding and beyond know how hard it is to save for retirement. They know the world of work is changing and they understand that a number of young workers no longer have access to a workplace pension plan. They want to know that their children and grandchildren will be able to retire with dignity and financial security.

Mr. Speaker, I know the minister has been made a lot of progress in the development of the plan in the past several months. Minister, can you please highlight some of the milestones that the government has achieved on the ORPP?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I want to really thank the fantastic member from Burlington for her hard work on this particular issue in her community. We have made significant progress in our commitment to build a strong and secure retirement income system for the people of Ontario. Our goal is for all Ontario employees to be part of the ORPP or a comparable plan by 2020.

Our government passed the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan Act, 2015, and the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan Administration Corporation Act, 2015. These pieces of legislation lay the foundation for the ORPP and establish the ORPP AC, the arm’s-length entity that will administer the plan for the benefit of plan members.

Last fall, we appointed the initial board of directors who will be responsible for the ORPP AC: Susan Wolburgh Jenah, who will serve as chair, Murray Gold and Richard Nesbitt, all bringing unique expertise to the ORPP AC and who will work towards its implementation.

We’ve also completed our plan design for a contemporary mobile workforce, like the people who live in your community of Burlington.

We’re taking important steps forward to ensure that Ontarians can retire with dignity. We want to ensure that future retirees have an opportunity to have a predictable stream of income for life when they retire.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: Thank you to the minister for her response. My constituents will be pleased to hear about the great work under way to enhance retirement security across Ontario. They will be particularly pleased to hear about the experience and expertise of the initial board of directors. Indeed, we are truly fortunate to have such accomplished individuals overseeing the plan’s administration on behalf of all Ontarians.

Mr. Speaker, again through you to the minister: I know that last year the minister travelled across the province to get input from business and employees on the plan design details. I understand that, earlier this year, our government finalized the plan’s design. I know residents and business owners in my riding are keen to know more about these policy decisions. Mr. Speaker, can the minister please update this House on the policy de