The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Hon. Todd Smith: I move that, pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 5, An Act to amend the City of Toronto Act, 2006, the Municipal Act, 2001 and the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, when Bill 5 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill, without further debate or amendment, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading, which order may be called that same day; and

That, when the order for third reading of the bill is called, one hour shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, with 30 minutes apportioned to the government, 10 minutes to Her Majesty’s loyal opposition, 10 minutes to the Liberal Party independent members and 10 minutes apportioned to the Green Party independent member. At the end of this time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

That, except in the case of a recorded division arising from morning orders of the day, pursuant to standing order 9(c), no deferral of the second reading or third reading vote shall be permitted; and

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes, except that the division bell for the vote on the motion for third reading shall be 15 minutes.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Mr. Smith, Bay of Quinte, has moved government notice of motion number 4. I look to the government side to lead off the debate.

Hon. Todd Smith: No further comments, Speaker.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I appreciate this opportunity to address the motion before us.

Speaker, this motion is profoundly anti-democratic. No one should be surprised: That’s consistent with this government’s approach from the time it was elected. This is not a government of the people; this is a government that has decided to lock out the people.

Some 2.7 million people live in the city of Toronto, and they will not be afforded even a minute—not 30 seconds, not a second—to speak in this building to this bill. Their interests are before us. Their interests are being debated. But they will not be allowed to have even one person, one citizen, come and speak before us. Not one. That is outrageous. That is completely at odds with the language that this government uses—not at odds with its actions. No one should be surprised that this government is eliminating debate. No one should be surprised that this government doesn’t want to hear from the people who are affected. That’s consistent with their approach.

But in this House—built to represent the people of Ontario, meant to act democratically—to completely cut out the people of Toronto from any debate whatsoever is outrageous. The city of Toronto went through a multi-year process of consultations on how they would elect their representatives, their councillors. That process, set in place by former mayor Rob Ford, allowed for consultation across the city. It was a process that was challenged at the Ontario Municipal Board and was upheld at the Ontario Municipal Board. It was a legitimate process of consultation.

This government, this Conservative government, is throwing all that consultation out the window, saying, in effect, that the people of Toronto have no right to speak, because they have been deprived of that right; saying that their opinion on how they should be governed is of no consequence; and opening the way to a truncated debate—and I’m being generous—on the bill itself.

People are well aware that there will be one hour’s debate on a matter of great concern to the people of this city, the city of Toronto, and frankly, a debate that should be of concern to people across Ontario because, if you will remember, when we went through the amalgamation process under Premier Harris, first of all, it was the city of Toronto that got taken apart and reassembled at the whim of the Premier.

But I will note that Mr. Harris actually allowed public input, committee hearings. There was a potential, at least a façade, of democracy. Well, the façade has been cast aside. Why pretend that you’re being democratic when the heart of what you’re doing, in the middle of an election campaign at the city level, is to get rid of all of those democratic trappings and just simply impose your own will?

We had an opportunity in my riding last night for a meeting called on very short notice to discuss this bill and discuss this issue. I don’t know about others, but typically when I’ve called public meetings in August, very few people showed up. Well over 160 and close to 200 people showed up last night. Although people made extended comments about their need to be able to access their elected representative, the core of what they had to say was: “We, the people of Toronto, should be able to decide how many councillors are in the government that we pay for,” because that government isn’t paid for by the province; it’s paid for out of the property taxes of the people of the city of Toronto.

They should be able to decide. They thought that they were deciding when they went through a multi-year consultation process. Now that is being swept away. Not only is it being swept away, but this bill is being rammed through with no consultation of the citizens who are affected.

I say to those in other cities in Ontario, those who watched what happened to Toronto with the amalgamation decision, that it was a few years after that that Premier Harris decided to mess with Ottawa, with Hamilton, and frankly, just say, “In the end, we don’t care what the citizens want. We don’t care how they see it. We’re going to proceed in this fashion.” So they should be very cautious about their own cities—having the province step in and dictate the number of councillors that will be making decisions for them, the number of councillors paid for with their property tax dollars.

Scarborough has about 600,000 people and it has six MPPs. It will, under this bill, have six councillors. Markham, with 300,000 people, would support three MPPs and it has a 12-member council. So if the argument for efficiency is one that is consistent and, in fact, real—and I have doubts about that—then why is it that places like Markham are being told, “You can continue to have 12 councillors instead of three,” but the city of Toronto? “No, that can’t happen. We’re going to ram this through. And you, the citizens of Toronto—2.7 million people—you’re out of luck. You will not get to say a single word—not a single word—about your fate and future before the legislators, before those who are actually voting on this decision—not a word. You are cut out.” That, Speaker, at its heart, is profoundly anti-democratic.

0910

This is a government that is upending the sex ed curriculum in this province, upending a curriculum meant to prevent child sexual assault and meant to ensure that young LGBTQ youth don’t have a negative perception of themselves, which is dangerous to their mental health and well-being. Rather than argue on the substance of that curriculum—and their substance would be indefensible—rather than argue on that, they’re saying that there wasn’t enough consultation.

So consultation is important to you? What about the people of the city of Toronto, 2.7 million people, who will not be allowed to come before a committee hearing and put out their argument? Because there won’t be a committee hearing. There will not be a single minute of committee hearings. What about the potential for legislators to actually debate the bill clause-by-clause, go through, look for the problems and correct them? No; none of that.

For those of you who’ve been here for a while and those who are new, I’ll note that in committee, often governments correct bills where they see they have made mistakes. That’s the way things are. No legislator is perfect; no legislation writer is perfect. But there will not be that corrective methodology. In fact, what we will get is an approach that gives the minister the power to rewrite the legislation without coming back to this House. That alone is extraordinary.

For those who are not familiar with the process, government sets a framework of laws, and then, within that, ministers get to write more detailed rules called regulations. Typically, if a minister writes a regulation that’s outside the framework of those laws, that regulation is deemed void, invalid and can be challenged in court and thrown out. In this case, we, the legislators, will have our laws thrown out by the minister if he so decides. That is extraordinary. That is completely extraordinary.

So on top of no public consultation, on top of ramming this through, on top of ignoring a multi-year consultative process in the city of Toronto, this government is putting forward a law that can be amended by the minister with no reference to the legislation. That should give everyone pause. You should be thinking about that, because frankly, if you move from this Legislature setting laws to one person setting laws, we have a real problem in this society.

I will remind those on the government benches that when Mike Harris amalgamated the city of Toronto against the will of the people of the city of Toronto, in the following election they fared very badly. They still held on, but in the city of Toronto they were decimated. Why? Because millions of people don’t take kindly to people running a tank overtop of their democratic rights. They don’t take kindly to it. In fact, they get kind of cranky when you beat them up, take away their rights and ignore their will and impose your own.

Speaker, right-wing populism is a fever dream. In that dream, all kinds of things are jumbled together and all kinds of thoughts and analysis are distorted. I’ve heard members on the government side say that the reason they need to do this is for efficiency; they need to do this so that we’ll get transit built, so that we’ll get housing built. Well, I would point out that the Premier, in question period last week, was saying that no transit has been built in Toronto for the last 20 years. I suggest he take the subway line up to Vaughan. He may notice that a transit line was built. I suggest that he go to Eglinton Avenue and look at the Eglinton Crosstown under construction. I suggest he go to St. Clair Avenue and ride the streetcar. Those three projects, in the last 20 years, were largely financed by the provincial government. If there is a problem with transit financing and operation in the city of Toronto, it has been far too often that the provincial government has failed to put in the money necessary to move things forward. It is not the problem or fault of the city of Toronto or the decision-makers of the city of Toronto. It is a question of a province not being willing to finance in the way that it needs to finance.

The Premier referred to a lack of action on social housing. I will point out to the members of the government that it was Mike Harris who downloaded social housing on to municipalities that didn’t have the money to sustain it because they’re trying to operate from a property tax base; they don’t have access to that revenue. Municipalities were never meant to sustain social housing; they don’t have that kind of revenue.

In this province, the former Liberal government did not give the funds to the city of Toronto it needed for social housing. In fact, they were engaged in cutting the funds to the city of Toronto to the tune of 150 million bucks a year. It wasn’t a question of too many politicians; it was a question of the provincial government beating up on the city, downloading costs.

The so-called efficiencies of the Harris era were simply this: “We will take expenses off our books and our shoulders and we will put them on you.” That’s not efficiency; that’s being a deadbeat. That’s being some kind of guy who shows up for dinner, eats everything, walks out, says thank you, does nothing else and leaves you with cleaning up the dishes. That’s what the Harris government did; that’s what this government is doing.

A number of people have said to me—and I think this is not a bad analysis—that this is about making sure that the city of Toronto is controlled more closely by development interests. In the spring, the city of Toronto passed new development charges deeply opposed by the development industry but absolutely necessary for the functioning of the city of Toronto; absolutely necessary in order to provide the infrastructure that will serve the new residents of the city. You don’t bring in hundreds of thousands of new residents without the need to invest in transit, without the need to invest in sewers, in roads, in schools—all of that. The city of Toronto, acting responsibly, said, “Development should be paying for development. We need the money to actually make the city work.” The development industry was very unhappy with that.

We know very well the Premier’s record on this—very well. During the election campaign he said he would allow the paving of the greenbelt. He got blowback and he pulled back. But the election has passed. The moment of danger to him has passed, but the moment of danger to the people of Toronto, to the city of Toronto, is here today. And those people have been gagged. They will not be allowed to speak before you, legislators. They will not be allowed to make their arguments. They are being cut out. On that basis alone, this time allocation motion should be defeated—on that basis alone.

I’ll say beyond that, in this democracy, for a decision of this magnitude to have 10 minutes of debate per opposition group in third reading is outrageous. This time allocation motion must be rejected.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I just want to pick up on where my colleague the member from Danforth left off, and that is that this is pretty anti-democratic stuff. Here’s the Ford government, the Conservatives, who are saying, “We’re the government of the people. Don’t worry; we’re here. We’ll take care of you.” And the first chance that they had to hear from the people on the very first bill they did—they time-allocated the previous bill that dealt with hydro executive salaries and that dealt with the cancellation of windmill projects and said, “We’re not going to give the public even a chance to come here and talk to us.” They time-allocated the bill and sent it right off to third reading.

Now they’ve got a bill that’s probably one of the most intrusive pieces of legislation that we have seen in a generation, when it meddles in the elections of the city of Toronto in the middle of an election. The government of Ontario says, “We’re going to change the game. We’re going to just change the game entirely and we’re going to change the size of the council.”

0920

Listen: If the people of Toronto want to change the size of the council, that’s their decision. It’s not a decision that we should be making. Yes, we have the authority, but it’s the decision of the people of Toronto, just as, in the city of Timmins, they decided the size of their council on numerous occasions. They decided if they wanted to be a ward or an at-large system. Those were decisions that the ratepayers, the voters, of the city of Timmins had to make, and it was done by us. It was done by the people of Timmins and done by our municipal council.

This government has decided, “Nah. We’re smarter than all you people living in Toronto. We know what’s best for you.” This is Uncle Joe. Remember Uncle Joe in the Soviet Union—Joseph Stalin, if you don’t remember his name. This is the kind of stuff this is. This is autocracy from the top. This is the person from the top trying to tell the little serfs at the bottom what’s good for them. They say, “Oh, we won a majority.”

Yes, you won a majority government; nobody argues that. I very much respect the British parliamentary system that says that if you win more seats than the other party, you get to form the government and you get to make the decisions. But you have a responsibility as a government to follow the process and to allow people to have their say. The fact you’re not allowing the public of Toronto, who either support this bill or don’t support this bill, to come before a committee to say what they have to say about it says that this is a throwback to the old communist days of the Soviet Union. This is essentially what it is.

Listen: Nobody argues that you don’t have the authority to do what you’re doing. There are people who will argue that in court, and we’ll see where that goes. I respect that you have a decision to make and you will make that decision. But what I expect, as a citizen of this province and as a legislator, is that you’re going to respect the process and allow the public to have their say.

How can you purport to be the government of the people? How can you be the government of the people when you won’t even let the people in the door? You won’t let them in to committee because you say, “We’re smarter than all of you. We’re going to do this because we know we’re right. We got 40% in the last election and we ended up with a majority in the House, and the 40% is giving us the mandate to do what’s going to be imposed on the rest of the 60%.”

Mrs. Gila Martow: That’s not very parliamentary.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, it is very parliamentary what I’m saying, and I challenge you to get up and say that it’s not. Please get up in this debate. I want to see you get up and debate.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I’m saying that it’s unparliamentary.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: You guys can’t even debate your own motion. It has got to the point—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): A reminder to all members to direct their remarks to and through the Chair. Thank you.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Through you, Madam Speaker, I challenge any government member to get up and debate this motion. If you guys think it’s a good idea that the public doesn’t have an opportunity to come before committee and do what it has to do when it comes to pronouncing itself on this legislation, then get up and state your case. You tell us why democracy shouldn’t work. You tell us how this is not Joseph Stalin kind of tactics, and we’re prepared to listen to you. This is exactly what it is. Come on. There’s a little thing in the British parliamentary system called democracy, and we have a committee process. The very fact that this government is not prepared, saying it’s a government of the people, to allow them to come before a committee to pronounce themselves on this bill—I’m sure you’ll find people who will come and speak to it and I’m sure you’ll find a lot of people who come to speak against it, but at least you will have heard what the public has to say.

What’s even more galling: This was not even an election issue. If the government would have campaigned on this—

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Rae days.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Come on; you didn’t campaign on this. Come on, Comrade Stalin. Listen: Madam Speaker, you didn’t campaign on this. The government at no time in the last campaign said, “We are going to bring legislation that’s going to change the electoral system in the city of Toronto”—never hinted, never said, never even whispered.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): A reminder to all members that we address each other by riding and not by diminutive name. If the member would withdraw.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: If they’re insulted by “Comrade Joe,” I’m sorry—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): The member will withdraw.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Withdraw.

My point, Madam Speaker, is that they’re doing the tactics we’ve seen other governments in the past do that are not very democratic. I think that a government that is not prepared to hear the people when it comes to their idea has a big problem. The fact that they didn’t even campaign on this—this just came out of nowhere—I think just adds to the fact that the government is obliged—

Hon. Sylvia Jones: It decreases the size and costs—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, then get up and have that debate.

Madam Speaker, if the government is so incensed about what I have to say this morning, they should get up and defend themselves, at least in a time allocation motion. But they—

Interjections.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Listen, you’re not even prepared to get up and do the debate. We all know what you guys are trying to do. You just want to shove this thing through the process as quickly as you can.

Well, Andrea Horwath and New Democrats believe that people should be heard. People have the democratic right to be before our institution at committee and to have their say when it comes to this bill. And if the government did not include that in the time allocation, I plan to rectify it now, because I have an amendment to the motion that I would like to read.

I move an amendment to the motion.

Delete everything after “ordered” in the first paragraph and replace with:

... to the Standing Committee on General Government; and

That the Standing Committee on General Government be authorized to meet on Monday, August 20, 2018, from 2 p.m. to 8 p.m. and Wednesday, August 22, from 2 p.m. to 8 p.m. for the purpose of public hearings on the bill; and

That the Clerk of the Committee, in consultation with the committee Chair, be authorized to arrange the following with regard to Bill 5:

—Notice of public hearings on the Ontario parliamentary channel, the Legislative Assembly’s website and Canada NewsWire; and

—That the deadline for requests to appear be 6 p.m. on Wednesday, August 15, 2018; and

—That witnesses be scheduled to appear before the committee on a first come, first served basis; and

—That each witness will receive up to nine minutes for their presentation followed by six minutes for questions from committee members divided equally amongst the recognized parties;

That the deadline for written submissions be 8 p.m. on Wednesday, August 22, 2018; and

That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the committee shall be 9 a.m. on Monday, August 27, 2018; and

That the committee be authorized to meet on Wednesday, August 29, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and 1 p.m. to 8 p.m. for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

That on Wednesday, August 29, at 5:30 p.m., those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. At this time, the Chair shall allow one 20-minute waiting period pursuant to standing order 129(a); and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House no later than Thursday, August 30, 2018. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and

That, upon receiving the report of the Standing Committee on General Government, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading, which order may be called that same day; and

That when the order for third reading of the bill is called, one hour of debate shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill with 30 minutes apportioned to the government, 20 minutes to the official opposition, seven minutes to the independent Liberal Party members and three minutes to the independent Green Party member. At the end of this time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

That, except in the case of a recorded division arising from morning orders of the day, pursuant to standing order 9(c), no deferral of the second reading or third reading vote shall be permitted; and

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes, except that the division bell for the vote on the motion for third reading shall be 15 minutes.

I give this motion to be tabled directly to our page Adam.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Mr. Bisson has moved:

“Delete everything after ‘ordered’ in the first paragraph and replace with:

“... to the Standing Committee on General Government; and

“That the Standing Committee on General Government be authorized to meet on Monday, August 20, 2018, from 2 p.m. to 8 p.m. and on Wednesday, August 22, from 2 p.m. to 8 p.m. for the purpose of public hearings on the bill; and

“That the Clerk of the Committee, in consultation with the committee Chair, be authorized to arrange the following with regard to Bill 5:

“—Notice of public hearings on the Ontario parliamentary channel, the Legislative Assembly’s website and Canada NewsWire; and

“—That the deadline for requests to appear be 6 p.m. on Wednesday, August 15, 2018; and

“—That witnesses be scheduled to appear before the committee on a first come, first served basis; and

“—That each witness will receive up to nine minutes for their presentation, followed by six minutes for questions from committee members divided equally amongst the recognized parties;

“That the deadline for written submissions be 8 p.m. on Wednesday, August 22, 2018; and

“That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be 9 a.m. on Monday, August 27, 2018; and

“That the committee be authorized to meet on Wednesday, August, 29, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and 1 p.m. to 8 p.m. for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

“That on Wednesday, August 29, 2018, at 5:30 p.m., those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the Committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all the remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. At this time, the Chair shall allow one 20-minute waiting period pursuant to standing order 129(a); and

“That the committee shall report the bill to the House no later than Thursday, August 30, 2018. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and

“That, upon receiving the report of the Standing Committee on General Government, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading, which order may be called that same day; and

“That when the order for third reading of the bill is called, one hour of debate shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, with 30 minutes apportioned to the government, 20 minutes to the official opposition, seven minutes to the independent Liberal Party members and three minutes to the independent Green Party member. At the end of this time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

“That, except in the case of a recorded division arising from morning orders of the day, pursuant to standing order 9(c), no deferral of the second reading or third reading vote shall be permitted; and

“That, in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes, except that the division bell for the vote on the motion for third reading shall be 15 minutes.”

We are going to take a five-minute recess to check the orderliness of the amendment.

The House recessed from 0932 to 0937.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): The amendment is in order, so I will entertain further debate on the amendment to government notice of motion number 4 moved by Mr. Bisson. Further debate?

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s always an honour to stand and debate in this House, today on the amendment to a time allocation motion which is quite frankly abhorrent to those of us who believe in democracy.

Just for a bit of background for people, the way it’s supposed to—the government wins a mandate. They win an election. They put forward legislation. Legislation is debated in the House, and typically, it passes second reading and it’s put to a committee. That’s really important because the committee is where people who have an interest can come to the Legislature, the place that belongs to the people, and have their say, put input in and, hopefully, make the legislation better. Then, after the committee process, although this government has yet to show that they know how to do that, the government should take that valued information from the people—these guys say they’re for the people, but actually you have to take information from the people—and then hopefully make that legislation better with the advice of the people and with the criticism of the opposition, because no one is expecting legislation to be perfect on the first shot. That’s the way it’s supposed to work. That’s the way it’s supposed to work.

We have some support, or we had some support, on that issue when the government was on the opposition side. We have a quote here from the current Minister of Transportation from May 7, 2018, so it didn’t take them very long to get amnesia. From the now Minister of Transportation:

“How can you say that something has been duly considered if you haven’t even allowed the public, the stakeholders—those people who will be most affected by it, those people who will be responsible for carrying it out—the opportunity to offer opinion or views as to how that legislation might be changed, altered, improved, or have some parts of it swept away altogether, because they’re not in the best interests of the people who will be most affected?

“You really have to ask yourself if the government is acting in the best interests of the people”—this is actually funny—“or it is acting in what it considers to be the best interests of itself. Because, you see, it has got itself up against the wall here, as far as timing is concerned. They feel that they need to get this piece of legislation out there because there’s a constituency out there that they want this piece of legislation passed for. They feel it is a good piece of legislation, to go to that group and say, ‘Look at what we’re doing; look at what we’ve done.’”

From the current Minister of Transportation on May 7, 2018—at that point, he had some very, I would say, upstanding views on the role of this Legislature and the dangers of time allocation. Unfortunately, as soon as he came to the government side, he seemed to have forgotten.

Another, from the current Minister of Municipal Affairs, who has carriage of this bill, so he should understand. April 16, 2015: “So again I appeal to” you, “all the MPPs on the government benches to consider carefully the path you’re treading. When you are elected into government, you not only are given power, but you’re also given the trust of the people. Don’t silence the voices, even though they’re opposition voices, by shutting down debate and forcing time allocation.” This is your Minister of Municipal Affairs—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: What happened?

Mr. John Vanthof: What happened?

I come from a long Conservative lineage. The one thing that the Conservatives and the NDP used to share is that at least we stood up for our views. What happened to these two ministers? What happened?

From the current government House leader, who is pushing this time allocation through—again, April 13, 2016, not that long ago. I don’t know if amnesia is setting in. “Sometimes what happens here—my friend from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke describes it as the guillotine coming down and slicing off debate. He makes a very effective sound effect every time the House leader or deputy House leader moves a closure motion. We’ve seen that time and time again. They should not be using a blunt instrument—and a guillotine is a blunt instrument—to pass legislation in this House.”

Again, when they actually had that principle—we didn’t agree with some of the things the Conservatives did but we did believe in that principle and I personally believed that those members who made those statements in this House believed in that principle, but they no longer do. That is incredible.

If you will recall—I’ve mentioned this a couple of times in the House—the throne speech: When we walked in, the band was playing the theme song from Game of Thrones. Now every time I walk in here, I look for the arrow slits. Every series has a score, every movie has a score, and it think this government should have a score, or perhaps their own band.

Hon. Todd Smith: “76 Seats.”

Mr. John Vanthof: Yes. I’ve been thinking of this for a while. Once, Ball of Confusion came on the radio and I thought, “You know, that kind of fits, but not really, because these people aren’t confused.” They’re misled perhaps, but they’re certainly not confused. This is a direct attempt. What they’re doing isn’t confusion.

I drive a lot, and I listen to classic rock. A great tune came on. Speaker, I apologize: I am not a singer, but I am sure you will remember—some of you will know when you hear the lyrics to this. Hopefully I can, without losing the lyrics—oh, there we go.

Hon. Todd Smith: Losing My Religion?

Mr. John Vanthof: Losing My Religion would be a good one, because you seem to have lost your morals. The House leader suggested losing his religion. That would be a good one, but I didn’t think of that one, Speaker.

I was listening to the radio, and I heard it, and the tune was “(Making it work) takes a little longer/(Making it work) takes a little time.” Right? Making it work takes a little longer. When you’re drafting legislation, guess what? Making it work takes a little longer. Making it work takes a little time. What you people are doing—you’ve totally forgotten that, and you’re rushing this stuff through. You’re going to regret it.

Hon. Todd Smith: Who was the band that sang, “Can we get a gong in here”?

Mr. John Vanthof: The House leader suggested that we get a gong. Perhaps we should get a gong, because this government is a gong show.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I’m going to remind all members to direct their remarks, their refrains, their dancing and their prancing to and through the Chair. Thank you.

Mr. John Vanthof: Thank you, Speaker. I will try and tone it down a bit.

Another issue: Yesterday, in question period, we were talking about one of their signature policies: buck-a-beer. They claimed that there were no financial incentives attached to this, but the LCBO is going to give free advertising and premium shelf space. That is a cost, because anyone else has to pay for that. That is a subsidy. For the people who claim to be representing the businesses of the province to claim that that is not a subsidy and that that is not corporate welfare—come on. Come on.

And this whole buck-a-beer thing—right now, the floor price is $1.25, a buck and a quarter. Where is the buck-and-a-quarter beer? Where is the buck-and-a-quarter beer?

Again, you’ve won the election. It’s time that you guys actually govern like grown-ups and actually use the process the way it’s supposed to be used. There was a quote from the Premier before he was Premier, saying, “We’re not going to be a government for government. We’re going to be a government for the people.” This institution has been developed over hundreds of years with a certain process, and the committee process is where the people get to have their say.

Coming from northern Ontario, we always push to have committee meetings in northern Ontario on issues of northern Ontario, and, you know, we always get frustrated, because it never happens. In this case, the committee hearings can rightfully be held in Toronto, so we don’t understand why you don’t do it. If you’re so proud of this legislation, why don’t you do it?

Interjection.

Mr. John Vanthof: I’m trying to help you, actually, because I’ve got family on that side.

In the immortal words of the theme band for the Ontario Party, Doug and the Slugs—somehow appropriate—

Interjections.

Mr. John Vanthof: If the government is not careful, Speaker, and doesn’t take their job seriously and doesn’t take democracy seriously—again, I quote from Doug and the Slugs—here’s what could happen: “Too bad that you had to get caught, / That’s not like you to lose face. / So sad that you’re not as smart, / As you thought you were in the first place.”

That could very well happen with a government that starts out as arrogant and as undemocratic as this one. It’s galling, Speaker.

Because of that, I would like to move an amendment to the amendment. I would like to delete “That, except in the case of a recorded division arising from morning orders of the day, pursuant to standing order 9(c), no deferral of the second reading or third reading vote shall be permitted; and” and replace with “The votes on second and third reading may be deferred pursuant to standing order 28(h); and”

I give it to page Jamie.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Mr. Vanthof has moved an amendment to the amendment: delete “That, except in the case of a recorded division arising from morning orders of the day, pursuant to standing order 9(c), no deferral of the second reading or third reading vote shall be permitted; and” and replace with “The votes on second and third reading may be deferred pursuant to standing order 28(h); and”

I recognize the member on a point of order.

Mr. Bill Walker: I respectfully ask that you read that in French too, please, Madam Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I will wait for direction from the Clerks.

I am able to read the amendment in the language in which it was provided. In this case, it was provided in English and I have read it in English. The amendment to the amendment is in order.

I am happy to entertain further debate on the amendment to the amendment as moved by Mr. Vanthof. Further debate?

I will remind members that I will put the question—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): The amendment to the amendment. Further debate?

Seeing none, I’ll put the question. Mr. Vanthof has moved the amendment to the amendment: delete “That, except in the case of a recorded division arising from morning orders of the day, pursuant to standing order 9(c), no deferral of the second reading or third reading vote shall be permitted; and” and replace with “The votes on second and third reading may be deferred pursuant to standing order 28(h); and”

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

There being a division requested, it is deferred until after question period.

Vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Orders of the day?

Hon. Todd Smith: No further business, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): There being no further business, this House will be recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 0955 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Dave Smith: I’d like to introduce the woman who inspires me on a daily basis to be a better man, my wife, Lorien.

Mr. Norman Miller: I would like to welcome to the Legislature the mayor of my hometown, Bracebridge, Muskoka, Mayor Graydon Smith, who is in the members’ east gallery. Welcome.

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: I’m proud to welcome a few constituents from my Markham–Thornhill riding also to the Legislative Assembly. Welcome to Jessie Wang, Lynn Perrier and Jenny Chen. These wonderful women played a key role in my campaign.

I would also like to say a special thank you to my riding association president, Tammy Mok. Thank you.

Thank you for being here.

Mrs. Robin Martin: I’m rising today to welcome to the Legislature my good friends, and volunteers in my campaign, Juri Otsason, Bernadine Morris and Allan Fabrykant.

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: I would like to introduce one of my volunteers, Monika Frejlich, as well as my son Michael Cuzzetto, who will be leaving for university for his first year.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I’m so happy to welcome Pamela and her son Daniel Bielak today to Queen’s Park. They have a group called Crafting for a Cure. They work very hard to raise money for kids who are having cancer treatment in hospitals to have something to do.

Welcome, and I hope you’re going to get the Order of Vaughan this year, Pamela. I’ve nominated you. Thank you for being here.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: It is a pleasure for me to welcome and introduce Brenna Shanahan. Brenna has been helping in my office for the past number of months, particularly related to the implementation of Rowan’s Law. I wish her luck as she returns to Louisville, Kentucky, on her lacrosse scholarship.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature today five guests from the Horse People’s Alliance of Ontario: Mr. Jim Whelan; his son Marshall Whelan; Mark Williams, a famous driver in Ontario; Bruce Pollock; and Brian Tropea.

Mr. Doug Downey: I would like to introduce two people: first, Barb Shakell, who served as a child protection worker with CAS in Simcoe-Muskoka and is a strong, strong supporter of the party and a force to be reckoned with in women in politics; and my long-time friend Kelly Lassaline, who is also a force to be reckoned with in women in politics and was my campaign manager and one of several teachers who support this party.

Mr. Mike Harris: I’m pleased to introduce today Adam Van Meerbergen from Waterloo. He’s a campus Conservative at the University of Ottawa and has helped with various campaigns in the Waterloo region over the last election—and also his friends, Icaro and Gabriel. Gabriel is actually visiting us from Brazil. Welcome, gentlemen.

Ms. Natalia Kusendova: I’d like to welcome my good friends and nursing school colleagues Diana Gherutchi and Tallique Sutherland. We’ll be later discussing the role of nursing not only at the bedside but also as patient and health policy advocates.

Oral Questions

Curriculum

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Premier. How did the Premier decide that pleasing his radical social conservative friends was a higher priority than protecting the human rights of Ontario students?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to start off by cautioning the members on inflammatory language that inflames the House. I heard part of the question, but then with the reaction, I couldn’t hear the whole question. I’m going to allow it.

The Premier, response.

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: I accept the opposition’s “radical” comments. You know something? I know that the NDP don’t believe in this, but we believe in doing something that they don’t believe in, and that’s actually consulting with parents. I know that’s unusual.

I think they know that the consultation—as they propped up the Liberals for 15 years on every issue, including this one—they went online. They went online and consulted with 16 people after the curriculum was already put together. They believe that’s proper consultation. We believe in consulting with the parents.

Do you know what’s even more important, Mr. Speaker? More important are the math tests. Where our students are, grade 6 math students, 50% of them are failing math. That’s what—

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: This morning, human rights lawyers were here at Queen’s Park to launch legal action against the Premier’s dangerous plan.

I applaud the work that these advocates are doing. They are speaking up on behalf of students, including an 11-year-old child, who will suffer significant harm if the Premier is allowed to erase gender identity, same-sex families and LGBTQ2 issues from Ontario schools.

Why is this Premier violating the human rights of children across Ontario?

Hon. Doug Ford: I know that the NDP like fear-mongering. But we’re going to actually consult with parents. We’re going to focus on math scores. We’re going to focus on math and science, which we should be focusing on. Again, when half our students are failing math, we have an issue. When the grade 6 students are the lowest in all of Canada—we are the lowest in all of Canada under the old curriculum. We’re going to fix the old curriculum. We’re going to make our students the top in the country.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Final supplementary.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: The 1998 curriculum fails to provide the information that students need to stay safe, and it fails to respect the human rights of Ontario’s students. That is why 30 school boards, representing about two-thirds of all children in this province, have issued formal statements raising concerns about the risks and direct harm that the Premier’s plan will create.

School boards and teachers want to protect the health and human rights of their students. Why doesn’t this Premier?

Hon. Doug Ford: We’re going back to the NDP math. They can’t add up. There are actually, altogether, 76 school boards, and we’re going to consult with the folks at the school boards. But most important, we’re going to consult with the parents.

The number one issue is not the sex ed. It’s math scores. It’s about educating our students. I know the opposition—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Come to order.

Hon. Doug Ford: Anyone before 2014—I guess they just didn’t get it. They didn’t get it. We’re going back to 2014. We’re going to consult with the parents on math, on science, but also on the sex ed. Once we consult with the parents, that’s when we’ll make our decision.

1040

Curriculum

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Premier. Young children and their families should not have to fight the Premier of this province just to make sure that every child is supported in our classrooms. Why is this Premier forcing families to launch legal challenges just to ensure that the human rights of our kids are protected this September?

Hon. Doug Ford: Mr. Speaker, we’re going to have the most robust consultation this province has ever seen. We’re going to go to all 124 ridings. And do you know what’s really ironic? I’m going to go into some of these ridings where people are dead against the sex ed; they’re dead against our kids failing math.

There are actually people who were elected in certain areas who I know personally. In Brampton, for example—my friends over in Brampton, they know; both candidates from Brampton know how their people feel in Brampton: They’re dead against it.

We’re going to pay Brampton a visit, we’ll go pay Scarborough a visit and see what those parents actually think—because I know what those parents think: They’re dead against it. They want to be consulted. They’re actually keeping their kids out of school.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: Well, I want you to know that the people of Waterloo care about consent and they care about the safety of the kids in our schools.

Every day, more and more people are speaking out against the Premier’s dangerous plan to drag students back to 1998. Some 30 school boards now have issued statements of concern. They’re taking a stand, and I’m very proud of those school boards.

Also, 1,800 health care professionals say the Premier’s plan puts children at risk, and now the Premier is facing legal action from the families of children who will be harmed by his actions.

Why is this Premier not interested in protecting the health and the human rights of all Ontario students?

Hon. Doug Ford: Mr. Speaker, through you: Do you know what puts our children at risk? When we don’t consult their parents. That’s what puts the children at risk. What puts our children at risk is when we don’t consult with the parents and we listen to a bunch of politicians and a bunch of activists. That’s what puts our children at risk.

What we should be doing is consulting with the parents, which we’re going to do right across 124 ridings. We’re going to reach out to the parents. We’re going to actually reach out to the experts. We’re going to reach out to anyone who’s involved, even the teachers. I know they don’t believe in reaching out to teachers. I talked to teachers throughout the campaign. They don’t agree with the curriculum. They don’t agree with the math curriculum. They don’t agree with the sex ed curriculum. They don’t agree—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Premier will take his seat. Stop the clock.

Start the clock.

Final supplementary.

Ms. Catherine Fife: What I would like to say to this Premier is that this issue is so important. It’s too important to play politics with.

According to one parent, having—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I apologize. Stop the clock. The government side has to come to order. I have to be able to hear the member asking the question.

Restart the clock.

The member for Waterloo.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Thank you very much.

According to one parent, having the 2015 curriculum at her child’s school taught him how to have a voice and to acknowledge that there’s nothing wrong with him. But the Premier’s plan to scrap the health curriculum and erase same-sex families, gender identity and consent from Ontario classrooms will hurt students across Ontario.

Why is this Premier sacrificing the human rights of students just to return a political favour to his socially conservative friends?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: I don’t remember ever saying anything that the other member said we were saying in the campaign. It’s fear-mongering. They try to put fear into the people of Ontario, the students of Ontario.

Only 1,600 people were consulted. Over 14 million people are in this province; 1,600 people were consulted. The numbers are fudged. Something is wrong here.

I can promise you one thing, Mr. Speaker. We’re going to be travelling around this province, and we’re going to hear from the parents, we’re going to hear from the teachers, we’re going to hear from the experts, and they’re going to decide. We’ll bring it back into the House, and then we will have the proper math curriculum, we’ll have the proper sex ed curriculum.

Municipal elections

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Premier.

Premier, your government trounced on the democratic process by making a unilateral decision to slash Toronto city council without any real public consultation. Now you’re using time allocation to force through the legislation while preventing the public from appearing before committee to have their say. Public consultation and the use of committee is a democratic process that has long been cherished.

How can you purport to be a government of the people when you won’t let them into the building to have a say about their legislation?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Steve Clark: Thank you, Speaker, for giving me the opportunity, through you, to speak to the member.

Again, we were very, very clear—crystal clear—during the campaign that we were going to reduce the size and costs of government.

I’m pleased that the NDP actually want to talk about Bill 5 rather than the drive-by smears that they’ve been doing in this House for the last two days.

Bill 5 is going to provide a streamlined city council. It’s going to provide an efficient and effective council. It’s going to provide $25-million savings to the people of Toronto over the next four years. It’s going to provide, on October 22, the opportunity to have a streamlined, 25-member council with the same boundaries that are for federal MPs, and the same boundaries that are for provincial MPPs. It’s good public policy.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: On this bill, you have been anything but clear. You never raised it in the last election once. Nobody saw this thing coming. All of a sudden, it got announced, one day out of the blue. You’re saying that you’re not going to allow the people of this province and the people of these affected cities to come before public committee and have their say. You can’t pretend to be a government of the people when you won’t open the front door of the Legislature and allow the people to come in and present at committee.

Will you open the door and will you allow the people into this committee structure to have their say?

Hon. Steve Clark: Speaker, through you to the member: It’s pretty rich coming from the NDP, who just ran a campaign that was anti-police, anti-veteran, anti-poppy. It’s pretty rich coming from this opposition, when they continue to have a radical and offensive agenda. This—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The members will take their seats. I cannot hear the Minister of—

Interjections.

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

Once again, I have to inform the House that I have my earphone in and I have the volume at full blast and I can’t hear the member who has the floor. That can’t be allowed to happen.

Restart the clock.

Next question.

1050

Community safety

Mr. Michael Parsa: My question today is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Mr. Speaker, our government for the people has remained committed to public safety across this great province. The daily duties of a police officer are dangerous, and the brave men and women of our police services deserve to perform their duties safely and effectively.

As members of this House are aware, Ontario has seen an increase in the number of gun-and-gang-related violence taking place on our streets. Gun violence is a menace to our streets and will not be tolerated by this government. Speaker, could the minister please update the members of this Legislature on how his ministry will tackle the problem of gun-and-gang-related violence?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: I want to thank the member from Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill for this very important question.

At the outset, I just want to thank our first responders for the great work that they do to keep our communities safe.

It’s time to put public safety first. Our government for the people is listening to police and investing real money to help them protect families from gang and gun violence. During the election campaign, we promised to restore the $12 million in funding that the previous government cut from the fight against gangs and gun violence. Today, we’re investing $25 million in new funding. Unlike the members of the official opposition who have continually insulted the men and women of our police services—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. The member can take his seat.

Supplementary.

Mr. Michael Parsa: I would like to thank the minister for his response in this incredibly important topic.

This announcement of additional funding to the police services is needed to address the problem of gun-and- gang-related violence in Ontario, especially within the city of Toronto. Mr. Speaker, as a member of this government for the people, I am proud to stand here today and know that we have kept another promise we made to the people of Ontario. The brave men and women of our police services desperately need the tools and resources to address gun violence, and I know the minister will continue to deliver on this government’s commitment to ensuring public safety across this great province.

Again to the minister: What actions will your ministry be taking to ensure that the streets of Toronto and all of Ontario and the many communities remain safe?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: I thank the member for his question. Mr. Speaker, our government has kept the promise we made to improve public safety within this great province. This new investment in our police services will allow Toronto Police Service to purchase equipment and innovative technologies for their important task of tackling gun and gang violence within the city of Toronto. The time for talk is over, and we’re delivering real action to keep our neighbourhoods safe. We’re challenging the municipal and federal governments to also step up to do their part and support our police services.

Mr. Speaker, we will continue meeting with our community safety partners over the coming weeks so that we can find solutions necessary to protect Ontarians from being the victims of senseless violence and to keep our first responders safe while performing their duties. Promise made; promise kept—promise doubled.

Interjections.

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

Next question.

Social assistance

Ms. Judith Monteith-Farrell: To the Premier: When did the government inform participants of the Basic Income Pilot program that the program was to end, and have they been informed when they will no longer receive the income they have come to count on?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Premier? The question was addressed to the Premier.

Hon. Doug Ford: Mr. Speaker, we have a little issue. For the people at home, we’re dealing with a serious issue on the other side of the aisle. We had one of the members from Essex just tell us he’s going to throw a land mine and blow this place up. That’s it. I think the cheese has slipped off the cracker with this guy. When he is threatening to blow this place up, that’s a serious, serious issue we’re facing. He said we’re bringing a land mine—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Premier will take his seat.

Supplementary question?

Ms. Judith Monteith-Farrell: Back to the Premier: My constituent, Sherry Mendowegan, wasn’t told by this government about this life-altering decision. Instead, she learned about it over social media. What Sherry and others have since heard from the program administrators is that their last payment will be at the end of August. Sherry had enrolled in school and had plans to use basic income as a step out of poverty. Not anymore.

Dawna George-Morrison, whose father was a World War II veteran and her mother a victim of a residential school, was on disability and caring for her eight-year-old grandson. On basic income, she could buy food: fruit, meat. Now she will have to go back to food banks.

What does the Premier say to Sherry and Dawna?

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

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I appreciate the member’s question. It gives me an opportunity to update the House on the things that I said yesterday that clearly the member opposite wasn’t listening to.

First of all, I want to assure her that Sherry and Dawna are being listened to. We have heard them. I have a staffer in the gallery. We want to make sure that when we wind this program down—and the details will emerge in the next couple of weeks on how we’re going to do that—it will be a compassionate and lengthy runway, so people will still receive their cheques for the next few months.

But I will tell you this: This is a program that, if it were fully implemented, would cost $17 billion, raising the HST to 20%, an additional 7%. That would impact the poor of this province, the vulnerable. Right now, we have one in seven people who are living in poverty, and our job, as a government for the people, is to lift them up, to give them a pathway to success and, when they’re able to work, get them into that pathway.

But when they don’t have those skills and when they’re unable to do that, we have to support them. That’s why we hit the pause button on the Liberal plan that was patchwork and fragmented, and decided to give a 1.5% increase—

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

Next question?

Refugee and immigration policy

Mr. Kaleed Rasheed: My question today is for the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services. Minister, I was shocked to read the story of convicted sex offender Adesanya Prince, who is in Canada illegally. I see that Mr. Prince, who has been convicted on child pornography charges, will be in Canada’s prison system while he awaits extradition.

The federal government, through Ministers Blair, Goodale and Hussen, claims there is no crisis at the border, yet more than 1,000 illegal border crossers come into Canada each month. Many of these illegal crossers come across at Roxham Road. Minister, I understand that this convicted sex offender also slipped across the border into Canada at Roxham Road. Our border appears to be a path for illegal crossers—

Interjection: Asylum seekers.

Mr. Kaleed Rasheed: —and now sex offenders are—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. Minister of Children, Community and Social Services, responsible for immigration.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I want to say thank you to the member for raising this very important issue. I heard the member opposite refer to that person as an asylum seeker. He is a registered child sex offender, he crossed into our country at an irregular port of entry in Quebec and now we are paying for him to be here. This is a crisis, and it is because of the federal government’s failed policies at our border. The government has acknowledged that by ensuring that there were not one, not two, not three, but four ministers in the federal government responsible for this crisis.

This is a federal decision, and I will be going to Ottawa on Monday to ask for our $200 million in costs that continue to escalate in this province as a result of what’s happening at the border. This should be a shock and a concern for every Ontarian, when a child sex offender can cross the border into our country and expect social services in this province.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Kaleed Rasheed: Minister, thank you for that answer. I can’t believe anyone would suggest that this isn’t a crisis. I appreciate your support and your position on this important matter.

1100

It would be a huge step in the right direction if Ministers Blair, Goodale and Hussen would finally admit that they don’t have a solution to this crisis. Now I hear the illegal border crossers will be put up in hotels for what I understand could be years.

Minister, have the college facilities been vacated, or will students now be negatively impacted? As well, could you please tell me if the federal government is paying millions per month to house illegal border crossers indefinitely?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I appreciate the question. It gives me an opportunity to update this House.

As you know, Speaker, last weekend, Angus Reid found that two thirds of Canadians agree with the Ontario government’s approach on this, and every single Premier in the country agrees with our Premier in how we’re approaching this. That is why I’ve gone personally to Ottawa, and I will go again, to talk about the crisis at our border and the crisis in our emergency shelter system.

I know that we are a welcoming society, but our patience has been tested, as has our generosity, as a result of these failed federal policies that five ministers are now presiding over and passing as a hot potato. I’m going to simply say thank you to Centennial and Humber College for their generosity over this period of time.

I also just want to point out that the feds need to pay for their failed policies. Two hundred million dollars is a lot of money, Mr. Speaker, and that’s Ontario’s money. We need that back, so I will be going on Monday to speak to those federal ministers and demand that we are compensated.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. The House will come to order. The member for Scarborough Southwest will come to order. The Premier will come to order. Start the clock.

Next question?

Municipal elections

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, my question is to the Premier. The Premier didn’t campaign on cancelling democratic elections, and he seems to have taken everyone, including his own caucus, by surprise. It was especially surprising because of news reports that the Premier’s office was getting engaged in the Peel regional chair election.

The Premier claims to have consulted people about this particular piece of government policy. Did the Premier consult with any former members of this House about regional chair elections?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Hon. Steve Clark: To the member for Toronto–Danforth: During the campaign, we talked about respecting taxpayers’ dollars. The Premier talked to tens of thousands of people during that campaign. We were delivered here in this House with a strong mandate to get things done, and that’s exactly what we’re doing. We passed the Urgent Priorities Act, which ended the longest strike at a university in Canadian history. The kids are going back to York University. We’re on our way to reducing gas prices by 10%.

This bill, Bill 5, will reduce the size of Toronto city council and press the pause button on four elections in four regions. Again, a Toronto council made up of 25 members will be a streamlined council. It won’t be a dysfunctional council. It will be—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I’m not surprised the Premier evaded that question. I’m going to go back to this, though.

Again to the Premier: Before the Premier decided to interfere in democratic elections—something he didn’t run on and none of the members across the House ran on—there were media reports that the Premier’s people were trying to get someone—anyone—to run against Patrick Brown.

Was the Premier in touch with Charles Sousa about this matter?

Hon. Steve Clark: Again, this has got nothing to do with the bill on the order paper. It’s got nothing to do with government policy. It’s just another drive-by smear by the NDP.

Interjection.

Hon. Steve Clark: You can howl all you want, but I’ll again remind you that we’re not the party that stood up against the police, against veterans, against the poppy. We weren’t that party. We were the party—

Interjections.

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

Next question.

Ring of Fire

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

Speaker, the Ring of Fire is truly a multigenerational economic and social development resource project that will positively impact the economy all across the north. I believe that the minister will agree that two of the keys to this project moving forward are the building of regional infrastructure to bring the minerals to market and a continued partnership with First Nations to see that benefits go to their communities.

We know that three First Nations are working on all-season roads to open up access to the provincial highway network and the Ring of Fire. When we were in office, we committed $1 billion to ensure that these access roads are indeed built.

The government’s support for these all-season roads is totally crucial. My question for the minister is this: Will the minister commit to making the necessary investments to see that the all-season roads are built? And will the minister continue to work in partnership with these willing First Nations to move the Ring of Fire forward?

Hon. Greg Rickford: Thank you for the question. I appreciate the member opposite’s efforts over the past; unfortunately, they haven’t accomplished much. I was involved, obviously, in the other place in my capacity as the minister for FedNor, and from time to time, we had a project or two that we were able to work successfully on in an effort to open up corridors for hydro and road access to First Nations communities, improve all-season roads and actually get a road into the Ring of Fire, to create jobs and economic development for Indigenous communities.

Instead, what we’ve seen is a bit of a bog. These communities are now no longer involved in the direct activity, the benefit and the opportunity—save and except for a couple—of actually participating in the things that the Ring of Fire can offer.

I’m pleased to say that, moving forward, the Ring of Fire is a top priority for us and those communities and all of northern Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Gravelle: Thank you very much for the response, Minister, and I’m very pleased that it’s a top priority for your government, as it was for ours. I think it’s important to reiterate the question.

The willing First Nations who are indeed working to move those all-season access roads forward are going to be crucial to the development of the project. Certainly, all other northern communities are extremely keen on this, and I’m hoping that the minister, when he’s at the AMO conference, will be meeting with northern communities to discuss, and update them on, this project.

But my question again is: Will you make the investment necessary to move that all-season road access forward? And will you continue to partner with the First Nations who are willing partners in this project?

Hon. Greg Rickford: The answer can be yes, if the member is willing to admit that there is a dramatic deficit of road access to that region and that for 15 years, very little got done in that respect. Okay? Let’s call it for what it is.

The Ring of Fire represents a legacy opportunity, not only for the jobs it will create in mining extraction, not only for the economic opportunity of Indigenous communities and municipalities’ smelting opportunities, but the legacy infrastructure required to support that development is as big as the prospect of mining extraction activities itself.

We’ve seen that when Indigenous communities get involved in the economic development aspects of this, like Webequie, a small business centre that played a pivotal role in the exploration activities, like communities farther to the south who are now partners with Noront to make sure that they get jobs, economic opportunities and infrastructure that can create and contribute to vibrant, dynamic Indigenous communities and municipalities—

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

Interjections.

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

Restart the clock.

Next question.

Municipal elections

Miss Christina Maria Mitas: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Day after day, the opposition makes outrageous and, frankly, inappropriate claims about Bill 5. It’s what they always do: try to put a negative spin on the great work that we’re doing. We know that the real reason the NDP opposes Bill 5 is because they love big government. Higher taxes and job-killing red tape is what they want; it’s just in their DNA.

1110

But former government members have also made claims—claims that we did not consult. That’s just wrong. The Premier spoke to thousands of Ontarians and Torontonians during our recent campaign. They sent us here to govern on June 7 with a mandate to reduce the size and cost of government; and if I may say so, we’re doing a bang-up job.

Can the minister tell the House what the former government’s record is on consulting before—

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

Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing?

Hon. Steve Clark: I want to thank our outstanding member from Scarborough Centre for that very good question.

Speaker, I want to set the record straight. The former government meddled in this year’s Toronto election. They did it quietly, without consultation, by slipping schedule 2 into this year’s budget bill. It amended the City of Toronto Act, allowing council to pass a bylaw adding three councillors for this year’s vote. Previously, to change the council composition, the deadline was December 31 of the previous year.

Like the NDP, if you give the Liberals a chance, they’ll always increase the size and cost of government. Over here, we’re respecting taxpayers, and I’m proud. An unmanageable, unaffordable 47-member council is just another Liberal mess that we’re going to clean up.

Interjections.

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

Restart the clock.

Supplementary?

Miss Christina Maria Mitas: Thank you for that response, Minister, and for explaining how the previous government failed to consult taxpayers in Toronto about changing the rules at the last minute in order to increase council size.

Unlike that, the streamlined, lower-cost city council that we are proposing in Bill 5 has been debated for days by everyone here. You and the Premier have been open and accountable by answering questions both in the House and in the media, something that the previous government simply did not do.

I am curious about something, though, Minister, and forgive my possible ignorance. When did the budget pass to give city councillors the go-ahead to add more city councillors to the payroll, and how did it coincide with this year’s election?

Hon. Steve Clark: I want to again thank the member for that excellent question. The budget passed on May 8, one week into the municipal election campaign. The previous government acted to push their agenda to allow a retroactive increase in the size and cost of Toronto council during the campaign period.

It was a little rich to hear, yesterday, the member for Don Valley East stand up and criticize us when that MPP from Toronto was a member of cabinet in a government that changed the rules during the game a few short months ago. I bet he didn’t tell constituents that he was acting to add more councillors to the bill.

There’s a word for that behaviour, Speaker, but I don’t think I’m going to use it.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. The House will please come to order. We still have 24 minutes.

Start the clock.

Next question.

Opioid abuse

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: My question is for the Premier. London is grappling with an opioid crisis. London’s Regional HIV/AIDS Connection in the Middlesex-London Health Unit runs a temporary overdose prevention site that has been a saving grace for my community.

Supervised injection sites save lives. They’re a proven harm reduction tool for combatting this public health crisis.

Experts in London are ready to talk. Staff in London are ready to talk. Community members and people with lived experience in London are ready to talk. The Minister of Health and Long-Term Care has been invited to tour the site and to talk to experts. We’re left wondering: Why is a professional, well-run organization being left in the dark?

This site is only temporary and will cease to exist come August 15 unless action is taken now. Will this government grant the much-needed extension for the temporary site?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you very much for the question. I’m certainly aware of the situation with the supervised injection site in London, Ontario. I do plan to visit. I understand they’re doing some great work.

As the Premier has said in the past, we want to look at the evidence to make sure that the continuation of all the supervised injection sites is going to be of benefit to people, to save lives and to help introduce people into rehabilitation. For the particular site that you’re speaking about in London, we are looking at a temporary situation to extend time for us to be able to continue with this investigation. That is what I’m hoping to do within the next few days, to make sure that we can do that. We don’t want them to stop the work while our investigation is undergoing.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: Back to the Premier: There are six days left. My constituents deserve a solid answer. According to the RNAO, there is robust peer-reviewed evidence that these services are saving lives and making a difference. The evidence is ready. All you need to do is to take a look at it.

To date, staff members have already prevented seven overdoses. Addiction touches everyone and can tear families apart. Staff are saving lives every day, connecting individuals with their community and helping put them on the road to recovery. This site must continue to exist past August 15. Again, there are six days left. Will this government commit here and now to grant an extension for the temporary site past the August 15 deadline?

Hon. Christine Elliott: The short answer to the member is yes. I said that in my previous response. We understand that there is work that is going on there that needs to continue while we conduct our review. We understand there is a big opioid crisis in this situation. I understand that that clinic has been very well used and is doing some very good work.

We are going to continue our work, looking at the RNAO report and the reports of others, to make sure that the site—for this site in London, as well as the other supervised injection sites across the province—continue. It will also be part of our ongoing review, our mental health and addictions review that we’re undergoing, which we are putting $3.8 billion into over the years. We want to make sure that all Ontarians who need help receive that help.

Beverage alcohol sales

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: My question is for the Minister of Finance. This week, our government put the people first, and we kept our promise to bring buck-a-beer back to Ontario. As of August 27, any brewer can choose to lower the price for a beer to $1. I’m proud to be part of a government that’s working to help people keep more of their hard-earned money in their pockets.

Speaker, can the minister provide more details about our plans to return buck-a-beer to Ontario?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: I want to say thank you to the member from Perth–Wellington for the question. Speaker, when you get right down to it, our buck-a-beer plan is simply to encourage competition among Ontario’s brewing industry and saving consumers money.

Let’s remember that before 2008, buck-a-beer was popular with both consumers and brewers. It was a win-win, and then, of course, the Liberals got their hands on it, supported by the NDP. They added a layer of red tape when they raised the minimum beer price and made buck-a-beer illegal.

Well, effective August 27, in time for Labour Day weekend, our government is going to lower the minimum beer price to $1 for any beer under 5.6% alcohol by volume. Promise made; promise kept.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Back to the ever-hard-working Minister of Finance: It’s important to realize that the Premier’s buck-a-beer challenge is just that: a challenge. It’s voluntary. It’s going to be completely up to each brewer whether or not they want to lower their prices, and there are no financial incentives being provided here.

Minister, can you explain how the government is going to implement buck-a-beer in a fiscally and socially responsible way?

1120

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Thank you again for the question. We’ve kept our promise and done our part by lowering the price floor, allowing the beer industry to participate in the Premier’s challenge. Any brewer that wants to join can join in on this great marketing opportunity. Instead of handouts and subsidies, we’re issuing the buck-a-beer challenge. The LCBO will work collaboratively with any brewer wishing to participate, with no costs incurred by the Ontario taxpayers.

And let’s be clear, Speaker: We remain unwavering in our commitment to road responsibility and road safety. We’re going to trust consumers to make mature and responsible decisions, but there is zero tolerance for those who do not. We promised to bring buck-a-beer back to Ontario at no cost to the taxpayers and we delivered. Promise made; promise kept.

Opioid abuse

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: Mr. Speaker, St. Catharines saw more than a 300% increase in overdoses in the last year and has one of the highest opioid overdose death rates in the province. Mayor Sendzik and St. Catharines city council unanimously called for a safe injection site for the city in January. The future of this site, like other sites in the province, is now in limbo. Does the Premier support a safe injection site for St. Catharines?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you very much to the member for the question. As I indicated in a previous question, we are doing an examination of supervised injection sites, the ones that are already open, to understand the benefits and the basis of the evidence for them to be carried on and for, perhaps, new injection sites to be opened in the future.

I can’t comment on a secure supervised injection site for St. Catharines until we’ve conducted our research and I’ve presented the recommendations to the Premier on whether the evidence supports continued extension of supervised injection sites in the province.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: Again to the Premier: Niagara regional associate medical officer of health Dr. Andrea Feller points out that a map of the region’s worst OD rates lines up with the region’s greatest needs for decent housing and income. Will the Premier continue to bulldoze over evidence-based solutions to combat the opioid crisis and poverty, or will he support a provincially funded safe injection site for St. Catharines and Niagara?

Hon. Christine Elliott: We certainly know that there is an opioid problem across Ontario, and it’s particularly bad in the area where you live. We want to make sure we put the right programs and services in place to be able to save people’s lives but also to introduce them to rehabilitation wherever we can.

That is why we are undertaking an extensive addiction and mental health review to make sure we put those programs and services into place, whether they’re supervised injection sites or other treatment facilities. That is work that we’re going to continue over the next number of months. We invite you to participate in that process, because it is important for all Ontarians that we develop a comprehensive system that serves children to youth to adults to seniors throughout all phases of their lives. We want to make sure that we put those provisions in place and do the right thing.

Firefighting in northern Ontario

Mr. Ross Romano: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. We continue to read and see stories in the media talking about the devastation that forest fires are causing throughout central and northern Ontario. I know your ministry and the emergency responders and front-line workers are dedicating everything they have to fight these fires. Minister, can you please tell us how our government is helping to support all of those men and women to ensure that they have all the necessary resources they need to fight these fires?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: I thank the member from Sault Ste. Marie for that question. This government is committed to ensuring that the province has the necessary resources to continue to fight the forest fires in northern and central Ontario. Yesterday the PC government, under the leadership of Premier Doug Ford, announced $100 million in additional funding to continue to support emergency forest firefighting for the 2018 fire season.

As I’ve mentioned previously in this House, the 2018 fire season is one of the worst in Ontario’s history. The hot, dry conditions and accompanying lightning storms are expected to continue through most of the summer and quite possibly into the fall.

Our number one priority remains the same day in and day out, and that’s the safety of the public and the protection of communities and private property. This additional funding that we’ve committed to will ensure we continue to have the necessary resources there for our front-line workers.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Ross Romano: Thank you, Minister. I am so very happy to hear how our government is so committed to ensuring that our emergency responders and front-line workers remain safe and protected and that they can ensure that our people are safe and protected.

There are reports in the media suggesting that progress is being made and that many people in northern and central Ontario are very encouraged by some of the improvements in the fire situation over the last week or so. Could you please provide an update to us with respect to the fire situation?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Thanks very much for that supplementary question. While crews and support staff continue to make progress on the fires across the province, there still are approximately 126 active fires in the province in various stages of control.

In particular, I’m very pleased to announce the status of Parry Sound 33 has been upgraded to “being held.” Crews have been able to maintain the perimeter and work towards the interior, finding hot spots. They’re taking action to extinguish them and to reduce the size of the fire. In other good news, people from the Henvey Inlet First Nation have returned to their homes. We’re actively working with communities and other agency partners to discuss when others can safely return to the area.

I do want to note, however, that this fire is still active and travel restrictions continue to be in place. We’re asking people to co-operate with emergency personnel and listen to their direction. We will continue to fight these fires aggressively on the ground and in the air. The $100 million in additional funding will help us sustain these efforts to manage and suppress the fires.

Again, thank you to the front-line workers who are protecting public—

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

Interjections.

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

Restart the clock.

Next question.

Mental health services

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: My question is to the Premier. During National Addictions Awareness Week in 2013 the Deputy Premier said, “We have young people with addictions problems who can’t sit on a waiting list for treatment for two years.” In the five years since the Deputy Premier raised this issue, wait-lists have ballooned to unimaginable lengths and supports have been stretched beyond the breaking point. So I was shocked that this government would look at this crisis and choose to cut mental health funding by $330 million per year.

Given the crisis in mental health, how does the Premier justify cutting services for people who are in desperate need of support?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: I thank the member for the question, although I disagree with it entirely.

First of all, what we are actually doing is adding money to the mental health and addictions system. We’re adding $1.9 billion to match the $1.9 billion that’s being advanced by the federal government. That $3.8 billion over 10 years is a lot of money, and it’s going to allow us to do a lot of work together to create a connected system instead of the piecemeal bits and pieces that we had under 15 years with the Liberals. I’m not surprised that nothing has improved in the last five years, because they didn’t put their minds to it and they didn’t create a system.

We are going to change that. We are going to make sure that we speak with people who have lived experience, with the experts, and with people in a number of ministries who are involved in this, because it’s not just the Ministry of Health; it’s about 12 different ministries. That’s the work that we’re going to do over the next short period of time.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Back to the Premier: At the same time this government is cutting mental health funding, they are giving a six-figure salary to their rich friend—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Speaker, can I please get some order so that I can actually deliver my question in some civility in this House?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member is quite right. I have to be able to hear. The government side needs to come to order.

Back to the member.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Thank you, Speaker. At the same time this government is cutting, they are giving a six-figure salary to their rich friend Rueben Devlin to duplicate the job of the Minister of Health. This is simply shameful and inefficient for this government.

Will this government stop making people in crisis pay to pad the wallets of Conservative friends and instead support my motion and commit to funding mental health, addictions and supportive housing by at least $2.4 billion over the next—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. Response: Minister of Health.

1130

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would say, through you, to the member that just because you say something time and time again, it doesn’t make it any more true on the 50th time you say it than on the first time you said it.

I think it’s really important for the people of Ontario who are watching these proceedings to understand that what we are doing is adding to our mental health and addictions funding a record amount of money, $3.8 billion, to create a more comprehensive system, to make sure that we have the community capacity to serve people with mental health and addiction needs and to make sure that we can build housing so that they will have a safe place to live. There is a lot of work to be done, and that’s a lot of money to do it with.

We are adding to the system, and that is the most important thing—

Interjections.

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

Restart the clock.

Next question.

Pickering nuclear generating station

Mr. David Piccini: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Nuclear energy is a safe, clean and reliable source of electricity in our province, a source that meets over 50% of our electricity needs. Mr. Speaker, 14% of that is provided by the Pickering nuclear generating station.

The Pickering nuclear generating station is vital to the Durham region and my riding of Northumberland–Peterborough South. In fact, over 4,500 jobs in the region depend on this facility—jobs that would have been lost had the NDP won that last election.

This government is committed to extending Pickering’s operating licence until 2024. Can the minister provide an update on the status of this licence and explain what actions this government is taking to protect jobs in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Greg Rickford: Great question. I want to thank the member for Northumberland–Peterborough for that important question.

Nuclear power is the backbone of our electricity system. It produces over half of Ontario’s electricity. The Pickering nuclear generating station alone provides power to 1.5 million homes every day. That’s why I am pleased to inform this Legislature, and in particular the member from Pickering–Uxbridge, that the Pickering nuclear generating station has received approval from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to continue to operate until 2024. This licence to continue to operate will keep 4,500 good jobs in Durham region and another 3,000 jobs across the province. That’s 7,500—

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

Supplementary question.

Mr. David Piccini: Thank you to the minister for his leadership on this file.

Further to my last question, this announcement is great news for the people of Durham and Northumberland. They know—that’s why they gave us this mandate—that they would have lost their jobs under the reckless NDP.

This announcement doesn’t only help protect jobs; it’s also great news for Ontario ratepayers. Through this government’s leadership in ensuring Pickering is operational until 2024, Ontario families, small businesses and job creators will save hundreds of millions of dollars in electricity. Promise made; promise kept.

Can the minister tell the members of this House—

Interjections.

Mr. David Piccini: He’s doing such a great job. Can the minister tell the members of this House what impact this announcement will have on all Ontarians and why he’s so energized to save jobs in Ontario?

Hon. Greg Rickford: Thank you for that question. It’s true the Premier made a commitment to the people of Ontario to keep the Pickering station operational until 2024. Wait for it, Mr. Speaker: Promise made, promise kept.

This extension will save Ontario’s electricity customers up to $600 million, alongside protecting 7,500 good jobs in our province—7,500 jobs that the anti-nuclear democratic party would have eliminated. Pickering nuclear provides 14% of our province’s electricity every day. The continued operation until 2024 is expected to contribute over $12.3 billion to Ontario’s GDP. I’m proud to say that we’re doing all of this in a safe and reliable facility, Mr. Speaker—one of the safest facilities we have.

One of our government’s core commitments is to keep more money in people’s pockets. Promise made; promise kept.

Carding

Mr. Kevin Yarde: My question is for the Premier. An investigation has shown that Black and brown individuals are stopped by police at a rate of five to 10 times more than the rest of the population. The previous government could have banned the practice of arbitrary street checks, but they didn’t.

Today, I will introduce a motion to end the practice of carding, or what are also known as street checks, in the province once and for all. Will the Premier support this motion?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Thank you for the question. As we’ve always stated, public safety is of paramount concern to this government. The Premier has been clear from day one on this matter, and we will not be bringing back carding.

As you know, I believe in giving our law enforcement officers the tools they need to get the job done. I will listen to our front-line officers about the resources they need, and I will make sure that we’re working with communities to ensure that we’re building trust between our police and the communities they serve.

Mr. Speaker, our government for the people includes every person in this great province, and we remain committed to enhancing and ensuring public safety for all Ontarians across this great province. Ontario is an inclusive province where all are respected, no matter their background, nationality, faith or race.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Kevin Yarde: We know how this went the last time we asked the government if they would end police use of carding.

Does the Premier support the use of carding or street checks by police, yes or no?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: As we’ve stated in the past, public safety is of paramount concern to us, and we want to ensure that the police officers who serve our communities have the tools they need to conduct their work. In order for the front-line workers to do their work, they need resources. As you know, today we’ve committed to $25 million in additional funding.

As you can appreciate, we require police to work in communities, we require police to engage with people in the communities and we’re giving them the tools to be able to do that. In the long run, what we’re trying to do is ensure that communities are safe and that individuals have the confidence not only in our government to do what’s right for them but also to ensure that they feel safe and are able to enjoy our festivals, to enjoy the streets, to be able to walk freely. That’s what—

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

Interjections.

Members will take their seats.

Next question?

Government’s record

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is to the Minister of Government and Consumer Services. Minister, we campaigned as PCs on promises to put money back in people’s pockets, clean up the hydro mess, bring back accountability and trust, create good jobs and reduce hospital wait times.

Minister, can you tell me what you and your colleagues are doing to make these promises made, promises kept?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Did the minister hear the question?

Hon. Todd Smith: Thank you, Speaker. I did hear that question loud and clear, and I thank the member who is sitting right next to me for that question.

It’s a very good question because it’s a rare opportunity for the Ontario Legislature to sit here during the summer months in such close proximity to the election of June 7. The one thing that Premier Ford wanted to do after winning the election—with a decisive majority, I might add—was to get back to work here at Queen’s Park and start to fulfil some of the promises that we made during that election.

To that end, we have already started to clean up the Liberal hydro mess. We put new leadership in place and new board governance at Hydro One. We’re reducing the cost of electricity by cancelling renewable energy projects that were going to drive up the cost of electricity by almost $800 million. We got kids back to school at York University for this fall. We’re unwinding the cap-and-trade program. We’re even selling beer for a buck now in Ontario, Mr. Speaker—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): That concludes the time we have this morning for question period.

Birthdays

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound on a point of order.

Mr. Bill Walker: I’d just like to wish Sullivan, one of the pages here, a happy birthday, on Saturday.

For those pages who may not be with us here next week, thank you so much for your service.

One of our members, MPP Baber, is also having a birthday today.

Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Attorney General on a point of order.

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: I’d just like to welcome my children to the House for the first time: Lewis, Pierce and Miranda. They get the opportunity to see what all that door-knocking meant to their mother.

Correction of record

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Children, Community and Social Services on a point of order.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I wanted to correct my record. The individual who illegally crossed the border was detained in Quebec.

Deferred Votes

Time allocation

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We now have a deferred vote on the amendment to the amendment to government notice of motion number 4 by the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane relating to allocation of time on Bill 5, An Act to amend the City of Toronto Act, 2006, the Municipal Act, 2001 and the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.

Call in the members. This is a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1142 to 1147.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I would ask the members to please take their seats. Is everyone in their seat? I think they are.

Earlier today, Mr. Vanthof moved that the amendment to government notice of motion be amended by deleting “That, except in the case of a recorded division arising from morning orders of the day, pursuant to standing order 9(c), no deferral of the second reading or third reading vote shall be permitted; and” and replace it with “The votes on second and third reading may be deferred pursuant to standing order 28(h); and”.

All those in favour of Mr. Vanthof’s motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

• Armstrong, Teresa J.
• Begum, Doly
• Berns-McGown, Rima
• Bisson, Gilles
• Bourgouin, Guy
• Burch, Jeff
• Fife, Catherine
• Fraser, John
• French, Jennifer K.
• Gravelle, Michael
• Harden, Joel

• Hassan, Faisal
• Hatfield, Percy
• Hunter, Mitzie
• Kernaghan, Terence
• Mamakwa, Sol
• Mantha, Michael
• Miller, Paul
• Monteith-Farrell, Judith
• Morrison, Suze
• Natyshak, Taras
• Rakocevic, Tom

• Sattler, Peggy
• Schreiner, Mike
• Singh, Gurratan
• Singh, Sara
• Stevens, Jennifer (Jennie)
• Tabuns, Peter
• Taylor, Monique
• Vanthof, John
• West, Jamie
• Yarde, Kevin

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): All those opposed to the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

• Anand, Deepak
• Baber, Roman
• Babikian, Aris
• Bailey, Robert
• Bethlenfalvy, Peter
• Bouma, Will
• Calandra, Paul
• Cho, Raymond Sung Joon
• Cho, Stan
• Clark, Steve
• Coe, Lorne
• Crawford, Stephen
• Cuzzetto, Rudy
• Downey, Doug
• Dunlop, Jill
• Elliott, Christine
• Fedeli, Victor
• Fee, Amy
• Ford, Doug
• Fullerton, Merrilee
• Ghamari, Goldie
• Gill, Parm
• Hardeman, Ernie
• Harris, Mike

• Hogarth, Christine
• Jones, Sylvia
• Kanapathi, Logan
• Karahalios, Belinda
• Ke, Vincent
• Khanjin, Andrea
• Kusendova, Natalia
• Lecce, Stephen
• MacLeod, Lisa
• Martin, Robin
• Martow, Gila
• McDonell, Jim
• McKenna, Jane
• McNaughton, Monte
• Miller, Norman
• Mitas, Christina Maria
• Mulroney, Caroline
• Nicholls, Rick
• Pang, Billy
• Park, Lindsey
• Parsa, Michael
• Pettapiece, Randy
• Phillips, Rod
• Piccini, David

• Rasheed, Kaleed
• Rickford, Greg
• Roberts, Jeremy
• Romano, Ross
• Sabawy, Sheref
• Sarkaria, Prabmeet Singh
• Scott, Laurie
• Simard, Amanda
• Skelly, Donna
• Smith, Dave
• Smith, Todd
• Surma, Kinga
• Tangri, Nina
• Thanigasalam, Vijay
• Thompson, Lisa M.
• Tibollo, Michael A.
• Triantafilopoulos, Effie J.
• Wai, Daisy
• Walker, Bill
• Wilson, Jim
• Yakabuski, John
• Yurek, Jeff

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 32; the nays are 70.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I declare the motion lost.

Motion negatived.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Are the members ready to vote on the amendment to government notice of motion number 4? I heard some noes.

There being no more deferred votes, this House stands recessed until 1 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1151 to 1300.

Introduction of Visitors

Ms. Doly Begum: It’s my honour to introduce, and actually welcome, some friends from Dallas, Texas, who are here: Tazul Islam, Mahmuda Islam, Aniqa Islam, Farah Nishal and Imaan Rafan. Welcome, guys.

Members’ Statements

Autofest Oshawa

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Member for Oshawa.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Thank you, Speaker. This summer, I invite you and folks from across the province to come and visit Oshawa. This year, the Motor City Car Club is once again hosting our annual world-famous Autofest. This year is the 25th Autofest, and it will be held at Lakeview Park on Saturday, August 26 and Sunday, August 27.

Every year, Autofest draws classic car fans and families from all over to check out entries from across Canada. Each year, we expect about 10,000 people to come to experience Autofest. Classic car enthusiasts gather, enjoy and celebrate Oshawa’s rich automotive history and bright future.

Lakeview Park is a fantastic space that becomes a sea of classic cars, new friends and great music. There are over $5,000 in cash prizes, a 50-50 draw and a draw for a classic car. Bring the kids to hang out in the kid zone and make memories at one of the most amazing events I have ever been part of.

As I mentioned, the Motor City Car Club hosts this massive event. Our community appreciates the work they do with the help of all of the Autofest sponsors. Funds raised support Grandview Children’s Centre. Through the years, Autofest has raised over $250,000 for Grandview Kids.

Again, I hope everyone comes to Oshawa this August for the weekend of the 26th and 27th to enjoy Autofest at Lakeview Park. This year, we are celebrating 25 years of Autofest, and we hope that all of you will join us.

Events in York South–Weston

Mr. Faisal Hassan: York South–Weston is known for its events, from our annual Santa Claus Parade, now in its 39th year, our Weston Farmers’ Market, also in its 39th season, to our wonderful summer theatre in Little Avenue park.

Weston has high standards, and that is exactly what they did with their second Weston Buskerfest. What started out as a one-time event to celebrate Canada’s 150th birthday was so well received that it has now become an annual event in Weston.

Buskerfest is a free event, and everyone is welcome. The event was well organized and is a lot of fun. Large crowds were on hand along Weston Road north and south of Lawrence last Saturday to watch an entertaining set of buskers captivate audiences.

This was Weston’s second year of Buskerfest and, by all accounts, it was a huge success. Crowds filled the corner of Weston and Lawrence to watch musicians, fire eaters, puppet shows, artists get to work and much more.

Attendees at this year’s event were amazed by a bevy of incredibly talented performers. As the decadent sounds of pan drums danced through the air, performers captivated onlookers.

Philip Alexander

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Last weekend, I had the pleasure of once again attending our Emancipation Gala. It’s a fundraiser for the North American Black Historical Museum out in Amherstburg.

We shared in honouring Phil Alexander with a lifetime achievement award. Phil is a former associate dean for the faculty of engineering at the University of Windsor. He was one of the museum’s founders back in 1975. The museum was established as a way to help young members of the Black community remember their roots and learn the stories of their ancestors.

Amherstburg was one of the first Canadian stops on the Underground Railroad.

Phil Alexander has held every executive position on the museum’s board of directors at one time or another. He has also volunteered to raise money at bingos, chaired several committees and supported his community in many ways.

About 20 years ago, Phil Alexander worked on the Nazrey Church restoration project, which helped the church get the designation as one of Canada’s national historic sites. He served on the police commission in Windsor. He’s been a member of the employment equity advisory committee for our public board of education. He even served six years as a board trustee with the Ontario Science Centre.

In his spare time, Phil has been a volunteer with the multicultural council, Big Brothers, the Y—I don’t have enough time to list all of his community volunteer time, Speaker, but I know you will join me in saying: Phil, well done. Well deserved, my friend. You set an example for all of us.

Northern transportation

Mr. Michael Gravelle: The recent announcement by Greyhound that they will be ending passenger bus service west of Sudbury on October 31 has shaken all of us in northern Ontario. Many people in the northwest, certainly, who rely on that service are looking for alternatives that can fill the void. Motor coach services are vital in our part of the province, and I believe that the government has a role to play in finding a solution to this rather grim situation.

In the Northern Ontario Multimodal Transportation Strategy, one of the key elements is the provision of enhanced inter-community bus services throughout the north, with the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission—the ONTC—extending its services to northwestern Ontario, particularly to fill the gaps that cannot be met by private transportation companies.

It’s my hope that the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and the Minister of Transportation will follow up on that strategy and ensure that the ONTC extends its motor coach services to the northwest in order to fill the gap left when Greyhound ceases its services at the end of October.

While I am very pleased that Kasper Transportation in Thunder Bay intends to expand their passenger bus services in the northwest—and our hat goes off to them—the truth is they simply cannot meet all the needs in our part of the province, and we need to fill that gap. Certainly, by continuing to partner with the ONTC, these needs can be met, and I strongly call on both ministers to see that that happens.

Tree preservation

Mr. Joel Harden: I rise today to offer a statement of congratulations to residents in Ottawa Centre who are part of a movement in Ottawa, and I’m sure it’s a movement shared across our great province. There’s a movement in Ottawa Centre to save the urban tree canopy. We know that a lot of people want to live downtown, and we know that people support responsible development in the downtown. But as that happens, we have to make sure that the beautification that exists all over our great cities and towns maintains itself.

What I’m proud to tell you is that Tom Deadman, who is a terrific volunteer and canvasser in the campaign of which I was privileged to be a part, spearheaded an organizing drive in the course of five days, gathered 800 signatures, hit over 400 doors and managed to convince the developer in question, the city of Ottawa and his councillor to take the right position and maintain trees on his parents’ property, one of which was 156 years old and the other 134 years old. He managed to maintain those trees for the future.

That is, to me, how change can really happen. It’s community-driven change. It’s people taking politics into their own hands. I’m inspired to say that Tom, his father, Richard, and his mom, Carol, were all part of our campaign. They gained the door-knocking skills, the canvassing skills, and it’s so honouring and appreciative for me to see that applied in practice to such an astonishing result. Richard, Carol, Tom: Well done.

Introduction of Bills

Zebra Mussel Scan Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur la surveillance des moules zébrées

Mr. Bisson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 22, An Act to require the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to discharge the responsibilities under subsection 15 (1) of the Ontario Water Resources Act to determine the zebra mussel content of Chain Creek, Chain Lake, Chain Lakes, The Chain of Lakes, Chainy Creek, Chainy Lake, Chair Lake; Chalet Creek, Chalet Lake, Chalice Lake, Chalk Bay, Chalk Creek, Chalkend Lake, Chalk Lake, Chalk River, Challener Lake, Challener River, Challis Lake, Chalmers Lake, Chamandy Lake, Chamberlain Lake, Chamber Lake, Chambers Lake, Champagne Lake, Champlain Creek, Champlain Trail Lakes, Chance Lake, Chancellor Lake, Chandos Lake, Change Lake, Chanley Lake, Channel Lake, Channel Lakes; Green River, Greenrod Lake, Greens Bay, Green’s Creek, Greenshields Lake, Greenshore Lake, Greensides Lake, Greens Lake, Greenstone Rapids, Greensward Lake, Green Tree Lake, Greenwater Creek, Greenwater Lake, Greenwich Creek, Greenwich Lake, Greenwood Lake and Greenwood River / Projet de loi 22, Loi visant à exiger que le ministre de l’Environnement, de la Protection de la nature et des Parcs assume ses responsabilités en application du paragraphe 15 (1) de la Loi sur les ressources en eau de l’Ontario pour établir la quantité de moules zébrées dans les cours d’eau suivants : Chain Creek, Chain Lake, Chain Lakes, The Chain of Lakes, Chainy Creek, Chainy Lake, Chair Lake; Chalet Creek, Chalet Lake, Chalice Lake, Chalk Bay, Chalk Creek, Chalkend Lake, Chalk Lake, Chalk River, Challener Lake, Challener River, Challis Lake, Chalmers Lake, Chamandy Lake, Chamberlain Lake, Chamber Lake, Chambers Lake, Champagne Lake, Champlain Creek, Champlain Trail Lakes, Chance Lake, Chancellor Lake, Chandos Lake, Change Lake, Chanley Lake, Channel Lake, Channel Lakes; Green River, Greenrod Lake, Greens Bay, Green’s Creek, Greenshields Lake, Greenshore Lake, Greensides Lake, Greens Lake, Greenstone Rapids, Greensward Lake, Green Tree Lake, Greenwater Creek, Greenwater Lake, Greenwich Creek, Greenwich Lake, Greenwood Lake et Greenwood River.

1310

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member can give a brief explanation of his bill.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Mr. Speaker, on the explanatory note, the purpose of this bill is to require the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to discharge the responsibilities under section 15(1) of the Ontario Water Resources Act to determine the zebra mussel content of specific waterways named in this bill.

Zebra Mussel Assessment Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur l’étude du problème des moules zébrées

Mr. Bisson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 23, An Act to require the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to discharge the responsibilities under subsection 15 (1) of the Ontario Water Resources Act to determine the zebra mussel content of Greer Creek, Greer Lake, Greers Bay, Greggio Lake, Greggs Lake, Gregory Bay, Gregory Creek, Gregory Lake, Grehan Lake, Greig Lake, Gremm Lake, Grenadier Creek, Grenadier Lake, Grenadier Pond, Grenfell Lake, Grenier Lake, Grenville Lake, Greske Lake, Greta Lake, Gretchel Creek, Gretchel Lake, Gretel Creek, Gretel Lake, Grew Lake, Grew River, Grey Duck Lake, Grey Lake, Grelava Lake, Grey Owl Bay, Grey Owl Lake, Green Creek, Greengrass Lake, Greenheart Creek, Greenheart Lake, Greenhedge Lake, Greenhill Lake, Greenhill Rapids, Greenhill River, Greenhorn Bay, Greenhue Lake, Greening Lake, Greening’s Bay, Greenish Creek, Greenish Lake, Green Island Bay, Green Island Lake, Green Lake, Green Lakes, Greenland Lake, Greenlaw Lake, Greenleaf Creek, Greenleaf Lake, Greenlee Lake, Greenmantle Lake, Greenmantle River, Greenock Creek, Greenock Lake, Greenough Harbour, Greenpike Lake, Gravel Lake, Gravel Lakes, Gravelly Bay, Gravelpit Lake, Gravel Pit Pond, Gravelridge Lake, Gravel River, Gravenor Lake, Graves Lake, Graveyard Creek and Graveyard Lake / Projet de loi 23, Loi visant à exiger que le ministre de l’Environnement, de la Protection de la nature et des Parcs assume ses responsabilités en application du paragraphe 15 (1) de la Loi sur les ressources en eau de l’Ontario pour établir la quantité de moules zébrées dans les cours d’eau suivants : Greer Creek, Greer Lake, Greers Bay, Greggio Lake, Greggs Lake, Gregory Bay, Gregory Creek, Gregory Lake, Grehan Lake, Greig Lake, Gremm Lake, Grenadier Creek, Grenadier Lake, Grenadier Pond, Grenfell Lake, Grenier Lake, Grenville Lake, Greske Lake, Greta Lake, Gretchel Creek, Gretchel Lake, Gretel Creek, Gretel Lake, Grew Lake, Grew River, Grey Duck Lake, Grey Lake, Grelava Lake, Grey Owl Bay, Grey Owl Lake, Green Creek, Greengrass Lake, Greenheart Creek, Greenheart Lake, Greenhedge Lake, Greenhill Lake, Greenhill Rapids, Greenhill River, Greenhorn Bay, Greenhue Lake, Greening Lake, Greening’s Bay, Greenish Creek, Greenish Lake, Green Island Bay, Green Island Lake, Green Lake, Green Lakes, Greenland Lake, Greenlaw Lake, Greenleaf Creek, Greenleaf Lake, Greenlee Lake, Greenmantle Lake, Greenmantle River, Greenock Creek, Greenock Lake, Greenough Harbour, Greenpike Lake, Gravel Lake, Gravel Lakes, Gravelly Bay, Gravelpit Lake, Gravel Pit Pond, Gravelridge Lake, Gravel River, Gravenor Lake, Graves Lake, Graveyard Creek et Graveyard Lake.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

First reading agreed to.

1320

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member may make a brief explanation of his bill.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The purpose of this bill is to require the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to discharge the responsibilities under section 15(1) of the Ontario Water Resources Act to determine the zebra mussel content of specific waterways named in the bill.

Ministry of Community and Social Services Amendment Act (Social Assistance Research Commission), 2018 / Loi de 2018 modifiant la Loi sur le ministère des Services sociaux et communautaires (Commission de recherche sur l’aide sociale)

Mr. Paul Miller moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 24, An Act to amend the Ministry of Community and Social Services Act to establish the Social Assistance Research Commission / Projet de loi 24, Loi modifiant la Loi sur le ministère des Services sociaux et communautaires afin de créer la Commission de recherche sur l’aide sociale.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I recognize the member to explain his bill.

Mr. Paul Miller: This bill amends the Ministry of Community and Social Services Act to establish the Social Assistance Research Commission. The commission recommends social assistance rates and makes other recommendations about social assistance policies. The commission consists of people with expertise relevant to the commission’s work.

Zebra Mussel Report Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur le rapport concernant les moules zébrées

Mr. Bisson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 25, An Act to require the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to discharge the responsibilities under subsection 15 (1) of the Ontario Water Resources Act to determine the zebra mussel content of Graveyard Rapids, Gravy Lake, Grawbarger Lake, Grawbarger’s Rapids, Graydarl Lake, Graydon Lake, Gray Lake, Grayling Lake, Graymud Lake, Gray Rapids, Grays Bay, Grays Creek, Grays Lake, Grayson Lake, Grayson River, Grays River, Graystone Lake, Graytrout Lake, Grazing Lake, Grazing River, Great Lake, Great Mountain Lake, Great North Bay, Great Portage Lake, Great South Bay, Grebe Lake, Greb Lake, Green Bay, Greenbough Lake, Green Bug Lake, Greenbush Lake, Green Creek, Grants Lake, Granzies Lake, Grape Lake, Graphic Creek, Graphic Lake, Graphite Lake, Grapnel Bay, Grapnel Creek, Grapnel Lake, Grasett Lake, Grass Creek, Grasser Lake, Grass Hill Lake, Grass Lake, Grassy Bay, Grassy Creek, Grassy Lake, Grassy Portage Bay, Grassy River, Gratton Creek, Gratton Lake, Grave Bay, Grave Creek and Grave Lake / Projet de loi 25, Loi visant à exiger que le ministre de l’Environnement, de la Protection de la nature et des Parcs assume ses responsabilités en application du paragraphe 15 (1) de la Loi sur les ressources en eau de l’Ontario pour établir la quantité de moules zébrées dans les cours d’eau suivants : Graveyard Rapids, Gravy Lake, Grawbarger Lake, Grawbarger’s Rapids, Graydarl Lake, Graydon Lake, Gray Lake, Grayling Lake, Graymud Lake, Gray Rapids, Grays Bay, Grays Creek, Grays Lake, Grayson Lake, Grayson River, Grays River, Graystone Lake, Graytrout Lake, Grazing Lake, Grazing River, Great Lake, Great Mountain Lake, Great North Bay, Great Portage Lake, Great South Bay, Grebe Lake, Greb Lake, Green Bay, Greenbough Lake, Green Bug Lake, Greenbush Lake, Green Creek, Grants Lake, Granzies Lake, Grape Lake, Graphic Creek, Graphic Lake, Graphite Lake, Grapnel Bay, Grapnel Creek, Grapnel Lake, Grasett Lake, Grass Creek, Grasser Lake, Grass Hill Lake, Grass Lake, Grassy Bay, Grassy Creek, Grassy Lake, Grassy Portage Bay, Grassy River, Gratton Creek, Gratton Lake, Grave Bay, Grave Creek et Grave Lake.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Would the member for Timmins like to give an explanation of his bill?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The purpose of this bill is to require the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to discharge the responsibilities under subsection 15(1) of the Ontario Water Resources Act to determine the zebra mussel content of specific waterways.

1330

Zebra Mussel Examination Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur l’examen des moules zébrées

Mr. Bisson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 26, An Act to require the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to discharge the responsibilities under subsection 15 (1) of the Ontario Water Resources Act to determine the zebra mussel content of Gravel Bay, Gravel Beach Lake, Gravel Falls, Graham Bay, Graham Creek, Graham Lake, Graharns Creek, Graharn’s Lake, Granary Creek, Granary Lake, Grand Bay, Grand Campment Bay, Grande Lake, Grandeur Lake, Grand Lake, Grandmaison Lake, Grandma Lake, Grandma Stevens Pond, Grandolph Bay, Grandpa Lake, Grandpop’s Lake, Grand Rapids, Grand River, Grandview Lake, Granite Bay, Graniteboss Lake, Granite Creek, Granite Falls, Granitehill Lake, Granite Lake, Granite River, Granitic Lake, Granka Lake, Granny Bay, Granny’s Creek, Grano Lake, Grant Bay, Grant Creek and Grant Lake / Projet de loi 26, Loi visant à exiger que le ministre de l’Environnement, de la Protection de la nature et des Parcs assume ses responsabilités en application du paragraphe 15 (1) de la Loi sur les ressources en eau de l’Ontario pour établir la quantité de moules zébrées dans les cours d’eau suivants : Gravel Bay, Gravel Beach Lake, Gravel Falls, Graham Bay, Graham Creek, Graham Lake, Graharns Creek, Graharn’s Lake, Granary Creek, Granary Lake, Grand Bay, Grand Campment Bay, Grande Lake, Grandeur Lake, Grand Lake, Grandmaison Lake, Grandma Lake, Grandma Stevens Pond, Grandolph Bay, Grandpa Lake, Grandpop’s Lake, Grand Rapids, Grand River, Grandview Lake, Granite Bay, Graniteboss Lake, Granite Creek, Granite Falls, Granitehill Lake, Granite Lake, Granite River, Granitic Lake, Granka Lake, Granny Bay, Granny’s Creek, Grano Lake, Grant Bay, Grant Creek et Grant Lake.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Would the member for Timmins like to offer an explanation for this bill?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The purpose of the bill is to require the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to discharge the responsibilities under section 15(1) of the Ontario Water Resources Act to determine the zebra mussel content of these specific waterways.

Waterways Examination Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur l’examen des cours d’eau

Mr. Bisson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 27, An Act to require the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to discharge the responsibilities under subsection 15 (1) of the Ontario Water Resources Act to determine the zebra mussel content of Good Lake, Goodliff Lake, Goodman Creek, Goodman Lake, Goodmorning Lakes, Goodoar Lake, Goodreau Lake, Goods Lake, Goodwill Lake, Goodwin Lake, Gooley Lake, Goosander Creek, Goosander Lake, Goose Bay, Gooseberry Brook, Gooseberry Creek, Gooseberry Lake, Goose Channel, Goose Creek, Goose Egg Lake, Gilder Creek, Gilder Lake, Glimmer Lake, Gling Lake, Gliskning Lake, Glitter Creek, Glitter Lake, Globe Creek, Globe Lake, Gloomy Lake, Glorious Lake, Glory Creek, Glory Lake, Glosser Bay, Gloucester Pool, Glover Bay, Glover Lake, Glovers Bay, Glue Lake, Glynn Lake, Gnat Lake, Gneiss Lake, Gneiss Rapids, Gnome Lake, Goat Creek, Goat Island Channel, Goat Lake, Goat River, Goblin Bay, Goblin Lake, Godda Lake, Goddard Lake, Godfrey Creek, Godfrey Lake, Godin Creek, Godin Lake, God’s Lake, Godson Creek, Godson Lake, Goff Lake, Gog Lake, Gohere Bay, Go Home Bay, Go Home Lake, Go Home River, Going Lake, Golborne Lakes, Goldbar Lake, Gold Creek, Golden Creek, Goldeneye Lake, Golden Gate Lake, Golden Lake, Goldfield Creek, Goldfield Lake, Glass Falls, Glass Lake and Glassy Creek / Projet de loi 27, Loi visant à exiger que le ministre de l’Environnement, de la Protection de la nature et des Parcs assume ses responsabilités en application du paragraphe 15 (1) de la Loi sur les ressources en eau de l’Ontario pour établir la quantité de moules zébrées dans les cours d’eau suivants : Good Lake, Goodliff Lake, Goodman Creek, Goodman Lake, Goodmorning Lakes, Goodoar Lake, Goodreau Lake, Goods Lake, Goodwill Lake, Goodwin Lake, Gooley Lake, Goosander Creek, Goosander Lake, Goose Bay, Gooseberry Brook, Gooseberry Creek, Gooseberry Lake, Goose Channel, Goose Creek, Goose Egg Lake, Gilder Creek, Gilder Lake, Glimmer Lake, Gling Lake, Gliskning Lake, Glitter Creek, Glitter Lake, Globe Creek, Globe Lake, Gloomy Lake, Glorious Lake, Glory Creek, Glory Lake, Glosser Bay, Gloucester Pool, Glover Bay, Glover Lake, Glovers Bay, Glue Lake, Glynn Lake, Gnat Lake, Gneiss Lake, Gneiss Rapids, Gnome Lake, Goat Creek, Goat Island Channel, Goat Lake, Goat River, Goblin Bay, Goblin Lake, Godda Lake, Goddard Lake, Godfrey Creek, Godfrey Lake, Godin Creek, Godin Lake, God’s Lake, Godson Creek, Godson Lake, Goff Lake, Gog Lake, Gohere Bay, Go Home Bay, Go Home Lake, Go Home River, Going Lake, Golborne Lakes, Goldbar Lake, Gold Creek, Golden Creek, Goldeneye Lake, Golden Gate Lake, Golden Lake, Goldfield Creek, Goldfield Lake, Glass Falls, Glass Lake et Glassy Creek.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard some noes.

All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1336 to 1341.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be counted by the Clerk.

Ayes

• Armstrong, Teresa J.
• Begum, Doly
• Berns-McGown, Rima
• Bisson, Gilles
• Burch, Jeff
• French, Jennifer K.

• Harden, Joel
• Hassan, Faisal
• Kernaghan, Terence
• Monteith-Farrell, Judith
• Morrison, Suze
• Rakocevic, Tom

• Schreiner, Mike
• Singh, Gurratan
• Singh, Sara
• Stevens, Jennifer (Jennie)
• Vanthof, John
• Yarde, Kevin

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): All those opposed to the motion will please rise one at a time and be counted by the Clerk.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 18; the nays are 0.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I declare the motion carried.

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Pursuant to standing order 33(f), the time for introduction of bills has expired.

Petitions

School facilities

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I have a petition to fund our schools.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas too many children are going to school in buildings without proper heating or cooling, with leaky roofs or stairways overdue for repair;

“Whereas after years of Conservative and Liberal governments neglecting schools, the backlog of needed repairs has reached $16 billion;

“Whereas during the 2018 election, numerous members of the Conservative Party, including the current Minister of Education, pledged to provide adequate, stable funding for Ontario’s schools;

“Whereas less than three weeks into the legislative session, Doug Ford and the Conservative government have already cut $100 million in much-needed school repairs, leaving our children and educators to suffer in classrooms that are unsafe and unhealthy;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the Minister of Education to immediately reverse the decision to cut $100 million in school repair funding, and invest the $16 billion needed to tackle the repair backlog in Ontario’s schools.”

I wholeheartedly support this petition, affix my name to it and send it with page Jamie.

Municipal elections

Ms. Rima Berns-McGown: I have a stack of petitions here, collected by Matthew Galloway, Diane Dyson and many others in my constituency, to stop Doug Ford from interfering in municipal elections.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Doug Ford’s decision to reduce Toronto’s wards from 47 to 25 was made without any public consultation;

“Whereas Doug Ford’s meddling in municipal elections is an abuse of power;

“Whereas Doug Ford is cancelling democratic elections of some regional chairs;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately reverse Doug Ford’s unilateral decision to dismantle Toronto city hall and cancel regional chair elections; to maintain the existing Toronto municipal boundaries; and ensure that the provincial government does not interfere with the upcoming Toronto municipal election for Ford’s political gain.”

I completely agree with this petition, shall be affixing my signature to it and giving it to page Sullivan to hand to the Clerk.

Municipal elections

Mr. Faisal Hassan: I have a petition here, on behalf of the residents of my riding of York South–Weston, entitled “Stop Doug Ford from Interfering in Municipal Elections.”

“Whereas Doug Ford’s decision to reduce Toronto’s wards from 47 to 25 was made without any public consultation;

“Whereas Doug Ford’s meddling in municipal elections is an abuse of power;

“Whereas Doug Ford is cancelling democratic elections of some regional chairs;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately reverse Doug Ford’s unilateral decision to dismantle Toronto city hall and cancel regional chair elections; to maintain the existing Toronto municipal boundaries; and ensure that the provincial government does not interfere with the upcoming Toronto municipal election for Ford’s political gain.”

I support this petition, I put my name to it and I will be giving it to page Eric.

Northern transportation

Mr. Michael Gravelle: I’ve received a petition from a constituent named Louise Ewen, who is very concerned about the ceasing of Greyhound bus services west of Sudbury as of October 31. The petition reads as follows:

“A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas affordable public transit is essential to the livelihoods, personal lives and health of many Ontario citizens, especially those on low or fixed incomes like differently abled individuals, students, seniors and others most vulnerable; and

“Whereas increased use of public transit reduces the number of personal vehicles on the roads, thereby reducing carbon emissions, traffic congestion and costs to maintain roads and highways; and

“Whereas the northern Ontario region and other rural regions of Ontario are not treated equitably, with regard to funding dollars, when it comes to public transit through rail, bus or alternate reliable transportation services, which has led to substantial hardships for residents, businesses and other travellers; and

“Whereas the Legislative Assembly of Ontario has a multi-modal transportation strategy that should be followed or modified, based on individual community needs to ensure the federal and provincial governments support this plan and thereby would be helping to reduce negative impacts to communities and citizens; and

“Whereas the Legislative Assembly of Ontario has an obligation to support programs that ensure safe and affordable travel for all citizens in Ontario;

“Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure that the Ministry of Transportation moves people and goods safely, efficiently and sustainably across Ontario, to improve quality of life and to support a globally competitive economy.”

1350

I support this as well and will be giving it to Bavan to bring to the Clerks’ desk.

School facilities

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: This petition is entitled “Fund Our Schools.”

“Whereas too many children are going to school in buildings without proper heating or cooling, with leaky roofs or stairways overdue for repair;

“Whereas after years of Conservative and Liberal governments neglecting schools, the backlog of needed repairs has reached $16 billion;

“Whereas during the 2018 election, numerous members of the Conservative Party, including the current Minister of Education, pledged to provide adequate, stable funding for Ontario’s schools;

“Whereas less than three weeks into the legislative session, Doug Ford and the Conservative government have already cut $100 million in much-needed school repairs, leaving our children and educators to suffer in classrooms that are unsafe and unhealthy;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the Minister of Education to immediately reverse the decision to cut $100 million in school repair funding, and invest the $16 billion needed to tackle the repair backlog in Ontario’s schools.”

I’m proud to support this very important petition and I’m giving it to page Eric.

Employment standards

Ms. Sara Singh: I’d like to present this petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly.

“Don’t Take Away Our $15 Minimum Wage and Fairer Labour Laws.

“Whereas the vast majority of Ontarians support a $15 minimum wage and better laws to protect workers; and

“Whereas last year, in response to overwhelming popular demand by the people of Ontario, the provincial government brought in legislation and regulations that....

“Make it illegal to pay part-time, temporary, casual or contract workers less than their full-time or directly hired co-workers, including equal public holiday pay and vacation pay;

“Raised the adult general minimum wage to $14 per hour and further raises it to a $15 minimum wage on January 1, 2019, with annual adjustments by Ontario’s consumer price index....

“Make client companies responsible for workplace health and safety for temporary agency employees....

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to honour these commitments, including the $15 minimum wage and fairer scheduling rules set to take effect on January 1, 2019. We further call on the assembly to take all necessary steps to enforce these laws and extend them to ensure no worker is left without protection.”

I am very proud to support this. I’d like to thank the Workers’ Action Centre and Nirmal Singh from the riding of Brampton South for bringing this petition to my attention.

Municipal elections

Ms. Doly Begum: I want to thank Mark Binkley and the rest of my constituents for this petition. The petition is “Stop Doug Ford from Interfering in Municipal Elections.”

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Doug Ford’s decision to reduce Toronto’s wards from 47 to 25 was made without any public consultation;

“Whereas Doug Ford’s meddling in municipal elections is an abuse of power;

“Whereas Doug Ford is cancelling democratic elections of some regional chairs;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately reverse Doug Ford’s unilateral decision to dismantle Toronto city hall and cancel regional chair elections; to maintain the existing Toronto municipal boundaries; and ensure that the provincial government does not interfere with the upcoming Toronto municipal election for Ford’s political gain.”

I fully support this petition and will affix my signature to it.

School boards

Mr. Michael Mantha: This is a petition on behalf of the good parents of Algoma–Manitoulin, particularly on Manitoulin Island.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Ministry of Education oversees all school boards in the province of Ontario and as such there is an immediate need for a ministerial investigation and oversight of the Rainbow District School Board for serious contraventions contrary to the Ontario Education Act, Ontario Clean Water Act, 2006, municipal freedom of information and rights to privacy act, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Ontario Human Rights Code; and

“Whereas the Rainbow District School Board, by failing to adhere to the Ontario Clean Water Act and by failing to permanently remedy the unsafe levels of lead contamination in school drinking water (33 schools), are placing our students and educators at serious risk of lead poisoning; and

“Whereas the malfeasance, systemic discrimination, abuse of power, abuse of process, excessive pay increases, incurring large legal fees to defend their malfeasance, as well as unauthorized redundant spending by the Rainbow District School Board and school administration have taken money out of the classrooms and thus have created significant negative impact on students, parents, families and the community;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To commence an immediate detailed ministerial investigation and oversight of the Rainbow District School Board, as well as a complete financial audit of school board spending since 2010, including exuberant pay increases to be conducted by the office of the provincial auditor, and detailed reports of findings to be submitted to the Ontario Legislature.”

I sign this petition on behalf of the good people of Manitoulin Island and present it to page Emmanuel to bring down to the clerk’s table.

Pharmacare

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I have a petition for universal pharmacare for all Ontarians.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas prescription medications are a part of health care, and people shouldn’t have to empty their wallets or rack up credit card bills to get the medicines they need;

“Whereas over 2.2 million Ontarians don’t have any prescription drug coverage and one in four Ontarians don’t take their medications as prescribed because they cannot afford the cost;

“Whereas taking medications as prescribed can save lives and help people live better; and

“Whereas Canada urgently needs universal and comprehensive national pharmacare;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support a universal provincial pharmacare plan for all Ontarians.”

Of course, I wholeheartedly support this, affix my name to it and send it with page Bavan to the table.

Affaires autochtones

M. Michael Mantha: « Pour mettre fin aux coupures affectant la réconciliation avec les » communautés « autochtones.

« À l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario :

« Considérant que l’Ontario est situé sur le territoire ancestral des peuples autochtones, dont beaucoup habitent ces terres depuis des temps immémoriaux;

« Considérant qu’en 2015, la Commission de vérité et réconciliation du Canada a présenté son rapport final, intitulé “Honorer la vérité, réconcilier pour l’avenir” et comprenant 94 recommandations ou “appels à l’action” à l’intention du gouvernement du Canada;

« Considérant que la réconciliation doit être au coeur de toute prise de décision gouvernementale;

« Nous, les soussignés, demandons à l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario de mettre en oeuvre les mesures suivantes :

« —poursuivre le travail de réconciliation en Ontario, en donnant suite aux recommandations de la Commission de vérité et réconciliation du Canada;

« —rétablir le ministère des Relations avec les Autochtones et de la Réconciliation;

« —travailler avec les leaders des Premières Nations pour signer des accords coopératifs, de gouvernement à gouvernement;

« —donner son appui à l’éducation en matière de vérité et réconciliation et au développement communautaire (en appuyant, par exemple, l’organisation de sessions d’écriture estivales reliées aux éléments mis en avant par la Commission de vérité et réconciliation du Canada);

« —donner son appui aux communautés autochtones à travers la province (en appuyant, par exemple, les travaux de nettoyage du réseau hydrographique de Grassy Narrows) ».

Je suis complètement d’accord avec cette pétition, et je la présente au page Ryan-Michael pour la faire descendre à la table des greffiers.

Energy policies

Mr. Michael Mantha: This petition is on behalf of the good people in Blind River and Iron Bridge.

“Fix hydro now.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas hydro bills in Ontario have become unaffordable for too many people;

“Whereas reducing hydro bills by up to 30% for families and businesses is an ambitious but realistic target;

“Whereas the only way to fix the hydro system is to address the root causes of high prices including privatization, excessive profit margins, oversupply, unfavourable net export practices and more;

“Whereas Ontario families should not have to pay time-of-use premiums, and those living in a rural or northern region should not have to pay higher, punitive delivery charges;

1400

“Whereas changing the financing of private contracts and the global adjustment fails to reduce the long-term cost of hydro for families and businesses, does not fix the system and, in fact, will cost billions of dollars extra in borrowing costs;

“Whereas Hydro One can be returned to public ownership and management without increasing rates;

“Whereas returning Hydro One to public ownership would deliver over $7 billion back to the province and the people of Ontario;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, express our support for reducing hydro bills for businesses and families by up to 30%, eliminating mandatory time-of-use, ending unfair rural delivery costs, and restoring public ownership of Hydro One.”

I wholeheartedly agree with this petition and present it to page Sullivan to bring it down to the Clerks’ table.

Private Members’ Public Business

Carding

Mr. Kevin Yarde: I move that, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should immediately ban the ongoing practice of carding, also known as street checks, which is the discriminatory and arbitrary stopping of individuals by police, as it violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and human rights legislation; and to instruct all police forces to destroy existing information that is being collected and retained through the discriminatory practice of carding.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Pursuant to standing order 98, the member has 12 minutes for his presentation.

Mr. Kevin Yarde: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s my pleasure to be here today to rise in the House to speak to this motion that would ban carding, also known as street checks, in the province of Ontario. The reason this is necessary, the reason we’re here and the reason I say that we need to ban carding is because the last government failed to do so when given the chance and when faced with the evidence—evidence that the practice of carding has institutionalized a wide-scale violation of Ontarians’ human and charter rights.

Of course, this has disproportionately impacted Black, brown and other racialized Ontarians, young people and individuals in specific area codes, neighbourhoods and police districts. An extensive Toronto Star investigation in 2015 found that young Black and brown men in Toronto were stopped by police—in other words, carded—which means they were stopped by police though not suspected of any crime and had their personal information recorded into a database at a rate of five to 10 times more than the rest of the population.

That information input into police databases is shared across police jurisdictions and even across borders. That has resulted in individuals being overlooked for housing, loans, jobs and even denied access to the border, where other Canadians are free to cross. Keep in mind: this all without having been accused, let alone convicted, of any specific crime.

The last Liberal government regulated the police practice of carding only after years of pressure from community members and civil liberties groups, faith leaders and the media, who said, “Enough is enough.” And I’m proud to say, after my party stood opposed to carding—in fact, Madam Speaker, it was then that the deputy leader of my party, also a proud representative of the region of Peel, first brought forward a motion to ban carding and street checks. I note that my friends across the aisle, while they’ve grown fond recently of evoking that member on issues where it suits their aims—let’s see if the government members are willing to stand by the example of that member on the issue of carding.

The former member for Bramalea–Gore–Malton tabled the following motion: “That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should instruct all police services in Ontario that ... arbitrary and/or discriminatory street checks,” otherwise known as carding, as the practice is known as in Toronto, violates “the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms” and has “no place in Ontario, and that such practices should be immediately” ended. My motion, if passed by this House, would effectively do the same.

We’re here, as I said, because the last government failed to fully and comprehensively legislate an end to the practice of carding in the province of Ontario. Instead, they set out the circumstances where it may be possible to stop individuals without cause. Yet the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms sets out that individuals have the right to freedom of assembly, while the Human Rights Code, happily evolving, protects Ontarians from discrimination based on race, religion, ethnicity, ability, their age, sexuality and of course other reasons.

Since I know that the members on the other side of the aisle are firm in their belief that there should be less government, it should also be noted that it’s pretty much a no-brainer that they accept that there is no room in the province for any violation of the civil rights of Ontarians, as is the case with carding. And yet, there is no widespread application of stopping individuals who may or may not look as if they committed financial crimes if they should happen to be in a neighbourhood where that may seem likely.

As I mentioned during question period on this topic, Madam Speaker, I’ve been stopped in a circumstance that sometimes gets called “driving while Black.” As I also mentioned, there was no reason for my being stopped, there was no highway traffic violation being alleged, but I was compelled to produce my identification. This, of course, is a type of carding. In fact, what happened to me is still specifically permitted under the rules set out by the previous government, which regulate but do not ban the practice of carding in the province.

My motion calls for something even the former member for Bramalea–Gore–Malton’s did not: to instruct all police forces to destroy existing information that has been collected and retained through the discriminatory practice of carding. The reason for this, as I referenced a little bit earlier, is because if we accept that carding individuals not accused or suspected of a specific crime should not be permitted, their records should not have been produced and should not be used or retained. As we’ve seen, these records have resulted in real, negative impacts for individuals who have applied for jobs, better housing and access to the border.

I’m proud to say that the leader of my party, the leader of the official opposition, has committed to instruct that these records be destroyed. Leadership, after all, is about having the moral courage to stand on conviction for what’s right, even against great odds. Madam Speaker, if someone in the database is stopped again, it can become a vicious loop. The more you’re stopped, the more you’re stopped, and the more you feel like powerful institutions such as the police believe you to be a criminal simply because of who you are or where you live. That’s not fair, Madam Speaker. In our rules-based society, it’s not right.

Justice Tulloch, who conducted the comprehensive review of police oversight and is now under way on the comprehensive review of the practice of street checks and carding in the province, is scheduled to report in January 2019. New Democrats wait nervously for these results, nervous because we’re alive to the fact that this government has demonstrated that it doesn’t wait for the evidence-based research to come. We’ve seen that already.

But we’re clear that the stopping of individuals and compelling them to produce ID based on nothing more than their skin colour, their ethnicity, postal code, age or any other reason other than a reasonable suspicion of a specific crime, is against the charter of human rights. The records those stops produce are obtained under those same conditions. We think it’s actually in everyone’s interests—not just myself, not just Black people, not just brown people, but everyone’s interests—to get past the reliance on street checks and carding.

1410

It’s important to recognize that police fulfill a vital role in our communities, just as it’s important to recognize that they have an extraordinary responsibility and power that other members of society do not. We know that the men and women in uniform are proud of this responsibility and they take it seriously.

New Democrats support up-to-date resources and training and supports such as PTSD recognition for front-line police officers. In fact, we’ve had members of police services run for us as candidates. But carding isn’t one of those tools, and it goes a long way to explaining why there’s, unfortunately, a widening gap between members of communities and the police.

When police chiefs publicly speak out against even the limited regulations, that’s something we have to think about, because members of these communities who may be carded—I have been carded, of course—hear this and take note that they don’t matter because of who they are or where they live.

Police and civil servants, as mentioned, have extraordinary powers—we all know that—and responsibilities. They’re bound to enforce the rights of all Ontarians and the laws as we set out in this place. With the minister’s response this morning to my question—that they will not be bringing back carding—New Democrats will be particularly interested to know what role the Anti-Racism Directorate, now the responsibility of the minister, will play in this oversight.

As I mentioned, Madam Speaker, the ability of the police in the province to card individuals is something that is still going on. The alternative is more straightforward, and that’s why I’m calling for the members of this House to support my motion today to end the practice of carding and street checks in the province, and to instruct all police forces to destroy existing information that is being collected and retained through the practice of carding.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: I want to thank the member for putting forward this very important motion for consideration for today.

It’s very important that we recognize that in the province of Ontario carding is not legal. This practice has been prohibited by the former Liberal government. It is an issue that was very well debated and considered by the government—including input from police services, citizens’ groups and civil liberties groups, and as the member has said, making sure that the rights of individuals are fully protected and respected under the charter and under the law.

That being said, I support the fact that the member is bringing this issue forward at this time, because while we have laws in place, the opportunity to change culture and to change practices takes longer, so we have to keep this issue at the forefront, and we have to speak up on behalf of those who have, frankly, suffered under a system that was unfair. I know it has been very well documented, the number of street checks that were done in Toronto alone and the incentives that were provided to police officers to conduct those street checks. I just wanted to put that on the record, because the motion that is being debated today has certainly been dealt with by the former Liberal government.

I also want to really support the impact of driving while Black. This is something that, sadly, I have witnessed. As a student attending the University of Toronto Scarborough campus, I was driving with a friend, and he was pulled over and questioned by a police officer. He answered all the questions, and I waited until he drove off, because there was actually nothing that really occurred from the interaction other than a conversation. So I asked him. I said, “Why did he stop you?” He said, “Oh, that’s normal. I’m a Black male. That happens here.” This was in Scarborough. I’ve had many conversations since then with professionals like accountants, lawyers and bankers, all of darker skin in this province who are stopped on a routine basis, who are concerned about the type of car they drive.

You may have heard, recently, Marci Ien’s experience. She’s a well-known journalist, even a celebrity, and was driving in her neighbourhood and was stopped and questioned. Her account was, “Why are you in this neighbourhood?” She was like, “I live here.” So, these types of incidents occur.

While our previous government, the Liberal government, was putting forward legislation on this matter, I had a consultation on this issue in my riding of Scarborough–Guildwood. I have to say that listening to the young people talk about the effects of how they feel when they are stopped—and these are very young men and women—was disheartening because they feel fear, and that is a concern. That is not the type of relationship I know that our police services want to have with communities.

Anything that we can do improve the relationship, strengthen the rights of individuals, make what is already existing in Ontario law that was done by the previous government better, stronger and more improved, so that all citizens can walk around freely and without fear, particularly of authorities, is something that I fully support. I know that changing culture takes longer, but we all have to be vigilant to continue to see this advance.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: I’ll be sharing my time this afternoon with the member for Brampton South.

I want to just reiterate what I said this morning and what we’ve said in the past: that we are not bringing back carding. I fully appreciate the issue with respect to carding and the idea of street checks and why street checks are used by the police. I’ve spent some time with several forces now, and one of the things that has been explained to me is that street checks are something that police officers use as part of their responsibilities. It’s an authority that’s delegated under the Highway Traffic Act or under bylaws for loitering or trespass.

As a result of the use—or perhaps misuse—of carding, things have evolved to the point where it was being abused. The past government spoke on this, and we’ve been very clear as well that carding is not something that we will tolerate, nor will we support going forward.

What I want to speak a little bit about today is the role of the police, because one of the things that I’ve learned, especially having been now around so many police officers and having the privilege to serve in this ministry, is that the police, when I was a child, were mentors. They were people that provided examples to us as kids. Today, that situation is changing, and I think the cultural change that was mentioned is something that we have to look at. It’s one of the things that I will be doing, and I invite the members from the other side to assist me in working on changing that culture.

1420

The police play an important role. They provide us with the safety and the security to be able to enjoy the things that we’re able to do in the cities: the festivals, the cafés, the things that we’ve all come to enjoy, require and want as part of our lives, and also as part of how we spend our time with our families. It’s something that we need to work on in terms of providing the police with the tools that they can deploy or use to be able to provide us those safe environments.

The question came up about the Anti-Racism Directorate. I assure you that one of the things we will be looking at across the government is what we can do to ensure that there is no racism in government or any of the organizations that form part of what we do as government. Again, I invite the members of the opposition to work with us in ensuring that we make advances, because these are cultural changes that take time to introduce and take time to take root. We have to work together. This is not a partisan issue. It’s an issue that I believe has to be dealt by all of us joining and making sure that changes are made.

Now, today, I’m really pleased that we made an announcement of spending 25 million new dollars—it was $13 million that was actually allocated and taken away by the previous government. We’ve doubled up on that. We’re going to be investing $25 million into policing, specifically in Toronto, because of the guns and gangs issues that we’ve had and the amount of violence that we’ve had on the streets.

We’ve done this in consultation with the police services. The reason we did this is because for the best people to tell us what to do or how to do it is to go on to the street and speak to them. In consultation with the chief, and with me having gone to more than four police forces and spending the night shift—not the day shift—with different police officers, I had the opportunity to learn about what the police officers need: what tools they’re deficient with, the morale issues that they’re having, the mental health issues that they’re suffering from, the problems that they’re facing with people in the community who have mental health issues.

I’ve sat with some of the most amazing men and women. I’ve sat in cars where police officers travel with social workers and together—not on their own—look an individual up and are able to find the individual’s record on the police database but they’re also able to find, on the database from the hospital, the person’s personal mental health issues. I don’t know how the rest of you feel, but for me, I find it incredible that we have that technology available to us in the 21st century but it’s not being used everywhere. The part that we should look at and the thing we should be doing is finding ways to enhance those types of relationships. Because when we go into an area where we have an individual who perhaps is suffering from a mental health issue and the police is not able to identify it as a mental health issue, you get into a situation where there could be the use of force that would not otherwise be required.

Case in point: In the ride-along that I did in Hamilton, that’s exactly what happened. They were able to walk into this person’s home. There wasn’t a need to de-escalate because a social worker walked in before the police officer. Now, I find that kind of work incredible, and that’s what we should be supporting. As the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, this is something that I believe in.

Also—and we’ve heard this mentioned over and over again—giving more money to the police is a first step. I think we can all agree that there’s an issue in the city of Toronto with respect to guns and gang violence. What we need to do, though, is we have to look beyond that because what we’re doing is we’re basically dealing with a major problem using a band-aid, and it’s not enough. We need to do more. What we need to do more of—and I think you’ve heard this so far, and it’s something that I’m very dedicated, because of my background in mental health and addictions—is to find ways to deal with these problems before they get to police enforcement, before they get to the correctional services, because by the time they get to the enforcement or the correctional services, the cost behind monitoring and trying to deal with that issue is substantially more than what it would be if we could deal with it in the schools, if we could deal with it through youth and community centres.

There’s a great deal of work to be done, and I think the challenge here has to be that we work together on these issues to find the solutions. Again, I’m going to reiterate that this is not a partisan issue. We are looking right now and we’ve dedicated a lot of money to looking after the problem in Toronto. We’re going to be looking at the same issue in Ottawa, Hamilton and other cities that have issues with guns-and-gang violence. What we’re going to try to do in the process is also look at the systemic problems—the problems that underlie the real reasons we’re having to deal with police enforcement and, of course, corrections.

Again, Mr. Justice Tulloch is preparing a report. I’m looking forward to reading that report because it will be dealing specifically with the tools that the police have and specifically the street check component. I’m looking forward to that.

I find it premature that we’re talking about destroying information that’s on the record right now. I find it a little bit difficult to deal with this on the basis that it’s a charter issue. It’s an issue. We’ve addressed it as a government, and to say that we do not support it and we will not support it: that message has gone out loud and clear.

Again, from the five police forces—four police forces plus the OPP—that I’ve attended with, I have been assured that it is not taking place, and the rules that have been put around it are so restrictive that police officers would rather not use the street check mechanism.

On that note, I’d like to pass it over to the member from Brampton South to conclude.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Ms. Sara Singh: I’m really proud to be rising today to be speaking in favour of this motion, and I hope that members on the other side of the House will be able to do the same.

As the minister was alluding to, we all recognize that in the province of Ontario we’re facing an ongoing crisis with gun violence but violence in general. While we all recognize that solutions are needed, we probably have very differing views on how those solutions should be implemented. We recognize the wonderful work that police officers are doing in our communities because it’s absolutely vital—the work they are doing.

This has been painted as an anti-police motion, and it absolutely is not. We understand that police need resources and we understand that they need additional training to do their jobs more effectively. However, we do not feel that carding, or street checks, is a resource that is needed for the police to effectively reduce violence in our communities. There are many other resources that our police services require, and carding or street checks is not the only tool that will help reduce violence in our communities. I think it’s really important that we understand that, and that we understand that with street checks and carding, which are the same, there are many, many instances and a lot of research that indicate that racialized communities are actually targeted, oftentimes 50% more than those that are not from racialized communities.

I know that in Peel, for example, members of the Black community are carded or involved in street checks 2 to 1, and members of our South Asian community are actually being targeted 3 to 1. When you look at the demographics of a diverse region like Peel, that is a significant percentage of our population that is consistently targeted by police and having their information stored in databases. Young people who are just simply hanging out and playing basketball are often being targeted and asked to produce identification and logged into a database. This has significant impacts on their future endeavours.

We have several examples of this. From the riding of Brampton Centre, Gurdeep Grewal, a university student at the University of Ottawa completing his master’s research there right now, is doing a research project to understand the experiences of young South Asian men who are targeted in our community and who have experienced carding. He has already engaged 15 participants in his research study, which is a qualitative study that outlines those impacts to those young people.

Many of you may know Knia Singh, a prominent lawyer in our community who was a student at Osgoode law. Because of carding when he was younger and the friends he was with, he was unfortunately denied access to a ride-along because of his information being in a database that incorrectly identified him as being part of gang-related activities or criminal activity that was taking place in the community.

Again, looking at the long-term impacts of what carding and street checks do, we need to consider that there are limitations to how this is allowing people to function in our communities, and those impacts are real. They’re having real impacts to more racialized people than not, and we need to understand that those are realities that people are facing.

Justice Tulloch’s review: I had the pleasure of participating in them when they happened in Brampton, as well as in Mississauga. I also urge members of the opposite side to engage in many of those consultations when Justice Tulloch comes to your riding. He’ll be in Brampton, so if the minister would like to attend one of those hearings I would welcome him and I’m happy to forward the information when he’s ready to listen.

1430

While some may feel safer with the police around, it is important to acknowledge that many do feel targeted. I myself have experienced interactions with the police because of the people I was with. I was not engaging in any behaviour, neither were the people I was with. However, they were still stopped and carded and entered into a database.

I think we need to understand that there are a multitude of experiences in this province. If you’re not a young, racialized person—if you’re not a racialized person, frankly—you’re not going to understand what that reality looks like and therefore you will not understand how this impacts those communities.

And so I urge that we, the members of this Legislative Assembly, fight systemic racism, not implement more policies, procedures or legislation that promote and perpetuate and enable those forces to grow in our society. I urge the members on the opposite side of this House to end a practice that is having detrimental impacts on members of our community. The evidence is clear. There is no need for further study or research. It already has been done. I think the decision is pretty clear that we do need to end this harmful practice.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Mr. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: I just want to take an opportunity first to really thank the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services for all the work he has done to support our front-line officers and really get into finding out the root cause of a lot of the violent crime and the guns-and-gangs issues that we’ve been facing. The minister has been on ride-alongs across the province from Hamilton to Toronto and in my area of Peel to really find out the root cause of what’s going on and how he can really tackle the issue of crime and keep our neighbourhoods safe and our communities safe. I just want to take an opportunity to thank the minister for all that he is doing to protect this province.

Madam Speaker, the Premier has been very clear on this matter: We are not bringing back carding. The Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services has been very clear on this matter: We are not bringing back carding. But we believe in giving our law enforcement officers the tools to get the job done. We will listen to our front-line officers about the resources they need and we will make sure we’re working with the communities to ensure that we are building trust between our police officers and the communities that they are in.

Our government for the people includes every single person in this great province, and we remain committed to enhancing security and public safety for all Ontarians. Our government will continue to support the brave men and women of our police services and we’ll continue to ensure that they have the necessary tools and resources they require to perform their duties safely and effectively. That’s why I’m so proud to stand by a government that’s taking action immediately and fighting against violence and gangs and trying to get the guns off our streets.

That first step—the first of many steps—was taken today when we announced $25 million in new funding to assist the Toronto Police Service in their efforts to tackle gun violence and crack down on the trafficking of illegal guns in our city.

Madam Speaker, during the election, we campaigned and we promised to restore $12 million in funding that the previous government cut from the fight against guns and gang violence. Today, we are not only honouring that commitment but we’re also doubling that commitment and investing $25 million in new funding to respond to the urgent gun and gang violence situation in Toronto. Promise made, promise kept—and, in this case, promise doubled. This new investment will also ensure the Toronto Police Service have the resources to purchase equipment and innovative technologies for their important task of tackling gun- and gang-related violence.

We’re also going to create and fund dedicated SWAT teams, one for each provincial courthouse. Each team will be led by an experienced crown attorney, and they will be keeping violent gun criminals behind bars and in jail.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Ms. Rima Berns-McGown: I think that there are some points that really are crying out to be made as we think about this. The first is that you cannot “bring back” a practice that has not ended. Regardless of what the minister of corrections has been hearing, racialized communities, Black communities and Indigenous communities have been continuing to experience carding. You can’t bring back something that hasn’t stopped. That’s the first point.

The second point is that this government has a practice of playing semantic games. I think we need to be clear that there is no room for playing semantic games with people’s lives. Carding and street checks are an identical, harmful, inherently racist practice. There is no room in Ontario, or indeed in Canada, for a practice that is inherently racist. So carding/street checks have to end. It has to be banned completely and, because it is such an inherently deeply racist practice that has disproportionately hurt Black, Indigenous and brown people, the data that was collected under it and that continues to harm those people needs to be categorically destroyed. That is simply an act of recognition of what this inherently racist practice has done.

I want to quote from a book by Robyn Maynard called Policing Black Lives, which all of the government members, and particularly the minister, should have read by now or should have on their reading lists. Robyn Maynard does a brilliant job of laying out some of the many studies that have been done throughout North America that show that carding/street checks do not do what the police hope they will do. In other words, they do not serve to reduce crime, but they do serve to disproportionately harm Black, brown and Indigenous peoples. She notes that “it is racially disproportionate policing, rather than racially disproportionate crime, that has resulted in the enormous levels of Black people behind bars in Canada today.”

She notes that millions of people who have not been involved in criminal encounters with police have their information in a massive “known to police” database, which amounts to information on citizens that, as has been noted, makes it very difficult for them to cross the border, to get jobs and to simply go about their business.

She notes, “Police profiling often targets Black youth,” which is a form, as she says, of “state violence that is particularly chilling.” As she says, it is a form of violence perpetrated particularly upon Black, brown and Indigenous people. It is a “hostile and scary imposition into the lives of Black communities ... experienced as a form of violence and intimidation, in which the act of leaving one’s house is fraught with danger and anxiety for fear of harassment by police.” Moreover, it results again in the criminalization of people for going about their business, in ways that does not happen in neighbourhoods that are not surveilled in this way.

1440

I think these figures and these thoughts are particularly important to bear in mind, and my own research bears this out as well. I have spoken to young people in my classes as young as eight years old who were stopped by police and questioned in ways that they perceived as hostile. When you start to question people as young as eight years old and you start to make them feel as though they don’t belong in their own cities, in their own neighbourhoods, how do you think that that is going to make them feel, and how do you think that that is going to relate to their sense of trust?

This brings me to my other important point: Of course, we want the police to have the tools that they need, but this is actually a tool that harms policing. It harms policing because it gets at the very core of what good policing ought to be about. Good policing ought to be about the building of trust, so that when there are issues in a community, people are comfortable talking with police and people know that the police are there to protect them, as well. But we know that that is not what carding/street checks do. We know that they do the opposite. We know that they create an environment in which Black, brown and Indigenous people do not feel comfortable with police, do not feel that they can trust the police, do not feel, in fact, that police are acting in their best interests.

The point that really needs to be taken to heart here is that of course we want police to be enabled to act in everybody’s best interests, in order that they can protect us, particularly in times when there has been a rise in gun violence. But carding/street checks do exactly the opposite, and because of this, and because this government says over and over again that it is acting for the people, I am sure that the government will vote along with my colleague’s motion to ban carding and street checks once and for all, and to destroy all of the data that have been collected under this problematic program.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): The member for Brampton North has two minutes to reply.

Mr. Kevin Yarde: Seven years ago, in the region of Peel, I was driving my vehicle at the corner of Burnhamthorpe and Hurontario. I wasn’t doing anything illegal. I was driving according to the rules, and I noticed in my rear-view mirror some flashing lights. I recognized that it was a police officer, so I pulled over. The police officer came to my window and asked me, “What are those garbage bags in the back of your car?” I said to the police officer, “I just have clothes in them.” He asked me for my ID, which I gave. He went back to his vehicle, then came back and handed me my ID and said, “You’re free to go.”

At that moment, Madam Speaker, I did not realize what that was, that I was stopped for basically driving Black. It bothered me moments later. I even contemplated calling and speaking to the Peel Regional Police, but I just let it go and mentioned it later to some family members and friends.

Today is an important day, and that’s why I bring this up. I appreciate the speeches from the representatives from Brampton Centre and Beaches–East York, and I heard the minister say that we are not bringing back carding. The fact that he said that—I implore you to support this motion and to end carding, otherwise known as street checks. I’m a little bit disconcerted by the fact that you mentioned that you have some difficulty with removing or expunging the records. That is key to this motion as well.

Hopefully all the members, who may or may not have been carded in the past, will support this motion.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I would like to inform the House that the member for Brampton North did not move private member’s notice of motion 13 but rather the following motion:

That in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should immediately ban the ongoing practice of carding also known as street checks, which is the discriminatory and arbitrary stopping of individuals by police as it violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and human rights legislation; and to instruct all police forces to destroy existing information that has been collected and retained through the discriminatory practice of carding.

As the member’s notice was waived, this motion is in order. Copies of the motion are available at the table.

Mental health and addiction services

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I move that, in the opinion of this House, the Premier should immediately stop cutting mental health funding by over $330 million per year, and instead commit to increasing mental health, addictions and supportive housing funding by at least $2.4 billion over the next four years in order to address the crisis in mental health care and reduce wait-lists.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Ms. Armstrong has moved private member’s notice of motion number 11. Pursuant to standing order 98, the member has 12 minutes for her presentation.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Of course, when the topic of health care comes up, when the health care system is discussed, there are so many issues that matter to Ontarians: surgery wait times, the shortage of beds, access to health care in rural and northern Ontario, and many more. But I would like to focus on mental health, and will be debating the motion put forward directing the Premier to immediately stop cutting to immediately stop cutting mental health funding by over $330 million per year, and instead commit to increasing mental health addictions and supportive housing funding by at least $2.4 billion over the next four years in order to address the crisis in mental health care and reduce wait times.

Speaker, I am so proud to be part of a party that remains focused on what matters to people and protecting the vulnerable members of our province. Given the recent announcement by the current Conservative government to cut $330 million per year from mental health and addiction services, I feel that it’s imperative to bring forward this motion and stand up to a government that has taken this province in a direction that people do not want to go in. I believe there is a better way.

In my own riding of London–Fanshawe, we have seen the devastating effects when mental health care services are not available. These cuts will not only exacerbate these problems in my riding, but across Ontario as well. I am sure that members in this room have heard from their constituents who are desperate for assistance in navigating a system that is not working. They are unable to get referrals to necessary professionals or programs. They are on wait-lists for months or years. They are unable to get the medications they require. There are as many unique barriers to care as there are individuals seeking it. It is our job to listen to these stories and, most importantly, bring their voices here to make the government understand that change is needed.

But change cannot come through cuts. We have heard from numerous organizations across the province that more funding is needed to fix the problems that we see in our health care system. I met with London agencies such as Vanier and Anago. They told me that they have not seen funding increases in years, and the wait-lists keep growing. They said that if they do not receive funding soon, they will actually have to entertain closing their doors. That’s what they said, Speaker, when we met with them.

Recently, on April 20, 2018, a group of doctors in London with the London and District Academy of Medicine reached out to our office, and we hosted a mental health town hall where our constituents shared their experiences publicly. Listening to those stories was truly heartbreaking and showed just how dire the situation is, when people are coming out of their private lives into the public realm to talk about the service, or the lack of service, that they did not receive because of mental health care.

This past May, we had a memo sent to our office through the London Health Sciences Centre pleading with psychiatrists to work extra shifts and take care of more patients. An email from the senior management read, “As many of you are aware, the LHSC mental health care program continues to experience a demand for acute mental health services that has challenged the capacity of existing services.” The memo confirmed that the in-patient unit is significantly over-capacity. We saw the effects of this and heard stories related to the large numbers of admitted patients waiting in the ER for a bed or waiting to be transferred to Parkwood’s mental health program. That’s what they call hallway medicine: people waiting in hallways to, number one, get care, or to actually get placed into a bed.

1450

These workers and mental health care professionals are doing the best they can in a system that is stretched thin. London Health Sciences Centre was lucky to receive funding to hire more doctors earlier this year, but the hospital is also facing issues with recruiting psychiatric doctors in a system that is finding that there is more demand than supply. This an issue that may be compounded by the announcements to cut funding coming from Mr. Ford since any decisions based on previously promised funding may be built on shaky ground. That’s what happened during the campaign: The Conservatives announced that a previously promised $2.1-billion investment into mental health care over four years from the Liberals would be scrapped and replaced with a Conservative plan that would be spending $1.9 billion over 10 years.

I’m deeply troubled by the actions of this Conservative government. Their cuts amount to $330 million less per year going towards the funding of the mental health services so desperately needed by people across this province. Long-term sustainable care and housing needs to be a primary concern of the government. A government that plans to stretch less provincial money over 10 years does not have the best interests of the people in mind. People and agencies need support now. That’s why this motion sets a funding model for four years. We cannot push these improvements off any longer.

The Conservative government has since confirmed that they will take an unknown amount from their $1.9-billion investment and put it into policing. We certainly appreciate that support is necessary, but it certainly should not come at the expense of the same patients that police officers may encounter.

It is in recognition of this connection and relationship that our party, the NDP, had a plan which proposed the allocation of resources that included $5 million per year in additional funding to establish A Crisis Is Not a Crime fund, which would expand mobile crisis teams that pair police with mental health professionals.

Mr. Ford is taking Ontario’s mental health crisis from a bad position to a worse position. His deep cuts mean longer waits, fewer supports and more people in crisis.

I am proud of the work my party has done to try to address these issues in our mental health care system. This is not a new issue, and it’s certainly not a new issue to us. In 2015 I introduced a PMB to implement the recommendations of an all-party select committee that toured the province for 18 months. It has been nearly eight years since that committee made its recommendations, and still no meaningful action has been taken.

Earlier this year, the member from Hamilton Mountain had a motion regarding ending wait-lists for the estimated 12,000 children and youth who are currently on a waiting list for mental health services. Mental health and addictions is an issue so important to our party that last fall the member from Nickel Belt introduced a bill to create a new ministry focused on and dedicated solely to mental health and addictions.

My motion today seeks to ensure that this government is held accountable to the people of Ontario and transparent in its decisions. Announcements from this government have been vague and unstructured. While they have been quick to announce cuts, they have not been able to forward any information on their own plans. They have not made any announcements related to supports for children with mental health needs, supportive housing or addiction services.

A comprehensive plan for mental health and addictions needs to ensure that critical care is available and provided by qualified mental health care professionals. This lack of resources is mostly negatively impacting these families, and it is only through appropriate funding and increasing front-line services that we’ll see any improvement for those in need.

Front-line services are the most integral part of an effective mental health care strategy. That is why our plan outlines hiring 2,200 mental health care workers, which include councillors, social workers, case managers, and 400 mental health case workers in high schools, where children are very much exposed to mental health issues, as we’ve been hearing and know from the suicide rates that come to light.

Our plan also seeks to address an important component to the province’s mental health and addictions crisis: supportive housing. According to Addictions and Mental Health Ontario, as of 2018 “there is a staggering shortage of supportive housing in Ontario. In Toronto alone there are over 13,000 people waiting an average of five years for one of the city’s 5,000 units of mental health and addiction supportive housing.”

Ontario’s Mental Health and Addictions Leadership Advisory Council has concluded that Ontario needs 30,000 supportive housing units over the next 10 years. Supportive housing is an important tool for decreasing the strains on other parts of our health care system.

Speaker, the Auditor General estimates that in 2015-16, if Ontario’s psychiatric hospitals had been able to find supportive housing or long-term-care beds for patients ready for discharge, the cost of caring for patients would have been $45 million less and hospitals would have been able to treat about 1,400 more people.

This was reaffirmed by CMHA Middlesex recently in an annual report for 2016-17. The staff at their supportive living apartments were able to develop strategies, often in collaboration with community partners, to improve crisis management and garner increased stability for residents. They were able to create a crisis care plan for more than 97% of residents and reported a decrease in emergency service use.

Supportive housing is a key component of our mental health care system for adults.

I also want to spend time today talking about the importance and the need for support for children and youth in mental health services. Currently, more than 120,000 children and youth across Ontario are being treated for mental illness, and 12,000 children are on a waiting list for up to 18 months for mental health supports like cognitive behavioural therapy or intensive treatments.

Again, with a Conservative government that has offered no details on their own plans for funding child and youth mental health services, I am honoured to bring forth this motion and encourage the government to focus on the 12,000 children and youth who are currently on wait-lists for mental health services and cut those wait times to 30 days, as we proposed during the election.

Speaker, there are so many things that we can talk about when it comes to mental health, but what I really feel we need to start addressing are the problems that are happening. Take a realistic look at what’s going on in your ridings, take a realistic look at what’s going on in the province, and don’t shy away from the real solutions. Fix the problems that people are telling you they have. We know they’re there, and we know people are crying out for help every day.

In my two-minute wrap-up, after I hear the debate from my colleagues, I’m going to be talking about a very personal story that I experienced meeting a constituency person in my office.

I hope today will be the start of a dialogue. Maybe we can hear some concrete plans as to what’s going to happen with the funding that the Conservatives have proposed, because we are looking for answers. The people of Ontario would like answers in order to help them get the mental health care services that they need.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that I will be sharing my time today with my parliamentary assistant, the member for Eglinton–Lawrence, as well as the members for Barrie–Innisfil and Kitchener South–Hespeler.

I want to thank the member for London–Fanshawe for bringing this matter forward today for discussion, because it provides our government with the opportunity, once again, to set the record straight about our planned investments in mental health and addictions here in Ontario.

The issue of people waiting for long periods of time in order to receive mental health and addictions services and supports is a serious problem and one that will not be solved overnight. But our government made a promise during the election that we were going to make mental health a priority. That’s why we are committing $3.8 billion over the next 10 years: $1.9 billion in provincial funding to match $1.9 billion in federal funding. This is the biggest provincial commitment in Ontario’s history to mental health and addictions. Promise made, promise kept.

Our government is committed to finally delivering a comprehensive and connected mental health and addictions system that addresses the needs of the people of Ontario. I want to stress that this is a comprehensive plan, not just one that involves the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. There are many other ministries that have a role to play in this: the Ministries of the Attorney General, Municipal Affairs and Housing, Children and Community and Social Services, Community Safety and Correctional Services, and other ministries that will be involved.

1500

When we talk about making mental health a priority, we are talking about making it a priority across government, to ensure that all public services support mental health and addictions treatment services, because we know that mental health is health and it’s a serious issue that touches all of us.

One of the most important outcomes of our work will be to ensure that people with mental health challenges don’t fall between the cracks. Too often, we’re seeing people with needs disappear into the fissures that plague our disconnected system. Often, where they need help the most, they’re not able to find it. Our government is going to provide faster access to care by enhancing access to primary care providers, by reducing unnecessary emergency room visits and bringing down wait times.

As Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, I am looking forward to being part of the solution. Organizations that we are going to speak with will include organizations like Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences, CAMH, Children’s Mental Health Ontario, the Canadian Mental Health Association, Addictions and Mental Health Ontario, and many others. I want to make sure that the front-line workers have the supports and resources they need in order to serve Ontario’s patients and families, so we can finally move forward with a connected, comprehensive system.

In closing, Speaker, I just want to say that my commitment to people with mental health and addiction needs in Ontario has been an issue of long standing, and that is why I brought it forward as a private member’s bill to create the Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions in 2009. I can assure all the people in Ontario who may be watching these proceedings that my commitment has not wavered and I will continue in this venture.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Mrs. Robin Martin: I want to thank the minister not just for sharing her time with me today, but for her overall commitment to fulfilling our government’s promises on health care, on mental health in particular and, in this regard, for her decades of service to those with mental health and addictions challenges.

Madam Speaker, we have made a substantial commitment: $3.8 billion over 10 years; $1.9 billion from the provincial government which will match the $1.9 billion from the federal government. As the minister noted, this is the biggest provincial commitment in Ontario’s history to mental health and addictions. I want to thank the minister for the important work that she is already leading behind the scenes to improve mental health and addictions services.

Our team has been hard at work, looking at how our government is going to create a comprehensive and connected mental health and addictions system that addresses the needs of the people of Ontario. Our government recognizes that mental health and addictions is emerging as one of the most serious health and social issues facing adults, families, children and youth. We know that the increased public awareness of mental health and addictions has further increased demand for these services. We know that people are ending up on wait-lists when they need help right now. What is even more concerning is that we know that one in five Ontarians will be affected by a mental health challenge or addiction in any given year—one in five.

We owe it to the people of Ontario to create a mental health and addictions system that will help them get the care they need, when they need it—a system that does not automatically send them to the emergency room, but instead sends them to a provider before they are in crisis, and that gives them the services they need in an environment that best supports their recovery. I know that our government is committed to promoting positive mental health and well-being. We want to create a mental health and addictions treatment system that is going to prevent mental health and addictions issues before they occur and promote early intervention and recovery when they do. We want all Ontarians to enjoy good mental health so that they can lead healthy, productive and meaningful lives in school, at work and in their retirement.

This is a big issue, Speaker. That is why our government has made it such an important part of our platform, and now we are set to make the biggest provincial investment in mental health and addictions history in Ontario. Promise made, promise kept.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Mrs. Amy Fee: I appreciate the opportunity to be able to speak on this motion today. During my election campaign, I spoke to a number of people who had children who were struggling with mental health and addictions issues. Those parents, luckily, had managed to find services, but where they were stressed and upset was with the long waits and just the confusion within the system.

Over the past number of years, Ontarians watched as Andrea Horwath and the NDP propped up the Liberal government that saw more money go into bureaucracy while Ontarians waited for those services they so desperately needed, so I reject that motion today that funding is being cut. In fact, as our minister stated, our government has made the biggest investment in mental health in Ontario history: $3.8 billion over 10 years. We are committed to building a system that works for the people of Ontario.

I am proud to see that our Premier and our Minister of Health have ensured that dollars will be directed to the services that patients so desperately need. This funding will go to front-line care, which will reduce wait times and improve access to these much-needed services that Ontarians are relying on.

In my riding of Kitchener South–Hespeler, I have heard from a number of psychiatrists. They’re saying the system is stressed and that doctors themselves are scared to speak up. Many are considering leaving this province. They need the support and they want to be able to help their patients.

That is why our minister is working on a comprehensive plan that will respect taxpayers and will also ensure that Ontarians are getting the care that they need by supporting our front-line workers and listening to our families and people across this province to make sure that we have a mental health system that is supporting people in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: Let me start off with a simple statement, and the minister has mentioned it many times, and that is, mental health is health. We rely on our universal health care system when we need it most, and mental health should be no different.

Someone in my campaign once told me that he found navigating the system to get care for his anxiety and depression so difficult that he couldn’t do it. He couldn’t make the multiple phone calls that were needed, he couldn’t lobby his case to administrative staff and he couldn’t access help. Thankfully, this person’s mother was persistent and she was insistent and she found him the help he needed.

That is why, during our campaign, the minister stated and outlined her desire to create an integrated system. Just like we have an integrated system for cancer, we should have one for mental health. That is why we are investing $3.8 billion over 10 years, the largest historic investment in mental health.

We’ve seen in many of our ridings, and I see it in my riding of Barrie–Innisfil: Everyone wants to help one another. Everyone wants to fundraise. Whether it’s Zach’s Tracks in my riding, where he ran and biked all the way to Ottawa to fundraise for mental health and fundraised over $110,000; whether it’s Natalie Harris in my riding, who is a huge advocate and proponent of mental health and PTSD awareness; or whether it’s my colleague from Brantford–Brant, who introduced a private member’s bill to make sure that we have a day to commemorate mental health issues, everyone wants to do something about it.

But we have a system that’s failing those who need it most. It’s not integrated and it’s not working. We had a previous government that threw money at the issue without integrating the system, without understanding where the breakdowns were. If you talk to any professionals who are in the field, they will tell you that it’s all about making sure that we have a system that works not just in health care, but in our schools, in our universities, with our first responders, with our military personnel. It’s an issue that affects each and every one of someone whom we know in our ridings. Some of us have family members who have been affected by it.

There isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution. We have to get serious about the matter. I am so thankful that we have a government and a minister that are dedicated to this cause, and I wanted to thank the minister for all the time she has put into this file to make sure that we have an integrated system that is not failing those who need it most and that when you need the care and when those people in our ridings need the care, they get it when it’s needed.

1510

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s a pleasure for me to join this debate today. It’s an issue that’s been close to my heart for many years, since I first became a school board trustee.

I think the context, though, for this debate is important, as are the facts. It is true that when the PC government beat the Liberals in the last election, they cancelled the $2.1 billion in additional mental health services that the previous government had promised over four years. Now, the health minister of the day—as the Premier will recognize—used to say that there’s no health without mental health. It was a quote, a slogan, if you will. There wasn’t a lot of stable funding for so many years in this province, so this was a last-ditch effort for the Liberals to essentially save face on the mental health file.

However, when the PC government cancelled that plan, it means, essentially, they cancelled the $525-million annual injection in new funding that was already in the system because the budget had already passed. So this means that that is a reduction in-year of $190 million. That is the fact.

This government has said, “We’re going to do matching funds with the federal government.” The Trudeau government, in keeping with the way the Liberals operate at the federal level, have back-end-loaded the funding, so most of the funding is in a decade, and we know that there is a crisis in mental health today.

When I first chaired the provincial association’s mental health advisory committee, which included health care professionals, school boards and mental health front-line agencies, one of the major messages they gave us around that table was that they need stable funding year over year. This government, while they have said that they will put the $1.9 billion in, matching the federal $1.9 billion, over 10 years—that actually is a reduction in funding, because the agencies and the front-line workers had banked on the $2.1 billion over four years.

That is the situation that we face right now in the province of Ontario. That is why the member from London–Fanshawe, to her credit, has brought forward this motion to draw attention to this cut in this year to mental health services.

The stable funding, which every agency in the province, right now, in all of our ridings across this great province—they will tell you they need the money now. When they hear from the government that some of that reduction in the funding is going to police services and it’s going to correctional services, their fear, because they have no trust in any government, in any party, on this file—this is a fact. They see money perhaps going to corrections.

Corrections need funding on mental health. Police services need the resources to learn about de-escalation on the streets to deal with mental health. Police services need those. Our correctional facilities—I’ve toured Vanier. I saw things in Vanier that I wish I could un-see. When people are in solitary confinement and they are suffering from mental health, it is a form of torture, of cruelty. Truly, it is.

What we need from this government—don’t tie the mental health strategy to the Liberals. The federal Liberal plan is a weak plan. It doesn’t serve the needs of right now. It doesn’t serve the needs of the 13,000 children who are on wait-lists in the province of Ontario. It doesn’t even address the need for supportive housing. We all know—and you should know—that housing is an economic driver, with the social determinants of health, which the select committee 10 years ago discovered are the driving force in the high rates of mental health crises in our province.

The comprehensive plan that this government is talking about—we love hearing that language. But you also know that we’ve heard 15 years of that language. If the 2009 select committee’s recommendations could be put into place, those recommendations would be driving a massive infusion in mental health funding today, not in a decade. Because the crisis is now. We have a moral and an ethical responsibility to ensure, if you are going to follow through on the numbers you talk about, that there actually is real cash attached to that. You know how to streamline that funding, so if you want to make a difference in the justice system, in the health care system, in the housing system—there are more people right now in the province of Ontario on a wait-list for affordable housing than there are in housing units. This is going to escalate; this is going to get worse.

The people who have been fighting, the advocates for mental health, the educators, the parents are very concerned right now. They want to see stable funding. They want to see it in real dollars in a real budget. This motion draws attention to the fact that, in this year, if you tie your plan to the federal plan, we won’t make the progress that all of us want to see.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Ms. Doly Begum: Thank you, Speaker. I want to thank the member from London–Fanshawe for bringing up this motion. I also want to thank the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care because I know her heart is in the right place and for the work she’s doing.

First, I want to say that this is such an important issue, and this has already been said in terms of how important it is, not just for a certain group of people but people from all jobs, for example, all ages, for children, for youth. It’s so important to recognize that and to recognize the fact that this is not something we’re able to talk about. Awareness, housing—all these different aspects in our society really link with it, and it’s so important to make it a priority for all levels of government.

The member from Waterloo really pointed out that the Liberal plan is weak. We have to make sure that we have a much more robust plan to be able to actually tackle this issue.

The Coalition of Ontario Psychiatrists just reported this week that we have a shortage of psychiatrists, and that’s a big problem, If we don’t give incentives to psychiatrists, then we don’t have enough to treat our patients.

In my riding of Scarborough Southwest, I have a good friend who lost her son named Fahmi. He was a great boy who had great potential, a lovely human being who went to school, had friends, but slowly found himself in a corner. When he came to his parents and actually told them he was suffering from mental health issues, his mom, who’s a great friend of mine, will tell you that she didn’t believe him. She didn’t understand what that was, because when you have a cut, you can see that. When you have diabetes, you can go to the doctor and talk about that. There are real treatments that exist, that we talk about and we understand. But when Fahmi went to his parents, his parents didn’t even recognize that, and forget going to a doctor. So today, she’s in tears every time she remembers that, and she said, “If only I believed my son; if only I took him for treatment.”

I think the problem here is that we don’t recognize these issues and we don’t actually provide the services in our communities to create awareness of these kinds of problems. If we have a good housing system, for example, if we have good community services where we’re able to help families, help parents understand what mental health is, then we’re able to tackle that.

The funding we need needs to be spread out amongst the communities to be able to save kids like Fahmi. That’s why it’s so important to be able to focus on the many aspects of it rather than correctional services, for example.

I also want to share my time with the member from Beaches–East York. Thank you very much, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Ms. Rima Berns-McGown: Thank you so very much, Madam Speaker. I just want to add a couple of stories that illustrate and add to the very thoughtful comments of the member from Scarborough Southwest.

It’s so important to understand that mental health supports are actually a critical part of dealing with the crisis in gun violence and other crises that manifest in ways that don’t necessarily appear to be directly related to mental health, but could be. For instance, we have a sense that the shooter in the Danforth shooting that happened just a couple of weeks ago was dealing with serious mental health issues. We don’t know how much shortened wait times or better mental health supports for that young man might have averted that tragedy. We don’t know how many other tragedies in the future might be averted by good mental health supports.

1520

I just want to say that this really isn’t a partisan issue, and shouldn’t be, but we should put as much money as we can into solving these issues.

A few years ago, very briefly, I did a study with the Mosaic Institute which was funded by the Harper government, by the Department of Public Safety, in which I interviewed 220 people who had come to Canada from eight different conflict-afflicted regions. We don’t import violence, but we do import trauma. One of the big things that I found is—I talked to people from coast to coast, right across the country—that these are incredibly resilient people who are contributing so much to Canada. They had wonderful jobs, they were contributing to the economy and raising great kids, and so many of them, almost all of them, were holding incredibly deep trauma and finding it impossible to get proper mental health supports.

After talking to these folks, I actually became very vicariously traumatized, and it took me a long time to recognize what was happening. I am extremely well connected—I am extremely well educated—it took me a year to find somebody to talk to.

But the thing too that we have to bear in mind, and this goes back to what my colleague was saying, is that what works for somebody from Ireland or somebody who is a fifth-generation Canadian is not necessarily going to be the same support that an Indigenous intergenerational survivor needs, or somebody who has come from Somalia or someone from Sri Lanka. We just need to bear in mind that we need community-specific—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): The member for London–Fanshawe has two minutes to reply.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Thank you to everyone in the House, all of my colleagues on both sides, for contributing to this motion. As mentioned, it’s something that we need to start talking more about to take stigma away and just make it part of health care.

I wanted to talk about a story. I recently met with a constituent a couple of weeks ago. They reached out to my office, and they wanted to meet. In the calendar, it was very clear that their son died by suicide. When I read that item, to meet with the constituent, I was trying to prepare myself to understand how I could interpret or be there and listen to this awful tragedy that happened.

What happened is that they came to the office and they explained that there had been a history of mental health issues with their son, but he was moving on and he was doing well in school. He came to some crisis point at that time, and he identified it and explained to his parents that he needed to find help. They went to the emergency room in London. As is typical of many cases, they ended up waiting three days in the emergency room and in the hallway—these things are not made up. He finally decided to go home after the three days because he wasn’t getting the help that he needed. It was actually more harmful. He was feeling even worse.

From that decision, because the health care wasn’t there at that time in an emergency situation, literally after he came home, the next morning the family went downstairs and found their son in the laundry room. He had died by suicide.

What I want to illustrate is that we need to put faces to these stories. I know the minister travelled on the select committee and she understands. We do need urgent action and we want to make sure that the funding is all there. Yes, we agree with policing and corrections, but those funds can come from different areas.

Youth employment

Mr. Deepak Anand: I move that, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should work with communities to reduce youth unemployment by committing to creating and protecting jobs for young people and correct 15 years of neglect from the previous government.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Pursuant to standing order 98, the member has 12 minutes for his presentation.

Mr. Deepak Anand: Good afternoon, Madam Speaker. It’s my deepest pleasure to speak on youth unemployment and how we can combat this ongoing issue together.

Our government is committed to bringing quality jobs back to this province, with a focus on making sure that the young people of Ontario are prepared for those jobs.

We want everyone in Ontario to have an opportunity to succeed and prosper. Post-secondary education, whether that means apprenticeships, college or university, is a critical part of preparing Ontario for the future. In addition, our employment and training programs are critical to help young people find their first job.

The government cannot accomplish this alone, but what we can do is create the conditions that make it easier for young people to find jobs, start businesses or even invest in Ontario. This is the stepping stone of an economy that allows more of Ontario’s youth to find a job right here at home.

Madam Speaker, right now, Ontario’s unemployment rate is about 5.5%, but if you look at youth between the ages of 15 and 24, there are 141,000 youth who are unemployed. The rate at which youth are unemployed is about 11.2%. Compared to the 5.5% total unemployment, youth unemployment is almost double. You can see that youth unemployment is not healthy for our economy or for our communities. This is a critical time to introduce new programs and incentives for these young people to get ahead in life.

Let’s talk about my riding, Madam Speaker. My riding of Mississauga–Malton is home to major employment hubs in the GTA. The average size of a riding is about 48 square kilometres in the city of Mississauga, but if you look at my riding, it is actually 96 square kilometres—almost double. Half of this riding is zoned for employment. Despite the presence of the airport and vast employment zones, the youth unemployment rate in my riding of Mississauga–Malton is actually a staggering 25%. Let’s look at the data: The youth unemployment is not just double the regular unemployment; in my riding, it is double the youth unemployment rate of 11%. This is very alarming.

In my riding of Mississauga–Malton, there have been numerous initiatives taking place to revive and strengthen the community. It started with the MyMalton project to develop a community vision and guiding principles and to identify community needs that can be translated into revised planning policies. The community vision plan will engage with local stakeholders and community residents from Malton, along with city staff and region of Peel staff, to help determine the current needs and the vision of the community. I’m hopeful that with these resources, Mississauga–Malton will inspire the world as a dynamic and beautiful riding known for its creative, vibrant, safe and connected communities.

Let’s talk about the city of Mississauga, the sixth-largest municipality in Canada. The city of Mississauga has grown year after year. Our city continues to be in demand, with more than 86,000 businesses, including over 70 Fortune 500 companies, employing 425,000 people, and no signs of slowing down.

My local community vision report suggests that Malton offers one of the most affordable places to live in Mississauga yet also identifies that housing needs are the highest among young people, recent immigrants and single-parent households.

It’s not just this; with the risk index in Malton at a staggering 6.1%, there are serious consequences for not engaging youth at an early stage. The increase of youth unemployment threatens the future of individuals, the broader economy and communities as well. Youth unemployment only sets young citizens up for a more difficult time achieving employment in the future. This is because in the early stages, youth have not developed the right skills to prepare for interviews, ask for references or even gain experience. Madam Speaker, we have a vibrant city, we have an amazing riding, but still we are fighting with high youth unemployment and we are in desperate need.

1530

I am presenting this motion to solve this issue for my riding, and hopefully we can solve the issue in the rest of the ridings as well. This motion is intended to resolve the lack of communication between youth and employment opportunities. There’s huge potential to decrease the youth unemployment rate by simply connecting youth with current community employment resources. I’m here to ask, let’s fill that gap.

I would like to share a great example where students have taken the initiative to start projects completely on their own to benefit their communities and strengthen their youth. One such example is Lucas Gordon, the co-founder of RedReach, from Hamilton. RedReach is a job-posting platform for youth employment. By the way, Gordon hasn’t even graduated high school. Along with his team, he’s already on a mission to improve his community. I thank Gordon and youth like Gordon for being so helpful.

Through compelling research, Gordon and his team were able to find interesting facts that I’d like to share here. Of young people entering the workforce:

—76% of high school students interviewed believe that their school has not prepared them to find a job;

—90% of youth agreed with the statement that they have no easy way of finding out who is hiring and what an employer is hiring for;

—80% of youth are unaware of the employment resources offered in their community, such as local YMCAs.

The current status of this issue is troublesome. Many young people don’t know where to begin, especially in troubled neighbourhoods with a high risk index. The risk of not guiding our youth is detrimental to our society. This motion will bring us one step closer to securing the future of our youth and the safety of our communities.

Madam Speaker, we believe our caucus is committed to creating more jobs and partnerships across this province. We will provide the opportunity to gain work experience, leading to ongoing employment. This involves broad community participation, planning and agreement in the creation of a sustainable employment strategy.

There is a strong need to provide youth with a resource centre to develop, practise and display. I propose to all members of the House to start a dialogue to suggest the development of new youth centres in achieving these goals. These concerns and these centres can be used to initiate job fairs and create a bridge to alternative youth-oriented programs.

It is also critical that we ensure that our students are receiving 21st century skills in order to get 21st century jobs. Technology is progressing at an unbelievable rate and it is our responsibility to be able to adapt and educate our youth to be better prepared. We must shift our curriculum to teach kids about coding, artificial intelligence, robotics, automation, STEM—something that they will need for the coming years.

To be honest, the main fault for youth unemployment is somewhat with us. The education system for the last 15 years has not provided young people with the appropriate skills to enter the workforce. High numbers of children are not being raised with appropriate guidance today. That is why I’m a big believer in mentorship programs that help students develop self-confidence and training. Mentorship is crucial to the personal, social and educational development of young people.

We must also provide the support for young people to achieve their entrepreneurial goals. I’ve never seen a time where the students are so hungry for innovation and starting new business ventures. This motion will help young people in their endeavours, and we can achieve this through youth centres.

Our government is determined to provide the resources and the opportunities for young people to grow. Once passed, this motion will provide a path of providing incentives and hands-on training to all stakeholders, including local businesses, NGOs, colleges and universities. Also, this motion will introduce a non-partisan—I will say that one more time—a non-partisan youth council that will be organized by the youth, by the students. Students will be engaged in a discussion and offer insight on the issues that they face, while providing helpful resources to one another. Even through the use of social media, we can effectively communicate government resources to those in need.

A reminder: This motion is intended to find solutions in reducing the youth unemployment rate in Ontario, and I want to remind everyone that it is critical that we nurture the emotional, social and physical domains of youth development.

I want to talk about my campaign to become MPP. I’d like to share that my campaign was youth-led. I actually have met a wonderful youth, Husam Khalo, who helped me in my campaigning and is here today. Thank you, Husam, for your help.

Madam Speaker, we plan on providing opportunities to help young folks to take on new responsibilities, acquire new skills, build healthy relationships and discover their own identities. It was a mission during my campaign to help the youth, and I’ll continue with that mission.

I’m sure all members will agree that there must be adequate resolution to youth unemployment, so I urge everyone in this House to participate in the pursuit of giving the opportunity to those who need it. Overall, I’m confident that all members will help me to pass this motion.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Miss Christina Maria Mitas: It is my privilege to speak today about something that is a huge issue in our province and in my community, Scarborough Centre, specifically: youth unemployment.

When I was a teenager not that long ago, I had two jobs: working at my school’s uniform store and teaching Greek dancing. These jobs taught me responsibility, the value of hard work and one—teaching dancing—became an inspiration and a springboard for the launch of my first career, teaching.

As both someone who benefited from youth employment and someone who has seen the self-worth and skills it gives students first-hand as they add these positive additions to their toolkits and bring them into classrooms, I cannot stress the importance of it enough. The benefits of youth employment are innumerable, but we seem to be struggling to make it a priority.

While Canada is recognized as having one of the lowest youth unemployment rates in the world, this is a blanket statement that does not paint a real picture of the situation. Canada is extremely diverse in both its regions and its population. We may beat some of our OECD peers, but this does not mean every region of the country is thriving. Right now, Toronto’s youth unemployment rate of 20% is higher than the national average. When we break this up by different suburbs, we see that both the range and the gap in percentages grow much more substantially.

Across the board, youth struggle to keep their jobs as compared to their adult counterparts. When there’s a recession, youth are the first to lose their jobs. Outside of a recession, again, they are the first to get the axe. I’m happy to say that our government is keenly aware of how vulnerable youth jobs are. While we expect employment opportunities to grow now that Ontario is once again open for business, we must recognize youth face unique challenges to employment that other employees do not.

In March, Mayor Tory said that we simply cannot accept that such a large portion of the population will be left in a position where they are on their own, and this is why the city is stepping up. I agree with our mayor, and I believe that today, provincially, we are taking our own steps to address this.

While there have been many different programs created to address this issue, I think that, often, the voices of our youth have been lost in these programs. So while surveys are an invaluable tool, I believe that they cannot replace youth councils and youth participation, which can create a give-and-take relationship in this very important conversation.

I know how dynamic these groups can be. As an educator, I’ve seen that students in groups discussing ideas and problems and fostering co-operative learning can yield tremendous results. People take ideas and run with them. Sharing unique experiences changes the conversation and encourages people to come forward and share things that they may not have otherwise.

1540

While I was canvassing during the campaign, youth unemployment came up repeatedly. In speaking with youth, something that came up a lot was transit, which may not be intuitive to everyone. When there’s unreliable transit, it’s hard to hold down a job. When transit is inefficient, you can’t accept jobs outside of your community without a substantial commute. If you’re working a four-hour shift in retail, an hour to work and an hour back home is deal breaker.

Studies that have focused on the voices of youth have yielded some interesting results. Tired of the Hustle: Youth Voices on Unemployment was a research project on Toronto’s Jane Street neighbourhoods that was published in 2016. I will quickly share a passage:

“Crucially, we need to build youth leadership and meaningfully involve them in research, policy development and advocacy, and program planning. Our experience working with youth peer researchers shows that, with relevant opportunity and mentorship, youth can become knowledge producers and agents of change.”

I believe that we are meaningfully working towards that goal today.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: I’m pleased to rise in this House today on my colleague’s motion on youth unemployment.

I’d like to just begin by saying that it is costing us $1 million per hour to service our debt in interest payments. If you wait 24 hours, that’s $24 million. That’s money that you could be putting towards helping our future, our future jobs and our youth in this province. But if we don’t take our debt situation seriously in this province, what type of message are we sending to our job creators? We’re not sending the right conditions. We’re not sending the right message to our employers.

In 2008, Ontario was thriving; 16 years later, Ontario is taking transfer payments from the federal government. Under the Liberals’ watch, Moody’s even gave them a credit downgrading. We have the highest sub-sovereign debt and the highest rates in North America.

But look, let’s not talk about the negatives; let’s talk about the positives. We actually survived those 15 years of Liberal mess. But the question remains: What legacy do we want to leave behind? What kind of future do we want to create for our children and our grandchildren? We want a province that’s not going to go down a slippery slope. We want to do better, to provide hope and solutions for our future jobs.

As I mentioned throughout my campaign to many people in my riding and youth on my campaign, you’re never too young to make a difference; that it should always be the equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome; and that it should not be about who you know but what you know when it comes to employment. That is why our government has a plan to make Ontario open for business. We’re going to create jobs, lower day-to-day costs, bring prosperity back to this province and restore accountability and trust that has been lost, and students will benefit greatly.

But we cannot accomplish this alone. We need to make sure we create the right economic conditions for youth employment. As my colleague had mentioned, they suffer the most in economic downturns. Just recently, a Liberal policy of raising the minimum wage hurt youth the most, because what good is minimum wage if you can’t get a job in the first place?

The other issue that occurs is underemployment for people who are deemed too qualified. I had someone who came in my office, a woman who came in with her son. She said that he had graduated—he has two degrees—and he was desperately trying to find a job. He applied to McDonald’s and was told that he is too qualified. That is too often the case.

We need to do better. We need to look at what the future conditions hold. Right now, about 30 million jobs are subject to automation in Ontario in the next 20 years; 42% of Canadian jobs are at risk of automation. What are we doing to prepare our students today for the jobs of tomorrow?

We can look at many examples—like in Germany, with their dual vocational training systems—and model some of their systems. I’m not saying we do exactly what they do because we’re a different system, but let’s look at the outcomes. By the time someone in Germany is about 19 years old, they’re already certified in the trades, they’re working and they’re making a living. Compare it to Canada: By the time they’re done their vocational training, they’re 28 years old. We need to do better. Our youth unemployment rate in Ontario is 11.2%, compared to Germany, where it’s almost half, at 6.4%. Because their system is not broken; it’s working. It’s preparing students for the jobs of the future; in that way, they can decrease their youth unemployment.

I ask this House to take my colleague’s motion seriously and support it, because today we vote on this, but it’s for the future and it’s for tomorrow.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Ms. Natalia Kusendova: It is my honour to rise today and speak in support of the motion, tabled by my colleague the member from Mississauga–Malton, that calls on our government to work closely with communities to reduce youth unemployment in Ontario by committing to creating and protecting jobs for young people.

Madam Speaker, I’m going to speak on this from the perspective of a millennial and first-generation immigrant to Canada.

When we think of millennials, things come to mind—words that have been used by the media, such as “boomerang generation” or “entitled” or “lazy.” We’re often criticized for living longer with our parents or for the inability to find good-paying, full-time jobs. But this could not be further removed from the truth.

My generation and generation Z are the generation of what we call the side hustle. We need to work two or three jobs to support ourselves. Take it from me: Before being elected, I was working three jobs to be able to support myself, and I had to obtain not one but two bachelor of science degrees to compete in this job market.

Speaking of bachelor degrees, obtaining a degree today does not guarantee a good chance for employment. In fact, more than 12% of Canadians between the ages of 15 and 24 are unemployed and more than a quarter are underemployed. In the meanwhile, our generation pays much higher prices for education. For example, average tuition fees have risen from $3,500 in 1993 to $6,500 in the current year. So many young people start off their lives with this huge burden, this huge debt and no ability to find good-paying jobs for the degrees that they have graduated with.

Another challenge comes when young people are looking for housing. A BMO analysis in 2014 calculated that, adjusting for inflation, in 2012 dollars, the average price of a house for a baby boomer was close to $111,000; meanwhile, for millennials, the average household price right now is $460,000. Last time I checked, salaries have not quadrupled in the last generation, but the housing market has quadrupled. Even for someone who works here, as a member of this esteemed assembly, it is difficult for myself to compete in the current housing market.

Taking all of this into consideration, many young people feel discouraged, especially in immigrant communities. That is why it is so important that our government is committing to creating and protecting jobs for young people.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Mrs. Gila Martow: I’m very pleased to rise today and support the motion put forward by our new member for Mississauga–Malton that we want to work with our communities and create an environment where our youth are not experiencing double the rate of unemployment that adults have in most of our communities.

We know that our youth are struggling, and I think that this is probably the first generation that is having it a lot tougher than their parents had in terms of having the same quality of life. The parents are frustrated as well.

As a parent of some children who are young adults—I just want to say that one of my children tells me very often that when he’s hiring youth to work at the start-up that he works for, he struggles to find people who are qualified. They’re very qualified in some things but not necessarily in what the market bears.

It’s really up to us to work with the education system, work with our employers, small businesses and large industrial companies, and say, “What do you need in 10 years or in 20 years?” and make sure that we’re training our youth, that they have the math skills, the coding and software skills, the digital skills, whatever it is that they need. Obviously, they need housing. Obviously, companies want to entice young workers who are vibrant to come and work for them. We know Google and Microsoft are so fantastic at getting the youngest, the brightest and the hardest-working. And they entice them with what? With food, with fun and with activities.

We need to work with our communities and get the youth engaged. We cannot have an entire population of youth who are struggling to find employment. This is when they struggle with mental illness. It’s not the other way around. I don’t think it’s mental illness causing youth unemployment; I think it’s youth unemployment causing mental illness challenges.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: It is my pleasure to rise today as the MPP for London West and the post-secondary education critic for the Ontario NDP caucus to respond to the motion that was brought forward by the member for Mississauga–Malton.

First off, Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging that this is an issue that merits extensive debate and action by this Legislature and by this government. We saw the labour force survey statistics that came out just a couple of months ago, in June 2018. The unemployment rate for young people in this province age 15 to 24 was 12.7%. That is more than double the overall unemployment rate of 5.9%. Historically, when you look at recorded unemployment rates in this province, this is one of the largest gaps between overall unemployment and youth unemployment that we have seen in decades.

We know in Ontario that the number of youth who work part-time is at an all-time high. Youth are faced with the reality of a gig economy, where secure jobs that offer pensions and benefits are just no longer an option. We know that many young people feel that they have to work for free. They have to look for unpaid internships in order to gain some experience in the career or field that they were trained for, and, despite efforts to crack down on that, a lot of young people feel they have no option than to offer their labour for free.

In Ontario, we have seen a higher rate of underemployment among university graduates than many other jurisdictions across the world. We have highly educated, skilled university graduates who are unable to find the kind of employment that really matches the skills they gained in post-secondary, often because of the huge debt load they are carrying, because of the high cost of university tuition that is forcing them to take a survival job just to be able to start making those payments on their tuition debt.

We also see in this province significant regional disparities in youth unemployment. In my own region of southwestern Ontario, there has basically been no net job growth since the 2008 recession. The decrease in unemployment that we have seen provincially has meant that there have been improvements in the economy in the GTA and in Ottawa, but regions like southwestern Ontario and like northern Ontario have really been shut out of any prosperity, any economic momentum that has been achieved in this province over the last decade. It is certainly the case, Speaker, that where young people live has a huge effect on their ability to find work.

We also see a decrease in the rate of youth-owned businesses in this province. We know that young entrepreneurs represent only a very small share of owners of small and medium-sized enterprises in this province, and the proportion of youth entrepreneurs is actually declining over the last decade. We’re not seeing more and more young people starting up businesses. We’re seeing a decrease in those numbers. We know the scarring effect is real, that young people who can’t find work are scarred by that inability; the longer it takes them to get their first job, the more difficult it is to get into the labour market at any time in the future.

There’s no question that helping young people find meaningful employment that reflects their skills and training is essential, both for our collective economics well-being but also for the goals of social inclusion, the goals of helping people gain a sense of identity, self-respect and purpose. These shared goals are something that are critical to our social well-being as a province.

Speaker, I have to say that when I read this motion, I was quite disappointed. We haven’t heard a thing from this government about any kind of plan to deal with these very real and serious issues other than this namby-pamby motion, quite frankly—from a backbench MPP, no less, not from the government side—that really offers no concrete commitments as to how to create and protect jobs for young people and that does not set out any kind of a detailed plan about how to move this province forward.

What we have seen from the front bench on the government side are a series of actions that are actually going to destabilize Ontario’s economy and create less opportunity for young people to find employment. We have seen a cap-and-trade bill that is driving investment away from this province. We have seen an announcement that 758 green energy contracts are going to be ripped up, which sends the absolute wrong message to firms that are looking to invest in this province and to grow those jobs that we want young people to be able to access.

We’ve also seen the cancellation of a Basic Income Pilot research project, which could have offered some useful insights on basic income as a means to help young people stabilize as they transition from school to employment. We’ve seen cuts to social assistance that are going to hurt the most vulnerable youth in our province, youth who are already underrepresented in the labour market and who face the greatest barriers to employment.

If this government did the research, they would understand that we need to take targeted actions to deal with the reality that young people are facing in this province when it comes to access to the labour market.

We know that newcomer youth who come to this province are typically much more highly educated than Canadian-born youth, and yet their unemployment rate is about five times the unemployment rate for those who are Canadian-born and also have a university degree. What we see from this government are actions that are demonizing newcomers, that are creating a climate where people feel free to say whatever they want about illegal border crossers and challenging newcomers to get out of the community. I’ve seen it in London, in a Sobeys grocery store. We heard about it in Hamilton, in a Walmart parking lot. It’s shameful what this government is doing in terms of creating a climate where newcomer youth feel even more unsafe and unable to access the kind of opportunities that other young people hope to be able to get into.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Order.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: We know that the unemployment rate for Indigenous youth is much higher than the unemployment rate for non-Indigenous young people in Ontario—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I would ask that all members come to order, please. I’ve already reminded the member from King–Vaughan to come to order. All members, if they would like to heckle, perhaps should do it from their own seats.

The member will continue.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: We also know that Indigenous youth are much less likely to graduate from high school, which is sort of the basic ticket for labour market entry. One of the strategies that is most effective in keeping Indigenous young people in school, enabling them to graduate from high school, is a curriculum that reflects their identity, that validates their experiences, that acknowledges the harm that has been done to Indigenous people in this province through colonialism, through residential schools, through the Sixties Scoop. This government decided in its wisdom that they’re going to put a pause on rewriting the curriculum to deal with those very real issues Indigenous youth face.

We know that young people with disabilities also face much higher unemployment rates than those without disabilities, and yet we have seen a cut to the ODSP benefits that is really going to compromise the ability of young people with disabilities to get into the labour market.

1600

One of the most effective things that any government can do to help young people transition to the labour market is to invest in post-secondary education. I have to say that, during the election, not a word was spoken about post-secondary education by the members of this government, other than the fact that we need to tie university funding to free speech on campus. Speaker, I don’t think that tying university funding to free speech on campus is going to do anything to improve the quality of post-secondary education or to provide young people who are attending college and university programs and who are looking for work-integrated learning opportunities that are going to give them the experience that they need to get that leg-up when they transition into the labour market—we haven’t heard anything about those kinds of investments from this government.

When you talk about post-secondary, we know that there is a crisis in campus sexual assaults, and yet this government wants to lower the price of beer when we know that most campus sexual assaults involve alcohol and most of them occur within the first eight weeks of school. We’re going to have lower-cost beer just in time for fall orientation. That is going to make young women on Ontario campuses feel much less safe.

We also know that young people in college and university need more access to mental health supports, and yet this government is cutting $335 million in planned mental health investments.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): The member for Mississauga–Malton has two minutes to reply.

Mr. Deepak Anand: It’s nice to hear from both sides, starting with the member from Scarborough on her experience as an educator. The member from Barrie–Innisfil talked about comparing the different models. My neighbour the member from Mississauga Centre talked about her own experiences—very different and very good perspectives. Our member from Thornhill talked about her experience as a parent.

Not just that, I heard from the member from London West, who has been a school board trustee for many, many years—over a decade—and got re-elected. She talked about the underemployment, unemployment and lack of entrepreneurship.

One thing I want to say is, I believe there was great, positive feedback on the motion. I believe that we all agree that this issue is real and relevant, and it is encouraging to hear all these comments on both sides that our young people are in desperate need of assistance. I believe we should start today and provide the substantial resources that they need.

Again, Madam Speaker, it is my deepest pleasure to speak on youth unemployment and how we can combat this ongoing issue. Together, I believe and I am sure that all members of this House will commit to bring quality jobs back to the province with a focus on making sure the young people of Ontario are prepared for these jobs. All I’m asking is for us to step up and let’s start a dialogue for our youth centres, so that through these youth centres we can create better opportunities for youth to prosper and succeed.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Consideration of private members’ public business has concluded before the expiry of the two and a half hours’ time allotted. This House is therefore suspended until 4:32 p.m., at which time I will be putting the questions to the House.

The House suspended proceedings from 1604 to 1632.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): The time for private members’ public business has expired.

Carding

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): We will deal first with ballot item number 7, standing in the name of Mr. Yarde.

Mr. Yarde has moved that, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should immediately ban the ongoing practice of carding, also known as street checks, which is the discriminatory and arbitrary stopping of individuals by police, as it violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and human rights legislation, and to instruct all police forces to destroy existing information that is being collected and retained through the discriminatory practice of carding.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

We will deal with this vote after we have finished the other business.

Mental health and addiction services

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Ms. Armstrong has moved private member’s notice of motion number 11. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

We will deal with this vote after we have finished the other business.

Youth employment

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Mr. Anand has moved private member’s notice of motion number 10. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I declare the motion carried.

Motion agreed to.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1635 to 1640.

Carding

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Members, please take your seats.

Mr. Yarde has moved that, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should immediately ban the ongoing practice of carding, also known as street checks, which is the discriminatory and arbitrary stopping of individuals by police, as it violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and human rights legislation, and to instruct all police forces to destroy existing information that is being collected and retained through the discriminatory practice of carding.

All those in favour, please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

• Armstrong, Teresa J.
• Begum, Doly
• Berns-McGown, Rima
• Bisson, Gilles
• Burch, Jeff
• Fife, Catherine
• Harden, Joel
• Hassan, Faisal

• Hatfield, Percy
• Kernaghan, Terence
• Mantha, Michael
• Miller, Paul
• Monteith-Farrell, Judith
• Morrison, Suze
• Rakocevic, Tom
• Sattler, Peggy

• Schreiner, Mike
• Singh, Gurratan
• Singh, Sara
• Stevens, Jennifer (Jennie)
• Tabuns, Peter
• Vanthof, John
• West, Jamie
• Yarde, Kevin

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): All those opposed, please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

• Anand, Deepak
• Baber, Roman
• Babikian, Aris
• Bailey, Robert
• Bethlenfalvy, Peter
• Bouma, Will
• Calandra, Paul
• Cho, Raymond Sung Joon
• Cho, Stan
• Clark, Steve
• Coe, Lorne
• Crawford, Stephen
• Cuzzetto, Rudy
• Dunlop, Jill
• Elliott, Christine
• Fedeli, Victor
• Fee, Amy
• Fullerton, Merrilee
• Ghamari, Goldie
• Hardeman, Ernie
• Harris, Mike

• Hogarth, Christine
• Jones, Sylvia
• Kanapathi, Logan
• Karahalios, Belinda
• Ke, Vincent
• Khanjin, Andrea
• Kusendova, Natalia
• Lecce, Stephen
• Martin, Robin
• Martow, Gila
• McDonell, Jim
• McKenna, Jane
• Miller, Norman
• Mitas, Christina Maria
• Mulroney, Caroline
• Nicholls, Rick
• Pang, Billy
• Park, Lindsey
• Parsa, Michael
• Pettapiece, Randy
• Phillips, Rod

• Piccini, David
• Rasheed, Kaleed
• Roberts, Jeremy
• Romano, Ross
• Sabawy, Sheref
• Sarkaria, Prabmeet Singh
• Scott, Laurie
• Simard, Amanda
• Skelly, Donna
• Smith, Dave
• Smith, Todd
• Surma, Kinga
• Tangri, Nina
• Thanigasalam, Vijay
• Tibollo, Michael A.
• Triantafilopoulos, Effie J.
• Wai, Daisy
• Walker, Bill
• Wilson, Jim

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 24; the nays are 61.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I declare the motion lost.

Motion negatived.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): We are now going to ring the bells for 30 seconds to allow members to enter or exit the chamber.

Mental health and addiction services

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Ms. Armstrong has moved private member’s notice of motion number 11. All those in favour, please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

• Armstrong, Teresa J.
• Begum, Doly
• Berns-McGown, Rima
• Bisson, Gilles
• Burch, Jeff
• Fife, Catherine
• Harden, Joel
• Hassan, Faisal

• Hatfield, Percy
• Kernaghan, Terence
• Mantha, Michael
• Miller, Paul
• Monteith-Farrell, Judith
• Morrison, Suze
• Rakocevic, Tom
• Sattler, Peggy

• Schreiner, Mike
• Singh, Gurratan
• Singh, Sara
• Stevens, Jennifer (Jennie)
• Tabuns, Peter
• Vanthof, John
• West, Jamie
• Yarde, Kevin

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): All those opposed, please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

• Anand, Deepak
• Baber, Roman
• Babikian, Aris
• Bailey, Robert
• Bethlenfalvy, Peter
• Bouma, Will
• Calandra, Paul
• Cho, Raymond Sung Joon
• Cho, Stan
• Clark, Steve
• Coe, Lorne
• Crawford, Stephen
• Cuzzetto, Rudy
• Dunlop, Jill
• Elliott, Christine
• Fedeli, Victor
• Fee, Amy
• Fullerton, Merrilee
• Ghamari, Goldie
• Hardeman, Ernie
• Harris, Mike

• Hogarth, Christine
• Jones, Sylvia
• Kanapathi, Logan
• Karahalios, Belinda
• Ke, Vincent
• Khanjin, Andrea
• Kusendova, Natalia
• Lecce, Stephen
• Martin, Robin
• Martow, Gila
• McDonell, Jim
• McKenna, Jane
• Miller, Norman
• Mitas, Christina Maria
• Mulroney, Caroline
• Nicholls, Rick
• Pang, Billy
• Park, Lindsey
• Parsa, Michael
• Pettapiece, Randy
• Phillips, Rod

• Piccini, David
• Rasheed, Kaleed
• Roberts, Jeremy
• Romano, Ross
• Sabawy, Sheref
• Sarkaria, Prabmeet Singh
• Scott, Laurie
• Simard, Amanda
• Skelly, Donna
• Smith, Dave
• Smith, Todd
• Surma, Kinga
• Tangri, Nina
• Thanigasalam, Vijay
• Tibollo, Michael A.
• Triantafilopoulos, Effie J.
• Wai, Daisy
• Walker, Bill
• Wilson, Jim

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 24; the nays are 61.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I declare the motion lost.

Motion negatived.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I recognize the member on a point of order.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to offer you an apology because I did lose my cool a little while ago.

Applause.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Thank you.

It’s not something that should be condoned, and I don’t condone it.

But I just want to say, for the record, that there was clearly a “no” that was given in that vote. It was heard by the table, Madam Speaker—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): It’s not a point of order.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): The member will have a seat, please. That’s not a point of order.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Sorry. Yes, it was a point of order.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Order.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Did you say yes? I’m sorry. I didn’t hear you.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Order. I’ll ask the member to sit down.

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Resuming the debate adjourned on August 8, 2018, on the amendment to the motion for allocation of time on Bill 5, An Act to amend the City of Toronto Act, 2006, the Municipal Act, 2001 and the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): The member from Timiskaming–Cochrane has the floor. Further debate.

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s unbelievable that this government purports to be for the people. They talk about having the biggest consultations in history. Yet, on an issue where they actually have the opportunity to have consultation regarding the governance of the biggest city in this country, they are denying the people of the province, and certainly of Toronto, to have that opportunity for consultation.

I think what we should do here is give the government a chance to reconsider their motives and reconsider what they’re doing. For that, I move adjournment of the debate.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Mr. Vanthof has moved adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members. This will be a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1652 to 1722.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Members will please take their seats.

Mr. Vanthof has moved adjournment of the debate.

All those in favour will please rise and remain standing until recorded by the Clerk.

All those opposed will please rise and remain standing until recorded by the Clerk.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 20; the nays are 60.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I declare the motion lost.

Further debate? Timiskaming–Cochrane had the floor.

Hon. Todd Smith: Point of order, Speaker.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: He has the floor.

Mr. John Vanthof: I have the floor. I—

Hon. Todd Smith: Point of order, Speaker.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Members, please have a seat.

I recognize the member on a point of order.

Hon. Todd Smith: Thank you, Speaker. It’s tradition in here that we do welcome our guests, and we do have some very special guests who are visiting—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): That is not a point of order.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): The member from Timiskaming–Cochrane has the floor.

Mr. John Vanthof: I move adjournment of the House.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Mr. Vanthof—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Okay. When I’m standing, you sit.

Mr. Vanthof has moved adjournment of the House. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members. This will be a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1726 to 1756.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Members, please take your seats. Members will take their seats.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I would ask that the Sergeant-at-Arms please confirm that all members are in their seats.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Members take their seats. I’m warning all members to take their seats.

Hon. Todd Smith: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): At this time, we’re in the middle of a vote and I—

Hon. Todd Smith: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): What is out of order is that there are members not in their seats, as I have been directed by the Clerks.

Hon. Todd Smith: Speaker, I have a legitimate point of order on standing order 56—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): We are in the middle of a vote. What is out of order is that the Speaker has directed members to return to their seats.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): All members will please take their seats.

Hon. Todd Smith: Point of order—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): We are in the middle of a vote—

Hon. Todd Smith: On standing order 56—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I maintain that we are out of order. There are members not currently in their seats.

Members will take their seats.

Members who are out of order can certainly be warned and ultimately named for not complying with the direction of the Speaker—a reminder.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): We are in the middle of a vote. What is out of order are the members who are continuing not to follow the direction of this House.

All members will take their seats.

Hon. Todd Smith: Point of order, Speaker: I rise on standing order 56. The government—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I do not recognize the member on a point of order. We are in the middle of a vote. I have been directed by the Clerks that we are in the middle of a vote.

Mr. Vanthof has moved adjournment of the House. All those in favour will please rise and remain standing until recorded by the Clerk.

All those opposed will please rise and remain standing until recorded by the Clerk.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 6; the nays are 60.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I declare the motion lost.

Interjections.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): It being 6 o’clock, this House stands adjourned until 10:30 on Monday, August 13, 2018.

The House adjourned at 1802.