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

November 28, 2018

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2018-Nov-28 (PDF)

L056 - Wed 28 Nov 2018 / Mer 28 nov 2018

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 28 November 2018 Mercredi 28 novembre 2018

Orders of the Day

Access to Natural Gas Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur l’accès au gaz naturel

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Automotive industry

Automotive industry

Automotive industry

Housing policy

Automotive industry

Agri-food industry

Automotive industry

Public transit

Climate change

Fresh from the Farm

Education funding

Financial literacy

Skills training

Notice of dissatisfaction

Deferred Votes

Time allocation

Correction of record

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Secord Elementary School

King Street transit pilot

Scarborough Health Network

Municipal elections

Public transit

Water supply

Stephanie Klein

Automobile insurance

Saint Luke’s Place

Research and innovation

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills

Introduction of Bills

Noah and Gregory’s Law (Transition to Adult Developmental Services and Supports), 2018 / Loi Noah et Gregory de 2018 (transition vers des services et soutiens à l’intention des adultes ayant une déficience intellectuelle)

Motions

Committee membership

Committee sittings

Petitions

Affordable housing

Public transit

French-language services

Automobile insurance

Affordable housing

Automobile insurance

Injured workers

Sport martial arts

Employment standards

Opposition Day

Orders of the Day

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

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Access to Natural Gas Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur l’accès au gaz naturel

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 27, 2018, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 32,

An Act to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 / Projet de loi 32, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1998 sur la Commission de l’énergie de l’Ontario.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’ve got to say, this would have been a great time in the House if the government had gotten this particular bill right, because I think we agree on both sides of the House that when it comes to natural gas infrastructure, there’s a real lack across rural and northern Ontario. There’s a whole bunch of places when it comes to your residence, when it comes to your place of business or even when it comes to industry or agriculture where natural gas infrastructure doesn’t exist. It forces those people living and working in those areas, quite frankly, to choose much more expensive options, in some cases electricity and who knows what else.

It’s a real opportunity that we had in this bill to be able to deal with those rural parts of Ontario. The government decided that it was going to cancel the previous attempt by the Liberal government that would have got us part way to getting some of that done by providing some dollars. The government decided to cancel that part of the program, and I can understand, because that program wasn’t the be-all and end-all to fix the entire problem of putting natural gas infrastructure into rural places in Ontario.

I agree with the government that that money would have gone part way to being able to address some of the issues, but quite frankly, it was not what we needed as far as being able to address this whole issue.

Instead, the government decided to take a different approach, which could have worked if the government had structured the bill in such a way that incents those companies to install the infrastructure in rural and northern Ontario. Currently, what we have is a bill that is going to help certain parts of rural Ontario. I’m not going to say it’s not going to do any of it, because where you have smaller communities in rural and northern Ontario, there may be a small subdivision—10 or 15 homes—that doesn’t have natural gas infrastructure.

The gas company will be able to decide, “We want to put that infrastructure in the ground.” They figure out the costs. If the ROE, the return on investment, is 20 or 30 years, they say, “Yes, it’s worth it,” and then they can take the cost and shift it across the entire ratepayer base across the province, not just the region.

I can understand that for the gas company, that’s going to put certain areas into play where there is going to be some expansion in some small communities in rural and northern Ontario. I’m not saying for a second that none of it’s going to happen, but it still leaves us far short. I would say that 90% of the geography of Ontario is still going to be left holding the short end of the stick when it comes to being able to get natural gas in their particular areas.

There is nothing in this bill to address the issue—for example, if you live on a rural road somewhere in Leamington or somewhere in Kapuskasing, or wherever it is that you might live, and the road is, let’s say, 10 miles long, and along that you’ve got maybe five farms and another four or five homes, the gas company is not going to run the gas line down that way because the return on investment for the infrastructure may not be enough for them to be able to build it.

So for a lot of the farm community, this will do very little to be able to fix the problem that the farm community was asking to have fixed, which was, “Find a way to bring natural gas infrastructure into rural roads so our farms could also be serviced by natural gas.”

As we all know, farming is an expensive business. When it comes to the use of energy, it is a pretty significant part of the cost of doing business in farm communities. Be it a dairy farm, be it whatever type of farm it is, you need to have energy to make that be able to work. Heating the barn, heating the buildings, doing the things that have to be done by way of using natural gas is much cheaper than doing it with electricity, and for many of those farms, that’s the only other option they have.

If you’re in a colder climate like Earlton or Kapuskasing or up in northwestern Ontario where there’s a strong, vibrant farm community, it is a lot harder to be able to get natural gas in your area. The cost of heating and the cost of dealing with the energy products that you need to be able to operate your farm are pretty prohibitive, and we’re going to have to be staying on electricity rather than trying to move people over to the natural gas side.

Did the government get this all wrong? No, they didn’t get it all wrong. Part of what they’re doing in this bill is okay, and that’s why we supported it at second reading. But we warned you at the time. We said, “Listen, if you really want to help rural and northern Ontario, there are some amendments to the legislation that you have to make in order to make sure that this is not just about helping the natural gas company make a few extra bucks by putting more service into urban areas”—small urban areas.

I’m not saying this is city of Toronto stuff; this is more like smaller urban centres across rural, central, eastern and northern Ontario. But you’ve got to be able to do something to expand it across all those other communities, and the bill stops far short of that.

That’s one of the reasons I’m going to vote against it, not because I don’t think you’re taking a step forward, but I don’t think we’re achieving the goal that we set out. The goal in this legislation, I thought—and it was the same with government members when I listened to them at second reading—is that we were trying to expand natural gas into rural Ontario, and it doesn’t do that. I think this is a lost opportunity on the part of the government, and I think the government could have done much better by accepting some of the amendments.

This brings me to the other point I’d like to make in this debate, and that is the way we go about making decisions about legislation and the way we go about making decisions on amendments to legislation. This is something that’s quite troubling with this government. Now, I want to be fair, they’re not the only government to have suffered from this problem. Every government has had the problem; it’s a question to what extreme the government has chosen to deal or not deal with it.

The first part, I would say, is on the question of how we draft legislation. In this case, we have an issue that all members on all sides of the House can agree with: There’s not enough natural gas infrastructure in rural Ontario. If you live in farm Ontario, if you live in rural Ontario away from a small urban centre, you don’t have any natural gas and you’re not likely to get it under the old system. So if the government was serious about trying to address the situation, they could have referred this thing to committee on what we call a white paper, or just refer it out after first reading.

The idea is that you put a white paper out to committee and you say, “All right, we have a problem. How are we going to fix that problem?” And then the committee, made up of members from all sides of the House, listen to the people who are our bosses, the citizens of Ontario, and they come and tell us what their problem is and maybe what some of their solutions are.

Then we invite in the people who are the experts at installing natural gas infrastructure and the regulators and others that are involved in order to find out: “Okay, here’s what we heard from communities; this is what we heard from the citizens of Ontario. What gives? How can we address this particular situation?”

Now, I’m going to say up front that we recognize, as the loyal opposition, that you can’t just put money to this problem. Yes, it’s money that’s going to build infrastructure for natural gas, but the treasury of Ontario can’t be responsible for paying for all of that infrastructure, and we get it.

I think we have a responsibility to a degree, because there are certain areas that don’t get infrastructure, and maybe we have to have a policy that says in those cases—like we do for electricity, like we do for the telephone, like we do for broadband Internet in certain places, like we do for roads—the province will be involved in the infrastructure in those particular areas, and you define them in some way.

I’ll agree with many of the members in this House on all sides: If the gas company can install gas infrastructure in an urban or small urban setting, it shouldn’t be for the government to subsidize that if they’re able to do it themselves with the dollars that will come from the new business they create by installing the infrastructure. But you know, Mr. Speaker, as a rural member, and I know as a rural member, that there are a lot of places in Ontario where that doesn’t happen, that the gas company—and I understand it. They’re in business to make money; they’re not in business to lose money.

They can’t afford to do the infrastructure in areas that we want to service. The whole point of this bill was supposed to be bringing natural gas to those people.

What the government did, instead of embarking on a process that would have engaged all members of the assembly—because I think this is an issue that cuts beyond party lines; this is not an NDP or a Liberal or a Conservative issue. This is an issue of: How do we fix the problem? So what we did is that we put the—and I’m going to get in trouble for saying this, but we put the fox in charge of the henhouse, and we said, “Let’s see what the gas company wants to do.” I don’t blame the gas company. Lots of friends of mine—Matthew Gibson and others—have worked for the gas company for years; David Sword.

I knew the former president of the old Duke Energy. We all know these people. They’re around Queen’s Park a lot, and they’re just trying to do their jobs.

But you don’t ask that person to be the one who makes the sole decision about how we’re going to deal with natural gas infrastructure, because they’re going to look at it—and I don’t blame them—from the lens of their own self-interest, and their self-interest is that they have to make a profit. That’s a good thing, Mr. Speaker. They’re not in the business of losing money, nor should they be. But they’re not going to come up with a solution on how we’re going to put natural gas in those hard-to-serve areas at their cost, because they’re not interested in doing that.

I think the question that we have to ask ourselves—and I think this is where the process went wrong—is: How do we deal with those hard-to-serve areas? And we have to ask ourselves a very fundamental question, and I’m not sure I have the exact answer to it, because I think the process may have been able to answer that, and that is: When you come to an area that cannot be serviced by regular means—in other words, on an investment by the gas company where they’re able to get a return on investment—how do you provide infrastructure in those areas? And can we offer service in those areas?

I think there are ways that we could have done that, Mr. Speaker. There are ways we could have shared the cost amongst ratepayers with some sort of a formula that says: Okay, maybe in an urban area the regular sort of formula applies, but when it comes to trying to service those hard-to-serve areas, you need some other kind of formula if you’re going to distribute the cost amongst the ratepayers of Ontario so that it’s done in a way that maybe the payback is longer.

You don’t want to jack everybody’s bill up, because I don’t think an urban person who pays for natural gas in an urban centre wants to see their gas bill go up by 10%, 20%, 30%, 100%, like we did with the Liberals under electricity. We’ll agree that was a shambles. What they did on hydro, they’re still paying for in the results of the last election.

But there is a way for us to possibly come to some sort of understanding about how we’re able to share the cost of making sure we develop the infrastructure in those areas and that we do it on some sort of a schedule, where at least the person who is from the farm community that operates that dairy farm all the way down Mountjoy Road 4 or somebody who operates a beef farm all the way down Road 5—that they’re able to say, “You know what? Over the next five or 10 years, I’m going to get some infrastructure in my area. I can live with that, because at least I know there’s light at the end of the tunnel.”

How we paid for it became the question of what the committee had to deal with. Do we create some kind of a fund provincially and go to the federal government—because I don’t think the feds should be off the hook on this one—so that we’re able to develop infrastructure through some kind of a fund?

For example, Infrastructure Ontario has made an agreement with the federal government in the billions of dollars over a 10-year period. We could have taken some of that money, which is not new tax money. It doesn’t mean to say you have to tax anybody for this.

What you do is earmark money from the infrastructure fund, and you say that over a period of 10 years, we’re going to put X amount of billions of dollars, or millions of dollars, whatever the number is—it wouldn’t be billions; it would be in the millions—aside from our share as a province, the federal share as a province, and maybe the municipal share, as a municipality, because a municipality stands to gain something if infrastructure is built in their area. That would have been one possible source of funding.

We could have had amendments to the legislation that would have allowed us to say to the gas company, “Okay, maybe the formula that you’re using in small urban centres where you’re going to be installing natural gas as a result of this bill—we have to change the formula somewhat. Maybe the timing is a little bit longer.” But the point is, we could have given people in rural Ontario a sense that, “Hey, finally, somebody is standing up for me.”

But instead, what we’ve got with this bill is not a bill that’s terrible—and I really want to say that again. I’m not arguing for one second that everything in this bill is terrible. I think there are some parts of it that are supportable. But I came to this debate understanding that we were going to do something for rural Ontario, for northern Ontario, and this bill is not going to do that. So how do any of us—members from southwestern Ontario, members from northern Ontario, members from eastern and central Ontario—go back to our rural communities and say, “Hey, we fixed your problem”?

Because in reality, we haven’t. We have essentially said to the gas company, “Go install more infrastructure in small urban settings.”

That’s important. Don’t get me wrong; I think that’s great. I think they need natural gas as much as anybody else. In some places in my riding, that will happen. I think it will happen in many of our ridings. But when it comes to the people that we were trying to fix the problem for, we’ve left them on the side of the road. I don’t think that was right. There was no reason for us to do that.

This is where I was saying I wanted to get into the other part of the argument, which is that the government got caught in its own ideology. The Ford government said, “Oh, we only have one way of looking at things.” Right? “There’s only one way of looking at them: private sector response.” Right? Well, sometimes the government, being us, the people—because that’s what government is. Government isn’t some nebulous, dark thing that you never see. It’s we, the people, who elect elected representatives, who form a Legislature, who form a cabinet that makes decisions. We have a responsibility to come up with a solution.

I think that the government got caught in its ideology, not willing to look at how you address this problem in rural parts of Ontario, northern Ontario, where this bill will not do enough to resolve the issue. I think that’s sad. I think the failing of the Ford government is that they’re so caught in their ideology that they forgot to fix the problem that they said they wanted to fix.

It’s a little bit like the GM situation that we see going on currently. The government says, “Done. Nothing we can do. I called GM. They said no, they don’t want any help,” and hung up the phone and said, “We’re done.”

I was part of a government in 1990. There were companies shutting down by the week across this province in that recession. Algoma Steel: When we called them, they weren’t interested. When Algoma Steel was going to close down and put the people of Sault Ste. Marie out of work. they were not interested in having any help. But we as a government said, “Listen, let’s go sit down with the workers, let’s sit down with the municipality, let’s sit down with the company and let’s see what we can come up with.” We came up with a very unique solution for Sault Ste. Marie. I would even think the current member for Sault Ste.

Marie would agree. But imagine if we would have taken this position: “Oh, no. Algoma Steel said no, so there’s nothing we can do.” Right? That might have never happened.

Kapuskasing: I was directly involved in the Kapuskasing negotiations with the former Kimberly-Clark. Kimberly-Clark was interested in making a solution, but it was a solution for Darwin Smith, the guy who owned the company. It had nothing to do with the workers in the community of Kapuskasing. They had a solution that was good for their shareholders.

I went to Kapuskasing, where we were blockaded as a government. The town put up the blockades not to let us in or out until we did something in order to accept Darwin Smith’s proposal. We said no, because we weren’t going to take your dollars—the people of Ontario—give them to some American guy who owns the mill down in New York, and then have a solution that didn’t really do anything to resolve the issues to keep that mill running, not only then but until today.

We said to Darwin Smith in that case, “No, we’re not going to do what you want.” We said no. The community got mad, I remember. They came down here and protested. It was part of our strategy in order to get Darwin Smith to come back to the table so that we can negotiate, and eventually we negotiated. Guess what we did? We found a new employer. We hired Tembec. Tembec bought 51% of the shares, the community members bought 49% of the shares and we did the very first employee ownership structure in the province’s history.

That company thrived. That paper mill is still operating today, Mr. Speaker. If we would have done what Mr. Ford said with General Motors, that company would not be here today. It would have been gone just like Abitibi-Price in Iroquois Falls that the Liberals let shut down. Iroquois Falls Abitibi should never have shut down. But it was, again, a case of laissez-faire politics on the part of the Wynne government, which said, “Oh, we don’t want to interfere with what is a private sector decision.” Excuse me. A private sector decision? Those are citizens in Oshawa, in Iroquois Falls, in Kapuskasing, in Sault Ste.

Marie. We, as the people’s representatives, have a responsibility to find solutions. Can we always succeed? No, there are going to be times when we’re not going to be able to. Sometimes there are issues that are difficult to deal with, but you at least have to try.

When it came to this natural gas bill, the government only tried to satisfy the natural gas company and forgot that this bill was supposed to be about the people who need natural gas, and we fell short of helping those people. For that reason, I will not be supporting this bill.

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

Mrs. Belinda Karahalios: Good morning to the member from Timmins. I really look forward to your response, actually. I hear your concerns. I listened very intently to what you had to say, given your breadth of experience in the House; it’s been over a decade, I understand.

My concern is that you would like to vote against this. I hope that you’re not forgetting that we’ve been here for 150-odd days and that we are doing everything that we can, and quickly, might I add, to reverse and change all the waste and mismanagement that occurred under the previous government.

This bill, as much as you’re finding some faults with it, I don’t see that—currently, we have about 3.5 million homes and 130,000 businesses in Ontario that use natural gas. We know that; that’s a fact. We know that these changes, should they pass, will potentially enable natural gas connections for over 70 communities and connecting approximately 33,000 households. This new program would deliver decades of benefits to potentially dozens of communities across Ontario. It will cost nothing additional to our taxpayers and will keep existing natural gas costs low. This will make communities more attractive for jobs and new businesses.

So my question, then, to the honourable member is: We see how much good this bill will bring; does it make sense to vote against it and say that no one gets natural gas? You’re saying that 90% of northern Ontario will not get it. Well, I am curious. Where are you getting this number? I would love to see where you’re getting that number from, because I don’t see how it is a full 90% of northern Ontario. To vote down a bill that will enable others to receive natural gas and benefit from it—why would we do that? Why would we vote against something like that?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to speak, and thank you again to the member from Timmins.

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

M. Guy Bourgouin: Ça me fait plaisir de me lever aujourd’hui et de parler sur ce projet de loi. Je voudrais parler d’un de mes commettants, M. Potvin. M. Potvin demeure à Lac-Ste-Thérèse, à 17 kilomètres de la connexion la plus proche. Mais ce que mon confrère de Timmins a mentionné, je crois, est directement relié à ce qu’on dit.

I’ll read you the email. It’s from Union Gas, and it says:

“We received your email inquiring about the request for natural gas in the community of Lac-Ste-Thérèse. During our April 26, 2018, phone conversation, I explained the process of how a natural gas expansion pipeline on unserved communities and unserved portions of the community has already access to natural gas. It is related to Lac-Ste-Thérèse. Based on the information provided, Union Gas has determined that this project is not economically feasible because the distance of this community is more than 17 kilometres to the closest natural gas connection.

“Furthermore, when the inquiry was evaluated, the interest came primarily from residential property owners. If large commercial and industrial operations were included in the evaluation, it might impact the feasibility of the project.”

So again, it goes to show you that we will see more of these letters to people. This letter came from Union Gas Limited, an Enbridge company. We will see more of these letters to rural community people and homeowners, because the companies are there to make money. They need a quick return on their investment. It goes to exactly what my confrère was saying, that we won’t see it in rural communities.

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

Mr. Ross Romano: I always find that it is important to start off by looking at what the subject matter is. What we’re talking about is Bill 32, which is expanding natural gas into rural and northern Ontario. I don’t believe that any of the members, especially from rural or northern Ontario, would have any problem with this at all. I would suspect that, in fact, they would be encouraged by it. I know in certain areas within my riding there are people without natural gas and they talk about it a lot and talk about the need for it. Certainly the benefits are there.

I really want to speak to the member from Timmins’ comments. He referred to Sault Ste. Marie and, obviously, as the member from Sault Ste. Marie, I have perhaps some pretty hands-on information and knowledge about it. When he referred to that restructuring of Algoma Steel in the early 1990s, the first of three—we’re at the third now—the situation was, I think, characterized a little bit unfairly by the member. The situation with the restructuring in the early 1990s—who brought on the resolution of that matter was in fact the private residents. I’d be happy to share that information with the member.

I have personal relationships with the people who were involved. I’ve seen the organizational charts that were created. The people who made that deal conclude were private residents, and they were many. They were into the hundreds.

There is a pyramid that is erected on our waterfront, and there’s actually a monument that goes along with it, and the thank-yous with respect to what resolved that restructuring were to the private residents, who all banded together and said, “We will not allow our plant to go quietly into the night. We will not allow it to be shut down. We will fight. We will join together in hands and work towards resolving this.”

So in fairness to the member—

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I didn’t anticipate such entertainment so early in the morning, but I do appreciate the member from Sault Ste. Marie giving us some golden gems that we’ll love to share with the rest of the province and, certainly, his community. I encourage the government to put up the member from Sault Ste. Marie every chance that they have to comment on almost every bill, because it’s laughable.

To the bill and to the 20-minute hit that my colleague from Timmins–James Bay gave us and informed us: I think he was spot on. This bill, frankly, is a half measure. It’s a half a loaf. It’s one where we know there is an existing problem with the infrastructure and access to affordable natural gas in rural and remote communities across this province. It’s one that we all, at some point in this building, have endeavoured to fix.

What we’ve asked for is some more consultation. I think the principle and the idea around issuing a white paper and bringing all of those stakeholders together to finally put some impetus and some muscle behind this expansion can only help the economic development fortunes of this province and support small businesses and families and agriculture industries. We know that they’re reliant on and would love access to natural gas. One of their main issues is the drying of grain. This is something that, if you have access to natural gas, your operation becomes so much more efficient and effective.

We’re talking about, ultimately, food security in an area where we know there is some damage done due to high moisture content.

That aside, the concept proposed in this bill is one that relies on the benevolent nature of gas companies to take the profits that they receive and then trickle that down into expansion in other places where it isn’t economically viable. I don’t think we’re going to see that, because there’s no real precedent for that.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Now back to the member from Timmins for final comments.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I miss the “James Bay” part, but that’s okay.

To the member Kitchener South–Hespeler: I want to thank you for your comments. I think that’s a good question to be asked. The answer is pretty simple, and it’s what I said in the debate. There are parts of the bill that we agree with. It’s going to help certain rural parts of Ontario—there’s no question. If you live in a small, compact area, this particular bill will allow the gas company to give service there, and that’s a good thing. But the problem was, the whole point of this bill was to bring it to the people that the member from—

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Essex.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: —Essex raises, which are the grain farmers, who need to have natural gas to be able to operate their grain dryers, and the dairy farmers, who need the energy to be able to do other—it’s about making sure that that part of the economy and those people living in those hard-to-serve places get it. This bill doesn’t do it. That’s why I vote against it.

To the member from Sault Ste. Marie: Yes, the community was involved, but who do you think brought them there? Do you think that they could have done this unless they had a government that was prepared to facilitate what happened? We were the ones that were there in the community, along with the steelworkers, at first—the steelworkers, to this day—who, at the end, found a solution. It was our government who said, “We won’t accept that steel mill in Sault Ste. Marie closing down.’ So, yes, we brought together the community, we brought together the unions, we brought together the municipality, and we worked together to find the solution that serves us until today.

What we’re asking your government to do is to do the same thing in Oshawa. Listen, don’t take no as the answer you get in the first part of an opening position by the company; say, “Hang on a second. You want to sell cars in Ontario? There are some rules about how that’s going to happen, and we want you at the table along with everybody else to come to a solution that helps find a solution for the people of that area.”

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

Mrs. Amy Fee: I rise this morning to speak to Bill 32, the Access to Natural Gas Act, a bill that, if passed, will work to make life more affordable for families in my riding of Kitchener South–Hespeler and across Waterloo region and our province. Right now in Ontario, approximately 3.5 million residents and 130,000 businesses are reliant on natural gas. It is clear that the demand for natural gas is high, and we continue to hear from families, businesses and communities across the province that they want natural gas expansion, saying that access to natural gas is necessary in order for them to grow, compete and create additional jobs.

We were elected on a clear mandate to make life more affordable for families and to ensure Ontario is open for business. This bill will ensure both. It is also following through on a specific ask from many communities across Ontario for natural gas expansion. The expansion is needed to bring down costs for families and for businesses and to make, especially, our rural and northern Ontario more desirable for businesses. I am proud to say that this proposed policy will bring natural gas for as many as 78 new communities in Ontario and mean upwards of 63 new projects, while providing natural gas services to more than 33,000—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Excuse me. I appreciate the fact—

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I understand. That conversation could also be carried on outside the walls as well because I’m having a difficult time hearing our speaker. Let’s give her the respect that she deserves.

I’ll now return to the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler to continue.

Mrs. Amy Fee: Thank you, Speaker.

As I was saying, this will also provide gas services to potentially up to 33,000 additional households across the province. For families, it will mean real savings. For those who choose to change to natural gas for their energy needs, it will save them as much as $2,500 a year.

For families already benefiting from natural gas in my riding, which covers the southern portion of Kitchener and the Hespeler portion of Cambridge, we’ve already removed the carbon tax from their gas bills, saving them about $80 a year, and for businesses, nearly $300 a year.

Our government for the people’s vision of what families and businesses need is quite different than what we saw in the previous Liberal government. The former government not only limited private sector participation in natural gas expansion and placed the burden, once again, on the hard-working people of this province through a taxpayer-funded grant program; at one point, they were even talking about getting rid of natural gas altogether.

The proposals in the Access to Natural Gas Act tabled by the Minister of Infrastructure will give the opportunity for private sector partnerships to foster with communities to expand natural gas to remote, rural and northern areas of Ontario. If passed, the bill would amend the Ontario Energy Board Act to enable natural gas distributors to add a small charge to existing consumers’ bills to help cover the cost of expanding the service. Charges, though, will be much less than what the savings of families and businesses have already started to see across Ontario with the removal of the carbon tax from their bills.

In fact, natural gas suppliers have said that charge will amount to about just a dollar a month, and that is when the expansion program is at its peak. At other times, it may be even less.

I’d like to take a few moments to explain a little about our proposed changes. What we want to see are clear guidelines around our natural gas suppliers, while ensuring there are measures in place that are necessary to have ratepayer protection at the same time that we see that natural gas expansion to dozens of new communities.

These rules and regulations that would be enacted achieve these goals by ensuring that the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, is amended to provide rate protection for consumers or classes of consumers with respect to costs incurred by gas distributors in making a qualifying investment for the purpose of providing access to a natural gas distribution system to those consumers. Gas distributors are entitled to be compensated for any resulting lost revenue, and all consumers, or such classes of consumers as are prescribed, are required to contribute towards the compensation.

As I mentioned a moment ago, what we saw under the previous government was a restrictive practice, with private sector companies being limited from participating in some natural gas expansion, instead of working together. Expansion under the Liberal government was managed by a taxpayer-funded grant program.

If passed, Bill 32 will change this. We want to empower private sector companies to build out the expansion of natural gas while the Ontario Energy Board still has that oversight to ensure consumers are still protected, and that we have transparency during the expansion.

My riding of Kitchener South–Hespeler is part of Waterloo region, a beautiful area that has three large cities—Kitchener, Cambridge and Waterloo—as well as several rural townships, including 1,300 farms. Those farms are a significant part of our economy in the region, with an average size of over 150 acres, producing everything from field crops to sod to nursery crops. We also have many livestock farmers, mainly cattle and dairy farms.

Included in our townships is one of my favourite places, St. Jacobs. It’s a wonderful Mennonite community that is popular with tourists. I certainly remember, as a little girl, going with my mum to St. Jacobs, and now we enjoy taking my four kids there. We get everything from local fruits and vegetables to honey to maple syrup, and we also like to see the livestock that are there. St. Jacobs is certainly a vital part of our local tourism in Waterloo region, and not just in Kitchener–Conestoga.

Those Mennonite families in the area have been long asking for access to natural gas, with many currently running their farms off of costly generators. Their community leaders have told us the current lack of natural gas in the area is one of the stumbling blocks that is keeping more businesses from opening up in the townships. The Ontario Chamber of Commerce has said that “Premier Ford’s plan to develop a new natural gas program ... will not only help to make life more affordable for Ontarians but boost job creation and economic growth in rural and northern Ontario communities.”

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture, which represents 38,000 farm members, that industry, and rural communities, has met with me during our campaign and they’ve also been here at Queen’s Park talking about the need for natural gas expansion. They say, “Access to natural gas is a strategic competitive necessity for the economic development of rural Ontario.” The OFA even goes as far as saying it is the key for the future of farming here in Ontario.

The president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Mr. Keith Currie, has stated, “Energy is one of the largest inputs on farms,” and rural Ontario needs “access to natural gas to help boost the competitiveness of rural Ontario communities, businesses and farms.”

He has also declared that “natural gas is the single most important investment that will deliver a competitive edge to continue to drive growth in rural Ontario.”

The OFA has been advocating for this type of improved infrastructure with access to natural gas for many years. In speaking with the Standing Committee on General Government just last month, OFA director Pat Jilesen told us that with only 20% of rural Ontario currently serviced, expanding access to natural gas across Ontario must be a provincial priority, because only 20% have it. According to him, “If natural gas were available across the province, it would free up well over $1 billion in annual energy spending and greatly boost business opportunities. That is a new $1 billion in disposable income across rural Ontario.”

Expanding access to natural gas in rural, remote and First Nation communities will improve both the physical and social infrastructure of these communities by providing employment opportunities and by once again announcing that Ontario is open for business. This, in turn, will provide much-needed relief not only for rural Ontario, but will also help us alleviate some of the challenges that are faced by Ontario’s urban centres.

As expressed by the OFA: “Rural Ontario and our agri-food industry is alive with innovation, opportunity and economic potential—and the more success in its rural areas, the better and more prosperous everyone becomes across the province”—including in my riding of Kitchener South–Hespeler.

It is clear that the OFA wants a government that is committed to expanding natural gas across the province, and we are committed to just that. Bill 32 clearly demonstrates that our rural and northern communities are, once again, open for business. We know as a government that it is important for us to work toward doing everything we can to assist our agriculture industry to bring economic prosperity back to Ontario.

It is not just the OFA. Jeff Stager, from the Waterloo Federation of Agriculture, which is the voice for farmers across Waterloo region, has said that the lack of natural gas access is an issue and farmers need access to this fuel source—the most inexpensive fuel source.

I hope I’m helping to paint a picture here for you this morning, Mr. Speaker, that natural gas expansion is wanted and needed in many areas across Ontario. Hard-working families, farmers, businesses, rural Ontario, northern Ontario: They’re all saying the same thing, that they need natural gas expansion.

Most of our caucus was with Premier Ford and Minister McNaughton as they made the announcement about natural gas expansion at the International Plowing Match in Chatham back in September. Not only did we hear the loud cheers from the audience that was there, but then we actually heard from people who were there that day talking about how much this expansion is desperately needed for them.

Following that announcement, the local paper in Chatham, Chatham Voice, printed, “If passed, the new program would encourage more private gas distributors to partner with communities to develop projects that expand access to affordable and efficient natural gas.”

It goes on to say, “The proposed new program would deliver decades of benefits to potentially dozens of communities across Ontario at no additional costs to the taxpayers while keeping existing natural gas costs low.”

Chatham Voice also quoted Joe Vaccaro, the CEO of the Ontario Home Builders’ Association, as saying, “The decision to extend natural gas services will support future housing supply and choice in rural and northern communities while providing homeowners and businesses with an affordable and reliable heating option that will keep their everyday costs down.”

Mr. Speaker, we have heard over and over again about how important this expansion is for communities across the province. That is why we want to put guidelines in place for Ontario’s major natural gas suppliers to be able to take those measures necessary in order to achieve protection for consumers while expanding natural gas services at the same time. Again, I just want to explain what is in the bill and how we’re going about that.

There are some clear objectives in the bill. If passed, it will be amending the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, to “provide rate protection for consumers or prescribed classes of consumers with respect to costs incurred by the gas distributor in making a qualifying investment for the purpose of providing access to a natural gas distribution system to those consumers....” A gas distributor is entitled to be compensated for lost revenue, and all consumers, or such classes of consumers as are prescribed, are required to contribute towards that compensation.

I can’t stress this enough: This is in stark contrast to the previous Liberal government. Their practices were restrictive to private sector companies, with limitations around them being allowed to participate in some natural gas expansion, with the Liberals deciding instead to manage expansion with a taxpayer-funded grant program.

As you’ve heard during the debate, Mr. Speaker, our proposed plan has no such policy to use tax dollars to cover off expansion. We are proposing instead to empower private companies to build out this increased expansion, creating jobs, creating options for families, and creating better opportunities for businesses to open and grow in rural and northern areas of the province. This will also allow the market to dictate the need and locations for expansion.

Again, the oversight will continue through the Ontario Energy Board to ensure transparency and that ratepayers are protected. While there will be a small cost for ratepayers, to help this expansion, it will be around $12 a year, much lower than the $80 a year we’ve already saved families who already have natural gas in their homes by removing the cap-and-trade costs.

Speaking of money, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to stress that natural gas expansion will help save money for families across Ontario, many of whom have been struggling to make ends meet because of policies of the former Liberal government. Switching from electric heat, propane or oil to natural gas will save families anywhere between $800 and $2,500 a year. That is significant for people, especially in rural and northern Ontario.

I thought I’d like to see what they could do with that money and, maybe if they saved that money, what it could mean for families. So yesterday, we went on the RBC website and went to their calculator for RRSPs and decided to put the lower end—the $800 that they could potentially save in a year—into the calculator to see what would happen if they were 35 and just took that one year of $800 in savings and put it in an RRSP, and how much money that would be when they turned 65. The amount was $7,188.

This is why, to me, it is so vital for our government for the people to make life more affordable for families. The opportunities they have with any potential savings, large or small, are significant in their present and in their futures. This is why Premier Ford and Minister McNaughton and our entire PC government for the people are working so hard to find savings for families: to make their lives more affordable.

We’ve heard right across the province about how difficult life became under 15 years of Liberal governments, and we are working to turn things around. For Ontario families and businesses, especially those in rural and northern Ontario, this expansion of natural gas is desperately needed. When Premier Ford made the announcement about our proposed ideas for the expansion, he said, “We heard from people across Ontario that natural gas expansion is important in order to grow businesses, create jobs and compete.” It was obvious that he was speaking from his many conversations on this very issue.

I’d like to thank the Premier and Minister McNaughton for all the work they have done and continue to do for this province.

We know, Mr. Speaker, that natural gas is the most common heating source in Ontario, and it is more affordable than any other sources like electricity, oil, or propane. Again, the savings potential for families is huge: between $800 and $2,500 a year. With the proposed changes in Bill 32, we could potentially see natural gas expanded to around 33,000 new households in over 70 new communities and create upwards of 63 new projects. This will also make operating costs lower for current businesses in these communities, while encouraging more businesses to enter these communities as families have more money to spend and, again, those operating costs for businesses are lower.

As I wrap up my time here this morning, I’d like to go back to those quotes from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and the Ontario Home Builders’ Association. I think it’s important for me to highlight, with my time that I have on this bill, just how vital they know natural gas expansion is for families and for businesses to ensure that economic prosperity comes back to Ontario.

From the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture: “Energy is one of the largest inputs on farms, and rural Ontario needs access to natural gas to help boost the competitiveness of these communities, businesses and farms.” He has also declared that, “Natural gas is the single most important investment that will deliver a competitive edge to continue to drive the growth of rural Ontario.”

OFA director Pat Jilesen told us that with only 20% of rural Ontario currently serviced, expanding access to natural gas across Ontario must be a provincial infrastructure priority: “If natural gas were available across the province, it would free up well over $1 billion in annual energy spending and greatly boost business opportunities. That is a new $1 billion in disposable income across rural Ontario.”

The Ontario Chamber of Commerce has said that, “Premier’s Ford plan to develop a new natural gas program ... will not only help to make life more affordable for Ontarians but boost job creation and economic growth in rural and northern Ontario communities”—again, benefiting us right across Ontario, including in my own riding.

The CEO of the Ontario Home Builders’ Association has said, “The decision to extend natural gas services will support future housing supply and choice in rural and northern communities while providing homeowners and businesses with an affordable and reliable heating option that will keep their everyday costs down.”

Mr. Speaker, I’d just like to thank you for taking the time to listen to me this morning on why I feel Bill 32 is so important for the future of Ontario by making life more affordable for families and ensuring that we’re open for business again, especially in our northern and rural communities. I want to, again, thank Minister McNaughton for all of his hard work on this bill.

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

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Thank you to the member for your comments on this bill.

I’d just like to say that all of us were elected with the goal of improving lives for Ontarians. We all heard this on the campaign trail—that life was unaffordable. We all heard this. We now have a new expression, which is “energy poverty.” So we know—all of us on both sides of the House—that access to natural gas is something that’s about basic fairness and it is something that will improve the lives of individuals in Ontario and make life more affordable. Really, that’s the job of all of us in this House. It doesn’t fall to one side of the House to ensure that what we’re doing, in fact, does benefit all of Ontario.

That’s why I, too, find the way in which not just this bill but many bills are being debated and being pushed through the House—I find it troubling that so many of these bills that we have are time-allocated. We’re limiting debate on important issues. It is our responsibility to get things right.

This side moved amendments that would improve this bill; all of those were denied. These amendments were meant to improve access because, at the end of the day, if there are no provisions in this bill to ensure that what you’re saying—which is that rural Ontario and northern Ontario will have access to natural gas—if there are no provisions in this bill to ensure that, then this bill does not do what it’s intended to do.

I would like to say that you mentioned that 20% of rural Ontario does not have access to natural gas. I’d also like to talk about the Far North, where in fact they do not have access to natural gas. In some instances, they’re still heating homes with propane, with oil and, in some cases, wood—let’s be honest.

I would like to ensure that in future, the government will listen to us, because no one government has all the answers. We’re here to get it right, and that is why I think we haven’t done this and why I won’t be supporting this bill.

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

Mr. Aris Babikian: The intention of the bill is to bring relief to the people of Ontario. We can sit down here for the next four years and debate motions, bills etc., but people are waiting for change, waiting for results on the ground. They cannot wait for four years to debate all these issues. We need to start working, acting and bringing the relief.

What we are proposing is a program that, if the legislation is passed, would allow more consumers access to affordable natural gas. In too many parts of rural and northern Ontario, families and businesses still do not have access to natural gas. For the average residential consumer in Ontario, the switch from electric heat, propane or oil to natural gas would result in savings between $800 and $2,500 a year. This is not small change.

Expanding natural gas would make Ontario communities more attractive for job creation and new businesses. This will help send a clear message that Ontario is open for business.

Under the previous government’s restrictions, private sector companies were limited from participating in some natural gas expansion, portions of which were instead managed by a taxpayer-funded grant program.

We are committed to putting more money in the pockets of our residents. By removing the cost of the cap-and-trade carbon tax from natural gas bills, we have saved families approximately $80 a year, and small businesses approximately $285 a year.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments? The member from Spadina–Fort York.

Mr. Chris Glover: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I love the way that you say that with so much enthusiasm.

I apologize; my voice is a little hoarse today.

I want to say that the NDP is very supportive of getting natural gas into rural, northern and First Nations communities, the communities that are not currently being served with natural gas. We recognize the benefits that it will bring to those communities. Unfortunately, this bill is not going to do that.

The government has already cut public funding to cover the costs of expanding natural gas into rural communities. I sit on the general government committee, and the NDP brought in—my colleague Jennifer French from Oshawa brought in 18 amendments to this bill. Many of them were asking for the words “rural, remote and First Nations communities” in the bill so that it actually states who is going to be benefiting from the actions that are taken by this bill. Each time, the government side voted down those amendments.

The other amendment that the government side voted down was where we asked that our utility bills cannot be used for partisan advertising. Again, the government side voted that down.

It’s really unfortunate that this bill is not going to achieve the goal of providing natural gas to those rural, remote, and First Nations communities. I think, as Ontarians, it’s a principle that we stand up for, and I’ll just give one quick example.

I remember that in the 1970s, when I was a kid, I was watching TV with my father. There was an advertisement for Ontario Hydro, and it was about Ontario Hydro in the north. My father said, “You know, we actually subsidize hydro for northern communities.” I asked, “Is that fair?” He said, “We’re all Ontarians, we’re all part of the same province, and we all deserve the same benefits.”

So the northern communities, the rural, remote, First Nations communities, they deserve the right to have affordable natural gas, and that’s what we’re in support of. Unfortunately, this bill won’t achieve that.

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

Mr. Vijay Thanigasalam: It gives me great pleasure to rise today and speak on Bill 32, the proposed Access to Natural Gas Act. If this legislation is passed, it would allow the government to develop a program to bring natural gas to more families and businesses throughout rural and northern Ontario. Our government ran on a mandate to provide the people of Ontario with much-needed energy relief, to put more money back in their pockets, and to open Ontario for business. As we have mentioned, in too many parts of rural, remote and northern Ontario, families and businesses still do not have access to natural gas.

Our government is here to make life easier and more affordable for the people in Ontario. Mr. Speaker, Bill 32 would achieve this goal.

For the average residential consumer in Ontario, the switch from electric heat, propane or oil to natural gas would result in savings of between $800 and $2,500 per year. Expanding natural gas would make Ontario communities more attractive for job creation and new businesses. This will help send a clear message that Ontario is open for business.

I am thrilled to be here today to help move this proposed legislation forward. We need, as a government, to put more money back into the pockets of working people in this province. I can confirm to you today that if this bill passes, we will do just that.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Now back to the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler for final comments.

Mrs. Amy Fee: Thank you to the members from Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas, Scarborough–Agincourt, Spadina–Fort York and Scarborough–Rouge Park.

To the member from Spadina–Fort York: I absolutely agree when you were talking about how all of Ontario and rural, northern and First Nations communities deserve this access to natural gas. We’re all part of one Ontario. That is why I’m supporting this bill and that’s why I’m moving this forward.

We were elected on a clear mandate—when we were out door-knocking—that families needed life to be more affordable. That’s what this bill is designed to do, to bring in that natural-gas expansion without putting the burden onto taxpayers the way the former Liberal government wanted to do with the taxpayer-funded grant program to build in this expansion. I’m very proud that we are working to expand this.

Potentially, we could get into 78 new communities in Ontario, bringing in jobs and 68 possible new projects across Ontario to work on building up this infrastructure, and the jobs that will come after to the communities and the businesses that can then expand in those communities. Then also, 33,000 additional households—and then that billion dollars a year in additional spending being talked about by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture that will be able to be a part of rural Ontario based on the measures coming in place to put in natural gas expansion.

Again, I am very proud to support this bill and to help move this bill forward in this House. I really want to thank our Premier, who announced this bill, along with Minister McNaughton—I thought, very timely—at the International Plowing Match. It was wonderful to see how much people in rural Ontario who were there at the plowing match were very excited and very thankful for this bill coming forward. Again, thank you to Minister McNaughton for working so hard on this bill. I look forward to seeing this expansion across rural and northern Ontario.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s always an honour to be able to stand in this House and today talk about access to natural gas. I think we all know how important this is to the province of Ontario.

As a former director of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, as a farmer and as a representative of Timiskaming–Cochrane, which has a lot of communities who desperately need access to natural gas, quite frankly, I was optimistic when this bill was first announced. The first thing I did is I called up the natural gas companies, and I met with them to talk about, from their perspective, how this would work.

Basically, what this bill does, in a nutshell, it allows gas companies to take an amount of money off current customers’ bills, to increase their bills—it’s not actually set out in the legislation. The gas companies and the government are suggesting a dollar or two dollars a month to build up a fund to subsidize new installations. That’s all this bill does. That’s exactly what it does.

So I called up the gas companies and met with them. I wanted to talk about this because I’m a farmer. I represent farmers. I represent people in rural Ontario. I said, “I have a rural road, and there are a couple of farms on it, there’s a guy with a grain dryer on it, and there are three or four houses on it. They’re pretty close to a town. So how is this fund going to work?” “Well, Mr. Vanthof, farms don’t really qualify, because the way the bill is set up, residential customers can’t be cross-subsidized with farming operations.” The devil is always in the details. This is a pretty big detail.

And this isn’t news, because I said exactly the same thing on second reading. I implored the government, I implored the gas companies, I implored anyone, if I am wrong, to please correct me, because on this one, I want to be wrong. I want it to be proven that this bill is actually going to help people on the rural roads of true rural and northern Ontario. I said exactly the same thing on second reading, and do you know what I heard? Crickets is what I heard.

I commend the Ontario Federation of Agriculture for pushing for access to natural gas, but I have yet to hear anybody explain how that’s actually going to work. What this bill is going to facilitate—and I think that’s what the bill is designed for. That’s why the home builders’ association is very supportive. I’m not saying this is a bad thing, but this is what this bill is really going to facilitate: This bill is going to subsidize gas infrastructure to new subdivision developments. That’s what this bill is for. It’s being couched in rural and northern, but that’s what this bill is for.

I’m not even saying that’s a bad thing; it’s just that it should be advertised as such. Because when I hear how farms are going to benefit—well, guess what? They’re not. They’re not going to have access to this program because you can’t cross-subsidize an agricultural operation with a residential customer. Again, I hope I’m wrong, but that’s what the gas companies told me.

Something else that the gas companies—and this makes sense. The gas companies—now it’s “gas company”; Enbridge and Union—are going to direct their funds where they make the most profit. I agree with that. I have nothing against private companies making profits. Private monopolies—they should have some control; that’s why we have the Ontario Energy Board. I don’t have a problem with that either. When this fund is built up, they are going to put that money to the places where it has the biggest return on investment.

Again, highly concentrated new subdivision developments are where you’re going to make the biggest bang for your buck. I didn’t hear one member of the government saying, “This is great.” The home builders’ association know that, and that’s why they’re the biggest supporters. I don’t begrudge them that. But let’s be clear about what this bill is really for.

Why I’m so concerned is that we are being—great messaging here: “access to all, northern and rural.” I’ve got towns like Val Gagné, like Latchford; outfits like Thornloe Cheese; grain-drying operations that are thinking, “All right. Finally.” Do you know what? It’s not going to happen. Again, I hope I’m proven wrong. But it’s my job as a member of this Legislature to actually lay the facts on the table the way we see them, and not just to say, “Oh, well, it’s a good title: Access to Natural Gas. It’s going to create a panacea out there.” It’s not. Are some people going to be helped? Yes.

Are the people who the messaging is being aimed at—are their lives going to change? That’s highly questionable, Speaker.

When we put amendments forward in the committee to solidify, to make sure that our concerns—perhaps we were being overly critical. We were being told there in second reading, “Just trust us. Actually, that is where this bill is for. It’s for northern and rural. Just trust us.” So we put amendments forward: “Let’s actually put something in the bill that dedicates a portion of this cross-subsidization to remote rural or to First Nations, just to solidify where this money is going to go.” Do you know what happened, Speaker? The government voted it down. Do you know why? Well, they said, “Oh, no. This is the intent of the bill. Just trust us.” So we tried again. The government voted it down.

Do you know what? I’m not sure that as a representative of my riding and as a spokesman for our party and as someone who speaks for a lot of people, like we all do—that we are in a position to, just because Premier Ford says it’s a good idea, trust him. If the bill is truly to get gas to true rural and northern, why doesn’t it say it in the bill? The government had every chance to do that—every chance; they could have even put it in the

preamble—but chose not to.

Do you know what? The government is going to message all kinds of stuff about, how could we vote against such a fantastic bill? This is why we’re going to vote against the bill: Because the bill doesn’t actually have any guarantee that it’s going to do what the government is trying to message.

When the government members were on this side in the last Parliament, they had exactly the same comments about Liberal legislation: that it always had great messaging, but when you actually looked at the pages, the messaging didn’t actually match the meat of the bill.

Mr. Lorne Coe: Sure it does.

Mr. John Vanthof: The member from I don’t know what riding—the government whip—remembers that. He remembers that in everything the Liberal government would have “open and transparent,” just like these guys do, and they would do exactly the same things. That’s why we are going to vote against this bill.

We hope—we hope—that this bill actually works, that you actually have the intent. But I’m willing to predict that northern and rural Ontario won’t see a big influx of natural gas installations; farms won’t see any because of this bill, because they don’t qualify; and some new subdivisions will have cheaper installation.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I’m with Uncle Ernie on this.

Mr. John Vanthof: And I wish my—the Minister of Agriculture had responded to me when I said this in the Legislature last time.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Your uncle Ernie.

Mr. John Vanthof: My uncle, actually, yes.

But that is the problem: The devil is always in the details, and this bill totally lacks details. When we tried to put amendments to make the bill actually more descriptive, the government shut it down.

So what this bill does—and I’m running out of time—is, it allows the gas companies to take some money off of current customer’s bills to subsidize new installations. That’s what it does. It doesn’t say anything about where or when or how, so “rural” could be in Kitchener–Waterloo; that’s rural. “Rural” could be just outside Toronto.

Interjection.

Mr. John Vanthof: Thank you for that message, Speaker. I will soon sit down.

But the issue is that the bill doesn’t guarantee that it does what the messaging that the provincial government, what the Ford government of the day, is saying.

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

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I’m glad that you can—

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Order, please.

To the member: You’ll have an opportunity to continue debate a little bit later on. I’m glad that you can pick up on signals from the Speaker, as well, just to let you know that we’re getting close to time.

We are now at that time. Therefore, it is 10:15 and this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Hon. John Yakabuski: Good morning. I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park today a representative with the OSSTF from my area of Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, Jeffrey Barber, who’s been representing the OSSTF in my area for 11 years. You must be doing a good job. Welcome to Queen’s Park, Jeffrey.

Ms. Marit Stiles: I’d like to welcome Harvey Bischof, president of the Ontario Secondary Schools Teachers’ Federation, their provincial executive and education workers from across Ontario who are here with us today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: J’aimerais souhaiter la bienvenue aux membres du caucus coopérative : entre autres, Caroline Joly, qui est chercheure et agente de développement au Conseil de la coopération de l’Ontario, ainsi que Julien Geremie. Bienvenue à Queen’s Park.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: I’d like to welcome Chief Ben Addley from the Oxford paramedic services here today with the Ontario Association of Paramedic Chiefs. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I’d like to welcome all the education workers who are here today, but specifically members from London from OSSTF: Steve Janik, Lisa MacMaster, Raya Barry, Patti Dalton and Larry Farquharson. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I’d like to welcome Alan and Terrie Jarvis, who are friends of mine from the Guelph Rotary Club visiting here today.

I’d like to welcome Peter Cameron, Sara Cleland and David Cork, all from Guelph, here as part of the co-op day.

I’d like to welcome all OSSTF education workers here today, especially Ivy Woods and Amy Reinders from Guelph. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to introduce members from the Ontario Co-Operative Association: Erin Morgan, David Cork, Caroline Joly, Iffat Zehra, Janet Cox, Sandra Davis, Kathleen Webb, Sara Cleland and Howard Brown. Welcome.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I had a meeting earlier today with members of my local OSSTF. They’re in the gallery. I’d like to welcome Erin Roy, Christine Musson, Patricia Morneau and Martha Hradowy. Thank you and welcome back to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Vijay Thanigasalam: I would like to welcome Anetes Anton to Queen’s Park. He has newly joined my team as a case manager in my constituency office in Scarborough–Rouge Park. He was a key part of my campaign team as well. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. John Fraser: I’d like to welcome some Ottawa folks from OSSTF. Susan Rab is here, Janice Smith, Dana Hewitt, John Ross, Ben Loucks, Pavel Maverick and Richard Brown. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Representing public education and from the OSSTF from my riding of Sarnia–Lambton are Jennifer Kumpf and Dave Parkes. I’m glad to welcome you to the Legislature today. It was nice to meet with them this morning.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I would like to welcome members of OSSTF district 11 who have joined us here today, three of whom are constituents of mine in London West: Lisa MacMaster, Raya Barry and Larry Farquharson. They are also here with Steve Janik and Patti Dalton. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Michael Gravelle: I would like to welcome the OSSTF representatives from across the province, but particularly those from the Thunder Bay and Thunder Bay district: Tammy Rathwell from Manitouwadge, John Gordon from Marathon, Carlos Santander-Maturana from Thunder Bay, Bobbi Piccolo from Thunder Bay, and of course, the executive officer of the OSSTF from Thunder Bay, Paul Caccamo. Welcome.

Miss Kinga Surma: I would like to welcome Ervin and Albana Musta, who are the parents of one of our lovely pages from Etobicoke Centre, Kejsi Musta, who is doing a fantastic job. Welcome to the Legislature; I look forward to meeting you later today.

Miss Monique Taylor: I don’t have a list of their names but I know that there are folks from Hamilton here with OSSTF. I would like to welcome them to Queen’s Park today.

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to join my voice to welcome all the OSSTF members here today, particularly district 12 from Toronto and Leslie Wolfe. Thank you so much for being here, and thank you for being great partners in education.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I’m pleased to introduce the chief of EMS from the region of Durham, Troy Cheseboro. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: I’d like to welcome the family of our page, Vincent Doval-L’Heureux, who is page captain today. In the gallery we have Vincent’s mother, Eugenia Doval; his aunt, Veronica Slater; and his father, Jean-François L’Heureux. For the last eight years, Jean-François has served as the local school board trustee and is the current chair of the French public school board, Viamonde. I’d like to thank him for his service, as his term is ending November 30. Thank you, and welcome.

Mr. Stephen Crawford: I’m proud to have two members of the Oakville community, very engaged in the Oakville community: Farrukh Baig and Asifa Baig. Thank you for coming.

Hon. Laurie Scott: I’d like to introduce the Kawartha Lakes paramedic chief, Keith Kirkpatrick, here with us today. Thank you very much, Keith, for being here.

M me France Gélinas: J’aimerais remercier les gens de la Fédération des enseignantes-enseignants des écoles secondaires de l’Ontario qui sont ici avec nous : ma bonne amie M me Ginette Lefebvre, Lynne Montpellier, Eric Laberge, and, from OSSTF, Mr. Phil Crowe. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: I would like to welcome some of the members from the Grape Growers of Ontario—some here; some on the way. I wish you a good adventure day in Queen’s Park.

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: It’s also my pleasure to introduce Lisa MacMaster, Steve Janik, Larry Farquharson, Patti Dalton and Raya Barry, representing the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, district 11 in London. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. David Piccini: I wanted to welcome a good friend and the incoming mayor-elect of Brighton to Queen’s Park this morning. Welcome, Brian Ostrander. I’m looking forward to working with you.

Mr. Jamie West: I’d also like to welcome members from OSSTF here. Sherry McNeil is the president of OSSTF’s professional student services personnel, and then three other people who are labour council presidents, just to show the quality in the leadership that OSSTF develops: J.P. Desilets from Timmins and District Labour Council; Carlos Santander-Maturana—thank you, Carlos—from Thunder Bay and District Labour Council; and Patti Dalton from the London and District Labour Council. If we get four more, we can have an OFL convention.

Ms. Effie J.

Triantafilopoulos: I would like to formally recognize and welcome the Ontario Association of Paramedic Chiefs to Queen’s Park: Carrie Hassberger, chief of Rama First Nation paramedic service; Chief Troy Cheseboro of Durham region paramedic services; Mike Nolan, chief of Renfrew county emergency medical service; Keith Kirkpatrick, chief of Kawartha Lakes paramedic service; Wayne Gates, chief of Superior North paramedic service; Jean Carriere, chief of Cochrane DSSAB paramedic service; Ben Addley, chief of Oxford County Paramedic Services; Gordon McEachen, chief of Toronto Paramedic Services; Andrew Robert, chief of Simcoe county paramedic service; J.C.

Gilbert, deputy chief of Simcoe county paramedic service; Tom Reid, chief of Dufferin County Paramedic Service; Kevin Smith, chief of Niagara region paramedic service; Don MacLellan, chief of Chatham-Kent paramedic service; and Andrew Tickner, chief of Kenora DSSAB paramedic service.

I encourage all of my fellow MPPs to join them at their reception tonight from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., where the 2018 Governor General’s Emergency Medical Service Exemplary Service Medal will be presented to paramedics serving for at least 30 to 40 years.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Algoma—no, Niagara Falls. The member for Niagara Falls.

Applause.

Mr. Wayne Gates: Thank you. Will the real Wayne Gates please stand up?

I’d like to welcome —

Hon. Todd Smith: Stand up. Where is he?

Laughter.

Mr. Wayne Gates: Smitty, that was good. That was good.

I want to welcome, from Niagara paramedic services, Chief Kevin Smith and Deputy Chief Roger Mayo. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Vincent Ke: I would like to introduce my good friends in the public gallery: Mr. Li, Yucheng; his lovely wife, Mrs. Li Lin, Xiao Rong; his father, Mr. Mai, Fuan; and his mother, Mrs. Li Mai, Shao Zhen. They are from Antigua and came to visit Toronto. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Jeff Burch: I’d like to welcome Alison Rothwell and Lisa Etienne from Niagara OSSTF.

Ms. Sara Singh: I’d like to welcome into the gallery today a good friend and volunteer on my campaign: Rebekah Gosyne. She’s in the public gallery here today.

I’d also like to welcome our educators who are here today with us from Peel region OSSTF. Thank you so much for being here.

Mr. Michael Mantha: I’d like to welcome, from OSSTF, Jennifer Posteraro from W.C. Eaket in Blind River; Tammy Rathwell from Manitouwadge Public High School; Matt Lance from W.C. Eaket Secondary School in Blind River; and John Gordon from Marathon High School.

Ms. Marit Stiles: I would be remiss if I didn’t use this opportunity to introduce Leslie Wolfe, president of OSSTF Toronto; Michelle Teixeira, vice-president, OSSTF Toronto, and my constituent; and Nana Bediako of West Humber Collegiate Institute. Thank you for joining us here today.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: It’s my pleasure today to welcome, from Bluewater, the people from our amazing board in the Owen Sound area representing OSSTF, and a special welcome to Trina Watts McBride, who is also here representing OSSTF. She is somebody who went to F.E. Madill with me, and it’s always awesome to see people from home.

Mr. Chris Glover: I just want to extend my welcome to the members of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, of which I was a proud member for more than a decade.

Also, bienvenue à Julien Geremie, le directeur exécutif du Conseil de la coopération de l’Ontario et un résident de Spadina–Fort York.

Mr. Paul Miller: I’d like to thank Paul Kossta of OSSTF for running an excellent breakfast and doing a great networking.

M. Guy Bourgouin: Je voudrais souhaiter la bienvenue à Queen’s Park à M. Patrick Venne, président de l’Association des directions et directions adjointes des écoles franco-ontariennes; Melinda Chartrand, CSC MonAvenir, région de Lincoln-Niagara; Isabelle Girard, directrice générale de l’Association des conseils scolaires des écoles publiques de l’Ontario; et Rémi Sabourin, Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens.

Ms. Jill Andrew: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. My legs—oh, my goodness, I got a workout this morning.

I would like to say a warm welcome to all of my friends from OSSTF. I stand here as a proud member. I’d like to say a special hello to Leslie Wolfe, president of OSSTF Toronto, and Olga De Melo, president of Professional Student Services Personnel.

I’d like to say welcome to Eric Burt, and I’d also like to say welcome to Annie, a fantastic math teacher who loves arts and is an arts advocate.

Thank you to all OSSTF members in the House who are advocating for our public education.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m guessing that every single person who’s visiting today has been introduced, but in the event that we missed anyone, welcome to the Ontario Legislature.

I recognize the member for Ottawa–Vanier on a point of order.

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: Monsieur le Président, je sollicite l’appui unanime de la Chambre pour permettre aux députés indépendants de participer pour 20 minutes cet après-midi dans le cadre des débats sur la résolution de l’opposition numéro 5 sur les droits linguistiques des Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes. Cette résolution affecte directement et est très importante pour les membres de nos communautés.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Madame Des Rosiers is seeking unanimous consent that an additional 20 minutes be allotted to the opposition day debate this afternoon for use by the independent members. Agreed? I heard some noes.

Oral Questions

Automotive industry

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Before I start, I think it’s important to note that this morning early on we lost a great Ontarian and Canadian, Harry Leslie Smith, at the age of 95. He was a passionate fighter for equity, justice and universal medicare; he was a veteran. His son, John, and family know that New Democrats will always stand with Harry.

My question is to the Acting Premier. This morning in Ajax, workers at Martinrea, an auto parts supplier, learned that their jobs will soon be gone, the latest ripple from GM’s devastating news on Monday.

Yesterday, the Premier travelled to a ribbon-cutting in London, and today he plans to be in Grimsby. Will the Premier find some time in his itinerary to meet face to face with GM workers in Oshawa who are looking for a government that will fight for their jobs?

Hon. Todd Smith: Speaker, I can tell you that the Premier and my office have been working extremely hard to reach out to all of the auto parts sector in Ontario to ensure that we’re getting the lay of the land to understand exactly what the closure of the Oshawa facility is going to mean to the Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association and companies like Martinrea, Linamar and Magna. I was on the phone yesterday with the leadership at all of those companies, reaching out to them.

Most of them have said there would be little to no impact as a result of the closure at Oshawa’s GM facilities, but I can tell you this is of deep concern. There were 77 jobs that were announced were going to be lost in Ajax today. They make suspension modules and engine cradles for the Cadillac version that was being produced in Oshawa, as well as the Impala which was coming off the lines in Oshawa.

But again, most of those companies have said that the impact on the production chain, the supply chain, will be minimal to no impact as General Motors is going to continue to build vehicles, cars and trucks—mostly trucks as they’re moving to that angle. But I can tell you that the Premier and my ministry are there to support those who need us at this very important time of need.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Families in Oshawa are still reeling from the news about GM’s plans. Layoffs will hit the women and men who work at GM hardest, but the impact for Oshawa’s economy and Ontario’s entire auto sector is potentially devastating. We are already seeing it.

While elected officials across North America are saying they’re ready to fight this decision by GM, the Premier said the ship has sailed. Why is the Premier missing in action, Speaker?

Hon. Todd Smith: I can tell you that the Premier has been very much in the middle of the action, Mr. Speaker. He’s been talking to all five companies that manufacture automobiles in Ontario. That includes General Motors continuously; FCA, which operates in Windsor and in Brampton; Toyota, which of course we know is operating here; Honda as well; and Ford Motor Co., which all have a presence here. We have the largest supply chain in North America right here in Ontario. We’re very proud of that.

We’re doing everything that we can, as the Ontario government, to ensure that we’re ripping through the red tape that has led to struggles for these companies. We’re dealing with the high cost of electricity. We’re dealing with the cap-and-trade—we’ve already dealt with the cap-and-trade, Mr. Speaker.

One thing our federal counterparts could do is join us. They could make a decision today, if they decided that they were going to scrap their plans for a nationwide carbon tax. That would send a strong signal to business in Ontario and across the—

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

Interjections.

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

Restart the clock. Final supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The strongest signal this government has sent is that the green economy of the future is not going to be taking place here in Ontario. That’s the signal this government has sent.

At a time when families in Oshawa are looking for leadership, at a time when our auto sector needs a champion and a vision for the future, the Premier’s message is, “It’s over. It’s done. The ship has sailed.” Why has the Premier gone into hiding when he should be fighting for these jobs?

Hon. Todd Smith: Mr. Speaker, I find it so ironic that the leader of the NDP stands up here saying she’s going to fight, but we haven’t heard any kind of a plan coming from her. Meanwhile, we’re implementing our plan for the automotive and manufacturing sector on this side of the House. It hasn’t been a surprise to anybody what we’re doing when we say we’re making Ontario open for business. We’re not just saying that; we’re doing that. We’re reducing red tape. We’re getting rid of the costly cap-and-trade system, which one of the auto parts manufacturers told me yesterday was a silly tax and completely unnecessary and a huge cost on the backs of business.

Meanwhile, the NDP want to make it more expensive to drive cars in Ontario, they want to make it more expensive to buy cars in Ontario, and they want to make it more expensive to build cars in Ontario. That’s what the NDP are standing for. We’re standing with manufacturers in Ontario.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Next question.

Automotive industry

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, my next question is also to the Acting Premier. I can’t tell you how disappointed I am by the behaviour that this government is showing in the face of these massive job losses in Oshawa.

As everyone knows, General Motors says that their global restructuring is driven by their plans to get into the car markets of the future—of the future, Speaker. Here in Ontario, GM indicated on the lobbyist registry that they planned to talk to Ontario about electric vehicles and the incentives that the Premier was so determined to scrap. Can the Acting Premier tell us whether any meetings took place and, if so, what issues GM raised at those meetings?

Hon. Todd Smith: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that we’ve had plenty of meetings with General Motors, particularly over the last number of weeks, talking about the future of General Motors and the auto industry in Ontario. We do that all the time at my Ministry of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade, because what we want to ensure is that we are creating the environment where those jobs will come to Ontario.

Under the previous 15 years, we’ve seen jobs leaving Ontario at an alarming rate, and the NDP have been the enablers to all of the job-killing legislation that has been brought forward by the previous Liberal government.

Take, for instance, Don Walker. He’s the CEO of North America’s largest auto parts maker, who said that the previous Liberal government’s policies were harming our competitiveness and harming the automotive sector. He pointed to Bill 148, which the NDP wanted to take even further than what the Liberals had proposed, and said, “It’s not very difficult to figure out that business might move,” as a result of Bill 148.

We’ve wound that back. We’ve passed Bill 47 and we’re going to make Ontario open for business again.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: As General Motors and other automakers position themselves for the future of the auto industry, this government is driving in the opposite direction.

It seems as though the minister has told this House that they were having meetings with GM. It’s kind of interesting that GM is hightailing it out of Ontario as a result. So has GM ever raised, in those conversations with this government, anything regarding this government’s plan to scrap all incentives for electric vehicles?

Hon. Todd Smith: Speaker, one thing that’s clearly evident with this line of questioning again this morning is that the leader of the official opposition has no understanding of how business works and what has actually happened here.

This is not an Ontario problem alone. This was a global restructuring that occurred with General Motors. It didn’t happen overnight. It wasn’t a knee-jerk reaction to anything that was said or done. This is a global restructuring that has seen plants close in the United States of America and around the world, as well as the Oshawa facility.

This is a company that has made a business decision, Mr. Speaker. This company knows that they have a partner here in the Ontario government, a partner that understands that the cost of them doing business here has gone through the roof and that there are competitive issues here in Ontario.

We’ve started to address those problems; we will continue to address those problems. We passed Bill 57. We are going to pass other pieces of legislation—

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

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, there’s something I sure as hell know how to do, and that’s fight for good jobs in Ontario.

I can also say that I think it’s obvious to everyone—we all know that the government’s plan is not working, Speaker. That’s what we all know.

As our auto sector reels from this disastrous decision, they’re looking for a government that can bring auto sector stakeholders together and work with industry, suppliers and workers to protect and transition for the future of this industry.

Instead, they have a government that not only doesn’t have a climate plan, but rips up clean energy contracts while they fight electric carmakers in court.

Does the Acting Premier think that that will protect jobs and generate investment, Speaker?

Hon. Todd Smith: Mr. Speaker, while our government is continuing to work hard to ensure we have a thriving automotive sector here, I would like to congratulate the member of the official opposition. She got what she meant to accomplish today, and that was to get her short video clip on the news. That’s what she just got, because she doesn’t have a plan. She continues to grandstand on this issue while we are doing the work on the ground—

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Imputing motive, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Yes. The minister was imputing motive. I’m going to ask him to withdraw.

Hon. Todd Smith: I’ll withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

But while we are working hard to ensure we have the environment for good jobs to be created here in Ontario, the members opposite are doing everything they can to make it more expensive for people who drive vehicles in this province and buy vehicles in this province, and those who build vehicles in this province.

We have to get out of the way and ensure that we are making Ontario open for business. That’s what we’re intent on doing. We’ll continue to do everything we can to ensure GM—

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

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Next question.

Automotive industry

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Acting Premier. But I do have two words: Dean French.

Interjections.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Families in Oshawa are afraid for their future, Speaker. That’s what’s happening right now. Families are very, very afraid for their future. They’re looking for a government—

Interjections.

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

I’ll give you more time.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Families in Oshawa are afraid for their future. They’re looking for a government to step up to the plate and fight for their jobs. They’re looking for a government that’s ready to roll up their sleeves and develop an auto strategy that will bring GM production to Oshawa and ensure the future of the auto industry in our province.

At a time when we need leadership, why has the Premier gone AWOL?

Hon. Todd Smith: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to take this question today. The idea that the Premier is missing in action is ridiculous. I have never seen a Premier who has reacted as vociferously as this Premier has reacted in this case.

Obviously, this is a very, very trying time for the people in Oshawa, but the Premier has been on the phone non-stop and meeting face to face with people on the ground in Oshawa to try and resolve this situation.

We were there Monday night after the news broke from General Motors. He has been on the phone with the other four automakers—all five automakers here in Ontario. We’ve been on the phone with all of the auto parts suppliers in Ontario—

Mr. Taras Natyshak: All of them, eh?

Hon. Todd Smith: All of them, Mr. Speaker—ensuring that we are taking the steps that are necessary for their survival here in Ontario; not just their survival, but the growth of their companies and the growth of new, good-paying jobs in Ontario.

I don’t expect the other leader to—

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

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

Start the clock. Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The families devastated by Monday’s news need a Premier who’s ready to fight for their jobs. The Premier decided, after a single phone call, that the ship has sailed. Instead of fighting for jobs in Oshawa, he apparently has other priorities.

Can the Acting Premier explain why the Premier is not there for the autoworkers in Oshawa?

Hon. Todd Smith: I can tell you that the Premier and our team here have worked extremely hard to ensure that we’re there for the people on the ground. As I mentioned yesterday and on Monday, our government is there to ensure that the services for those affected in Oshawa will be there when they need them.

More importantly, we’re continuing to work with General Motors, their leadership in Canada and their leadership globally. We’re working with the other four automakers in Ontario. We’re working with automakers who aren’t yet located in Ontario in creating an environment here where they can come and create good jobs in Ontario.

All day yesterday we were on the phone with the auto parts supply chain, talking to them about the impact of Oshawa and what we can do to ensure that they continue to operate here in Ontario. Most of them have said so far: little or no impact to their business.

We want to ensure that they thrive, that they are successful, and that we make Ontario open for business.

Housing policy

Miss Kinga Surma: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. For far too long, housing has been unaffordable in the province, especially in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area. Vacancy rates are the lowest they have been for 17 years.

We have heard on our side about the barriers to new housing supply: It takes too long for housing projects to get approved; housing costs are too high; there isn’t enough innovation; and there are too many restrictions on what can be built. These are some of the biggest issues that are stopping new supply.

Can the minister please explain how he is working to create solutions for the housing crisis?

Hon. Steve Clark: I want to thank the member for Etobicoke Centre for that excellent question.

We’ve said time and time again, both the Premier and I, that we have far too much red tape inhibiting the housing sector. That’s why I was so pleased to announce our government’s Housing Supply Action Plan. This will allow us to get ideas from stakeholders, from municipalities and from the people of Ontario, who have strong ideas on how we can build more housing in this province.

Our action plan is not just in our ministry. All MPPs, all municipalities, stakeholders and anyone interested in housing can hold their own consultations as well.

I look forward to sharing more details of our consultations and how people can get involved in the supplemental.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Miss Kinga Surma: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his answer. It is refreshing to see a government that is not only concerned about this issue but is also willing to consult with the people of Ontario to find real solutions to a serious problem. This has been a significant dilemma in my riding of Etobicoke Centre, and I am looking forward to engaging with my constituents so that we can help put forward more ideas.

Mr. Speaker, as we are all aware, there are many types of housing in Ontario: Some people rent apartments, some own homes, some rent out secondary units, and there is also social and community housing. Can the minister speak more about what kind of housing this action plan is looking to address?

Hon. Steve Clark: Again, I want to commend the member for Etobicoke Centre for staying involved and being so enthusiastic about our consultation process.

Ontario’s housing problem is not limited to one particular kind of housing. That’s why our plan will be addressing all kinds of housing. Our plan is geared toward rentals, community and social housing, and also homes to buy. We want to increase the housing supply in Ontario, and we look forward to hearing a variety of ideas on how that can happen.

Our government will look to how we can cut red tape, how we can keep costs down and how we can speed up the process to building more supply.

Again, these consultations can be hosted by anyone, and they’re online. Anyone interested can go to Ontario.ca/housingsupply to get a consultation package and have a consultation on this very, very—

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

Automotive industry

Ms. Jennifer K. French: My question is to the Acting Premier. Speaker, Sunday night we got the news that GM Canada won’t be putting any more product into Oshawa beyond December 19, 2019. If GM leaves after 100 years, our community will be devastated.

I have also talked to folks from GM Canada, and it doesn’t sound good. In fact, it sounds like we are in for a really rough, uncertain road ahead, and I won’t try to give anyone false hope.

But, Speaker, worse than giving false hope would be giving up on hope. We still have thousands of good jobs, the kind this government talks about wanting to bring to Ontario. We still have them, and they deserve to be fought for.

What I heard from the workers is that they will do whatever it takes to keep these jobs in Oshawa. What we heard from the Premier is that the government will not, because “the ship has ... left the dock.”

So much has happened in only the last three days. Imagine what could happen between now and December 2019. Will the Premier fight alongside these workers and my community over the coming year?

Hon. Todd Smith: What we do every day in this government is fight for jobs in Ontario, fight to create the environment for new investment in Ontario, and ensure that we’re creating an environment where we can sustain the jobs that we have in Ontario.

Under the provincial Liberals’ watch, in the Wynne-McGuinty era, we lost 320,000 manufacturing jobs in Ontario. Many of the policies that were brought in by the provincial Liberals were enabled by an NDP supportive and helping hand, while members of the Progressive Conservative opposition fought those job-killing pieces of legislation time and time again.

That’s why this new PC government, led by Premier Ford, is bringing forward legislation that will create an environment for new investment, allow us to sustain the jobs that we have in Ontario, and make Ontario open for business.

I hope that the members of the NDP will—

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Supplementary.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Again to the Acting Premier: We have had terrible news, and have to figure out a way forward for our community. We can’t do it without all parties coming to the table.

On Monday night, when the Premier came quietly into our city, he was joined only by about six of his PC MPPs and a few community leaders. There is nothing wrong about who was included, but I think who was not welcome or invited speaks volumes about this government: No workers were at that table. After devastating news, the Premier and the Prime Minister should reach out to communities.

Speaker, I want to talk with the Premier about plans for our future. I want him to hear from us. I want the Premier to hear from our workers. You cannot say that you want everyone at the table and then not have any chairs for workers and families.

Will the Premier meet with us?

Hon. Todd Smith: I can tell you that the Premier has spent the last three days talking to families that are affected by the impending closure or the allocation of vehicles at General Motors. I can tell you that he cares very deeply about the stress that those families are facing at this time, and the impact that losing their jobs is going to have not just on those people but on other spinoff businesses in the region.

That’s why we’re focused on bringing in a plan for that region that will allow future growth in the Durham region, but at the same time continuing to work with the company, the employees, the leadership on the ground—both political and business leadership—to ensure that we’re creating an environment where businesses can come in there and grow and work with General Motors.

The NDP seem to want to fight, fight, fight. What we want to do is work, work, work, and have fruitful discussions that are going to lead to future investment from General Motors and other companies in the Durham region, and that includes Oshawa.

Agri-food industry

Mr. Will Bouma: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Yesterday, our Premier and our Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs announced a $34.5-million investment into the new Maple Leaf Foods modern and innovative chicken-processing plant in London over the next five years.

This $660-million investment is historic. It is the single largest investment in Ontario’s agriculture sector, and our government is proud to have been proactive in this. This investment will make our chicken-processing industry more competitive, with its state-of-the-art manufacturing and production technologies, and bring economic growth to southwestern Ontario.

Can the minister please tell us how this investment will impact not only the chicken industry but also the agricultural industry overall in Ontario?

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: Thanks to the member from Brantford–Brant for the question. I was pleased to join our Premier yesterday in London to announce this unprecedented investment—my voice is a little bit hazy; it was such an exciting day. I would like to commend Maple Leaf Foods for its leadership in developing this outstanding facility, as well as the federal government and all other partners for working together to bring this investment into southwestern Ontario.

Maple Leaf Foods’ new state-of-the-art facility in London will boost production for Ontario’s chicken farmers and meet growing consumer demand for premium poultry products made in Canada, contributing to the value-added process in Ontario. It will feature the latest advanced technology to improve productivity, animal welfare and environmental sustainability of poultry production, all of which are priorities for our government.

Our government is committed to supporting Ontario’s growing farm and food sector, and we believe this investment will help Ontario’s food processing sector and send the message that Ontario is open—

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

Mr. Will Bouma: Thank you to the minister for his answer and for his leadership in bringing growth and prosperity to our agricultural sector in Ontario. Ontario’s agriculture sector is responsible for hundreds of thousands of jobs across the province and covers everything from field to farm to fork.

Many of us have farms in our ridings, and I know that my constituents who will have the opportunity to get good jobs because of our government’s investment in Maple Leaf are interested to know what else our government is doing to expand the agri-food sector in Ontario. Can the minister inform the House what steps our government is taking to grow agri-food business in Ontario?

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: To the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade.

Hon. Todd Smith: Thank you to the Minister of Agriculture. I’m happy to assist him this morning. He’s a little hoarse after talking about chickens all day yesterday.

The member is right. The Premier and the Ministers of Agriculture, Transportation and Infrastructure were all present in London yesterday to highlight our government’s investment in Maple Leaf, but we’re doing so much more than that to ensure that businesses thrive here in Ontario in the agri-food sector.

I know that last week the Minister of Agriculture, when he was able to speak, was able to announce the first of our government’s many red tape reduction measures to help both the dairy and the beef farmers in Ontario. Our commitment as a government for the people is to reduce red tape by 25% by 2022. That is going to help create jobs in the agri-food sector. It’s going to help create jobs on farms, in factories and in supermarkets. We’re going to make it easier for them to get from the field to the fork and make sure that good things grow in Ontario.

Ma question est simple : est-ce que la ministre est d’accord avec les gens de North Bay?

L’hon. Caroline Mulroney: Monsieur le Président, je dirais aux gens de North Bay, du comté du ministre des Finances, que notre gouvernement appuie les francophones et les Franco-Ontariens. Nous travaillons tous les jours pour s’assurer que nous pouvons remettre l’Ontario sur la voie de la prospérité, parce que nous voulons pouvoir être dans une situation où nous pouvons payer pour cette université qui est si importante.

J’ai répété plusieurs fois dans cette Chambre que nous n’avons pas aboli le plan pour l’université, ce qui est quelque chose qui est répété constamment dans les médias. Nous n’avons pas aboli ce plan. Nous continuons à travailler sur ce plan. Ce qui est très important c’est que nous sommes en train de préparer le plan, mais aussi que, lorsque nous serons en mesure de pouvoir la bâtir, cette université, nous aurons des finances concrètes qui seront derrière le plan.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member from Mushkegowuk–James Bay.

M. Guy Bourgouin: Ma question est aussi pour la ministre francophone. Lors de mon séjour à Ottawa hier, j’ai eu la chance de rencontrer plusieurs organismes francophones. Tous ce que j’ai entendu, c’est que les décisions de votre gouvernement ne favorisent pas les besoins et les droits des francophones en Ontario.

Les mesures que notre gouvernement a prises récemment démontrent la volonté—et je communique cette volonté à la communauté franco-ontarienne tous les jours—une volonté pour travailler avec et pour les Franco-Ontariens. Les décisions que nous avons prises concernant le commissariat vont renforcer et vont protéger les droits linguistiques ici en Ontario. Nous prenons les mesures nécessaires pour assurer l’indépendance et la protection des droits linguistiques.

Automotive industry

Mr. Mike Schreiner: My question is for the Acting Premier. Over the weekend, media reported that manufacturer BYD has put its proposed electric-bus-manufacturing facility in Ontario on hold. We are all well aware of the devastating news in Oshawa resulting from GM’s restructuring to invest in electric and autonomous vehicles. As a matter of fact, automakers are pledging that they will be investing $255 billion in EV R&D between now and 2023.

Mr. Speaker, the world is changing, and Ontario needs a plan. To the Acting Premier: Will you commit today to develop an auto strategy for Ontario to become a leader in the electric vehicle revolution, so we don’t lose jobs to jurisdictions embracing EVs?

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks very much, and a good question from the member from Guelph this morning. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

I can tell you that what we’re doing in Ontario is creating an environment for all businesses to be successful. That includes those in the green sector. That includes those in the technology sector.

One thing that all businesses come to Ontario or to any jurisdiction for is a low tax environment, low energy costs. Certainly if you’re investing in research and development, there has to be the talent there, and we have that in spades. That’s evident from the recent Amazon process that took place. Amazon and Toronto Global, which worked so hard on that, said that the one thing that we have at our advantage right now is talent, talent, talent. That’s what research and development for these companies look for: a talented workforce. We have that here.

We’re working on all of those other things, like the high cost of electricity, getting rid of the carbon tax and all those other—

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

Mr. Mike Schreiner: With all due respect, Minister, we’re going to have to work hard to be a global leader in the EV revolution. China, India, France and the UK have all pledged to phase out combustion engines by 2040. Jurisdictions around the world are embracing the EV revolution. As a matter of fact, automakers predict that 54% of new vehicles will be electric by 2040. More than 90% of cars on the road in the US, Canada and Europe will be EVs by 2040.

We can’t fall behind, so I’m asking the Acting Premier once again, will you stand up today and pledge to all stakeholders—business, labour, government and EV advocates—to bring us all together at the table to fight for and develop a strategy for Ontario to be a global leader in the EV revolution?

Hon. Todd Smith: Speaker, I can tell you that we’re willing to work with all companies. We’re looking to work with all partners, and we have been working with all partners over the last five months that we’ve been the government of Ontario, to ensure that we see that kind of investment here in Ontario.

I can tell you that we’re getting rid of red tape right now that is going to allow for investment in the kinds of technologies and the kinds of AI that we’re seeing in other parts of the world. Those pieces of legislation, those tired old regulations have to be removed, and we’re removing those pieces of regulation to allow that investment to occur.

Whether it’s BYD or any other automotive manufacturer, whether it’s a combustion engine or it’s an electric vehicle, we’re willing to partner with anybody so that we can create good jobs in Ontario. The silver lining in the whole General Motors story, Mr. Speaker, is that they’re continuing to invest in their research and development facilities in Markham. We’re working alongside the company to ensure that investment continues.

Public transit

Ms. Christine Hogarth: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. I understand that the minister spoke at the Economic Club of Canada earlier this week, to talk about our government’s transit plan.

Our government was elected to grow our economy, to attract new investments, to create jobs and to remove unnecessary burdens that were put in place by the previous government. By removing regulatory burdens, the economy can experience significant growth, and Ontarians are able to keep more money in their pockets.

Our government understands that improving public transit is vital to stimulating economic development. This will ensure that Ontario is best positioned to attract new business and keep our best and brightest right here in Ontario. Can the minister share our government’s transit-oriented development plan?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: I truly want to thank the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore, who’s been a really strong advocate for transit opportunities in her riding. Thank you very much. I’d also like to take this opportunity to thank the Economic Club of Canada for inviting me to speak earlier this week.

One of our commitments is to partner with the private sector and seize on opportunities such as transit-oriented development, starting with stations. Just last month, our government for the people announced that a new, modern GO Transit station will be built in Mimico. The previous Minister of Transportation did acknowledge that the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore was a strong advocate for getting Mimico going.

Mr. Speaker, this project will optimize use of government-owned land and increase ridership by delivering customers a beautiful new station while building new development on existing transit lines. The new Mimico GO development will feature a brand-new accessible station building; pedestrian tunnels; elevated, refurbished platforms; a new entrance to the station and additional parking.

I look forward to sharing more about the new Mimico GO station in my supplemental, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Christine Hogarth: Thank you, Minister. The people of Ontario and the people of Etobicoke–Lakeshore thank you for that answer. I am pleased to hear that our government for the people is already moving full steam ahead with our transit-oriented development in Mimico, and we appreciate the extra parking spaces.

Partnering with the private sector will get this work done at a lower cost to taxpayers. By leveraging third-party investment, it reduces the funding required from the province, and it often allows infrastructure to be built in a more timely fashion.

Mr. Speaker, the government has a plan; it’s a plan that will allow us to make decisions faster and improve the transit experience for all Ontarians. Tens of thousands of people depend on the transit system to get to and from work and back home to their families. This is why it is important for our government to give Ontarians the ability to travel across the region in a fast and efficient manner.

Can the minister elaborate more on the transit-oriented development at the Mimico GO station in my riding of Etobicoke–Lakeshore?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Thanks again for that question. For the new Mimico GO station, the developer will pay all construction costs for the main station building, new parking, and a greenway at Mimico GO. In exchange, they’ll have the right to develop above the station. It’s a new kind of partnership and it’s the right kind of partnership.

I believe there is a strong appetite for more partnerships such as this, and I’m excited to explore the new opportunities these partnerships will bring through a market-driven approach.

Building above or around stations also solves the “first mile/last mile” problem of getting people to and from their homes to the transit station. This is but one approach. We’re open to ideas from other forms of partnerships that create value for riders, communities and interested parties.

Moving forward, Mr. Speaker, we will look at all our major transit projects through this lens. As ridership goes up, revenues go up. But most importantly, the people of Ontario are better served.

Climate change

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. In a recent speech, the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks mentioned that the government might use Australia’s climate change policies as a model for Ontario. This would be unfortunate because Australia’s emissions have been going up, not down. Not only that; instead of a polluter-pay system, Australia forces taxpayers to pay polluters with what is known as a “reverse auction” system. Can the minister please confirm that he is not considering this ineffective and unfair system?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member: Thank you for the question.

We are looking at all of the options. Tomorrow, we look forward to bringing forward our environment plan for the province of Ontario. That plan will highlight a number of initiatives and a number of approaches, but it will also highlight the important contributions that Ontarians have already made. As I’ve said in this Legislature, between 2005 and now, Ontario has reduced its emissions by 22% while the rest of Canada has increased emissions by 3%.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we’re going to talk about how Ontario continues to do its part and how Ontario also prepares communities and families to deal with climate change, but we will do so in a way that looks at all the best options—and that does not include a carbon tax or cap-and-trade.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, that sure didn’t sound like a “no” to me.

The minister has recently killed off a source of revenue that paid for climate change initiatives. That revenue has not been replaced. In fact, according to the latest budget bill, cancelling cap-and-trade cost us $1.5 billion this year alone in lost revenue. And now, under the Conservatives, there won’t be any new money coming in for climate action. How does the minister intend to pay for programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

Hon. Rod Phillips: The member from Toronto–Danforth and I have had this argument in this Legislature before. When the NDP and he see taxpayers paying less, they see government having a problem. We see taxpayers’ money in their pockets as a good thing, Mr. Speaker—$1.9 billion of money going back into the pockets of consumers; $260 a year for families.

Mr. Speaker, we have promised and we will deliver a plan that balances the environment and balances the economy. But we will not punish families, and we will not apologize for some of the biggest tax cuts in Ontario history that help Ontario families.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Ms. Catherine Fife: That was a D-minus standing ovation.

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

Start the clock. Next question.

Fresh from the Farm

Mr. Paul Calandra: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Last week, I understand that the minister visited an elementary school in his riding of Oxford to celebrate the Fresh from the Farm fundraising program. This program brings fresh Ontario-grown foods to communities while supporting local schools. I understand that this year alone, the program has generated an average of over $2,000 through sales of almost 770 kilograms of fresh produce per school.

Minister, farmers in my riding are very excited to see their efforts go to an excellent cause, and students in my riding are equally excited to learn about some of the delicious food grown close to home.

I wonder if the minister could expand on this and please tell us how this program helps farmers teach students in our local communities about the importance of locally grown food.

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: Thank you to the member for Markham–Stouffville for the fantastic interest in the fantastic program. Last week, I visited east Oxford public school, where I spoke to the students about the importance of local food and knowing where their food comes from. I want to commend everyone involved in the project, from the Dietitians of Canada and the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers’ Association to local farmers and schools for developing an innovative way to promote Ontario produce and support our schools.

The program sources 100% of its produce from local Ontario farmers who generously contribute their harvest at a reduced cost, to meet the orders of food for the program. Students in return sell the local fruits and vegetables to their communities, supporting the farmers, and supporting Ontario’s rural community and their own school initiatives.

I’m very pleased to work with our Minister of Education o