Journal des débats 2018-nov-28 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

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

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

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

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

Instead, the government decided to take a different approach, which could have worked if the government had structured the bill in such a way that incents those companies to install the infrastructure in rural and northern Ontario. Currently, what we have is a bill that is going to help certain parts of rural Ontario. I’m not going to say it’s not going to do any of it, because where you have smaller communities in rural and northern Ontario, there may be a small subdivision—10 or 15 homes—that doesn’t have natural gas infrastructure. The gas company will be able to decide, “We want to put that infrastructure in the ground.” They figure out the costs. If the ROE, the return on investment, is 20 or 30 years, they say, “Yes, it’s worth it,” and then they can take the cost and shift it across the entire ratepayer base across the province, not just the region.

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

There is nothing in this bill to address the issue—for example, if you live on a rural road somewhere in Leamington or somewhere in Kapuskasing, or wherever it is that you might live, and the road is, let’s say, 10 miles long, and along that you’ve got maybe five farms and another four or five homes, the gas company is not going to run the gas line down that way because the return on investment for the infrastructure may not be enough for them to be able to build it. So for a lot of the farm community, this will do very little to be able to fix the problem that the farm community was asking to have fixed, which was, “Find a way to bring natural gas infrastructure into rural roads so our farms could also be serviced by natural gas.”

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

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

Did the government get this all wrong? No, they didn’t get it all wrong. Part of what they’re doing in this bill is okay, and that’s why we supported it at second reading. But we warned you at the time. We said, “Listen, if you really want to help rural and northern Ontario, there are some amendments to the legislation that you have to make in order to make sure that this is not just about helping the natural gas company make a few extra bucks by putting more service into urban areas”—small urban areas. I’m not saying this is city of Toronto stuff; this is more like smaller urban centres across rural, central, eastern and northern Ontario. But you’ve got to be able to do something to expand it across all those other communities, and the bill stops far short of that.

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

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

The first part, I would say, is on the question of how we draft legislation. In this case, we have an issue that all members on all sides of the House can agree with: There’s not enough natural gas infrastructure in rural Ontario. If you live in farm Ontario, if you live in rural Ontario away from a small urban centre, you don’t have any natural gas and you’re not likely to get it under the old system. So if the government was serious about trying to address the situation, they could have referred this thing to committee on what we call a white paper, or just refer it out after first reading. The idea is that you put a white paper out to committee and you say, “All right, we have a problem. How are we going to fix that problem?” And then the committee, made up of members from all sides of the House, listen to the people who are our bosses, the citizens of Ontario, and they come and tell us what their problem is and maybe what some of their solutions are. Then we invite in the people who are the experts at installing natural gas infrastructure and the regulators and others that are involved in order to find out: “Okay, here’s what we heard from communities; this is what we heard from the citizens of Ontario. What gives? How can we address this particular situation?”

0910

Now, I’m going to say up front that we recognize, as the loyal opposition, that you can’t just put money to this problem. Yes, it’s money that’s going to build infrastructure for natural gas, but the treasury of Ontario can’t be responsible for paying for all of that infrastructure, and we get it. I think we have a responsibility to a degree, because there are certain areas that don’t get infrastructure, and maybe we have to have a policy that says in those cases—like we do for electricity, like we do for the telephone, like we do for broadband Internet in certain places, like we do for roads—the province will be involved in the infrastructure in those particular areas, and you define them in some way.

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

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

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

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

I think there are ways that we could have done that, Mr. Speaker. There are ways we could have shared the cost amongst ratepayers with some sort of a formula that says: Okay, maybe in an urban area the regular sort of formula applies, but when it comes to trying to service those hard-to-serve areas, you need some other kind of formula if you’re going to distribute the cost amongst the ratepayers of Ontario so that it’s done in a way that maybe the payback is longer. You don’t want to jack everybody’s bill up, because I don’t think an urban person who pays for natural gas in an urban centre wants to see their gas bill go up by 10%, 20%, 30%, 100%, like we did with the Liberals under electricity. We’ll agree that was a shambles. What they did on hydro, they’re still paying for in the results of the last election.

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

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

For example, Infrastructure Ontario has made an agreement with the federal government in the billions of dollars over a 10-year period. We could have taken some of that money, which is not new tax money. It doesn’t mean to say you have to tax anybody for this. What you do is earmark money from the infrastructure fund, and you say that over a period of 10 years, we’re going to put X amount of billions of dollars, or millions of dollars, whatever the number is—it wouldn’t be billions; it would be in the millions—aside from our share as a province, the federal share as a province, and maybe the municipal share, as a municipality, because a municipality stands to gain something if infrastructure is built in their area. That would have been one possible source of funding.

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

But instead, what we’ve got with this bill is not a bill that’s terrible—and I really want to say that again. I’m not arguing for one second that everything in this bill is terrible. I think there are some parts of it that are supportable. But I came to this debate understanding that we were going to do something for rural Ontario, for northern Ontario, and this bill is not going to do that. So how do any of us—members from southwestern Ontario, members from northern Ontario, members from eastern and central Ontario—go back to our rural communities and say, “Hey, we fixed your problem”? Because in reality, we haven’t. We have essentially said to the gas company, “Go install more infrastructure in small urban settings.”

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

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

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

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

I was part of a government in 1990. There were companies shutting down by the week across this province in that recession. Algoma Steel: When we called them, they weren’t interested. When Algoma Steel was going to close down and put the people of Sault Ste. Marie out of work. they were not interested in having any help. But we as a government said, “Listen, let’s go sit down with the workers, let’s sit down with the municipality, let’s sit down with the company and let’s see what we can come up with.” We came up with a very unique solution for Sault Ste. Marie. I would even think the current member for Sault Ste. Marie would agree. But imagine if we would have taken this position: “Oh, no. Algoma Steel said no, so there’s nothing we can do.” Right? That might have never happened.

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

0920

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

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

That company thrived. That paper mill is still operating today, Mr. Speaker. If we would have done what Mr. Ford said with General Motors, that company would not be here today. It would have been gone just like Abitibi-Price in Iroquois Falls that the Liberals let shut down. Iroquois Falls Abitibi should never have shut down. But it was, again, a case of laissez-faire politics on the part of the Wynne government, which said, “Oh, we don’t want to interfere with what is a private sector decision.” Excuse me. A private sector decision? Those are citizens in Oshawa, in Iroquois Falls, in Kapuskasing, in Sault Ste. Marie. We, as the people’s representatives, have a responsibility to find solutions. Can we always succeed? No, there are going to be times when we’re not going to be able to. Sometimes there are issues that are difficult to deal with, but you at least have to try.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So in fairness to the member—

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

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

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

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

0930

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

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

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

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Essex.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

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

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

Mrs. Amy Fee: Thank you, Speaker.

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

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

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

The proposals in the Access to Natural Gas Act tabled by the Minister of Infrastructure will give the opportunity for private sector partnerships to foster with communities to expand natural gas to remote, rural and northern areas of Ontario. If passed, the bill would amend the Ontario Energy Board Act to enable natural gas distributors to add a small charge to existing consumers’ bills to help cover the cost of expanding the service. Charges, though, will be much less than what the savings of families and businesses have already started to see across Ontario with the removal of the carbon tax from their bills. In fact, natural gas suppliers have said that charge will amount to about just a dollar a month, and that is when the expansion program is at its peak. At other times, it may be even less.

I’d like to take a few moments to explain a little about our proposed changes. What we want to see are clear guidelines around our natural gas suppliers, while ensuring there are measures in place that are necessary to have ratepayer protection at the same time that we see that natural gas expansion to dozens of new communities. These rules and regulations that would be enacted achieve these goals by ensuring that the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, is amended to provide rate protection for consumers or classes of consumers with respect to costs incurred by gas distributors in making a qualifying investment for the purpose of providing access to a natural gas distribution system to those consumers. Gas distributors are entitled to be compensated for any resulting lost revenue, and all consumers, or such classes of consumers as are prescribed, are required to contribute towards the compensation.

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

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

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

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

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

0940

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0950

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I apologize; my voice is a little hoarse today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So I called up the gas companies and met with them. I wanted to talk about this because I’m a farmer. I represent farmers. I represent people in rural Ontario. I said, “I have a rural road, and there are a couple of farms on it, there’s a guy with a grain dryer on it, and there are three or four houses on it. They’re pretty close to a town. So how is this fund going to work?” “Well, Mr. Vanthof, farms don’t really qualify, because the way the bill is set up, residential customers can’t be cross-subsidized with farming operations.” The devil is always in the details. This is a pretty big detail. And this isn’t news, because I said exactly the same thing on second reading. I implored the government, I implored the gas companies, I implored anyone, if I am wrong, to please correct me, because on this one, I want to be wrong. I want it to be proven that this bill is actually going to help people on the rural roads of true rural and northern Ontario. I said exactly the same thing on second reading, and do you know what I heard? Crickets is what I heard.

I commend the Ontario Federation of Agriculture for pushing for access to natural gas, but I have yet to hear anybody explain how that’s actually going to work. What this bill is going to facilitate—and I think that’s what the bill is designed for. That’s why the home builders’ association is very supportive. I’m not saying this is a bad thing, but this is what this bill is really going to facilitate: This bill is going to subsidize gas infrastructure to new subdivision developments. That’s what this bill is for. It’s being couched in rural and northern, but that’s what this bill is for. I’m not even saying that’s a bad thing; it’s just that it should be advertised as such. Because when I hear how farms are going to benefit—well, guess what? They’re not. They’re not going to have access to this program because you can’t cross-subsidize an agricultural operation with a residential customer. Again, I hope I’m wrong, but that’s what the gas companies told me.

Something else that the gas companies—and this makes sense. The gas companies—now it’s “gas company”; Enbridge and Union—are going to direct their funds where they make the most profit. I agree with that. I have nothing against private companies making profits. Private monopolies—they should have some control; that’s why we have the Ontario Energy Board. I don’t have a problem with that either. When this fund is built up, they are going to put that money to the places where it has the biggest return on investment. Again, highly concentrated new subdivision developments are where you’re going to make the biggest bang for your buck. I didn’t hear one member of the government saying, “This is great.” The home builders’ association know that, and that’s why they’re the biggest supporters. I don’t begrudge them that. But let’s be clear about what this bill is really for.

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

1010

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

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

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

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

Mr. Lorne Coe: Sure it does.

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

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

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

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

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Your uncle Ernie.

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

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

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

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

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

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos: I would like to formally recognize and welcome the Ontario Association of Paramedic Chiefs to Queen’s Park: Carrie Hassberger, chief of Rama First Nation paramedic service; Chief Troy Cheseboro of Durham region paramedic services; Mike Nolan, chief of Renfrew county emergency medical service; Keith Kirkpatrick, chief of Kawartha Lakes paramedic service; Wayne Gates, chief of Superior North paramedic service; Jean Carriere, chief of Cochrane DSSAB paramedic service; Ben Addley, chief of Oxford County Paramedic Services; Gordon McEachen, chief of Toronto Paramedic Services; Andrew Robert, chief of Simcoe county paramedic service; J.C. Gilbert, deputy chief of Simcoe county paramedic service; Tom Reid, chief of Dufferin County Paramedic Service; Kevin Smith, chief of Niagara region paramedic service; Don MacLellan, chief of Chatham-Kent paramedic service; and Andrew Tickner, chief of Kenora DSSAB paramedic service.

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

1040

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

Applause.

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

I’d like to welcome —

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

Laughter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oral Questions

Automotive industry

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

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

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

Hon. Todd Smith: Speaker, I can tell you that the Premier and my office have been working extremely hard to reach out to all of the auto parts sector in Ontario to ensure that we’re getting the lay of the land to understand exactly what the closure of the Oshawa facility is going to mean to the Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association and companies like Martinrea, Linamar and Magna. I was on the phone yesterday with the leadership at all of those companies, reaching out to them. Most of them have said there would be little to no impact as a result of the closure at Oshawa’s GM facilities, but I can tell you this is of deep concern. There were 77 jobs that were announced were going to be lost in Ajax today. They make suspension modules and engine cradles for the Cadillac version that was being produced in Oshawa, as well as the Impala which was coming off the lines in Oshawa.

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

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

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

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

Hon. Todd Smith: I can tell you that the Premier has been very much in the middle of the action, Mr. Speaker. He’s been talking to all five companies that manufacture automobiles in Ontario. That includes General Motors continuously; FCA, which operates in Windsor and in Brampton; Toyota, which of course we know is operating here; Honda as well; and Ford Motor Co., which all have a presence here. We have the largest supply chain in North America right here in Ontario. We’re very proud of that. We’re doing everything that we can, as the Ontario government, to ensure that we’re ripping through the red tape that has led to struggles for these companies. We’re dealing with the high cost of electricity. We’re dealing with the cap-and-trade—we’ve already dealt with the cap-and-trade, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Interjections.

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

Restart the clock. Final supplementary?

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

1050

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Next question.

Automotive industry

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Supplementary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Final supplementary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Imputing motive, Speaker.

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Next question.

Automotive industry

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

Interjections.

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

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

Interjections.

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

I’ll give you more time.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: All of them, eh?

1100

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

I don’t expect the other leader to—

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

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

Start the clock. Supplementary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Housing policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Automotive industry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope that the members of the NDP will—

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Supplementary.

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

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

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

Will the Premier meet with us?

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

1110

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

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

Agri-food industry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Services en français

M^me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre des Affaires francophones. Lors de ma visite à North Bay, les gens, francophones comme anglophones, étaient très clairs : ils veulent que leur député, le ministre des Finances, regarde les évidences. Premièrement, changer le Commissariat aux services en français ne sauvera pas d’argent et, deuxièmement, l’investissement de 4,2 millions de dollars vers l’Université de l’Ontario français va payer des gros dividendes, beaucoup plus gros que l’investissement. Ils veulent que leur ministre, leur député, appuie la motion dont nous allons débattre cet après-midi.

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

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

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

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

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

Aujourd’hui, la leader de l’opposition officielle déposera une motion demandant à votre gouvernement de rétablir les institutions essentielles pour la défense des services en français de la province. Madame la Ministre, vous et votre gouvernement avez la chance de faire la bonne chose envers les francophones en Ontario, les Ontariens et Ontariennes. Allez-vous appuyer cette motion?

L’hon. Caroline Mulroney: La communauté franco-ontarienne fait partie intégrante de l’histoire de notre province mais aussi de l’avenir de notre province. Notre gouvernement appuie tous les efforts nécessaires pour assurer l’accès aux services en français. Mon ministère travaille sur ce point tout le temps.

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

Automotive industry

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

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

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

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

1120

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public transit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Climate change

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

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

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

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

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

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

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

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

1130

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

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

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

Start the clock. Next question.

Fresh from the Farm

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

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

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

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

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

I’m very pleased to work with our Minister of Education on this initiative, and I commend her on her ministry’s effort to teach students about agriculture and the importance of local food in the classroom.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Paul Calandra: Thank you to the minister for that. I know he has been working very hard to engage numerous stakeholders and partners about this local initiative.

Mr. Speaker, not only does the Fresh from the Farm initiative teach students where their food comes from; it provides an insight into the agricultural industry in Ontario. Some of these students will be introduced for the first time to how local farmers impact their local community.

Many students experience confusion when it comes to determining a potential career path, and I am extremely pleased to see students are being introduced to an industry full of opportunities at such a young age.

I wonder if the minister could please tell us how students would benefit by learning about opportunities in agriculture.

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: To the Minister of Education.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: First of all, thank you so much to the member from Markham–Stouffville. I appreciate the question very much.

To the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs: Thank you for all you do. You’re an amazing champion out there and all throughout rural Ontario. We appreciate every effort you put forward.

The agri-food industry in this province is thriving and it’s stronger than ever. Some would argue it’s the number one sector in this province, Speaker. Do you know that for every graduate coming out of the diploma and degree program associated with the University of Guelph, there are four jobs waiting—for every graduate? Just a couple of weeks ago, I learned that, actually, some of these graduates are getting job offers as early as December, before they even graduate. This is great news.

The fact of the matter is, the value chain associated with Ontario’s agri-food system is ripe and fraught with opportunity—

Interjection: Ripe.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Ripe. Yes, ripe with opportunity. Over and above that, the Fresh from the Farm initiative is a win-win-win. It’s a great fundraising model for the schools, it stimulates local economies—

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

Next question.

Education funding

Ms. Marit Stiles: My question is for the Minister of Education. Speaker, every year the government consults education partners, including school boards, on their needs in order to inform the annual Grants for Student Needs, which is really how most of our education system is, in fact, funded.

But at just five pages long, this year’s education funding guide is a chilling read. It is essentially a consultation on what to cut. Teachers, education workers, school administrators and parents are already struggling to make up funding that has been lost during the government’s so-called pause. Now they’re being asked to help choose which cuts are next.

Instead of asking how to make education better, fix our schools and help our kids thrive, why is this government building a blueprint for deep cuts to our publicly funded education system?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: First of all, again, I welcome the opportunity to remind everybody in this House and the folks watching on TV, the first thing we’re addressing and cutting immediately is the nonsense and the fearmongering coming from the members of the opposition party. That is our number one priority.

The other reality check is that this province has a $15-billion debt—

Interjections: Deficit.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: —deficit, pardon me, and the debt is that much bigger: $348 billion.

But that said, we all have to do our part. You know what? What’s wrong with inviting our stakeholders to have a thoughtful conversation about what’s working and what’s not? That’s the most important part here. We want to take a look at first-hand experience in terms of where we need to be going and what our priorities are. And Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear: Our number one priority is that classroom—

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education wants to accuse us of fearmongering? People are very afraid, and let me explain to you why. The government’s education funding guide calls for an across-the-board cut of 4%. What does that equal? It’s a whopping $1 billion from Ontario’s education system, Minister. I just want to give you a sense of what that looks like. Some 4% of a school board budget—that’s like cutting the entire transportation budget out of the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. That’s like slashing half of the Toronto District School Board budget for special education assistants. In the Rainbow District School Board, that’s enough to cut all the computer technicians, library technicians, library teachers and guidance.

Mr. Speaker, no one voted for massive cuts to their local schools. No one asked for this government to gut our publicly funded education system. Will the minister tell us how far this government intends to go in its quest for cuts?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Oh, Speaker, the drama that’s coming from the member for Davenport is staggering. I can tell you that we have a Premier and an entire caucus that is standing shoulder to shoulder with our front-line teachers and our administrators, and with our students. We are embarking on—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, take down the sign.

Minister, complete your response.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. We are embarking on an amazing opportunity to turn the spotlight on the best learning environment ever. And do you know what? We want to hear from everyone. We would like, again, to use this opportunity to encourage people to participate in our consultation. We have had tremendous response. The data and the input is amazing. You know what? If you haven’t yet had an opportunity to do so, please participate in the consultation: fortheparents.ca.

Financial literacy

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: My question is for the Minister of Education. Minister, Financial Literacy Month is almost over, but that doesn’t mean students—or the NDP—should stop learning about the importance of building and maintaining healthy financial habits. I’m pleased to see that this government for the people is engaged in educating our students on this topic, and ensuring that current and future generations of students are financially literate and are aware of common financial mistakes will benefit Ontario. Prioritizing financial literacy means more young people will make better financial decisions, which will benefit these individuals in the short and long terms.

Through you, Mr. Speaker: Minister, what can you tell us about what the government is doing to ensure Ontario’s youth understand basic financial literacy?

1140

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Thank you to the member from Carleton. She’s doing a great job representing her riding, and she has offered a very thoughtful, good question today.

Speaker, I would like to share with everyone in the House that earlier this week, the Minister of Finance and I met with the Jr. Economic Club of Canada. What an amazing evening we had with them. It was a valuable opportunity to hear first-hand from young people. We couldn’t help but note the effectiveness and the thoughtfulness of these kids. We shouldn’t even call them “kids,” because they could be sitting around any boardroom table today, sharing their eloquence and their commitment to education; they were that impressive.

The fact of the matter is, people want to learn about financial literacy. Do you know what we heard loud and clear, Speaker? We heard from this organization that financial literacy is connected to overall wellness. We need to make sure that financial literacy is embedded in every piece of curriculum that we have available to—

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

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister: Thank you for that excellent answer, which emphasizes the importance of our youth in moving forward in this province.

I know that parents in my riding of Carleton are pleased to know that our government for the people cares about ensuring a strong foundation in areas such as consumer awareness, personal finance, taxes, budgeting and money management.

Mr. Speaker, I know that our Minister of Education welcomes feedback from Ontarians regarding financial literacy. Minister, where can my constituents go to have their voices heard on this critical subject?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Thank you to the member from Carleton.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t look up into the public galleries and see that they’re full of students today. I look at them and I say, “We’re going to get it right for you.” We are. Our government was elected to stop wasteful spending and bring down the last administration’s massive bills so that our students have the confidence in the future they deserve.

I feel so proud every time I get to stand up in this House to speak about what our government is doing to make every effort to make sure everyone’s voice is heard when it comes to the education system.

Do you know what? The last administration was going to plop financial literacy into half a semester in terms of careers. They were just going to pop it into the careers curriculum. That is not what students deserve today. We need a fulsome curriculum that brings financial literacy—

Interjections.

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

Skills training

Mr. Faisal Hassan: My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. This month, I met with Aidan, Michael and Karen from the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance. In our meeting, we discussed how to better prepare young people for the workforce. These student leaders highlighted the importance of applied learning opportunities to help students gain real-world skills and ease the transition into the workforce—opportunities like co-ops, internships, undergraduate research projects and community-based learning.

I have tabled a motion that will create 27,000 new paid work opportunities for students. I ask: Will the minister support my motion to invest in 27,000 additional applied learning opportunities for students?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Our government was elected with a strong mandate to create good jobs in Ontario. As Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, my focus will be on making sure that the people of Ontario are prepared for those jobs. We want everyone in Ontario to have an opportunity to succeed and prosper, and post-secondary education is critical to that and to the future of Ontario.

As we grow the economy, we need Ontarians who are skilled in sectors across the economy. As minister, I will support programs and efforts that help students get the skills they need to find the employment of today and the future and to help fill the skills gap.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Faisal Hassan: Back to the minister: More and more students graduating university are struggling to find meaningful work in their field of study. Additionally, employers are looking to hire young people for entry-level positions with relevant job experience to better prepare students for the workforce. Government needs to play a part in the solution. Applied learning opportunities bridge the gap between post-secondary studies and real work experience.

Mr. Speaker, I ask again: Will the minister assure students of Ontario that this government will support my motion to provide them with the skills to succeed as they transition into the workforce?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: A post-secondary education is absolutely critical to the future of Ontario and our economy. We want to have an education system with high quality and which helps individuals prepare for the jobs of today and tomorrow.

We know from employers that Ontario has a skills gap, and we need to take steps to deliver high-quality education to Ontarians so that job seekers can find employment and businesses can grow the economy. That is why our government will support education and employment programs that benefit students and job seekers that are efficient and cost-effective.

Accessibility for persons with disabilities

Mr. Michael Parsa: My question is to one of my favourite ministers: the Minister for Seniors and Accessibility. I understand that this week the Rick Hansen Foundation hosted a forum on accessibility here in the city of Toronto. Improving accessibility for Ontarians with disabilities is an important initiative that this government is committed to.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister inform the House about the purpose of the forum and what this government is doing to improve accessibility for Ontarians with disabilities?

Hon. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, I’d like to thank the honourable member, who is a strong advocate for accessibility, for raising this excellent question.

Everyone in Ontario deserves to fully participate in everyday life. Yesterday, I was honoured to deliver a welcoming speech to the Rick Hansen Foundation’s 2018 Accessibility Leadership Forum. In attendance were national leaders from the disability community who are working to tear down barriers to accessibility across Canada.

By working with partners like Rick Hansen and the leaders that attended this accessibility forum, Ontario will continue to lead the way in Canada.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Parsa: That’s why he’s one of my favourite ministers.

Interjection: Everybody loves Raymond.

Mr. Michael Parsa: Everybody loves Raymond, indeed.

Thank you, Minister, for that response. I’m pleased to learn of the success of this forum and to hear that the minister is actively working with stakeholders on accessibility issues in our province. Our minister is willing to work with both stakeholders and every member of this House to facilitate the progress of accessibility in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us what the government is doing to improve accessibility for Ontarians with disabilities?

Hon. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: This government was very pleased to recently put the employment and information and communications standards development committees back to work. We are excited to receive the AODA’s third legislative review, which is currently being prepared by the Honourable David Onley.

Stakeholders have been loud and clear that Bill 47 will make Ontario open for business again for tens of thousands of Ontarians with disabilities—

Interjections.

Hon. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: Through simplifying the—

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

That concludes question period for today.

I understand the member for Ottawa South has a point of order.

Mr. John Fraser: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Je sollicite l’appui unanime de la Chambre pour permettre aux députés indépendants de participer pour 10 minutes cet après-midi pour le débat sur la résolution de l’opposition numéro 5.

I am seeking unanimous consent from the assembly to allow independent members to speak for 10 minutes during the debate on opposition motion number 5.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Mr. Fraser is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to allow an independent member to speak for 10 minutes during the debate on opposition motion number 5. Agreed? I heard some noes.

Notice of dissatisfaction

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Pursuant to standing order 38(a), the member for Guelph has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Acting Premier concerning the development of an electric auto strategy. This matter will be debated today at 6 p.m.

Deferred Votes

Time allocation

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We have a deferred vote on the amendment to government notice of motion number 20 relating to allocation of time on Bill 57, An Act to enact, amend and repeal various statutes.

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

The division bells rang from 1152 to 1157.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): It’s time for the members to please take their seats.

On November 27, 2018, Ms. Thompson moved an amendment to the government notice of motion number 20, relating to the allocation of time on Bill 57.

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

Ayes

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
Fee, Amy
Fullerton, Merrilee
Ghamari, Goldie
Hardeman, Ernie
Harris, Mike
Hillier, Randy

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
Miller, Norman
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
Sandhu, Amarjot
Sarkaria, Prabmeet Singh
Scott, Laurie
Skelly, Donna
Smith, Dave
Smith, Todd
Surma, Kinga
Tangri, Nina
Thanigasalam, Vijay
Thompson, Lisa M.
Triantafilopoulos, Effie J.
Wai, Daisy
Walker, Bill
Yakabuski, John
Yurek, Jeff

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

Nays

Andrew, Jill
Armstrong, Teresa J.
Arthur, Ian
Begum, Doly
Berns-McGown, Rima
Bisson, Gilles
Bourgouin, Guy
Burch, Jeff
Des Rosiers, Nathalie
Fife, Catherine
Fraser, John
French, Jennifer K.
Gates, Wayne
Gélinas, France
Glover, Chris

Gravelle, Michael
Gretzky, Lisa
Harden, Joel
Hassan, Faisal
Hatfield, Percy
Hunter, Mitzie
Karpoche, Bhutila
Kernaghan, Terence
Lalonde, Marie-France
Lindo, Laura Mae
Mamakwa, Sol
Mantha, Michael
Miller, Paul
Monteith-Farrell, Judith
Morrison, Suze

Natyshak, Taras
Rakocevic, Tom
Sattler, Peggy
Schreiner, Mike
Shaw, Sandy
Singh, Gurratan
Singh, Sara
Stiles, Marit
Tabuns, Peter
Taylor, Monique
Vanthof, John
West, Jamie
Wynne, Kathleen O.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 63; the nays are 43.

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

We will now vote on the main motion, as amended.

Mr. Yakabuski has moved government notice of motion number 20 relating to allocation of time on Bill 57, An Act to enact, amend and repeal various statutes. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

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.

Hon. John Yakabuski: Same vote.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Same vote? No, I heard a no.

Call in the members: five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1202 to 1203.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Once again, Mr. Yakabuski has moved government notice of motion number 20 relating to allocation of time on Bill 57.

All those in favour of the motion, as amended, will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

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
Fee, Amy
Fullerton, Merrilee
Ghamari, Goldie
Hardeman, Ernie
Harris, Mike
Hillier, Randy

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
Miller, Norman
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
Sandhu, Amarjot
Sarkaria, Prabmeet Singh
Scott, Laurie
Skelly, Donna
Smith, Dave
Smith, Todd
Surma, Kinga
Tangri, Nina
Thanigasalam, Vijay
Thompson, Lisa M.
Triantafilopoulos, Effie J.
Wai, Daisy
Walker, Bill
Yakabuski, John
Yurek, Jeff

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

Nays

Andrew, Jill
Armstrong, Teresa J.
Arthur, Ian
Begum, Doly
Berns-McGown, Rima
Bisson, Gilles
Bourgouin, Guy
Burch, Jeff
Des Rosiers, Nathalie
Fife, Catherine
Fraser, John
French, Jennifer K.
Gates, Wayne
Gélinas, France
Glover, Chris

Gravelle, Michael
Gretzky, Lisa
Harden, Joel
Hassan, Faisal
Hatfield, Percy
Hunter, Mitzie
Karpoche, Bhutila
Kernaghan, Terence
Lalonde, Marie-France
Lindo, Laura Mae
Mamakwa, Sol
Mantha, Michael
Miller, Paul
Monteith-Farrell, Judith
Morrison, Suze

Natyshak, Taras
Rakocevic, Tom
Sattler, Peggy
Schreiner, Mike
Shaw, Sandy
Singh, Gurratan
Singh, Sara
Stiles, Marit
Tabuns, Peter
Taylor, Monique
Vanthof, John
West, Jamie
Wynne, Kathleen O.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 63; the nays are 43.

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

Motion agreed to.

Correction of record

Hon. Todd Smith: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I recognize the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade on a point of order.

Hon. Todd Smith: Earlier during question period I had indicated that Bill 57 had passed in the Legislature; clearly, with the vote that has just taken place, I was wrong about that. I meant to say “Bill 47.”

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): It is within members’ rights to correct their own record by way of a point of order.

This House stands in recess until 1 p.m.

The House recessed from 1206 to 1300.

Introduction of Visitors

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It’s my pleasure to welcome members of the Interfaith Social Assistance Reform Coalition: Rev. Dr. Susan Eagle, who is the chair of ISARC; Rev. Alexander Wilson, who is an executive member; Elin Goulden, executive member; Jack Panozzo, executive member; Roger Lawler, who is also an executive member; and probably the glue that keeps it all together, Natasha Fransblow, who is an administrator. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I’d like to reintroduce the wonderful members from the OSSTF from the city of London who are here today. I’d like to thank them for coming to Queen’s Park: Steve Janik, Lisa MacMaster, Raya Barry, Patti Dalton and Larry Farquharson. Welcome to the Legislature, and thank you for being here today.

Ms. Doly Begum: I’d like to introduce my friend and pastor, Alex Wilson, to the House.

Members’ Statements

Secord Elementary School

Ms. Rima Berns-McGown: I’m thrilled to share a beautiful story from my riding of Beaches–East York, the story of a pickup football team at Secord Elementary School that wasn’t supposed to win and did.

Secord is one of 150 schools in the Toronto District School Board that faced the most challenges—a “model school,” they call it, meaning that many of its students live in poverty.

Jason Kuuter, a phys ed teacher at Secord, decided to start morning touch football games as a way to energize students for class. There were no tryouts. There ended up being 11 grade five students interested: four girls and seven boys. They started playing just 10 minutes a day in the few minutes of schoolyard supervision time before the morning bell rings.

On the last Monday in October, the school played in a city-wide touch football tournament. They played teams that were better funded, that had sports gloves and personalized jerseys. At half time, they were down 20 to 8 against an all-boys team from the west end of the city.

As Caroline Alphonso later wrote in the Globe and Mail, they “staged a fierce rally in the second half—forcing overtime” and eventually winning the game and the championship. It is the first time in Secord’s 103-year history that they have ever won a sports championship.

Kudos to the students, their coaches, principal and the school, whose heart-filling victory has caused a ripple effect of pride in our community. A lesson in perseverance—there is absolutely nothing these kids can’t do, and we should all be so proud of them.

King Street transit pilot

Mr. Roman Baber: Implemented over a year ago, the King Street pilot project has been suffocating downtown Toronto traffic, killing King Street businesses and making of one of Toronto’s most magnificent streets into a ghost town.

Traffic on adjacent streets, namely, Adelaide, Richmond and Wellington, has become unbearable. The streetcar does not reduce traffic; it clogs up roads, creating congestion and causing pollution.

King Street is known for its wonderful dining, but since the project started, 11 restaurants have shut down and police are busy enforcing rules no one understands.

And what does this ideological exercise achieve? According to a city staff report, a decrease of four minutes out a 21-minute commute and a meagre 10% increase in ridership—barely above the increase in population, and they have the audacity to be proud of that.

Moreover, when they realized that they were killing King Street businesses, city council passed measures to subsidize those businesses, with free parking at taxpayer expense. This classic modern liberal thinking of killing jobs, suffocating businesses with regulation and then subsidizing them back to living makes no sense.

Enough is enough, Mr. Speaker. City council will be voting on the pilot shortly. I urge city council—all 25 of them—to exercise common sense and end this streetcar monstrosity. If they’re not going to end it, then find a compromise: Open one of two lanes, or open King Street to traffic outside of rush hour for 20 hours a day, when the streetcars are half-empty, to save these restaurants, to relieve traffic, to restore some common sense to beautiful downtown Toronto.

Scarborough Health Network

Ms. Doly Begum: Last week saw the long-awaited launch of the Scarborough Health Network. This is the new name of Scarborough’s only acute-care hospital, created from the merger of the Birchmount and General sites of the Scarborough hospital and the Centenary site of the Rouge Valley Health System back in 2016. It now becomes Ontario’s third-largest community hospital, employing over 5,000 people.

Yet, it’s one of the most underfunded hospitals in the province. This hospital is in dire need of upgrade. The operating rooms at the General site are some of the oldest still in use in Ontario, having first been opened in 1956. That’s more than 60 years, Speaker.

In 2015, an expert panel recommended a range of essential capital projects, but we heard crickets from the Liberals about funding these projects until—you guessed it—earlier this year, right before the election.

When I attended the launch last week of the new Scarborough Health Network branding, what I had hoped to hear from this government was that help was on the way, but what we heard instead was all too familiar to Scarborough residents, the same messaging—lots of platitudes, but no firm commitments to funding the urgently needed new operating rooms or emergency departments.

Speaker, for decades successive Liberal and Conservative governments have neglected health care in Scarborough. It’s time to make investing in Scarborough health care a priority so that the new Scarborough Health Network can be more than just a rebranding exercise.

Municipal elections

Mr. David Piccini: It gives me great pleasure to rise today to pay special tribute and to thank everyone—with the recent municipal elections, we saw a number of great people in my community put their names forward. I wanted to thank them all for their commitment to public service and to make special acknowledgment of a number of outgoing mayors who, through their tireless service, have served our community with dignity and brought us forward to the great place we are today in Northumberland–Peterborough South.

A special thank you to Mayor Mark Walas, outgoing mayor of the municipality of Brighton; Mayor Marc Coombs, outgoing mayor or the township of Cramahe; Terry Low from the township of Asphodel-Norwood; Gil Brocanier from the town of Cobourg; Reeve Dave Nelson from Otonabee-South Monaghan township; and, finally, Mayor Mark Lovshin from Hamilton township, who is also our outgoing county warden.

Thank you all for your tireless service to our community. Thank you for your commitment to public service, for bettering our community of Northumberland–Peterborough South. You’ll be missed.

Public transit

Ms. Jessica Bell: The recent fall economic statement saw $1.4 billion cut from Ontario’s transit infrastructure, yet this government refuses to come clean about its plan for Ontario’s transit systems.

Here’s what we don’t know: We don’t know what projects this government is cutting. Is the Hurontario LRT going to be built? Is Toronto getting its relief line? What about London’s BRT? Does this government have a firm commitment for two-way, all-day GO Transit to Waterloo region? Is the Bowmanville expansion still on track? Will Kingston get the ferries that were promised?

My colleagues and I have repeatedly asked about these projects, but this government has refused to even provide us with a simple yes or no, so we are left guessing and wondering which projects are included in this government’s cuts.

What we do know, what takes no guessing at all, is that this government is steamrolling ahead with its disastrous plan to break up the TTC. In Toronto, we need transit relief. We need more, integrated and reliable service. We don’t need to further disjoint, sever or privatize our system, because that will make our commutes longer and more expensive.

Transit experts and advocates are already mobilizing to stop this government’s attack on transit. I want to thank and acknowledge them for their hard work. I’m also proud to say that I’ll be joining them tomorrow morning at Queen’s Park subway station as they continue their work to educate and engage Toronto’s 1.8 million commuters on the devastating impact this upload will have on their daily lives and on Toronto’s economy.

Water supply

Mr. Mike Schreiner: It’s an honour to rise today and thank the many water protectors in the city of Guelph, and, if you’ll permit me, Mr. Speaker, as neighbours, to thank the many water protectors in Wellington–Halton Hills. I’d like to thank Wellington Water Watchers; the many Indigenous water keepers who do water walks in our area; Save Our Water; GET Concerned; and Protect our Moraine for the amazing work that you do for our community.

1310

Water is our most precious resource, and I believe government has a sacred responsibility to protect it as a public trust managed in the public interest. I want to extend my thanks to the city of Guelph: to our mayor, city council and city staff. Guelph has done something remarkable. Our water consumption is actually going down, while our population growth is going up. This not only saves water; it saves our community money in not having to build more water infrastructure.

Guelph, indeed, is the largest city in Canada that solely relies on groundwater for its drinking water. But we need to do more to protect our water. We’re under drought restrictions almost every summer in Guelph. Next week, I’ll be introducing a private member’s bill, the Paris Galt Moraine Protection Act. I really appreciate and I want to thank many of the members in this assembly who have given me feedback on that act designed to protect our region’s water. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the members.

Stephanie Klein

Mr. Vincent Ke: I rise today with great news for my riding of Don Valley North. Earlier this month, Dr. Stephanie Klein of North York General Hospital was named the 2018 recipient of the Ontario College of Family Physicians Family Medicine Resident of the Year Award. This award recognizes outstanding clinical, research, leadership and teaching skills in a family medicine resident.

A graduate of the University of Toronto’s medical school, Dr. Klein recently completed her family medicine residency at North York General. As co-chief resident, she designed and implemented a wellness curriculum for family medicine residents at North York General. She has presented nationally and won multiple awards for her work.

I had the pleasure of meeting with Dr. Klein last Friday at my constituency office in Don Valley North. She is an amazing example for all of us. I thank Dr. Klein for her service. Don Valley North is lucky to have such a dedicated community member.

Automobile insurance

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: On November 13, over 150 residents from Humber River–Black Creek and York South–Weston packed a town hall meeting in my home community to express their outrage at a system of auto insurance that penalizes them simply for where they live. The NDP have held similar town halls in Brampton and Scarborough, and the feelings of the crowd were always the same: People with clean driving records are paying sky-high auto insurance rates based on their postal code.

My community does not have the highest accident rates within the GTA, but yet we pay some of the highest rates in the country. This has to stop. At my town hall, the crowd learned about an NDP private member’s bill that would treat the GTA as a single postal code, and they were overjoyed. But that satisfaction turned to anger when they learned that the government voted it down.

In fact, it is the second time in many years the PCs have voted down measures to stop auto insurance gouging based on postal code. Why? Because they take direction from corporations such as the auto insurance industry, and not the people, the workers, the voters. Rather than address the problem of postal code discrimination, the PCs offer measures with a loophole so large you could drive a truck through it. But don’t take my word for it. Ask the many lawyers who have written a letter denouncing the PCs’ handling of auto insurance reform.

When will this government evolve past slogans and actually put communities and not corporate interests first? I am proud to be on the team that will keep fighting for a fairer system of auto insurance. My community, and all communities, deserve better.

Saint Luke’s Place

Mrs. Amy Fee: I’m rising this afternoon because I want to tell you a little bit about how our government for the people is working to end hallway health care in my riding of Kitchener South–Hespeler. At Saint Luke’s Place, which is located in Hespeler, we are adding 18 new transitional beds. The CEO, Staci Bartlett, excitedly informed me that their first three new residents moved in last week, and they’re hoping to move in five new residents a week until they hit 18.

Ms. Bartlett and the team at Saint Luke’s Place have always considered it to be, in her words, “incredibly important” for them to be a good community partner. She said she was looking for ways that they could help alleviate the pressures on the system as we enter flu season, otherwise known in our local hospitals as “surge season.”

When she came along the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care plan for short-term transitional care model funding to open up these new beds, she wanted to be part of our pilot program. This new unit is specifically designed for patients for whom the hospital is no longer the appropriate place for care, and is intended to prepare patients for their next destination, which will likely be long-term care.

The staffing ratio for the beds is higher than that in the hospital and in long-term care. These are community beds located within Saint Luke’s Place, so there are no fees for the families, as well. They will have recreational activities and they have their meals in a dining room to give them that preparation for being in a long-term-care setting.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the time today to highlight what we are doing to help end hallway health care.

Research and innovation

Mr. Deepak Anand: The riding of Streetsville is home to “Pill Hill,” one of the top life sciences clusters in Canada. On Friday, November 23, my fellow MPPs and I had the opportunity to learn more about the innovation and services this industry provides.

The life sciences industry is an economic powerhouse in the riding of Mississauga–Streetsville. There are over 400 companies that provide 15,000 well-paying jobs to the people of the GTA. These companies have invested hundreds of millions of dollars into our local economy, billions of dollars into the provincial economy, and the innovation, production, research and development that these companies provide is priceless.

We were pleased to meet with these three companies in particular: GlaxoSmithKline, Novo Nordisk and Roche Canada. Each of these companies has been making investments in our economy, spending hundreds of millions of dollars on new manufacturing facilities, R&D training and education. Additionally, they have contributed millions of dollars in taxes.

We are excited to continue to work with those companies as they continue to expand in our riding and across Ontario. Our province is open for business and will continue to work to provide the environment these businesses need to succeed and make life better for all Ontarians. I’d like to congratulate and welcome Mr. Ryan Lock from GSK, Veronica Carson from Novo Nordisk, and Lorraine Hudson from Roche Canada. Thank you so much for coming to Queen’s Park.

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills

Mr. Randy Hillier: I beg leave to present a report from the Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills and move its adoption.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Tonia Grannum): Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr3, An Act to revive Brownwood Holdings Limited.

Bill Pr4, An Act to revive 850148 Ontario Inc.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed? Agreed.

Report adopted.

Introduction of Bills

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

Mrs. Gretzky moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 64, An Act to amend the Services and Supports to Promote the Social Inclusion of Persons with Developmental Disabilities Act, 2008 respecting transition to adult developmental services and supports / Projet de loi 64, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2008 sur les services et soutiens favorisant l’inclusion sociale des personnes ayant une déficience intellectuelle en ce qui concerne la transition vers des services et soutiens à l’intention des adultes ayant une telle déficience.

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): I would invite the member for Windsor West to explain her bill, briefly.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: The short name for the bill is Noah and Gregory’s Law (Transition to Adult Developmental Services and Supports), 2018. It is named after two gentlemen in my riding who have developmental disabilities.

The bill amends the Services and Supports to Promote the Social Inclusion of Persons with Developmental Disabilities Act, 2008.

The act is amended to include a definition of children’s developmental services and to require the minister to take certain steps to assist persons receiving a children’s developmental service to transition to services and supports provided under the act. The eligibility for services and supports under the act is amended to include persons receiving a children’s developmental service before turning 18. The act is also amended to require an application entity to provide services on a temporary basis to a person who turns 18 and was receiving children’s developmental services before that day, if the application entity has not yet made a decision on the person’s application for services and supports or has found the person eligible but not begun providing services and supports to the person.

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

Motions

Committee membership

Mr. Stephen Lecce: I move that, on the Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills, Mr. Coe and Mr. Calandra replace Mr. Barrett and Mr. Harris; and that, on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, Mr. Barrett replaces Mrs. Wai; and that, on the Standing Committee on General Government, Mrs. Wai replaces Mr. Coe.

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

Motion agreed to.

Committee sittings

Mr. Stephen Lecce: I move that the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs be authorized to meet for up to 14 days during the winter adjournment.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Discussion? The member for Kiiwetinoong.

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Meegwetch.

Remarks in Oji-Cree.

I’m a member of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs. Last week, we had our meeting to determine the schedule and the community locations to visit when the House is not sitting.

Over the past few months, it has been a learning experience for me as a First Nations person who comes from a remote fly-in community. One of the things I have seen over the years doing the work that I do on the First Nations side is the government systems and the policies, committees, programs that are in place—I understand they are colonial systems. The systems that are here in this Legislature, in the government, work against Indigenous peoples in the province of Ontario.

In our inaugural meeting for this committee back in August, when I spoke about becoming a member of this committee, individual members from the opposition came to me and said, “We want to travel to your riding to have hearings in your riding.” I was very encouraged to have members—not just members, but fellow MPPs—to come visit my riding to see what my communities are all about, especially in the fly-in communities, and to start looking at the challenges, the barriers and the successes of the people in the northern riding.

Last week, when they put a motion forward on the sites, the communities that they presented did not list any of the communities in my riding. Not only that, it didn’t list any communities that were fly-in. So I put a motion forward to add one of the communities in my riding, Pikangikum. Pikangikum has 3,000 to 3,500 people in the community. There are a lot of positive things in the community, but also challenges. One of them is access to clean water and access to housing. I wanted to be able to get my fellow colleagues within the committee to start seeing what the people in Pikangikum face on a daily basis.

When I put that forward, some of the members opposite came to me and said, “We don’t have time to fly into the community, but we’re willing to pay our own flight to go in there and do a visit.” What is that? It’s not very respectful to do that. When we actually started to vote on that motion where it includes Pikangikum, the members opposite on the committee voted no. The government voted no to visiting my riding, especially a remote fly-in community.

The reason for me to try and bring the committee there is to understand the cost of living that our people have to face, the programs that are in place, the services that are in place—again, these are colonial systems—and how it impacts people.

One thing that’s very clear is that the people who sit in this chamber on a daily basis do not understand the cost of doing business, the cost of providing services to the community. I will call it the remoteness quotient or the remoteness coefficient. An example: When you provide to a fly-in community, let’s say, $200,000 of funding, it’s only worth maybe $75,000, just because of the cost of doing business—the flights. It’s getting to and from the communities.

When I put my motion forward to add Pikangikum to the visit, to do the pre-budget consultations, the members opposite, the government, basically said no. I was very disappointed in my colleagues who had come to me back in August and said, “I want to come to your community.” I didn’t appreciate that. We’re part of Ontario; we’re part of Canada. Why can’t this committee even visit Pikangikum? I was very discouraged. I was disappointed in my colleagues who had come to me regarding that. It was actually very disgusting when I heard that. I guess that’s how government works. When we talk about reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, with First Nations peoples, it’s not there, and it has become very clear to me how this will work.

1330

Again, I want to talk about Pikangikum. The people of Pikangikum and Kiiwetinoong riding are very kind and respectful people. I would have been very honoured to have a provincial committee hearing within my riding. The community of Pikangikum is often in the news because of very negative issues, but I don’t want to go into that, what happened to the community. I think it would have been a very good visit, where my fellow MPPs would have seen first-hand how Pikangikum has been pursuing its Whitefeather Forest initiative since 1996. This initiative is a land-based community economic development renewal and resource stewardship initiative. It would have been very intriguing and very helpful for the committee to hear how they developed this partnership over the years with the province. Not only that, they manage about 12,200 square kilometres of crown land in the Pikangikum customary land use area that they have.

Pikangikum is a community that’s only accessible by plane. It’s only located 100 kilometres from Red Lake; therefore, when I say 100 kilometres, it’s a quick flight compared to, say, 300 or 400 kilometres.

I just want to reiterate that Pikangikum would have served the committee hearings well. It would have enabled my fellow committee members to experience the realities of our communities—the Far North, fly-in communities such as Pikangikum. It’s something that I always try to repeat myself to my colleagues: that it would be an experience for you to come up to the riding, just to see the goings-on, what’s happening in the riding.

Unfortunately, my request to have the committee hold hearings in the Pikangikum community was overruled. Basically, I was told, no. So while the committee hearings will take place all over the province, there’s not a single fly-in, Far North First Nations community that has been invited to participate.

I had an opportunity to meet with Ontario’s Chief Electoral Officer to discuss some lessons learned and impediments for me to campaign effectively, especially in a large riding such as Kiiwetinoong. One of the questions that he asked me was, “Now that you have been elected as a provincial representative, have you noticed any change in how First Nations in your territory view the provincial government?” I had to think about that, and my answer was yes. It’s the first time ever for the people of Kiiwetinoong, including many First Nations fly-in communities, watching the provincial government in a way they never did before. Now that the people in Kiiwetinoong have a voice in Queen’s Park, they are starting to feel as though they have a stake in what happens. That’s the same thing as a committee that’s visiting the riding itself.

Basically, what I’m trying to message to MPPs is this: The people of Kiiwetinoong are watching. They are waiting. They are anticipating that Ontario will support the change that is required in the territories that we live in.

I’d also like to remind you that they are looking for leadership. They are looking for support. And they are looking for an opportunity to welcome the Premier, his ministers and his MPPs into the territories so they can speak directly to Ontario’s elected officials. Maybe, for the first time, they are feeling that Ontario is creating a space for them. Part of creating this space means knowing who they are and who we are; where they live and where we live; the conditions that they are expected to live with and the expectations that I’m expected to live under.

Also, those visits would give them an opportunity to voice their opinions, concerns and the vision on matters like Bill 47. After all, isn’t this what true democracy is—giving a voice to the people? We are people, too, in the north.

As MPPs, government leaders of this province, let’s ensure that in all future meetings such as this, the people of the Far North are considered as part of the public hearing processes and that we are invited to attend. Meegwetch.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Any further debate?

Mr. Lecce has moved that the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs be authorized to meet for up to 14 days during the winter adjournment. 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.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: On division.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): On division, the motion is carried.

Motion agreed to.

Petitions

Affordable housing

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I would like to thank Carol Cott for bringing this petition forward on affordable housing.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas for families throughout much of Ontario, owning a home they can afford remains a dream, while renting is painfully expensive;

“Whereas consecutive Conservative and Liberal governments have sat idle, while housing costs spiralled out of control, speculators made fortunes, and too many families had to put their hopes on hold;

“Whereas every Ontarian should have access to safe, affordable housing. Whether a family wants to rent or own, live in a house, an apartment, a condominium or a co-op, they should have affordable options;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately prioritize the repair of Ontario’s social housing stock, commit to building new affordable homes, crack down on housing speculators, and make rentals more affordable through rent controls and updated legislation.”

I fully support this petition, sign it and give it to page Emily to deliver to the table.

1340

Services en français

M^me Nathalie Des Rosiers: C’est la seule fois que je vais parler cet après-midi. J’en suis bien désolée.

La pétition s’intitule « Rétablissez nos acquis ! ».

« L’énoncé économique présenté par le gouvernement provincial de Doug Ford le 15 novembre 2018 a aboli le Commissariat aux services en français et l’Université de l’Ontario français. Deux acquis et piliers de la communauté franco-ontarienne disparaissent et cette dernière prend un grand recul dans son destin et son développement.

« Attendu que la présence francophone en Ontario remonte à plus de 400 ans;

« Attendu que le gouvernement de l’Ontario a présenté des excuses officielles en 2016 pour les torts causés à la communauté franco-ontarienne lors de la crise du règlement 17 (1912-1927);

« Attendu que la fondation d’une université de langue française en Ontario est réclamée par la communauté franco-ontarienne depuis des décennies;

« Attendu que la recommandation principale des États généraux communautaires sur le postsecondaire en Ontario français de 2013 était la fondation d’une université de langue française en Ontario;

« Attendu que les Franco-Ontarien(ne)s sont en droit d’étudier dans leur langue dans des institutions qui les rassemblent et leur ressemblent et que la création de l’Université de l’Ontario français se veut le parachèvement de ce droit;

« Attendu que la communauté franco-ontarienne est en droit de se doter d’outils collectifs afin d’assurer sa pérennité et son développement;

« Attendu que la Loi sur les services en français, adoptée à l’unanimité par l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario en 1986, jouit d’un statut quasi-constitutionnel;

« Attendu que le Commissariat aux services en français » s’acquittait de son mandat avec rigueur et professionnalisme depuis sa fondation en 2007;

« Attendu que le commissaire aux services en français est un officier indépendant de l’Assemblée législative depuis le 1^er janvier 2014;

« Attendu que l’indépendance du commissaire, doté d’un pouvoir d’enquête, permettait d’assurer une supervision de l’application de la loi ... et offrait un recours aux Franco-Ontarien(ne)s lorsque cette loi était bafouée par les instances gouvernementales et les organismes désignés;

« Les signataires de cette pétition »—c’est une pétition en ligne; il y a 60,000 personnes—« réclament que le Commissariat aux services en français de l’Ontario et l’Université de l’Ontario français soient rétablis sur-le-champ. »

Je soutiens cette pétition. Je vais la signer et la donner à Kejsi.

Public transit

Mrs. Gila Martow: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas students living in York region attending York University’s Keele campus will be affected by the two-fared system from York Region Transit (YRT) and the TTC; and

“Whereas students will pay $3.75 with a Presto card or $4 cash for a ride on the YRT and have to transfer to the subway contracted under the TTC at Pioneer Village station and pay an additional $3 with a Presto card or $3.25 cash fare; and

“Whereas many students would have to walk more than 20 minutes to get to some of their classes to avoid paying additional fares;

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

“To remove the two-fared system and allow students who ride the YRT to transfer to the TTC without paying an additional fare, regardless of ... whether or not they use a Presto card.”

Of course, I’m affixing my signature and giving it to page Lillian.

French-language services

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: I have a petition here: “Restore Franco-Ontarian acquired rights!”

“The economic statement presented by Doug Ford’s provincial government on November 15, 2018, abolished the Office of the French Language Services Commissioner and the Université de l’Ontario français. Two achievements and pillars of the Franco-Ontarian community are disappearing, a huge setback in that community’s future and development.

“Whereas the francophone presence in Ontario goes back more than 400 years;

“Whereas the government of Ontario has formally apologized in 2016 for the harm done to the Franco-Ontarian community during the regulation 17 (1912-1927) crisis;

“Whereas the Franco-Ontarian community has been calling for the creation of a French-language university in Ontario for decades;

“Whereas the main recommendation of the 2013 community-led états généraux sur le postsecondaire en Ontario français was the creation of a French-language university in Ontario;

“Whereas Franco-Ontarians have the right to be educated in their own language in institutions that unite them, and the creation of the Université de l’Ontario français is intended to meet that objective;

“Whereas the Franco-Ontarian community has the right to develop the community tools it requires to ensure its sustainability and development;

“Whereas the French Language Services Act, unanimously passed by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in 1986, was given quasi-constitutional status;

“Whereas the Office of the French Language Services Commissioner has been working scrupulously and with great professionalism since it was founded in 2007;

“Whereas the French Language Services Commissioner has been an independent officer of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario since January 1, 2014;

“Whereas the independence of the commissioner, with the power to investigate, provided an oversight of the application of the French Language Services Act and provided a recourse to Franco-Ontarians when this act was flouted by the government and designated agencies;

“The signatories of this petition demand that the office of the French Language Services Commissioner of Ontario and the Université de l’Ontario français be reinstated immediately.”

I will sign this petition and give it to page Shlok.

Automobile insurance

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: This petition is entitled, “Stop Auto Insurance Gouging.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas some neighbourhoods across the GTA have been unfairly targeted by discriminatory practices in the insurance industry;

“Whereas people in these neighbourhoods are penalized with crushing auto insurance rates because of their postal code;

“Whereas the failure to improve government oversight of the auto insurance industry has left everyday families feeling the squeeze and yearning for relief;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ban the practice of postal code discrimination in the GTA when it comes to auto insurance premiums.”

I support this wholeheartedly, will be signing it and giving it to page Kidan.

Services en français

M^me France Gélinas: J’aimerais remercier tous les francophones et francophiles d’avoir signé la pétition.

« À l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario :

« Respectez la communauté francophone.

« Considérant que l’énoncé économique d’automne du gouvernement a annoncé l’élimination du Commissariat aux services en français et l’annulation des plans pour l’Université de l’Ontario français;

« Considérant que ces décisions constituent une trahison de la responsabilité de l’Ontario envers notre communauté francophone;

« Nous, soussignés, pétitionnons l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario de demander au gouvernement de maintenir le bureau du commissaire aux services en français, ainsi que son financement et ses pouvoirs, et de maintenir l’engagement de l’Ontario de financer l’Université de l’Ontario français. »

J’appuie cette pétition. Je vais la signer et je vais demander à la page Kejsi de l’amener à la table des greffiers.

Affordable housing

Ms. Laura Mae Lindo: My petition is entitled, “Affordable Housing.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas for families throughout much of Ontario, owning a home they can afford remains a dream, while renting is painfully expensive;

I fully support this petition, will affix my name to it and give it to page Hannah.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: Point of order, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Scarborough–Guildwood on a point of order.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: I don’t see any ministers in the House.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I have to say that it’s not a point of order to point that out. It’s also not appropriate to point out the absence of another member.

1350

Automobile insurance

Mr. Faisal Hassan: I have a petition entitled, “Stop Auto Insurance Gouging.

“Whereas some neighbourhoods across the GTA have been unfairly targeted by discriminatory practices in the insurance industry;

“Whereas people in these neighbourhoods are penalized with crushing auto insurance rates because of their postal code;

“Whereas the failure to improve government oversight of the auto insurance industry has left everyday families feeling the squeeze and yearning for relief;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ban the practice of postal code discrimination in the GTA when it comes to auto insurance premiums.”

I fully support this petition, will be affixing my signature to it and providing it to page Sarah to deliver to the table.

Injured workers

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: I have a petition here.

“Workers’ Comp is a Right.

“Petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas about 200,000 to 300,000 people in Ontario are injured on the job every year;

“Whereas over a century ago, workers in Ontario who were injured on the job gave up the right to sue their employers, in exchange for a system that would provide them with just compensation;

“Whereas decades of cost-cutting have pushed injured workers into poverty and onto publicly funded social assistance programs, and have gradually curtailed the rights of injured workers;

“Whereas injured workers have the right to quality and timely medical care, compensation for lost wages, and protection from discrimination;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to change the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act to accomplish the following for injured workers in Ontario:

“Eliminate the practice of ‘deeming’ or ‘determining,’ which bases compensation on phantom jobs that injured workers do not actually have;

“Ensure that the WSIB prioritizes and respects the medical opinions of the health care providers who treat the injured worker directly;

“Prevent compensation from being reduced or denied based on ‘pre-existing conditions’ that never affected the worker’s ability to function prior to the work injury.”

I will sign this petition, and I will give it to page Zoe.

Sport martial arts

M. Joel Harden: J’ai une pétition ici. Désolé pour mes amis francophones; c’est seulement en anglais. It reads, “Protecting Our Right to Safe Sports Martial Arts.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas sport martial arts is a safe method for adults and children to learn combat sports, practise in a welcoming and supportive environment and maintain a healthy lifestyle;

“Whereas participating in friendly tournaments of sport martial arts builds a sense of community and allows participants to improve their sparring skills;

“Whereas Order in Council 1087/2017 mandates that sparring competitions be sanctioned by a provincial sports organization (PSO), which restricts sport martial arts from hosting tournaments due to different sparring styles and rules; and

“Whereas for hundreds of sports martial arts schools in Ontario who fall between the two styles allowed by the PSO, Order in Council 1087/2017 makes it nearly impossible to obtain sanction for their events;

“We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to direct the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport to rescind or amend Order in Council 1087/2017 to permit sports martial artists to host legal tournaments in the province.”

I want to thank Alexis McCreath Frangakis and others, and give this to page Aditya for the Clerks’ table with my signature.

Employment standards

Mr. Chris Glover: My petition is entitled, “Don’t Take Away Fairer Labour Laws and Restore the College Task Force!”

“Whereas about three quarters of faculty at Ontario colleges are working on contract in precarious jobs without job security and without equal pay; and

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

“—require employers to offer the same rate of pay to part-time, contract, casual, temporary and seasonal employees who are doing substantially the same work in the same workplaces ... ;

“—provide three weeks’ paid vacation ... ;

“—deliver 10 personal emergency leave days for all workers, the first two of which are paid; and

“—provide strong enforcement through the hiring of an additional 175 employment standards officers; and

“Whereas last year, as part of the arbitration award that ended the college faculty strike, the College Task Force was established to address precarious work and other issues, and then was cancelled by the Ford government in June 2018;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to honour these commitments to fairer labour laws and restore the College Task Force. We further call on the assembly to require employers to provide clear pay scale information and transparency on pay steps assignment and progression, and to take all necessary steps to enforce existing labour laws and extend them to ensure no worker is left without protection.”

I support this petition. I’ll be affixing my signature and passing it to page Kidan.

Opposition Day

Services en français / French-language services

M^me Andrea Horwath: Monsieur le Président, je propose la motion numéro 5 de l’opposition comme suit—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Madame Horwath has moved—

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): You’re going to read the motion now? Good luck.

M^me Andrea Horwath: Merci, monsieur le Président.

Considérant que la communauté francophone de l’Ontario est la plus grande communauté francophone canadienne à l’extérieur du Québec;

Considérant que le français est l’une des deux langues officielles du Canada;

Considérant que dans la province de l’Ontario, le français est reconnu comme langue officielle dans les tribunaux, le système d’éducation et à l’Assemblée législative;

Considérant que chaque citoyen et chaque citoyenne de l’Ontario devraient avoir accès aux services gouvernementaux dont ils ont besoin, en français, quand ils en ont besoin et là où ils en ont besoin;

Considérant que le commissaire aux services en français de l’Ontario s’assure que les droits des citoyens et citoyennes de l’Ontario, ainsi que les obligations du gouvernement et des agences gouvernementales, sont maintenus en accord avec la Loi sur les services en français;

Considérant que, pendant les 40 dernières années, les Ontariens et les Ontariennes ont cherché à fonder une université francophone indépendante, gouvernée par et pour des francophones et que la planification pour cette université est déjà bien avancée;

Considérant que l’énoncé économique d’automne du gouvernement a annoncé l’élimination du Commissariat aux services en français et l’annulation des plans pour l’Université de l’Ontario français;

Considérant que ces décisions constituent une trahison de la responsabilité de l’Ontario envers notre communauté francophone;

Qu’il soit résolu que l’Assemblée demande au gouvernement de maintenir le bureau du commissaire aux services en français, ainsi que son financement et ses pouvoirs, et de maintenir l’engagement de l’Ontario de financer l’Université de l’Ontario français.

Le Vice-Président (M. Rick Nicholls): Merci, madame Horwath, et tu as parlé très bien.

The leader of the official opposition, Ms. Horwath, has moved opposition day number 5. I now return to Madame Horwath.

M^me Andrea Horwath: Je suis honorée de me lever pour parler en faveur de cette motion. La communauté francophone de l’Ontario a un droit constitutionnel de recevoir des services dans sa propre langue et d’être éduquée dans sa propre langue. Il ne s’agit pas seulement d’un droit garanti par la Constitution. Il s’agit de faire ce qui est juste.

We have a responsibility in this Legislature to respect and promote the right of Franco-Ontarians to receive services in their own language, from health care to ServiceOntario counters and, yes, college and university education.

Franco-Ontarians are 622,000 strong in Ontario and they are and always have been a part of who we are. These communities are part of our provincial identity, Speaker, and the French Language Services Commissioner is the protector of their language rights—the right they have to continue to live and receive services in French here in the province that they helped to build.

1400

En vertu de la Loi sur les services en français, l’accès à des services gouvernementaux en français est un droit. Hélas, trop souvent, les Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes doivent se battre avec leur propre gouvernement pour faire respecter ce droit.

There are too few French-language counter services in too few regions throughout our province as we speak. Government consultations on policy decisions are often only offered in English, and far too often, no consideration is given to the impact the government’s decisions have on Franco-Ontarian people and communities. The French language in Ontario and the needs of Franco-Ontarians are treated as an afterthought all too often in our province.

De fait, nous avons un premier ministre qui a fait lire le discours du trône sans y inclure un seul de mot de français et sans y faire une seule mention des francophones, de leurs besoins ou de leurs priorités.

In 2017-18 alone, the French Language Services Commissioner handled 315 complaints and requests for information. In his latest report, the commissioner focused on looking ahead to the needs of Franco-Ontarians and the Franco-Ontarian community to 2028.

One of the things that the commissioner highlighted is the challenges and barriers faced by aging Franco-Ontarians. That report looks at how a language barrier impacts someone living with dementia, and explored social isolation among francophone seniors.

The commissioner called on the government to participate in a series of discussions aimed at meeting the 14 recommendations that were set out in his report. This critically important work and advocacy makes it clear that the French Language Services Commissioner protects the rights of Franco-Ontarians, and advocates for a better quality of life for Franco-Ontarians.

The francophone university promised to improve the quality of life for Franco-Ontarians too, and, Speaker, we were almost there. It was slated to welcome its first students in 2020. The university’s president and board of governors had already been named. In every budget and every speech from the throne, New Democrats stood with the francophone community to push for funding, to push for action and to push for construction. Young people were already making plans. They were choosing majors and dreaming of what it would be like, and their families were making plans to support them.

Pouvez-vous imaginer la déception d’un jeune francophone qui avait travaillé fort et qui avait rêvé de faire partie de la toute première promotion de l’Université de l’Ontario français?

Young people were hoping for the opportunity to study and excel in their own language, to connect with other francophone students and then to launch their careers in French.

The university would not only foster the use of the French language and embrace Franco-Ontarian culture, but contribute to building up French-language services, Franco-Ontarian culture and Ontario’s reputation as a bilingual province.

But with this fall’s economic statement, this Premier ripped all of that away, Speaker. He ripped opportunity out of the hands of young francophone students. He wasted the investments the province has already made and the planning that has already gone into this university. He attacked the jobs and economic activity that comes with a new university.

Il n’y a pas eu d’avertissement. Il n’y a pas eu de consultation.

No warning, Speaker. No consultation. The entire $80-million investment needed to keep the university on track to welcome the first students in 2020 was gone with a stroke of the Premier’s pen.

Now the sadness and frustration and the outrage from the francophone people of Ontario has been overwhelming, and rightfully so. And the embarrassment this government has caused us in our province from coast to coast to coast, on a national scale, is a major blow to our province’s bilingual reputation.

Let’s be clear: This Legislature needed to do better. We needed to be moving faster on the university; there is no doubt about it. We have been pushing for years to get this university under way. We needed to be thinking, in fact, about more campuses, not only in Toronto but nearer to francophone communities throughout the province. But where the previous Liberal government let Franco-Ontarians down, the Conservative demolished their hopes and dreams. In this unprecedented attack on the rights of francophone people, instead of making improvements to the availability of services in French, instead of doing better, this government has taken us from bad to worse.

By shutting down the French-Language Services Commissioner without warning, this government is signalling that it is not interested in doing the right thing. It’s making it clear that it’s not planning to help Franco-Ontarians build their best life right here in Ontario. There is no reason—no reason whatsoever—to shut down this office, unless this government is planning to undermine the rights of Franco-Ontarians and doesn’t want anyone keeping an eye on them.

We know, Speaker, that it does not have to be this way. It absolutely does not have to be this way. We can do so much better. This motion restores the Office of the French-Language Services Commissioner as a fully independent body able to advocate for francophone communities and push the government when it needs to.

This motion also restores the funding to keep the francophone university on track to open its doors in 2020, as was planned. Education is always a good investment, Speaker. We know that providing more opportunity to Ontario’s young people is the right thing to do. Ontario can afford to fulfill its constitutional obligations and provide opportunity to francophone youth instead of cuts. In fact, we can’t afford not to.

J’encourage les députés de tous les partis à se joindre à moi et à voter en faveur de cette motion pour bâtir un Ontario plus fort, plus prospère et plus juste. Merci beaucoup, monsieur le Président

I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate this afternoon.

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

M^me Gila Martow: Je veux commencer par dire que pour quatre ans—plus de quatre ans—j’ai été la porte-parole pour les affaires francophones pour le caucus PC. On n’était pas dans le gouvernement; c’était très différent ici pour nous autres. Je suis très fière d’avoir été la porte-parole, premièrement, mais aussi d’être au comité de l’APF—ça, c’est l’Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie—avec notre présidente, la députée de Nickel Belt, qui est ici aujourd’hui.

Vous savez, monsieur le Président, c’est difficile, ce qui se passe ici en Ontario. Les libéraux nous ont amené au bord d’un précipice fiscal et le NPD veut nous pousser par-dessus bord.

Alors, on a des « issues » ici en Ontario. On ne dit pas qu’on ne veut pas avoir une université. Ça, c’est quelque chose d’important. On sait qu’on a une communauté francophone autour de la province. On a plusieurs communautés francophones autour de la province—pas seulement comme les Québécois; on a ici les Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes. Je suis très heureuse de vous dire que ce sont des communautés très fortes. Ils sont très fiers de leur langue et aussi de leur patrimoine.

Moi, je sais ça, parce qu’à Thornhill, on a une petite communauté francophone aussi, monsieur le Président. On a une communauté à Thornhill qui viennent du Québec, qui sont nés en Ontario, ou qui viennent de la France, de l’Espagne et d’autour du monde, alors on voit souvent qu’ils ont vraiment des expressions différentes. C’est souvent une langue un petit peu différente de celle d’Haïti ou du Rwanda. Surtout, c’est une communauté globale francophone, et c’est une communauté très importante pour nos industries.

1410

Je veux dire que quand j’ai eu mes petites réunions avec François Boileau, le commissaire—ça fait plus d’un an qu’on a commencé à parler ensemble—je lui ai demandé très fortement de parler seulement en français. Parce que moi, vous voyez que je suis francophile, et ce n’est pas facile pour moi ici à Toronto ou à Thornhill d’améliorer mon français ou même de trouver quelqu’un avec qui je peux pratiquer ou parler un petit peu. Alors je l’ai demandé à M. Boileau. Il était très, très, très gentil, comme tous les députés ici dans tous les partis qui sont francophones et qui m’aident souvent avec mon vocabulaire. Souvent même, à la députée de Nickel Belt, je lui envoie des petites notes et je lui dis : « C’est “people” not “peoples” ou “women” not “woman” »—et même à la députée d’Orléans.

Ça fait presqu’un an que M. Boileau m’a dit que, quand on a commencé, c’était comme de la torture pour lui de parler avec moi en français, parce que c’était si difficile, si lent, parce que je cherchais souvent mes mots, et il me corrigeait souvent. Mais il m’a dit l’année passée que je me suis assez améliorée que c’est vraiment un plaisir de continuer en français.

Aussi, je veux parler de M. Marc Trouyet, le consul général de France. On a discuté souvent au sujet d’une université francophone en Ontario. Une des discussions, en ce temps-là, était sur où on devrait mettre une université francophone. Pour la députée de Nickel Belt, ça fait plus de 10 ans, je pense, ou toute sa vie, qu’elle parle d’une université francophone, mais sa suggestion était de la mettre dans le nord de l’Ontario. Elle est la représentante d’une circonscription, d’un comté, dans le nord de l’Ontario, et elle veut vraiment voir quelque chose dans le Nord. Mais les libéraux ont décidé qu’elle devrait être mise ici à Toronto. Moi, je comprends pourquoi : parce que Toronto est vraiment la ville la plus large au Canada. On a plusieurs industries ici.

Peut-être que j’aimerais voir un carrefour francophone ici à Toronto. J’aimerais voir une place où on peut prendre une petite pause-café ou dîner et parler en français. Si on veut manger ou si on veut un café, on devrait parler un petit peu, même si c’est seulement un mot en français, juste pour donner aux francophiles comme moi, et aux parents des enfants qui sont dans une école d’immersion française et qui veulent parler un petit peu en français, l’opportunité d’avoir le petit carrefour, quelque chose, où on peut parler ensemble, avec nos amis, même avec des étrangers, en français.

Je comprends qu’on a des organismes ici, même à Toronto—comme celui de Marcelle Lean, qui a reçue l’Ordre de la Pléiade ça fait deux ans, je pense. Elle est un peu fameuse parce qu’elle a commencé Cinéfranco. On peut y aller pour quelques journées pour voir du cinéma en français avec des sous-titres en anglais. Ça nous aide beaucoup si on n’est pas vraiment bilingue. Ce n’est pas seulement un peu de fun; c’est aussi que ça donne un air « cosmopolitan ». Quand on a un peu de vie en français dans une ville ou dans un système d’éducation, on comprend que c’est quelque chose de très élevé—on peut visiter l’Europe ou des régions francophones en Afrique et parler d’affaires en français.

En parlant des affaires, nous autres, on est ouvert aux affaires. Ma vision, dont j’ai discuté quelques fois avec M. Trouyet, le consul général—on a discuté que peut-être on peut avoir un programme qui n’est pas seulement une université francophone régulière, mais peut-être on peut avoir un programme « MBA » à temps plein, avec l’option coop, conçu pour les nouveaux diplômés de haut calibre.

Alors, peut-être qu’on peut faire un programme d’échange. On a déjà maintenant des programmes d’échange pour les étudiants entre l’Université de Lyon en France et collège Glendon ici à Toronto. Peut-être qu’on peut faire quelque chose d’intéressant pour l’industrie où c’est de la coop : ils gagnent un salaire et prennent aussi les cours pour recevoir un « MBA », peut-être avec un semestre ou un an ici à Toronto et une autre année ou semestre en Europe, en France, en Belgique, ou un pays où ils ont des universités francophones et des compagnies globales, ou peut-être aussi en Afrique, dans les régions francophones.

Parce que moi, je comprends que le français, ça commence à devenir une langue très, très importante pour les affaires. Si on veut une province vraiment ouverte aux affaires, on devrait avoir l’habilité de faire le commerce autour du monde francophone.

On entend souvent que les députés libéraux sont très fiers de pouvoir être les représentants des voix des communautés francophones. Mais, je vais expliquer une petite histoire. C’était quand je travaillais comme porte-parole pour les affaires francophones pour notre caucus PC quand on était en opposition. Les derniers deux ans que je participais au Réseau des femmes parlementaires de l’APF, seule une députée des libéraux manquait. Ils étaient le gouvernement et ils n’ont pas envoyé une seule députée.

Aussi, pour les réunions des députés du Québec et de l’Ontario, pour deux ans, ils n’ont pas envoyé un seul député du gouvernement libéral. Alors, comment est-ce qu’on peut dire qu’on est la voix de la communauté francophone si on ne participe pas aux réunions francophones mondiales comme ça? C’est vraiment quelque chose de difficile pour moi à comprendre.

Je veux retourner un petit peu aux suggestions d’un programme coop payé par les industries, les compagnies globales qui ont des bureaux ici en Ontario et aussi, peut-être, en France. C’est quelque chose dont j’ai discuté avec des familles francophones, des étudiants francophones. « Est-ce que c’est quelque chose qui vous intéresse, de travailler et de recevoir un “MBA” en commerce global? » Ils m’ont expliqué qu’ils pensent que ce serait une expérience de travail précieuse dans leur vie.

C’est une bonne expérience, je pense, pour l’Ontario, pour nos industries, pour nos étudiants. Ça peut nous gagner de nouveaux immigrants—de nouveaux Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes, on peut dire—des autres pays francophones, parce que c’est quelque chose qu’ils ont promis, le gouvernent libéral. Ils ont promis 5 % d’immigration francophone et ils ont seulement reçu vers 2.4 %. C’était un peu une surprise pour moi de comprendre qu’ils n’ont pas fait assez d’efforts.

Peut-être que ce sont des programmes comme ça—parce que c’est ce que j’ai entendu de plusieurs immigrants francophones. Ils viennent ici comme étudiants et étudiantes. Ils peuvent décider de rester et de trouver un emploi. Peut-être qu’ils ont des amis ici, ou peut-être un mariage, des enfants. Ils décident de rester ici en Ontario après avoir étudié ici.

1420

Alors, c’est ça sur quoi on devrait travailler, tout le monde ensemble : de trouver des manières d’avoir des programmes de doubles diplômes, des programmes comme le « MBA », et de trouver les meilleures façons, sans dépenser beaucoup d’argent, de gagner des immigrants francophones, et de donner une éducation plus élevée—la meilleure éducation possible pour nos étudiants qui sont bilingues.

J’ai entendu la D^reStéphanie Chouinard hier. Elle était sur The Agenda avec M. Steve Paikin. Tout le monde ici connaît Steve, je pense. Elle a dit qu’elle pense qu’il y a beaucoup de supports pour les affaires francophones ici en Ontario, et c’est vrai. Elle est francophone et elle a parlé en anglais, et vous voyez qu’aujourd’hui, moi, je suis anglophone et je fais un très grand effort pour vous parler en français. Mais elle a dit que les écoles d’immersion française sont « bursting at the seams »—en français, c’est « pleines à craquer », je pense—et c’est vrai.

Même les parents qui viennent de pays comme le Pakistan, l’Inde—les parents qui parlent punjabi à la maison—cherchent des places dans les écoles d’immersion française pour leurs enfants parce qu’ils pensent que c’est une meilleure éducation—comme j’ai dit, « cosmopolitan »—que c’est mieux pour les affaires et pour trouver des emplois. Ils ont un très bon point. Comme on dit en anglais, « a very good point », parce que c’est vrai.

Tout le monde ici sait que si on parle français, c’est meilleur dans notre monde politique et, si on ne parle pas français, on veut apprendre le français. Ici, au gouvernement, on comprend que ça nous donne, à nous et à nos enfants, des opportunités si on parle un peu de français.

Je veux dire qu’on a des décisions qu’on prend chaque jour. Je suis très fière d’être ici, de parler un petit peu en français, et de vous dire qu’on a des communautés francophones en Ontario qui sont vraiment fortes, avec beaucoup d’esprit. C’est un très grand honneur de travailler avec elles, et je vais continuer de travailler pour elles dans les mois et les années qui approchent. Merci beaucoup.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): The member from—

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Right there, Speaker. The member is standing.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Sorry for that little pause. However, because it’s going back now to the NDP, to the official opposition, I recognize the member from Mushkegowuk–James Bay.

M. Guy Bourgouin: Je m’étais levé, mais il ne voulait pas, hostie.

Des rires.

M. Guy Bourgouin: Je retire ma parole, monsieur le Président.

Comme vous le savez, les annonces du 15 novembre, la décision d’abolir le Commissariat aux services en français, l’organisme indépendant, et d’éliminer le financement de l’Université de l’Ontario français—je peux vous dire sans aucun doute que les Franco-Ontariens rejettent les politiques insensées des conservateurs en matière d’affaires francophones.

Depuis quelques semaines, je rencontre des francophones, des Franco-Ontariens de mon comté, d’Ottawa et aussi de Toronto. Et qu’est-ce que j’entends? C’est qu’ils veulent qu’on améliore les services en français, l’éducation pour nos jeunes en français, et qu’on défende l’héritage francophone en Ontario. Il y a une chose à faire : c’est de rétablir le Commissariat aux services en français et le financement à l’Université de l’Ontario français.

Hier, pendant mon séjour à Ottawa, j’ai rencontré les organisateurs de 40 manifestations qui auront lieu le 1^er décembre. Ils m’ont dit qu’ils s’attendent à 5 000 personnes qui vont marcher les rues partout dans la province. Comme vous pouvez vous l’imaginer, ces 5 000 personnes vont manifester pour la marche arrière des coupures aux services francophones. Je vais être avec eux autres pour crier, sur toutes les tribunes, de cette politique insensible auprès des francophones de l’Ontario.

Ils m’ont aussi laissé savoir que personne n’a été consulté. Ni le commissaire, ni le recteur de l’université, ni les organismes francophones de partout en Ontario n’ont été consultés dans ces décisions.

De plus, des compressions budgétaires ont été imposées à des organismes culturels tels que la Nouvelle Scène Gilles Desjardins à Ottawa et trois magazines éducatifs franco-ontariens. J’ai eu la chance de faire le tour de la scène hier et de parler à la directrice générale. La Nouvelle Scène est un centre d’art qui accueille de nombreux événements culturels, y compris des pièces de théâtre pour des centaines et des centaines d’enfants dans la région d’Ottawa. Ce centre d’art représente un centre culturel franco-ontarien qui donne parole à des auteurs, des comédiens, des artistes et des travailleurs de tout partout en province.

Mais la seule affaire qu’on entend des conservateurs, c’est la responsabilité fiscale. C’est leur priorité la plus importante. Mais pourquoi ne parlent-ils pas de l’impact économique, social et éducatif de ces organismes culturels et de l’argent qu’ils ramènent à la province? Ils sont silencieux là-dessus—inacceptable.

Tout ce qu’on voit, c’est que les conservateurs se moquent de nous, les Franco-Ontariens, de notre langue et de notre statut en tant que peuple fondateur. Toutes ces annonces sont une réponse très claire aux besoins des Franco-Ontariens : on leur dit qu’ils n’importent pas, que leurs droits constitutionnels d’être servis et éduqués en français sont beaucoup moins importants que l’effacement insensible du gouvernement.

Par contre, dans un communiqué de presse du 23 juillet 2018, Mme la ministre avait bien dit : « Nous reconnaissons l’importance de cette nouvelle université pour la communauté francophone de l’Ontario et nous voulons lui accorder l’attention et le soutien qu’elle mérite. » Ce qu’elle mérite : ça veut dire le financement, ça, aussi. Et est-ce que la ministre est toujours prête à « regarder les Franco-Ontariens dans les yeux » et leur donner le soutien qu’ils méritent? Créer une crise linguistique dans la province au lieu d’aller de l’avant : on est partis de reculons—près de 20 ans.

Laissez-moi finir avec les mots d’un jeune Franco-Ontarien que j’ai eu le plaisir de rencontrer hier. Ces mots m’ont vraiment touché. Pendant une petite allocution, il a dit : « L’avenir appartient à ceux qui luttent. » Et c’est exactement ce que nous allons faire aujourd’hui. Nous allons nous battre pour rétablir nos institutions, nos droits et notre éducation.

C’est pour ça, aujourd’hui, que j’appuie de façon inconditionnelle la motion présentée par la leader de l’opposition officielle, et j’invite le gouvernement à faire la bonne chose envers la communauté francophone de l’Ontario et de voter en faveur de cette résolution.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Merci. I recognize now, for further debate, the member from Ottawa West–Nepean.

M. Jeremy Roberts: C’est un plaisir de me lever aujourd’hui pour parler de cette motion venue de la chef de l’opposition. C’est un sujet qui est bien sûr chargé maintenant, et c’est un sujet qui est important parce que la culture du Canada, c’est quelque chose que tout le monde veut assurer qu’on protège et qu’on respecte. Je pense qu’on peut faire ça ici avec les changements que notre gouvernement a introduits il y a deux semaines dans notre mise à jour économique de l’automne.

1430

Mais moi, je suis franco-ontarien. Je suis une réparation des deux solitudes de Hugh MacLennan, parce qu’un côté de ma famille est anglophone—ils sont venus de l’Angleterre après la Deuxième Guerre mondiale—et l’autre côté de ma famille est francophone. Mon grand-père—je l’appelle pépé—est venu du Nouveau-Brunswick. Il est un Larocque, un des premiers Acadiens arrivés au Canada. Quand il avait 16 ans, il a déménagé du Nouveau-Brunswick à Windsor pour établir une vie pour sa famille ici en Ontario. Puis, ma grand-mère, ma mémé, vient de la famille Lavergne. Ils étaient dans l’est de l’Ontario, juste un petit peu à l’est d’Ottawa, et elle aussi, toute sa famille était franco-ontarienne. Donc ceci, c’est quelque chose qui est très important pour moi, parce que c’est une demie de mon personnage, de ma personnalité.

Mon père—le côté paternel, venu de l’Angleterre—était dans la première classe d’immersion française ici en Ontario. C’est quelque chose de très intéressant. Quand j’étais très jeune, avant que j’aie commencé l’école, mon père s’est assis avec moi et il m’a dit, « Jeremy, je veux que tu ailles étudier en français. Je veux que tu participes dans un programme d’immersion, parce que toi, tu es demi-francophone. Tu vis dans une ville comme Ottawa, où c’est tellement important de savoir comment parler en français. » Et moi, quand j’avais trois ans ou quatre ans, je ne voulais pas aller à une école pour étudier le français, parce que tous mes amis allaient à l’école anglophone dans ma communauté. Mais mon père a dit que je devais y aller.

Je dis toujours que mon père a pris la bonne décision, de m’envoyer à une école d’immersion. Donc, j’ai fait mes études en français depuis le jardin d’enfants jusqu’à la 12^e année de mon école secondaire. J’avais tellement de bons professeurs francophones durant ce temps. Je me souviendrai toujours de mon professeur de quatrième année, M^me Viola. M^me Viola était une femme très « fierce », et elle disait toujours à tous les étudiants : « Je veux que tu articules. » L’articulation, c’était toujours très important. Je ne sais pas si j’articule bien aujourd’hui, mais j’espère, madame Viola, si tu regardes aujourd’hui, que je fais de mon mieux pour articuler aujourd’hui.

Mr. Deepak Anand: I only know “très bien.”

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: Bien, merci.

Quand j’étais en quatrième année, j’ai eu la chance, pour la première fois, de participer dans une chose pour les personnes qui vont donner des « speeches » en public. C’était quelque chose que j’ai fait—

Une voix.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I recognize the member from Essex on a point of order.

M. Taras Natyshak: Je ne pense pas que notre ami le député parle de la motion. S’il pourrait se concentrer sur la motion qu’on a devant nous aujourd’hui. On n’a pas besoin de leçons en français ou de leçons sur sa famille. On a besoin de parler de la motion.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I would remind the member from Ottawa West–Nepean: Again, with regard to the motion at hand, tie your comments in with the motion at hand. Merci.

M. Jeremy Roberts: Bien sûr. Merci, monsieur le Président. Oui, je dis cette histoire parce que je veux que tout le monde sache que ceci, c’est une chose importante pour moi et, bien sûr, aussi, pour ma circonscription. Ottawa-Ouest–Nepean a une population de 18% de francophones, et à Ottawa on a beaucoup de francophones, surtout dans l’est de la ville avec ma bonne amie la députée d’Ottawa–Orléans aussi.

Donc, l’annonce qui a été faite l’autre jour à propos du commissaire pour les francophones et à propos de l’université francophone—il y avait beaucoup de personnes qui m’ont appelé dans ma circonscription. Il y avait beaucoup de personnes dans le public, je pense, qui étaient un petit peu—qui n’étaient pas contentes, on peut dire, avec cette décision. Mais on doit savoir que, vendredi passé, notre gouvernement a fait quelques changements pour répondre à ces « concernes » et je pense que c’est quelque chose de très bon pour un gouvernement et un parti de répondre à des critiques et prendre de l’action pour faire ça.

Ce n’est pas la première fois qu’on a fait ça. Je reconnais, monsieur le Président, que durant l’élection il y avait une suggestion que peut-être on devrait ouvrir la ceinture de verdure pour le développement. Il y avait beaucoup de personnes qui avaient des « concernes » sur ça, et quelques jours après, notre chef, Doug Ford, a dit, « Je t’ai entendu. On ne va pas ouvrir la ceinture de verdure. » Et voilà, c’est une promesse qui a été faite.

Ce sont quoi, les changements que nous avons annoncés vendredi passé? Vendredi passé, nous avons annoncé que, avec le commissaire des francophones, nous créerons ce poste dans le Bureau de l’ombudsman de l’Ontario. Le poste du commissaire en français aura la chance d’être bénéficiaire de toutes les ressources de l’ombudsman de l’Ontario. C’est quelque chose qui va, bien sûr, lui donner plus de pouvoirs et plus d’opportunités d’être un avocat pour les francophones, les Franco-Ontariens et les Franco-Ontariennes.

Le commissaire conservera la responsabilité d’enquêter et de déposer ses rapports auprès de l’Assemblée législative, et le commissaire conservera également la fonction de formuler ses recommandations visant à améliorer la prestation des services en français et d’assurer la conformité à la Loi sur les services en français.

C’est une bonne chance pour nous d’assurer qu’on a encore un bon commissaire qui va protéger les Franco-Ontariens et les Franco-Ontariennes, mais il va avoir la chance d’avoir les ressources de l’ombudsman et d’avoir quelque chose qu’on appelle en anglais « economies of scale ». Nous allons avoir les deux bureaux qui seront là.

Là, c’est une des choses qu’on a faites vendredi passé pour répondre à ces critiques.

La deuxième chose que nous avons faite, c’est que nous avons annoncé que la ministre déléguée aux Affaires francophones, mon amie l’honorable Caroline Mulroney, va maintenant devenir la ministre des Affaires francophones, et pas seulement « déléguée ». Il va y avoir un ministère qui est ciblé carrément sur les affaires francophones et les affaires pour les Franco-Ontariennes et les Franco-Ontariens. Je sais que toujours, quand je parle avec ma collègue la procureure générale, c’est quelque chose qui est très importante pour elle, d’assurer qu’elle protège ce groupe très important.

Avec ça, nous avons aussi annoncé que dans le bureau du premier ministre, nous allons avoir un adjoint délégué spécifiquement aux affaires francophones, pour les Franco-Ontariens. Cet adjoint dans le bureau du premier ministre va avoir la chance d’assurer que les « concernes » des Franco-Ontariens sont toujours quelque chose qui est mise en considération durant les discussions et les débats qui vont dérouler durant les années à venir.

1440

Ce sont trois choses que nous avons annoncées vendredi passé.

La dernière c’est l’Université de l’Ontario français. Nous avons été élus sur une promesse d’assurer que nous pourrions mettre notre situation financière et fiscale en ordre. Nous avons reçu du gouvernement précédent un déficit de 15 milliards de dollars et une dette qui est la plus grande dette de toutes les provinces au monde. C’est quelque chose que moi, je prends très sérieusement, parce que je sais que c’est à ma génération et la génération de mes enfants et de mes grands-enfants de relever ce défi. Je ne veux pas que mes enfants héritent une situation comme ça.

Ça demande que nous fassions des décisions difficiles. On a dit que maintenant les ressources ne sont pas là pour une université francophone. Une chose qui était bien articulée l’autre journée par le journaliste Konrad Yakabuski, c’est que maintenant dans l’Ontario, autour de la province, nous avons vu un niveau d’inscription qui diminue, donc nous avons moins de personnes que veulent aller à l’université que l’année précédente. Dans une situation où nous avons une inscription qui diminue, pourquoi est-ce qu’on veut avoir des dépenses pour des nouvelles universités? On a des universités ici à Toronto, à Barrie, n’importe où, et cela, ça va seulement servir pour « hurt » notre université qui existe déjà.

Je sais qu’à Ottawa nous avons deux facilités post-secondaires qui sont fantastiques. Nous avons La Cité collégiale que je vais visiter ce vendredi pour un tour. Ils ont toutes sortes de programmes. C’est le plus grand collège francophone en Ontario. Nous avons aussi notre université bilingue, l’Université d’Ottawa. Donc, il y a beaucoup d’opportunités pour les élèves qui veulent étudier en français d’avoir cette chance dans notre province.

Et on dit que même si maintenant on ne peut pas avoir les ressources pour faire une université francophone, quand nous aurons la chance de mettre notre situation fiscale en ordre, on peut revisiter cette chose. Je suis la première personne qui va dire que quand on est dans cette situation, quand notre ministère de Finances nous aura mis dans cette situation, je vais être un champion, si les chiffres et les faits donnent un bon cas pour une université française. Mais on doit attendre jusqu’à ce que notre situation fiscale soit en ordre, parce qu’il y a trop de défis qui sont beaucoup plus grands aujourd’hui.

Nous avons un système de soins de longue durée pour les personnes âgées qui doit être réparé parce que nous avons 30 000 personnes âgées qui attendent des lits maintenant. On a aussi un système de services pour les personnes handicapées qui doit être réparé, pour assurer que tous les enfants handicapés ont des services qui vont les aider—comme mon frère. Aussi, on veut assurer que les soins de santé dans les couloirs arrêtent.

Celles-ci sont les priorités pour les personnes en crise. On doit assurer que nos ressources vont là-bas. Quand notre situation fiscale est meilleure et qu’on est dans une situation de surplus, ça serait une différente discussion et ça serait le temps pour nous tous d’avoir cette conversation.

Je vais finir par dire que c’est un honneur de parler ici. Je sais que mon français n’est pas le meilleur—je prends deux cours par semaine maintenant, et j’essaie de mon mieux. Mais je sais que notre gouvernement est ciblé carrément sur les défis comme le déficit et notre dette, créer des emplois, assurer la croissance économique à long terme et assurer que nous pourrons tous avoir un avenir avec beaucoup de prospérité.

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

M^me Natalia Kusendova: J’ai l’honneur de prendre la parole aujourd’hui à la Chambre pour appuyer les Franco-Ontariennes et les Franco-Ontariens de notre belle province. En tant que Canadiens, nous sommes fiers de notre statut et de notre patrimoine bilingue, et ce gouvernement continuera de défendre les Canadiens français. La langue française, les francophones et les francophiles du Canada jouent un rôle essentiel dans l’établissement de l’identité de notre nation sur la scène mondiale. L’impact de cette communauté dynamique sur notre pays est déterminant pour ce que signifie d’être Canadien.

En revenant à la Confédération, les colons français ont établi de nombreuses appartenances culturelles importantes qui distinguent l’identité canadienne en Amérique du Nord et dans le monde entier. Les premiers colons français se sont appelés « Canadiens », dans le but explicite de se distinguer de la population métropolitaine de leur pays d’origine. Ces colons étaient des pionniers qui, à leur arrivée, ont immédiatement cherché à s’établir comme indépendants sur la scène mondiale, uniques par rapport au pays qu’ils ont laissé derrière eux.

Les Canadiens français et les Canadiens anglais reconnaissaient que la Confédération canadienne était l’établissement d’un pays binational. L’Acte de l’Amérique du Nord britannique était un pacte entre deux nations distinctes, ou deux peuples fondateurs. La Constitution de 1867 ne faisait pas référence à une nation canadienne; au contraire, elle décrivait l’établissement d’une fédération, reconnaissant les Canadiens français et anglais comme les peuples fondateurs à partir desquels le Canada et l’identité canadienne ont été dérivés. Les Canadiens français font partie intégrante de l’identité canadienne depuis la fondation de notre pays et conservent toujours aujourd’hui un fort impact culturel sur notre pays et notre province.

Je tiens à assurer la population de l’Ontario que notre gouvernement se soucie profondément de la communauté franco-ontarienne. Le gouvernement reconnaît les importantes contributions des Canadiens francophones à la province. Nous comprenons que la décision de reporter l’établissement d’une université de langue française est difficile pour de nombreux Ontariens. Nous compatissons avec ceux qui ont peut-être eu hâte de s’inscrire à cette université.

Cependant, notre gouvernement a été élu par la population avec le mandat clair de rendre la responsabilité fiscale à la province. Le 7 juin, les électeurs de toute la province ont envoyé un message fort et clair que le moment était venu de rejeter les dépenses incontrôlables et d’adopter des restrictions budgétaires. Notre gouvernement respecte l’argent des contribuables de l’Ontario et ne peut donc pas financer toutes les promesses électorales non financées du précèdent gouvernement libéral. Le modèle proposé était financièrement insoutenable et nous avons été honnêtes avec la communauté. Il serait irresponsable de poursuivre le plan pour l’université dans son état actuel.

La vérité, c’est que le gouvernement précédent nous a laissé un déficit immense. Ils ont doublé notre dette. À 347 milliards de dollars, notre dette est supérieure à celle de la Californie. Au cours de la campagne électorale, nous avons promis à la population de l’Ontario de mettre fin au party avec l’argent du contribuable, et nous tenons à nos promesses.

1450

Aujourd’hui, nous le devons à nos jeunes, qui viennent peut-être de commencer leur carrière universitaire, de remettre les livres financiers de l’Ontario en ordre. Nous savons tous que lorsque la prospérité économique et les investissements sont réduits à néant par le déficit budgétaire du gouvernement, tout le monde y perd.

Après tout, à quoi sert-il d’investir dans l’éducation universitaire si tant de bons emplois bien rémunérés quittent l’Ontario parce que nous ne sommes plus concurrentiels? Notre gouvernement veut que nos jeunes, qui sont l’avenir de l’Ontario, aient confiance dans le marché du travail dans lequel ils vont bientôt entrer. Nous voulons qu’ils sachent que, s’ils choisissent de poursuivre des études universitaires, des études au collège ou un apprentissage, leur dur labeur sera récompensé par un travail bien rémunéré.

Nous travaillons honnêtement avec la communauté francophone pour obtenir des résultats concrets. Nous allons concevoir une solution qui fonctionnera pour la communauté franco-ontarienne, créatrice d’emplois, tout en respectant les contribuables. Je sais que cela prendra du temps et une révision en profondeur de la prestation des services par notre gouvernement, mais imaginons toutes les possibilités que notre province peut envisager une fois que nous ne versons plus plus de 12,3 milliards de dollars par an, uniquement pour payer les intérêts sur notre dette. II est impératif que nous abordions ce problème.

Monsieur le Président, ce ne sont pas juste des points de discussion. Ce sont des faits réels qui, je le sais, concernent les Ontariens et Ontariennes, car c’est la raison pour laquelle ils ont élu notre gouvernement : pour nettoyer les dégâts des libéraux.

Je voudrais saisir cette occasion pour clarifier une idée fausse au sujet du partage des coûts concernant cette université francophone proposée. Contrairement à la croyance populaire, le gouvernement fédéral de Justin Trudeau ne s’est pas engagé à partager les coûts d’une nouvelle université en Ontario. Entre-temps, nous demandons au gouvernement fédéral de prendre sa responsabilité envers les Franco-Ontariens au sérieux et de financer des programmes de langues officielles en Ontario au même niveau que le reste du pays. L’Ontario reçoit actuellement 30 centimes du gouvernement fédéral pour chaque dollar dépensé. Si le gouvernement fédéral veut contribuer à la croissance de la francophonie en Ontario, c’est simple : il suffit de faire leur part.

Comment est-il possible que l’Ontario reçoit seulement 2,78 $ par personne pour les services en français, quand la province du Nouveau-Brunswick reçoit 7,31 $ et que le Manitoba reçoit 35,71 $ par habitant? Nous demandons au gouvernement fédéral de traiter les Franco-Ontariens et les Franco-Ontariennes équitablement.

Je le dis à la communauté francophone : nous ne vous laisserons pas derrière. Premièrement, notre gouvernement a annoncé vendredi dernier que nous proposerons des modifications au projet de loi 57, Loi de 2018 visant à rétablir la confiance, la transparence et la responsabilité. Nos modifications, si elles sont adoptées, créeront le poste de commissaire aux services en français au sein du Bureau de l’ombudsman. Le commissaire conservera la responsabilité d’enquêter et de faire rapport à l’Assemblée législative. Le commissaire, aussi, conservera également la possibilité de formuler des recommandations visant à améliorer la prestation des services en français et à assurer la conformité à la Loi sur les services en français.

Notre objectif est de trouver le meilleur moyen de protéger les francophones en Ontario tout en respectant l’argent des contribuables. Ces changements permettront de réaliser des économies d’échelle dans les coûts de fonctionnement du bureau.

Deuxièmement, notre gouvernement a également fait du bureau des affaires francophones son propre ministère au sein de notre gouvernement. Le premier ministre a nommé l’honorable Caroline Mulroney au poste du ministre des Affaires francophones. Selon le premier ministre : « Caroline Mulroney a prouvé » aux reprises nombreuses « qu’elle est une championne infatigable de la communauté francophone, et je suis fier » de la nommer « nouvelle ministre des Affaires francophones. Elle sera une voix importante au sein de mon » cabinet en tant que porte-parole de « la langue, la culture et ... de la francophonie ontarienne. »

Personnellement, j’offre mes plus sincères félicitations à la ministre Mulroney et j’ai hâte de travailler avec elle au nom de la communauté francophone de ma circonscription de Mississauga-Centre et aussi partout en Ontario.

Une voix: Me too. Moi aussi.

Ms. Natalia Kusendova: Merci.

Troisièmement, nous voulons travailler avec la communauté pour nous assurer qu’une fois que la province est en position financière pour aller de l’avant avec une université pour et par les francophones, que nous avons le financement nécessaire et des programmes qui répondent aux besoins des étudiants et des employeurs francophones.

La ministre des Affaires francophones a dit aujourd’hui qu’on n’a pas « aboli ce plan. » On continue de « travailler sur ce plan » pour mettre « des finances concrètes...derrière le plan » pour bâtir une université française. La ministre Mulroney, la ministre Fullerton et nos partenaires au postsecondaire travaillent sans relâche pour élaborer un plan véritable et réel pour la réalisation d’une université par et pour les francophones.

Sur une note personnelle, je veux partager mon histoire d’immigration au Canada. Lorsque je suis arrivée dans ce grand pays à l’âge de 12 ans, je parlais français, parmi d’autres langues, mais je n’avais pas encore appris l’anglais. J’ai étudié dans une école d’immersion française où j’ai eu la possibilité de parler aux autres étudiants et à mes enseignants en français.

La capacité de communiquer en français m’a aidé à me sentir incluse dans ma nouvelle patrie, le Canada. Le français m’accompagnait pendant la majorité de ma vie. À l’école secondaire, j’ai continué mes études en immersion, et à l’université, j’ai fait un mineur en études françaises. Je suis aussi fière d’avoir été élue à l’APF comme directrice responsable pour les affaires des femmes francophones.

Le bilinguisme est ce qui rend le Canada un pays formidable et c’est une valeur canadienne que je défendrai toujours. Tant que gouvernement, nous reconnaissons les contributions importantes et continues des Franco-Ontariens, Franco-Ontariennes et francophones dans notre province depuis 400 ans. Notre gouvernement a pour priorité d’appuyer la communauté franco-ontarienne dans la promotion et la préservation de leur belle culture et de leur belle langue dans notre province.

Monsieur le Président, je suis fière d’être Franco-Ontarienne et francophile. J’ai hâte de travailler avec mes collègues pour promouvoir les affaires francophones dans notre belle province. Chers collègues, ayez un peu de patience. Je vous laisse avec cette pensée : petit à petit, l’oiseau fait son nid.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate? I recognize the member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell.

M^lle Amanda Simard: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate you recognizing me in this chamber as I didn’t think I would get the chance to speak on this important motion. Thank you.

La motion vise la mise à jour économique provinciale récemment présentée, qui a eu pour effet d’abolir le Commissariat aux services en français pour le mettre sous l’égide de l’ombudsman et d’annuler le projet d’Université de l’Ontario français. Ces décisions du gouvernement touchant la francophonie ont suscité beaucoup de réactions, non seulement chez nous à Glengarry–Prescott–Russell et non seulement en Ontario, mais partout à travers le Canada et même à l’international.

I wanted to say a few words, not only personally as a Franco-Ontarian, not only as the MPP who represents a riding that is overwhelmingly francophone—almost 70%—and very much Francophile, but for official-language minority communities across Ontario and Canada.

Les propositions du gouvernement depuis l’annonce initiale ne sont qu’un seul pas en avant pour trois pas de recul. Et si nous continuons de faire de telles concessions, il ne restera plus grand chose dans quelques années. C’est dans des situations comme celles-ci que nous réalisons à quel point nos acquis sont fragiles.

Nous devons absolument maintenir ces deux entités essentielles pour les francophones en Ontario. Peu importe nos allégeances politiques, nous avons une responsabilité d’assurer le respect de notre minorité de langue officielle.

Comme la lettre d’appui des juristes à l’égard de ma position le souligne, les deux entités visées par les mesures du gouvernement font partie du tissu institutionnel de notre communauté, et leur perte éventuelle ne peut être acceptée. Notre francophonie a besoin autant de son propre établissement universitaire que de son ardent promoteur des droits que la loi et la Constitution lui confèrent.

1500

À la grande majorité des portes lors de mon porte-à-porte, les gens me partageaient leurs inquiétudes face à l’avenir de leurs services en français sous un gouvernement progressiste-conservateur. Je les ai rassurés. Je répétais qu’ils pouvaient, et devaient, me faire confiance. Encore aujourd’hui, je veux être tout aussi rassurante, mais ça devient de plus en plus difficile avec les récentes actions et décisions du gouvernement.

Nous nous souvenons très bien de Montfort : 20 ans passés, nous luttions pour cette institution essentielle. J’avais huit ans, et j’étais au « rally » avec mon t-shirt « SOS Montfort » orange et blanc. Maintenant, 20 ans plus tard, nous luttons encore pour conserver nos acquis.

Le gouvernement tente de nous enlever ces institutions et entités importantes. Ceci est une grave erreur. This is a big mistake. For the office of the commissioner, there is no real savings information, maybe because, from what we can understand, there are no real savings.

The commissioner plays such an important role, not only for compliance with the act but in terms of his proactiveness with his reports and recommendations to prevent complaints and issues with regard to compliance. Franco-Ontarians are an official minority group and the only rights we have provincially are in the French Language Services Act. Having a stand-alone, independent commissioner is a necessity, not a sign of largesse. Franco-Ontarians are not asking for additional rights or services. We’re asking that the existing protections and entities remain in place. I think it’s a very modest and reasonable ask.

For the francophone university, this was a promise made, a promise reconfirmed, and a promise not kept. I myself proudly shared the announcement earlier this summer when the promise was reconfirmed. As many have pointed out, this is an investment that comes at a minimum cost but will generate significant economic return. Regardless, the jurisprudence clearly states that economic arguments cannot justify infringing on official language minority rights to essential institutions.

The nearly 700,000 Franco-Ontarians in all parts of the province are overwhelmingly furious with these two items in the fall economic statement, and with reason, because neither measure will contribute in any meaningful way to restoring sanity in our province’s finances. Rather, both measures are viewed as negative and illogical ones against a minority community. They are illogical because, in the case of the commissioner, there are no real savings to speak of.

This is not just about Franco Ontarians; this is about official language minority communities across Canada, including Quebec’s anglophones. Notre langue, c’est au coeur de notre identité. Nous vivons en français. Les générations qui nous ont précédés ont travaillé tellement fort pour nos acquis, et nous sommes constamment forcés à les protéger.

Il y a des francophones en Ontario depuis plus de 400 ans. Nous ne sommes pas qu’une minorité linguistique parmi tant d’autres, mais bien des locuteurs de la langue d’un des deux peuples fondateurs du Canada. Assurer le maintien et le développement de la vivacité de la francophonie en Ontario n’est pas une demande qui devrait être perçue comme démesurée par notre gouvernement.

Chers collègues, je vous demande d’appuyer cette motion et nos démarches pour faire renverser ces deux mesures.

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

M^me France Gélinas: J’aimerais commencer par remercier le courage de la députée de Glengarry–Prescott–Russell pour son témoignage aujourd’hui. Je sais que ça n’a pas été facile. Je veux te dire que t’as bien fait ça. Félicitations.

Monsieur le Président, pourquoi est-on ici aujourd’hui? Parce que le 15 novembre 2018 sera une date qui va rester gravée dans la mémoire de tous les francophones et francophiles. Cette date-là, pendant l’énoncé économique de l’automne, une ligne en bas d’un paragraphe, en bas d’un page, disait—je vais la lire, parce que ça en vaut la peine : « De plus, un examen plus détaillé de la situation financière de la province a amené le gouvernement à annuler les plans de création d’une nouvelle université de langue française. » Ça, c’est ce que le ministre des Finances a lu. Ça, c’est ce que le gouvernement conservateur de M. Ford a écrit. Et ça, c’est ce qui nous a donné un coup de poignard au coeur de tous les francophones et francophiles de notre province.

Il faut expliquer, monsieur le Président, que ça fait au-dessus de 40 ans qu’on essaie d’avoir une université de langue française. Moi, comme représentante de la francophonie pour mon parti, le parti néo-démocrate, j’ai présenté—en première, puis en deuxième lecture—un projet de loi pour créer l’Université de l’Ontario français. Ç’a passé en deuxième lecture de façon unanime. Tout le monde était en accord. On a eu un projet de loi l’an dernier du gouvernement au pouvoir qui l’a créée, l’université. Et là, on nous a annoncé, en bas d’une page d’un document de plus de 100 pages, que le rêve et le travail acharné des francophones dans les 40 dernières années ne verraient pas le jour.

Depuis ce moment-là, on essaie de reculer un peu, mais les écrits sont là. Le document est là. Ça dit : « annuler les plans de création d’une nouvelle université de langue française ». Il n’y a pas 100 000 façons d’interpréter ça. C’est qu’on n’aura pas une université de langue française. Ce n’est pas acceptable.

La deuxième partie de pourquoi on est là aujourd’hui, c’est parce que dans ce même document, dans ce même énoncé, on nous dit que le Commissariat aux services en français ne sera plus. Depuis ce temps-là, on nous raconte : « Oh, non, les fonctions vont être données à l’ombudsman. Tous les employés vont être transférés au Bureau de l’ombudsman. Le commissaire deviendra un député ombudsman qui va être là, lui aussi. »

Voyons donc, monsieur le Président, ce n’est pas ça que ça dit, le document. Le document dit que le commissaire aux services en français ne sera plus, qu’on donne à l’ombudsman le droit de recevoir des plaintes contre les services en français. Je n’ai rien contre ça, mais ce n’est pas ça, le Commissariat aux services en français.

Nous, les néo-démocrates, avons demandé—deux fois, j’ai présenté des projets de loi qui demandaient de rendre le commissaire aux services en français un officier de l’Assemblée législative. Pourquoi est-ce qu’on veut un officier? C’est parce qu’il rapporte à tout le monde ici. C’est parce qu’il y a les coudées franches pour décider de quel dossier il va traiter. Les gens minoritaires, les nouveaux immigrants qui n’ont jamais eu la chance de venir en Ontario, pensez-vous qu’ils vont faire des plaintes? Bien non; ils ne sont même pas ontariens. Mais ce n’est pas grave; il a quand même fait un rapport sur l’immigration pour nous dire comment important c’était de s’y mettre tout de suite et d’atteindre notre cible de 5 %. De dire que tout ça pourrait être fait dans le Bureau de l’ombudsman—j’ai beaucoup de respect pour l’ombudsman, mais ça n’arrivera pas.

Même l’ombudsman le dit : l’ombudsman est là pour recevoir les plaintes et les traiter. Notre commissaire aux services en français fait beaucoup plus que ça, parce que c’est un officier indépendant de l’Assemblé législative, et c’est pour ça que les francophones sont montés aux boucliers, et c’est pour ça que vous entendez parler de 41 « rallies » qui auront lieu en fin de semaine dans toutes les parties de l’Ontario : parce que ça, ce sont des acquis, puis quand tu vis en milieu minoritaire toute ta vie, ça prend beaucoup de temps pour avoir des acquis, puis quand tu les as, on ne peut pas retourner en arrière, on ne peut pas les laisser aller.

Ça nous prend une Université de l’Ontario français. Est-ce que le modèle était parfait? Non, absolument pas. Moi-même, j’ai critiqué qu’on aurait pu faire bien mieux, mais c’était un pas dans la bonne direction. Puis là, ce qu’on a dans l’énoncé économique, c’est qu’on ne l’aura plus. Quand on parle de 80 millions de dollars sur 10 ans, dont la moitié est payée par le fédéral, ça revient vraiment à 4,2 millions de dollars par année. Vraiment, dans un budget des dépenses de plus de 138 milliards de dollars, vous ne pouvez pas trouver quatre millions de dollars par année pour une Université de l’Ontario français? Il n’y a pas un chat qui ferait ça.

On sait que ce n’est pas la raison, mais aujourd’hui, je vous ai apporté un calumet de paix. Je vous ai amené une opportunité de dire : « Oui, on a écouté les Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes et, oui, on sait que vous devez faire marche arrière pour l’université franco et pour le commissaire. » Je vous ai apporté un morceau de tire Ste-Catherine. Je l’ai mis sur le bureau de mon leader et je l’ai mis sur le bureau de M. Ford. La tire Ste-Catherine—c’était la Ste-Catherine dimanche—a été faite à la maison par ma bonne amie M^me Lyse Lamothe, qui est la présidente de l’ACFO du Grand Sudbury, et c’est un bras tendu qui vous dit : « Manger la tire, ça va vous aider à comprendre les Franco-Ontariens et les Franco-Ontariennes, prendre la bonne décision et voter en faveur de la motion qu’on a mise de l’avant. »

Merci beaucoup, monsieur le Président.

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

M^me Goldie Ghamari: Je suis très heureuse de prendre la parole aujourd’hui pour parler de cette question. Je voudrais prendre la chance pour remercier les députés d’en face pour leurs observations. J’ai lu votre motion et j’ai écouté attentivement vos commentaires d’aujourd’hui, mais je suis respectueusement en désaccord.

Notre but est de trouver la meilleure façon de protéger les francophones en Ontario, tout en respectant l’argent des contribuables. Ces modifications vont assurer des économies d’échelle sur les frais reliés au fonctionnement du bureau, mais le commissaire continuera de déposer ses rapports auprès de l’Assemblée législative.

La communauté franco-ontarienne de notre province fait partie intégrante de l’histoire et de l’avenir de l’Ontario. Notre gouvernement a pour priorité d’appuyer la communauté franco-ontarienne dans la promotion et la préservation de leur belle culture et de leur belle langue dans notre province.

Avant de commencer, cependant, j’aimerais parler un peu de mes antécédents et de mon lien avec la langue française et la culture française ici en Ontario.

Ma famille a atterri pour la première fois à l’aéroport Pierre Elliott Trudeau de Montréal en 1986 avec seulement deux valises et 50 $ à notre nom. Je n’avais qu’un an. Mon père avait du mal à trouver du travail, même s’il parlait couramment l’anglais et était diplômé en génie électrique de l’université Texas Southern à Houston, avec cinq ans d’expérience professionnelle aux États-Unis et en Iran. Il ne pouvait pas trouver du travail car il ne parlait pas français.

Après huit mois, il a décidé de quitter Montréal pour élargir ses recherches. Il a pris le prochain autobus en direction de Toronto dans l’espoir de trouver du travail pour subvenir aux besoins de sa jeune famille. À son arrivée à Toronto, il a pu trouver du travail le premier jour en marchant sur un chantier de construction et a été embauché sur place.

C’est à ce moment-là que mes parents ont compris l’importance d’être bilingue au Canada. Ils sont venus au Canada pour une vie meilleure. Ils sont venus au Canada parce qu’ils voulaient que leurs enfants aient la possibilité de réussir dans une culture qui accepte les autres et les accueille à bras ouverts. Bien qu’ils ne parlaient pas français à ce moment-là et qu’ils ne parlaient pas français dans ces jours, ils ont décidé de mettre leurs deux filles en école d’immersion française avec l’espoir qu’un jour, cela les aiderait dans leurs projets futurs.

À cause de cela, je peux dire honnêtement que le fait d’être bilingue m’a aidée dans ma vie. À cause de leur décision dans le passé, j’ai eu l’occasion d’apprendre le français à North York en fréquentant l’école primaire Dallington. De la première à la sixième année, j’ai suivi un programme d’immersion totale en français dans le système d’éducation publique, et cela m’a non seulement permis de devenir bilingue mais également de découvrir le riche patrimoine culturel de la communauté francophone de l’Ontario. C’est une histoire et une langue que je suis heureuse de connaître.

À ce jour, je suis reconnaissante à mes parents d’avoir non seulement reconnu l’importance de parler français mais aussi de m’avoir inculqué l’importance de reconnaître, de célébrer et de préserver notre riche et important héritage canadien-français.

Je suis fière de dire que je suis bilingue et que j’ai appris la merveilleuse histoire des francophones et de leur langue au Canada, et je poursuis cette reconnaissance dans la circonscription de Carleton, avec mon personnel. J’ai embauché une de mes assistantes, une jeune femme du nom de Shayla Hotchkiss, car elle est d’origine française. Sa mère est née au Québec et parle couramment le français comme langue maternelle et l’anglais comme langue secondaire. Son père est né en Ontario. Même s’il ne parle pas couramment le français, il croit fermement en l’importance d’une éducation en français, de célébrer des journées comme la journée franco-ontarienne, et de comprendre le sens du magnifique drapeau franco-ontarien.

De plus, Shayla a fréquenté une école élémentaire et une école secondaire françaises juste à l’extérieur de la circonscription, dans une ville appelée Embrun, qui est l’une des rares communautés entièrement françaises de notre région de l’Ontario. Elle était plongée dans la culture, les célébrations et l’histoire françaises non seulement à ces écoles mais aussi dans sa propre famille.

J’ai hâte de célébrer la journée franco-ontarienne le 25 septembre avec elle, sa famille et les 9 000 autres membres francophones et francophiles de Carleton.

Elle est fière d’être francophone et franco-ontarienne, comme beaucoup d’autres à Carleton. Je l’ai embauchée parce qu’il est important pour moi de reconnaître et de représenter tout le monde à Carleton, y compris les francophones et les francophiles.

C’est pourquoi notre gouvernement a annoncé trois nouvelles orientations politiques que le gouvernement des gens de l’Ontario adoptera, en reconnaissance des contributions importantes et continues des Franco-Ontariens et des francophiles en Ontario au cours des 400 dernières années.

Pour moi-même, dans la communauté de Carleton, j’ai une priorité d’appuyer la communauté franco-ontarienne afin de promouvoir et de préserver la belle culture, l’histoire et la langue de notre province.

Le projet de loi 57, la loi sur le rétablissement de la confiance, de la transparence et de la responsabilité, créera le poste de commissaire aux services en français, qui maintiendra l’indépendance dans la conduite des enquêtes et formulera des recommandations pour améliorer la prestation des services en français et encouragera le respect de la Loi sur les services en français.

Le commissaire aux services en français recommandera au lieutenant-gouverneur de remplacer l’actuel bureau des affaires francophones en tant que ministère des Affaires francophones. L’honorable Caroline Mulroney a été assermentée à titre de ministre des Affaires francophones. A ce titre, la ministre Mulroney aurait le pouvoir de défendre les intérêts des Franco-Ontariens et de la prestation de services en français.

Dans notre accord Canada-Ontario au cours des cinq dernières années, le gouvernement du Canada n’a investi que sept millions de dollars, tandis que le gouvernement de l’Ontario a investi plus de 13 million de dollars au cours de la même période. L’Ontario investit dans sa francophonie et s’attend à ce que le gouvernement fédéral fasse de même afin que nous puissions supporter et, espérons-le, surpasser les attentes de nos communautés francophones en leur donnant un meilleur accès aux services en français.

Il y a une université francophone à Ottawa : l’Université d’Ottawa. Je suis allée à l’Université d’Ottawa to become a lawyer—une avocate. Toutes les annonces et tous les courriels commencent avec la langue française.

Aussi, le programme de « common law » en français accepte environ 80 nouveaux étudiants chaque année. Le programme se donne en trois trimestres distincts et obligatoires.

1520

Le programme d’études et les exigences de scolarité du programme de common law en anglais et du programme en français sont essentiellement les mêmes. Le programme de common law en français est l’un des deux seuls programmes du genre proposés dans le monde entier. Il vise à répondre aux besoins des Franco-Ontariens en matière de formation juridique et de services juridiques en français, en plus d’offrir une formation aux francophones des autres provinces—

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

Further debate? The member from Ottawa Centre.

Applause.

M. Joel Harden: Merci, mes amis.

Premièrement, je vous dis : mille mercis pour notre amie de Glengarry–Prescott–Russell pour être courageuse aujourd’hui. Vous dites la vérité. Mille mercis pour ça. On a besoin plus de ça.

Monsieur le Président, je me lève en Chambre aujourd’hui pour appuyer la motion devant nous.

Voici un gouvernement qui a dit pendant la campagne électorale qu’ils appuyaient la francophonie en Ontario. Ils n’ont jamais parlé de s’attaquer au commissaire aux services en français.

Voici un gouvernement qui a confirmé au mois de juillet qu’ils iraient de l’avant avec l’Université de l’Ontario français, une institution qui est déjà établie, par ailleurs, avec un site Web, un recteur et un conseil d’administration.

Finalement, voici un gouvernement qui a les moyens d’aller de l’avant avec ses engagements envers les francophones.

Pour l’Université de l’Ontario français, on prévoyait un investissement de 80 millions de dollars pour lancer une institution qui aurait un fort effet stimulateur sur l’économie du sud et sud-ouest ontarien. L’avantage économique de l’abandonner n’est pas tout à fait clair. Par ailleurs, le commissaire aux services en français ne coûte pas cher par les standards des dépenses publiques.

À Ottawa, la Nouvelle Scène Gilles Desjardins—un centre important de la vie artistique francophone—s’attendait à une simple subvention de 2,9 millions de dollars pour payer ses dettes. Couper ces dépenses-là, ce n’est pas faire de vraies économies.

Quand ce gouvernement fait des coupures dans la francophonie, ce n’est pas une question financière. C’est une question de priorités. Ça ne dérange pas au gouvernement de laisser aller un milliard de dollars en réductions d’impôts pour les grandes entreprises. Ça ne dérange pas au premier ministre de payer de beaux salaires à ses amis conservateurs, comme 350 000 $ pour le D^r Rueben Devlin; un autre 350 000 $ pour Ian Todd, notre représentant aux États-Unis; et presque 700 000 $ pour l’avocat de la famille Ford, Gavin Tighe. Après avoir travaillé une seule journée à Ontario Power Generation, Alykhan Velshi a reçu un paiement de rupture de 500 000 $.

Mais là on se fait dire que ça serait « irresponsable » de permettre aux jeunes du sud de l’Ontario de poursuivre leurs études dans leur langue et qu’on ne peut pas se permettre 2,9 millions pour l’épanouissement de la scène francophone à Ottawa. Ce n’est pas une question financière pour ce gouvernement. C’est une question de priorités.

Clairement, le premier ministre voit l’appui du français comme un luxe. C’est ça qui est insultant pour les francophones de chez moi et de partout au Canada.

Mais je dois dire, monsieur le Président, que j’ai été très impressionné dans les derniers jours par l’esprit militant de la communauté francophone à Ottawa. C’est des gens qui savent lutter pour leurs droits. Ils l’ont fait dans les années 1990, quand le dernier gouvernement conservateur voulait fermer l’Hôpital Montfort. On ne l’a pas permis, tout comme on ne permettra pas au gouvernement actuel de reculer de ses engagements aux francophones.

Cette fin de semaine, à l’hôtel de ville d’Ottawa, on s’attend que des milliers de citoyens vont se présenter pour dire non au gouvernement. Ça sera un honneur pour moi d’y assister. J’espère que le premier ministre aura le bon sens d’écouter.

Alors, à mes amis de la communauté francophone, je dis clairement : on lâche pas.

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

M^me Sara Singh: Je suis très fière de me lever aujourd’hui et de parler dans une de nos deux langues officielles. Je suis très fière que les membres de l’opposition vont voter avec nous pour cette motion.

Dans mon comté de Brampton Centre on a une grande population francophone, avec des gens qui viennent de pays comme Haïti, la Côte d’Ivoire ou le Cameroun. Pendant la campagne, j’avais beaucoup de temps pour parler avec ces gens. Ils étaient très heureux qu’on avait une représentante qui pouvait parler avec eux dans leur langue. Je leur avais promis que si je gagnais l’élection j’allais toujours défendre leurs droits linguistiques dans notre province.

Dans notre province, on a le droit à l’accès aux services en français, pour tous les services du gouvernement. Mais ce qu’on voit encore et encore, c’est que les gens qui parlent français dans notre province ont des « concernes » quand ils veulent accéder aux services en français. C’est pourquoi on avait un commissaire de langue française ici dans notre province : pour protéger ces droits et établir des règles pour assurer que les gens qui parlent français avaient des services en français.

J’ai fait presque toutes mes études en français, et c’est pourquoi je comprends l’importance de cette langue dans notre province. Les jeunes de cette province—on avait le droit d’étudier et d’apprendre notre culture et l’histoire française. C’est pourquoi je suis très fière de dire à tout le monde ici qu’on a besoin d’une université française pour les gens de cette province, parce qu’on doit toujours célébrer notre culture et ces traditions.

J’encourage les membres de tous les partis à se joindre à nous en votant en faveur de cette motion.

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

M^me Laura Mae Lindo: Étant qu’il n’y a aucune raison économique pour annuler les plans pour l’Université de l’Ontario français et pour éliminer le commissaire aux services en français, il faut dire avec clarté que les impacts sont extrêmement négatifs et dangereux.

La communauté francophone de l’Ontario est la plus grande communauté francophone canadienne à l’extérieur du Québec. Alors, comment peut-on avoir seulement neuf écoles bilingues française qui offrent des programmes de niveau universitaire, ou seulement 22 % des programmes au postsecondaire qui sont offerts en français?

Le travail qu’on fait comme parti d’opposition est essentiel pour assurer les droits et les opportunités pour les communautés franco-ontariennes et pour les communautés anglophones, et qu’ils reçoivent les services essentiels dans la langue de leur choix.

Moi, je suis porte-parole de la citoyenneté et de l’immigration, alors c’est aussi important de noter que, pour beaucoup de nouveaux immigrants ici qui parlent deux ou trois langues, quand ils arrivent en Ontario, on a besoin de leur offrir des services en français—parce qu’il y a beaucoup de personnes qui viennent ici qui parlent français. Ça va donner la chance aux nouveaux immigrants de développer une vie en paix avec beaucoup d’opportunités.

Aussi, quand on supporte l’éducation en français, on supporte le développement de citoyens qui sont prêts à travailler dans des emplois qui donnent des chances et des avenirs pour créer une vie pleine de joie.

Moi, j’avais cinq ans, au jardin d’enfants, quand j’ai commencé à apprendre le français. Quand j’étais en 11^e année, j’ai commencé à travailler et je faisais cinq dollars de plus que toutes les personnes qui parlaient seulement anglais. Alors, j’avais beaucoup plus d’argent pour mettre dans l’économie. Je supporte cette motion, et j’espère que tout le monde va la supporter aussi.

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

M. John Vanthof: C’est un honneur pour moi de prendre la parole de la part des gens de Timiskaming–Cochrane en faveur de la motion présentée par notre chef du NPD, Andrea Horwath.

1530

Je voudrais exprimer mon choc et ma consternation face à la décision du gouvernement Ford d’éliminer le bureau indépendant du Commissariat aux services en français, sans compter sa décision d’annuler la construction d’une université francophone.

Quand j’étais petit garçon, ma famille a déménagé à Temiskaming, une région où la présence francophone est très forte. Grandir dans une culture tellement différente de la mienne fut pour moi une expérience incroyable. Au fil des années, j’ai eu le privilège de travailler côte à côte avec mes amis et voisins francophones. Nous avons mené plusieurs batailles où le coeur et le feu des francophones ont su vaincre tous les obstacles. J’ai beaucoup appris des Gauthier, des Ethier, des Rivard et bien d’autres.

Les francophones ne constituent pas simplement un autre groupe minoritaire dans cette province. Ils sont l’un de nos peuples fondateurs, et le travail acharné de ces pionniers ainsi que leur dévouement ont fait de cette province un endroit formidable.

Un commissaire aux services en français indépendant est essentiel pour que les francophones aient accès aux services auxquels ils ont légalement droit. La décision du gouvernement Ford de modifier son statut ne consiste pas à économiser de l’argent, mais à un manque de compréhension et de respect.

L’accès accru des francophones à l’éducation grâce à une université spécialisée est non seulement vital pour la population francophone, mais également pour que l’Ontario soit concurrentiel dans l’économie mondiale. Nous avons un patrimoine culturel unique. Nous devons le construire et non le mettre au neutre.

J’exhorte le gouvernement à revenir sur cette décision et à redonner à la commission des services en français une position réellement indépendante.

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

M^me Suze Morrison: I’m not francophone, but I have immense respect for the Franco-Ontarian community in our province and in my riding, so I will do my very best as I make my remarks en français.

Toronto Centre a deux écoles—une élémentaire et une secondaire—de langue française. Nous avons l’École élémentaire Gabrielle-Roy et le Collège français. Le Collège français est au coeur de ma communauté, à l’intersection de Jarvis et Carlton.

Hier matin, les élèves du Collège français ont organisé une manifestation contre les coupures que ce gouvernement a proposées aux services francophones : l’Université de l’Ontario français et le Commissariat aux services en français. Tous les élèves de l’école étaient dehors. Ils criaient « Franco fort! Franco fort! » Je trouve que le gouvernement manque beaucoup de respect envers les Franco-Ontariens et les Franco-Ontariennes de notre province, et surtout envers les jeunes.

Aujourd’hui je demande au gouvernement de ne pas annuler un projet si important pour notre communauté francophone. Du côté du Commissariat aux services en français, il s’agit d’une décision politique prise par ce gouvernement non pas pour sauver de l’argent, mais par manque de respect envers la communauté francophone de l’Ontario.

Notre motion propose de maintenir le bureau du Commissariat aux services en français et de maintenir l’engagement de la province pour bâtir une Université de l’Ontario français. J’espère que tous les députés pourront voter pour la motion.

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

M^me Rima Berns-McGown: C’est étonnant et choquant que le gouvernement ait pris ces décisions d’annuler les plans pour l’Université de l’Ontario français et d’abolir le Commissariat aux services en français.

Cela permet d’évaluer l’importance que le gouvernement accorde aux francophones : force est de constater qu’elle est pratiquement nulle. Plus encore, cela permet d’évaluer l’importance que le gouvernement accorde à toutes les communautés minoritaires de l’Ontario. Ainsi, la question se pose : si les francophones sont traités avec un tel manque de respect, comment le gouvernement va-t-il traiter les autres minorités?

Ce n’est donc pas une surprise que le gouvernement ait annulé l’écriture d’un curriculum autochtone, qu’il n’ait pas inclus la reconnaissance foncière dans son discours du trône, et qu’il ne parle jamais de réconciliation. Ce n’est pas une surprise que le gouvernement ait effectivement éliminé la Direction générale de l’action contre le racisme.

Dans ma communauté de Beaches–East York, je comprends qu’il y a 12 000 familles qui veulent une école secondaire française pour leurs enfants. Elles sont fières de leur histoire et de leur langue. Elles comprennent bien l’importance de la langue maternelle et les mesures qu’on doit prendre pour la préserver.

Pour les francophones de ma communauté et de partout dans la province de l’Ontario, il faut toujours investir dans la langue. On ne peut jamais la tenir pour acquise. II faut que le commissariat soit indépendant et non pas un employé de l’ombudsman. II faut continuer la lutte pour une université francophone.

Le gouvernement doit maintenir le bureau du commissaire aux services en français, ainsi que son financement et ses pouvoirs, et maintenir l’engagement de l’Ontario de financer l’Université de l’Ontario français.

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

M. Peter Tabuns: Il y a une réalité française ici en Ontario et on ne doit pas l’ignorer. Ici, nous avons une grande communauté francophone qui enrichit notre vie. Cette communauté sauvegarde sa culture et sa langue : la langue de Molière, de Voltaire, des grands écrivains, des travailleuses et des travailleurs; la langue des familles et des gens qui désirent un avenir pour nos jeunes. Il est difficile de sauvegarder cette belle île de français dans un océan d’anglais.

Cependant, les gens de la communauté francophone sont capables et forts. Ils ont survécu aux grandes difficultés de notre histoire et, sans aucun doute, ils survivront aux grandes tempêtes de cette administration conservatrice. Pourquoi? Parce qu’ils n’arrêteront pas de se défendre.

Pour nous, les anglophones, il est nécessaire de reconnaître les racines de notre province et de notre pays, les racines dans l’histoire francophone de l’Ontario et du Canada. Nous devons les protéger.

Le premier ministre doit arrêter ses attaques envers le commissaire aux services en français. Il doit approuver la construction d’une université francophone. Il doit reconnaître la réalité française et accorder les ressources pour la préserver.

Être Canadien, c’est d’avoir nos deux cultures: la culture et la langue. Monsieur le Président, #respectfranco est nécessaire. Ce n’est que le début, la lutte continue.

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

M. Jamie West: La ville de Sudbury est un centre de la culture et de la communauté franco-ontariennes. Les francophones sont un peuple fondateur de notre région.

À Sudbury, on est fiers de nos institutions françaises : les centres d’arts, comme la Galerie du Nouvel-Ontario et la Place des Arts; les centres d’éducations, comme Carrefour francophone de Sudbury; et de nombreux autres organismes qui offrent des services en français et contribuent à la vitalité de notre communauté. C’est pourquoi l’annonce des coupures prévues pour les francophones nous préoccupe tellement.

La langue et la culture françaises sont proches de mon coeur. Non seulement est-ce une priorité pour les personnes dans ma circonscription, mais aussi pour ma famille. Ma femme et sa famille sont tous francophones, et mes trois enfants ont toujours étudié en français. Pour nous, c’était essentiel qu’ils reconnaissent leur identité et héritage français.

Les Ontariens ont le droit aux services gouvernementaux en français, ils ont le droit à une éducation supérieure gouvernée par et pour des francophones, et ils ont le droit à un commissaire aux services en français indépendant.

Je demande au gouvernement son appui à la motion déposée par la chef de l’opposition officielle, Andrea Horwath, et de soutenir les Franco-Ontariens.

1540

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

M^me Marit Stiles: C’est un grand plaisir de me lever pour parler à propos de cette motion importante. Je veux remercier notre chef de l’opposition officielle pour ses efforts de renverser les coupures annoncées par le gouvernement pour les services francophones dans notre province.

Ma circonscription de Davenport a une communauté francophone fière et diverse. Ils sont vraiment inquiets et ils ont très peur pour leur avenir en Ontario et pour les droits constitutionnels des citoyennes et citoyens francophones de l’Ontario.

Monsieur le Président, une chose est parfaitement claire : les conservateurs sont parfaitement indifférents aux droits des Franco-Ontariens, de leur histoire et de leur futur.

J’encourage tous les députés de tous les partis de voter avec nous en faveur de cette motion importante. Je veux aussi remercier la députée de Glengarry–Prescott–Russell pour son courage.

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

M. Taras Natyshak: Juste avant que je commence, je voulais remercier nos officiers dans nos services de traduction qui travaillent tellement fort pour nous aujourd’hui. On les oublie des fois ici, mais vous faites un job pour nous qui est tellement important, de donner notre message autour de notre province.

Monsieur le Président, je me tiens devant vous aujourd’hui en tant que fier néo-démocrate et aussi fier Franco-Ontarien. Bien que le nom Taras Natyshak ne soit pas un nom que vous associez avec un francophone, je suis pourtant fier de mon histoire et culture franco-ontarienne. Je suis le fils de deux anglophones et je suis le seul frère qui parle français dans ma famille, bien que ma soeur soit actuellement dans des cours d’immersion aujourd’hui à l’âge de 56 ans. Elle essaie parce qu’elle sait que c’est important d’avoir l’expression dans les deux langues officielles.

Ma femme est de la famille Reaume, de LaSalle en Ontario, et elle est aussi fière de son héritage français. Nos deux enfants fréquentent l’école Pavillon des Jeunes et l’école secondaire l’Essor. Moi aussi, je suis ancien des deux écoles et aussi fier de ça.

Notre communauté du comté d’Essex est riche en histoire franco-ontarienne et en néo-Canadiens français. L’attaque aujourd’hui du gouvernement Ford contre notre culture, notre langue et notre histoire n’a pas de précédent. L’abolition et l’abandon, de la part du gouvernement Ford, des efforts de la communauté francophone pour créer une université francophone est un affront à nos droits constitutionnels.

En tant que fier Franco-Ontarien, monsieur le Président, je prie le gouvernement aujourd’hui d’appuyer la motion de notre chef Andrea Horwath, de notre parti NPD, qui renverse la décision de canceller le bureau du commissaire aux services en français indépendant et qui montre le respect et la protection pour les francophones que nous méritons.

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

M^me Jennifer K. French: Bonjour aux gens d’Oshawa. J’ai écouté tous les commentaires au sujet des francophones. J’aurais aimé entendre que les francophones d’Oshawa et de Durham—ils voyaient un allié dans M. Boileau, pour notre désignation, et maintenant on perd notre allié et on attend toujours notre désignation.

Les coupures du commissariat et de l’université rendent ma communauté francophone très nerveuse, et moi aussi. Je suis solidaire avec ma communauté francophone vibrante, et je demande au gouvernement de supporter notre motion et toute la communauté francophone.

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

M. Michael Mantha: Bonjour, monsieur le Président. J’étais assis. J’ai attendu attentivement. Je me suis mordu la langue tout l’après-midi, mais il faut que je dise ce que j’ai à dire aujourd’hui, et puis ça va sortir.

Écoute, la communauté francophone, nous sommes fiers. On prend la nôtre, « Notre Place »—on l’a chanté tellement de fois sur le gazon ici. On était là avec des étudiants. On était là avec des organisations. On le célébrait ensemble. Puis, coudonc, il y avait des gens du gouvernement conservateur qui étaient là avec nous autres sur le gazon. Les étudiants étaient tellement fiers que finalement, on l’a prise, notre place. On l’a chanté avec fierté.

Je vais vous dire une autre affaire, monsieur le Président. Il y a des gens à travers la province qui ont besoin du service du bureau du commissaire aux services en français. Je vais vous parler d’une petite communauté à Dubreuilville, où les gens exigent des services en français. Pourquoi? Parce que c’est leur langue natale. Ils ne peuvent pas parler en anglais. Ils en ont besoin. Je les ai utilisés, moi, les services du commissaire. Il m’a rendu service. On a aidé la communauté de Dubreuilville et puis beaucoup d’autres communautés à travers la province.

Écoutez, je me suis assis ici, et puis j’écoutais les gens des autres partis. J’ai un gros respect d’où vous venez et de votre histoire, mais, coudonc, les francophones ne veulent pas avoir un roman. Ils ne veulent pas avoir des restaurants. Ils veulent avoir le commissaire aux services en français. Ils veulent avoir une université. C’est ça; c’est ce qu’ils veulent. Vous nous l’avez promis. Vous avez trahi la communauté francophone dans cette province.

Je vais vous dire un autre petit commentaire, de M^me Ghislaine Desjardins. Elle vient de RAFO Rive Nord. Elle vient d’Elliot Lake—très bonne madame. Elle a reçu l’Ordre de la Pléiade. L’après-midi, je lui ai téléphoné, et j’ai dit, « Coudonc, Ghislaine, as-tu un petit commentaire que tu aimerais que je partage avec le gouvernement conservateur? » Elle m’a dit oui. Bon, je vous l’offre, son message. Elle a dit :

« On ne reculera pas tant qu’on n’aura pas obtenu le retour du commissaire indépendant qui se rapporte à toute l’Assemblée législative comme avant. L’ombudsman ne peut pas faire le travail du commissaire. Même chose pour l’université : on ne reculera pas. Les mesures annoncées vendredi ne sont pas la solution qu’on cherche. »

La résistance : on ne lâche pas.

Votre geste que vous avez fait, d’appointer la ministre des Affaires francophones, c’est un geste symbolique. C’est un geste symbolique. La communauté francophone, ce n’est pas à ça qu’ils s’attendent. Ils veulent avoir ce qui était là. Ils veulent faire des pas en avant. On ne recule pas; on continue par en avant.

L’évidence est complètement claire : prenez le temps de l’étudier. Regardez à la vôtre, votre documentation. Écoutez votre communauté francophone qui vous dit que l’évidence et puis l’investissement que vous allez faire—le petit 4,2 millions de dollars, coudonc, on ne peut pas faire ça pour la communauté francophone? Ils n’ont pas assez souffert pendant les années? Ils n’ont pas assez travaillé? Ils n’ont pas assez contribué à la province qu’on n’est pas capable de reconnaître qu’ils méritent leur université francophone?

Écoutez. Je vous la relis une autre fois, et puis prenez-la en bonne considération. Voici la motion que ma chef a offert et que j’espère vous allez tous supporter ici aujourd’hui :

« Considérant que la communauté francophone de l’Ontario est la plus grande communauté francophone canadienne à l’extérieur du Québec;

« Considérant que le français est l’une des deux langues officielles du Canada;

« Considérant que dans la province de l’Ontario, le français est reconnu comme langue officielle dans les tribunaux, le système d’éducation et à l’Assemblée législative;

« Considérant que chaque citoyen et chaque citoyenne de l’Ontario devraient avoir accès aux services gouvernementaux dont ils ont besoin, en français, quand ils en ont besoin et là où ils en ont besoin;

« Considérant que le commissaire aux services en français de l’Ontario s’assure que les droits des citoyens et citoyennes de l’Ontario, ainsi que les obligations du gouvernement et des agences gouvernementales, sont maintenus en accord avec la Loi sur les services en français;

« Considérant que, pendant les 40 dernières années, les Ontariens et les Ontariennes ont cherché à fonder une université francophone indépendante, gouvernée par et pour des francophones, et que la planification pour cette université est déjà bien avancée;

« Considérant que ces décisions constituent une trahison de la responsabilité de l’Ontario envers notre communauté francophone;

« Qu’il soit résolu que l’Assemblée demande au gouvernement de maintenir le bureau du commissaire aux services en français, ainsi que son financement et ses pouvoirs, et de maintenir l’engagement de l’Ontario de financer l’Université de l’Ontario français. »

On ne lâche pas.

1550

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

M. Gilles Bisson: J’aimerais remercier tous les députés qui sont venus à l’assistance de notre motion aujourd’hui. Écoute : c’est pour dire que c’est très important. Nous, les francophones, c’est depuis le début qu’on est ici—premièrement, nos Premières Nations, qui ont été ici, qui nous ont reçus dans ce pays, qui nous ont donné une place où vivre et qui nous ont assistés. Nous, les francophones, on est ici ça fait tellement longtemps depuis ce temps-là. On travaille fort toujours, comme bon citoyens, à bâtir cette province.

Je veux ramasser de quoi que le député d’Algoma–Manitoulin a dit et qui était très important. La question de l’université, c’est une question de 4,5 millions de dollars par année. Ne pensez-vous pas que les francophones de cette province ne payent pas au moins 4,5 millions de dollars par année en impôts à la province de l’Ontario? N’a-t-on pas la responsabilité comme concitoyens de cette province et comme gouvernement de s’assurer que les francophones peuvent non seulement vivre en français mais peuvent aussi promouvoir leur langage et continuer à travailler vers l’épanouissement économique de ce pays et de cette province en français? So, donc, moi, je ne pense pas que c’est quelque chose qui est tellement difficile.

Cette université a été mise en place—ça aurait pu être un modèle différent, comme la députée de Nickel Belt a dit. Elle est en place, cette université-là, présentement. On a besoin de s’assurer qu’on continue notre trajet, comme M^me Horwath a dit, pour que ces élèves-là, qui rêvent d’être capables de choisir des cours en français ici dans la cité de Toronto, puissent accomplir leur rêve d’être capables d’entrer à l’université à son ouverture.

Sur la question du commissaire, j’ai entendu très clairement, jeudi ou vendredi passé, le gouvernement dire : « Oh, on fait un recul. » Ce n’est pas un recul qu’ils ont annoncé; ils ont ré-annoncé exactement ce qui a été dit tout au début quand ils ont fait l’énoncé économique de l’automne deux semaines en avance. Qu’est-ce que vous avez dit? « On ferme le bureau indépendant, le bureau où le commissaire répond à cette Assemblée », et que vous allez le mettre sous l’ombudsman. Qu’est-ce qu’ils ont annoncé la semaine passée? Exactement la même affaire. Ce n’est pas un recul. Ce n’est pas un « donné ». Vous n’avez rien fait pour être capables de répondre aux demandes des francophones. Au contraire, vous avez continué dans la même direction, vous avez dit exactement la même affaire, et ça ne change rien.

Moi, je suis fier d’être ici comme francophone, comme député de l’Ontario, avec mes collègues et autres qui ont parlé sur cette motion pour dire, qu’à la fin, les francophones sont ici. On est des citoyens. On est le monde qui contribue à cette économie. On est du monde qui contribue à ce qu’est l’Ontario. C’est une question de notre juste part. C’est un droit constitutionnel.

Vous avez vu, la dernière fois, ce qui est arrivé quand les conservateurs ont essayé de fermer notre seul hôpital francophone qui enseigne la médecine en Ontario, l’Hôpital Montfort? Vous avez perdu dans les courts, et même Mike Harris a réalisé qu’il n’était pas bon d’essayer de faire recours à cet appel. Pourquoi? Parce que même lui, comme conservateur, avait compris qu’il y a certains droits qui sont donnés par la Constitution et la Charte et qu’on a besoin de les reconnaître. Vous allez perdre ce cas dans les courts, parce que, à la fin de la journée, ce sont des droits que nous avons comme citoyens, et vous n’avez pas le droit de nous enlever ces droits-là qui sont affichés dans notre Constitution et dans notre Charte des droits.

On va tous être là ce samedi prochain—41 manifestations à travers cette province—les néo-démocrates et d’autres députés de cette Assemblée vont être là en support de la communauté francophone. On demande ce gouvernement de nous assister.

Je veux seulement, à cette heure, pour terminer mes commentaires, dire que la communauté francophone, ça fait longtemps qu’on se fait mettre—comment dire—qu’ils essayent de nous faire reculer. À l’origine, c’était le règlement 17. Puis la communauté francophone s’est battue, et on a défait un gouvernement qui a essayé d’ôter nos droits sous le règlement 17. Ils ont essayé encore quand ils ont essayé de nier le droit des francophones d’avoir des écoles secondaires. On a poussé—et même le gouvernement conservateur, sous M. Bill Davis, a compris qu’il fallait donner ces écoles aux francophones.

Quand vous avez repoussé encore sur l’Hôpital Monfort, la communauté francophone—la jeunesse, le moyen-âge et la vieillesse, comme moi—s’est levée, s’est battue, et on a gagné, à la fin de la journée. Vous allez perdre cette cause. Vous allez perdre, vous autres, parce que notre cause est droite.

J’aimerais, monsieur le Président, demander un consentement unanime, si vous me le permettez—unanimous consent is what I’m asking.

J’ai une motion de consentement unanime : on demande que M^me Des Rosiers, du Parti libéral, prenne le reste de notre partie dans ce débat.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Is it unanimous consent that the Liberal member have the remaining time on the clock to address this motion?

I heard a no.

Back to the member from Timmins.

M. Gilles Bisson: C’est triste quand on n’alloue pas aux voix de cette Assemblée de parler sur une question comme celle-là. Vous avez essayé de faire ça avec la députée de l’autre bord, de Glengarry–Prescott–Russell. Ce n’était pas bien dans ce temps-là, et ce n’est pas bien aujourd’hui.

Les francophones, nous, on comprend. On est citoyens dans cette province. On est des peuples fondateurs qui sont venus ici, qui ont été reçus par les Premières Nations et bienvenus dans cette province. Nous, à la fin de la journée, comme francophones, on s’assure que nos services continuent dans cette province, qu’on peut continuer à vivre ici, de vivre en français et de faire notre place dans l’histoire de l’Ontario.

Que ce gouvernement soit préparé à nier aux francophones leurs droits, c’est une tache noire contre M. Ford et son gouvernement, et c’est une tache noire contre cette province. Vous avez vu ce que le premier ministre du Québec a dit, vous avez vu ce que les autres premiers ministres à travers le Canada ont dit. On reconnaît que cette décision que vous avez faite est, franchement, un recul quant aux droits linguistiques dans cette nation.

On a décidé, dans ce pays, à sa fondation, une fois arrivé ici, quand on s’est créé comme pays, que l’on était pour être un pays bilingue. Ça veut dire que nous, les francophones qui demeurent dans cette province, avons des droits. Quand un gouvernement dit qu’il veut nuire aux droits des francophones, je peux vous dire que c’est vraiment un recul extraordinaire qu’un gouvernement est préparé à faire pour une communauté.

Le bureau du commissaire aux services en français, qui est à peine 2,5 millions de dollars, et l’université, avec notre part du 50 %, qui est environ 4,5 millions de dollars—un total de sept millions de dollars que vous n’êtes pas capables de mettre en place dans un budget de 135 milliards de dollars? Écoute, ça ne fait pas de bon sens.

Vous avez besoin de reconnaître que, comme gouvernement, vous avez une responsabilité envers tous les citoyens de cette province. Quand vous niez à un groupe comme les francophones leurs droits, qu’ils ont le juste droit d’avoir, à la fin de la journée, ce n’est pas bon. C’est une tache noire contre votre gouvernement et vous allez payer pour ça sur le plus long terme.

On va voir les francophones cette fin de semaine. Samedi, ils vont être à vos bureaux. Ils vont venir vous parler. Puis on encourage le monde de cette province, tous les francophones, à se rallier et en ayant des manifestations d’une manière de paix—parce qu’on veut toujours respecter le droit de la loi—et de dire au gouvernement très clairement : « Nous, comme francophones, on ne s’en va pas. On demeure en Ontario. On veut vivre en Ontario. On va rester ici en Ontario. On veut avoir nos services et nos droits respectés par ce gouvernement. »

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you. Please be seated. It’s now my time.

Mr. John Fraser: Point of order.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I recognize the member from Ottawa South on a point of order.

Mr. John Fraser: I would like to thank the member for Timmins for offering his time. I think members in this House should be allotted time to speak. I’m going to make a fourth request to ask for unanimous consent for the extension of this debate by two minutes, so that my colleague from Ottawa–Vanier can speak.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): The member has asked for unanimous consent for his colleague from Ottawa–Vanier to contribute to this debate for two minutes. Is it the pleasure of the House? I heard a no.

All right, here we go—

Interjections.

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

Mr. Joel Harden: That’s how much you respect francophone rights.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Order, the member from Ottawa Centre.

Madame Horwath has moved opposition day number 5. 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 10-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1601 to 1611.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Members, this is a 30-second warning to take your seats, please.

Madame Horwath has moved opposition day number 5.

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

Ayes

Andrew, Jill
Armstrong, Teresa J.
Arthur, Ian
Begum, Doly
Bell, Jessica
Berns-McGown, Rima
Bisson, Gilles
Bourgouin, Guy
Burch, Jeff
Des Rosiers, Nathalie
Fife, Catherine
Fraser, John
French, Jennifer K.
Gates, Wayne
Gélinas, France

Glover, Chris
Gravelle, Michael
Gretzky, Lisa
Harden, Joel
Hassan, Faisal
Hatfield, Percy
Horwath, Andrea
Hunter, Mitzie
Karpoche, Bhutila
Kernaghan, Terence
Lalonde, Marie-France
Lindo, Laura Mae
Mamakwa, Sol
Mantha, Michael
Miller, Paul

Monteith-Farrell, Judith
Morrison, Suze
Natyshak, Taras
Rakocevic, Tom
Sattler, Peggy
Schreiner, Mike
Shaw, Sandy
Singh, Sara
Stiles, Marit
Tabuns, Peter
Taylor, Monique
Vanthof, John
West, Jamie
Yarde, Kevin

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): 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
Coe, Lorne
Crawford, Stephen
Cuzzetto, Rudy
Downey, Doug
Dunlop, Jill
Elliott, Christine
Fee, Amy
Fullerton, Merrilee
Ghamari, Goldie
Hardeman, Ernie
Harris, Mike
Hillier, Randy

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
Miller, Norman
Mitas, Christina Maria
Mulroney, Caroline
Oosterhoff, Sam
Pang, Billy
Park, Lindsey
Parsa, Michael
Pettapiece, Randy

Phillips, Rod
Piccini, David
Rasheed, Kaleed
Rickford, Greg
Roberts, Jeremy
Romano, Ross
Sabawy, Sheref
Sandhu, Amarjot
Sarkaria, Prabmeet Singh
Scott, Laurie
Skelly, Donna
Smith, Dave
Smith, Todd
Surma, Kinga
Tangri, Nina
Thanigasalam, Vijay
Triantafilopoulos, Effie J.
Wai, Daisy
Walker, Bill
Yakabuski, John
Yurek, Jeff

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 44; the nays are 63.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I declare motion lost.

Motion negatived.

M^lle Amanda Simard: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Point of order, the member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell.

M^lle Amanda Simard: My apologies, Mr. Speaker; I rose before the NDP did to vote in favour of the motion and I guess I was too early. Then, when it was my turn, I wasn’t quick enough to rise. But I would like to be on record as voting in favour of this motion.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Point of order.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Point of order, the member from Timmins.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I would ask for unanimous consent—and it has been done before—that we allow her vote to stand as an “aye.”

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Is there unanimous consent to allow the member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell—

Interjection: No.

Mr. John Fraser: Point of order.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): The member from Ottawa on a point of order.

Mr. John Fraser: Everybody gets a second chance. Mr. Speaker, I’d ask for unanimous consent in this House for the member’s vote to be counted as an “aye,” as she requested.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): That is not a point of order. We just clarified that.

Miss Monique Taylor: She stood and you didn’t recognize her.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Excuse me. Do not challenge the Chair. There will be consequences.

Orders of the day.

Orders of the Day

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 26, 2018, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 57, An Act to enact, amend and repeal various statutes / Projet de loi 57, Loi édictant, modifiant et abrogeant diverses lois.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Pursuant to the order of the House passed earlier today, I’m now required to put the question.

Mr. Fedeli has moved second reading of Bill 57, An Act to enact, amend and repeal various statutes. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

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 ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be 10-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1618 to 1628.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Mr. Fedeli has moved second reading of Bill 57, An Act to enact, amend and repeal various statutes.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recorded by the Clerk.

Ayes

Anand, Deepak
Baber, Roman
Babikian, Aris
Bailey, Robert
Bethlenfalvy, Peter
Bouma, Will
Calandra, Paul
Cho, Raymond Sung Joon
Cho, Stan
Coe, Lorne
Crawford, Stephen
Cuzzetto, Rudy
Downey, Doug
Dunlop, Jill
Elliott, Christine
Fee, Amy
Fullerton, Merrilee
Ghamari, Goldie
Hardeman, Ernie
Harris, Mike
Hillier, Randy
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
Miller, Norman
Mitas, Christina Maria
Mulroney, Caroline
Oosterhoff, Sam
Pang, Billy
Park, Lindsey
Parsa, Michael
Pettapiece, Randy
Phillips, Rod
Piccini, David

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

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): All those opposed to the motion will please rise one at a time and be recorded by the Clerk.

Nays

Andrew, Jill
Armstrong, Teresa J.
Arthur, Ian
Begum, Doly
Bell, Jessica
Berns-McGown, Rima
Bisson, Gilles
Bourgouin, Guy
Burch, Jeff
Des Rosiers, Nathalie
Fife, Catherine
Fraser, John
French, Jennifer K.
Gates, Wayne
Gélinas, France

Glover, Chris
Gretzky, Lisa
Harden, Joel
Hassan, Faisal
Hatfield, Percy
Horwath, Andrea
Hunter, Mitzie
Karpoche, Bhutila
Kernaghan, Terence
Lalonde, Marie-France
Lindo, Laura Mae
Mamakwa, Sol
Mantha, Michael
Miller, Paul
Monteith-Farrell, Judith

Morrison, Suze
Natyshak, Taras
Rakocevic, Tom
Sattler, Peggy
Schreiner, Mike
Shaw, Sandy
Simard, Amanda
Singh, Sara
Stiles, Marit
Tabuns, Peter
Taylor, Monique
Vanthof, John
West, Jamie
Yarde, Kevin

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 64; the nays are 44.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I declare the motion carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Orders of the day. I recognize the government House leader.

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks, Speaker. I recognize you as well. I would move adjournment of the House.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Pursuant to the order of the House passed earlier today, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs.

Now, orders of the day, and I recognize again the government House leader.

Hon. Todd Smith: I recognize you again, Speaker. I would move adjournment of the House.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): The government House leader 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.”

The ayes have it.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: On division.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): On division.

Our House now stands adjourned until 9 o’clock tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 1634.